Is democracy incompatible with Islam?

[Kroll]

The Taliban have stated Afghanistan will not be a democracy under their rule.

They said: "There will be no democratic system at all because it does not have any base in our country.

"We will not discuss what type of political system should we apply in Afghanistan because it is clear. It is sharia law and that is it."

So Islam is incompatible with democracy or any other political system? Is sharia law the only viable political option for an Islamic state?

I've usually thought about sharia as a means of justice according to its laws rather than being applied to how a country is run or its leadership is elected.

Thought it might be a good discussion to learn more about this interesting topic.

 

[Halaribo]

Their response doesn't answer the question.

You rule with the Sharia. How you implement governance only has to fit within the boundaries of Sharia and Islamic principles, meaning there are various methods to govern with.

 

[MenInG]

Afghanistan may be governed by a ruling council now that the Taliban has taken over, while the movement's supreme leader, Haibatullah Akhundzada, would likely remain in overall charge, a senior member of the group told Reuters.

The Taliban would also reach out to former pilots and soldiers from the Afghan armed forces to join its ranks, Waheedullah Hashimi, who has access to the group's decision-making, added in an interview.

How successful that recruitment is remains to be seen. Thousands of soldiers have been killed by Taliban insurgents over the last 20 years, and recently the group targeted US-trained Afghan pilots because of their pivotal role.

The power structure that Hashimi outlined would bear similarities to how Afghanistan was run the last time the Taliban were in power from 1996 to 2001. Then, supreme leader Mullah Omar remained in the shadows and left the day-to-day running of the country to a council.

Akhundzada would likely play a role above the head of the council, who would be akin to the country's president, Hashimi added.

"Maybe his (Akhundzada's) deputy will play the role of 'president'," Hashimi said, speaking in English.

The Taliban's supreme leader has three deputies: Mawlavi Yaqoob, son of Mullah Omar, Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the powerful militant Haqqani network, and Abdul Ghani Baradar, who heads the Taliban's political office in Doha and is one of the founding members of the group.

Many issues regarding how the Taliban would run Afghanistan have yet to be finalised, Hashimi explained, but Afghanistan would not be a democracy.

"There will be no democratic system at all because it does not have any base in our country," he said. "We will not discuss what type of political system should we apply in Afghanistan because it is clear. It is Sharia law and that is it."

Hashimi said he would be joining a meeting of the Taliban leadership that would discuss issues of governance later this week.

On recruiting soldiers and pilots who fought for the ousted Afghan government, Hashimi said the Taliban planned to set up a new national force that would include its own members as well as government soldiers willing to join.

"Most of them have got training in Turkey and Germany and England. So we will talk to them to get back to their positions," he said.

"Of course we will have some changes, to have some reforms in the army, but still we need them and will call them to join us."

Hashimi said the Taliban especially needed pilots because they had seized helicopters and other aircraft in various Afghan airfields during their lightning conquest of the country after foreign troops withdrew.

"We have contact with many pilots," he said. "And we have asked them to come and join, join their brothers, their government. We called many of them and are in search of (others') numbers to call them and invite them to their jobs."

He said the Taliban expected neighbouring countries to return aircraft that had landed in their territory - an apparent reference to the 22 military planes, 24 helicopters and hundreds of Afghan soldiers who fled to Uzbekistan over the weekend.

 

[guna]

Democracy is incompatible with Islam.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

The Taliban have stated Afghanistan will not be a democracy under their rule.

They said: "There will be no democratic system at all because it does not have any base in our country.

"We will not discuss what type of political system should we apply in Afghanistan because it is clear. It is sharia law and that is it."

So Islam is incompatible with democracy or any other political system? Is sharia law the only viable political option for an Islamic state?

I've usually thought about sharia as a means of justice according to its laws rather than being applied to how a country is run or its leadership is elected.

Thought it might be a good discussion to learn more about this interesting topic.

There are a couple of interesting points here when we yearn for democracy.

First, Democracy even though the world believes is the best system we have, is not always a guarantee of success for the betterment of a country and it's people. For example, What democracy does China have?

And the same "democracy" brought terrorists like Modi and Hamas into power in India and Palestine.

See the issue and the other side of the coin?

And then an even more interesting phenomenon.
We in the third world countries become copy cats of the west and follow to implement "democracy" in our third world countries - NOT knowing or realizing that - western form of democracies have two fundamental ground checks.

No 1 - There are only TWO major parties run in the election and their senates or parliaments have almost all the seats divided between these two parties only.

No 2 - The entire country, speaks ONE LANGUAGE.


But what happens in our third world countries when we try to implement "democracy"?

The nation is deeply divided based on language, culture, feudal system, religion and various subsets within the religion, geographical divisions, ethnics divisions and whatnot ...

So what happens? The election becomes a fish market. Many, many parties run for seats, and when they reach the parliament, none can actually form a govt.
So trading starts - giving and taking of ministers in return of coalitions.

I think when Pakistan was made, our first parliament had 9 parties, and last time it was 29 or something, compared to ONLY TWO in many first world countries.

This kind of democracy is perhaps the worst possible form of govt that you can probably have.
A chunk of voters voted for a candidate who wins the seat as an individual or have his own small party. These voters do NOT agree with the agenda of any other party but then the winning candidate joins such a party because he is bribed with a ministry or something. And now he is bound to follow the orders of his lords instead of the public he represents.

If you read Plato's book, "The Republic", where he actually introduces to the world for the first time with the 5 forms of govt, including democracy, he actually REJECTS democracy.

The person who introduced us to the idea of democracy actually rejects it.

I think, in the third world countries, we need to have some form of democracy but we work on the ground rules. ONLY TWO parties should be allowed to run in the election. We should also see how wise and literate is the voter?
For example, if in Pakistan, the literacy rate is 40% and we have a fair election, then majority (60%) is illiterates and hence they should be in power.

Otherwise, we are trying to sow a rose seed in a garbage pile. We don't have the ground work set up for westernized form of democracy.

 

[JaDed]

Well lol they do have a point there.

Guess we will see anti- democracy posts now to justify Taliban

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Well lol they do have a point there.

Guess we will see anti- democracy posts now to justify Taliban

Not to justify Talibans but I did one already ... please refute with your counter arguments and we can have a good scholarly discussion in a friendly environment.

 

[Greenstorm]

Islam has no issues with democracy. In fact it promotes it.

There is no such thing as sharia law (as generally viewed) in Islam.

 

[JaDed]

Not to justify Talibans but I did one already ... please refute with your counter arguments and we can have a good scholarly discussion in a friendly environment.

You have already passed your judgment are you looking for points supporting democracy?

For example in India regional parties actually did really well for the regions- Dravidian parties in Tn, and TDP, TRS in Andhra or even BJD in Orissa.

While nationalism is one thing I don’t think its wrong for regional parties to come up specifically for their states and regions because National parties tend to ignore states at times atleast this way State ones don’t bend to National ones.

Also democracy might empower the majority but it gives a much better chance of representation for the minorities.(religion is not the only criteria for minority) due to options.

The goal is representation.

 

[JaDed]

I don’t mind a Chinese dictatorship personally if they can bring people out of poverty but i would never accept a religious dictatorship as i know where that heads to.

A country wise Smart dictatorship is for all its people, a religious dictatorship is a dangerous precedent esp if one ethnicity is in power.

The more diverse a country democracy is a better system then.

 

[MenInG]

In Islam, there is a huge emphasis on the piety of leaders - they have to meet stringent conditions in terms of standards which is similar to what we have in democracies as well.

Once a person meets those standards, whether you select them using a vote or ballot or my show of hands, it doesnt matter.

If that sounds like democracy, then all good.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

I don’t mind a Chinese dictatorship personally if they can bring people out of poverty but i would never accept a religious dictatorship as i know where that heads to. :: snip ::

So you don't support Modi?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

One of the major flaws in Islamic history was the fact that there was no method of removing a caliph without killing him.

Personally I dont see that there is any issue with having an Islamic democracy. A country can enshrine certain laws as part of its constituon and the democratically elected government can enact policies in every other area.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

In Islam, there is a huge emphasis on the piety of leaders - they have to meet stringent conditions in terms of standards which is similar to what we have in democracies as well.

Once a person meets those standards, whether you select them using a vote or ballot or my show of hands, it doesnt matter.

If that sounds like democracy, then all good.

All sounds good on paper but what he stops being good when elected?

Unfortunately Islamic history is replete with Yazids and Tyrants.

 

[MenInG]

All sounds good on paper but what he stops being good when elected?

Unfortunately Islamic history is replete with Yazids and Tyrants.

I agree but there should be checks and balances.

 

[Babar_the_Destroyer]

Islam has no issues with democracy. In fact it promotes it.

There is no such thing as sharia law (as generally viewed) in Islam.

Islamic republic of pakistan ,islamic
Saudi arabia, saudi
Iran,iraq
Current turkey
Afghanistan
And these are few examples
Where the hell is democracy
Forget about democracy,
In middle eastern states how indian,pakistanis,bangladeshis are mistreated is a well documented fact there has been tons of videos so genius where is democracy and equality here.

 

[Itachi]

There are a couple of interesting points here when we yearn for democracy.

First, Democracy even though the world believes is the best system we have, is not always a guarantee of success for the betterment of a country and it's people. For example, What democracy does China have?

And the same "democracy" brought terrorists like Modi and Hamas into power in India and Palestine.

See the issue and the other side of the coin?

And then an even more interesting phenomenon.
We in the third world countries become copy cats of the west and follow to implement "democracy" in our third world countries - NOT knowing or realizing that - western form of democracies have two fundamental ground checks.

No 1 - There are only TWO major parties run in the election and their senates or parliaments have almost all the seats divided between these two parties only.

No 2 - The entire country, speaks ONE LANGUAGE.


But what happens in our third world countries when we try to implement "democracy"?

The nation is deeply divided based on language, culture, feudal system, religion and various subsets within the religion, geographical divisions, ethnics divisions and whatnot ...

So what happens? The election becomes a fish market. Many, many parties run for seats, and when they reach the parliament, none can actually form a govt.
So trading starts - giving and taking of ministers in return of coalitions.

I think when Pakistan was made, our first parliament had 9 parties, and last time it was 29 or something, compared to ONLY TWO in many first world countries.

This kind of democracy is perhaps the worst possible form of govt that you can probably have.
A chunk of voters voted for a candidate who wins the seat as an individual or have his own small party. These voters do NOT agree with the agenda of any other party but then the winning candidate joins such a party because he is bribed with a ministry or something. And now he is bound to follow the orders of his lords instead of the public he represents.

If you read Plato's book, "The Republic", where he actually introduces to the world for the first time with the 5 forms of govt, including democracy, he actually REJECTS democracy.

The person who introduced us to the idea of democracy actually rejects it.

I think, in the third world countries, we need to have some form of democracy but we work on the ground rules. ONLY TWO parties should be allowed to run in the election. We should also see how wise and literate is the voter?
For example, if in Pakistan, the literacy rate is 40% and we have a fair election, then majority (60%) is illiterates and hence they should be in power.

Otherwise, we are trying to sow a rose seed in a garbage pile. We don't have the ground work set up for westernized form of democracy.

Though you like to give an impression that the post is "intellectual", it actually isn't since the very first assumptions were only your opinion and not based upon/backed by any evidence hence it doesn't differ from any other discourse that other posters are writing.

On topic,

Democracy: ability to put eggs in different baskets.

Rest: putting all eggs in one basket forcefully.

Not guaranteed to success but democracy gives the option to change the course and rectify if mistakes are made.

 

[ElRaja]

partial democracy is compatible with islam, total democracy is not. absolute democracy is incompatible with all contemporary social systems as it cannot guarantee minority rights, which is why certain rules are enshrined in statute or common law, or theocratic law as is the case with islam.

also democracy is an excellent way to create a stable political system within a functional civil adminstration, however democracies are not effective at creating functional civil adminstration because electoral timescales do not all the time for institutions to settle.

most modern western democracies are built upon administrative system which have their foundations in monarchy, or have been borrowed from those that did.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Though you like to give an impression that the post is "intellectual", it actually isn't since the very first assumptions were only your opinion and not based upon/backed by any evidence hence it doesn't differ from any other discourse that other posters are writing.

You weren't able to counter a single argument though, did you?

Read the underlined below to know the answer, why?

Democracy: ability to put eggs in different baskets.

Rest: putting all eggs in one basket forcefully.

I would prefer Plato's definition of democracy than yours. You can't even define democracy.

Not guaranteed to success but democracy gives the option to change the course and rectify if mistakes are made.

This is possible with any form of govt if the leadership is sincere and honest and have resources.

 

[Third_Umpire]

Civil liberties and freedom of speech, hallmarks of a democracy are fundamentally at odds with Islam. Don't have to think any further.

 

[guna]

Islam has no issues with democracy. In fact it promotes it.

There is no such thing as sharia law (as generally viewed) in Islam.

In a democracy, all people are equal and all religions are equal and people are free to choose any religion they want. Islam believes it’s the only true religion and apostasy is punishable by death.

There is no such thing as Sharia law? I guess all the countries that are implementing it are jahils then.

 

[PakLFC]

In a democracy, all people are equal and all religions are equal and people are free to choose any religion they want. Islam believes it’s the only true religion and apostasy is punishable by death.

There is no such thing as Sharia law? I guess all the countries that are implementing it are jahils then.

No Islam is not compatible with democracy. Islam has it's own idea's of how a country should be run. This does not mean non Muslim's living in Muslim lands are treated unfairly neither are apostates encouraged to be killed. Islam is not to be blamed because such things happen in certain Muslim countries. A knife and a fork are not equal, they are both different not equal. India is a democracy, look at the awful state of it's minorities. Non Muslim's are no one to tell Muslim's what system we should implement in our countries when you have the fascist RSS ruling India.

 

[JaDed]

So you don't support Modi?

You think every Indian supports Modi? lol Do you know what was BJP’s vote share in 2019? 37.36%

But i must say i dislike that u don’t like BJP but are defending Taliban..unique

 

[Itachi]

You weren't able to counter a single argument though, did you?

Read the underlined below to know the answer, why?




I would prefer Plato's definition of democracy than yours. You can't even define democracy.



This is possible with any form of govt if the leadership is sincere and honest and have resources.

1. I didn't give any definition. It was a metaphor.

2. If you follow Plato's perception, that's your prerogative that has nothing to do with me. Why try to shove your perception on others throat? Plato didn't. Why should you?

 

[Itachi]

No Islam is not compatible with democracy. Islam has it's own idea's of how a country should be run. This does not mean non Muslim's living in Muslim lands are treated unfairly neither are apostates encouraged to be killed. Islam is not to be blamed because such things happen in certain Muslim countries. A knife and a fork are not equal, they are both different not equal. India is a democracy, look at the awful state of it's minorities. Non Muslim's are no one to tell Muslim's what system we should implement in our countries when you have the fascist RSS ruling India.

If a Muslim man does unethical things, I think blame should go to the religion also since religion has failed to prevent the man's mind from corruption in the first place.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

1. I didn't give any definition. It was a metaphor.

2. If you follow Plato's perception, that's your prerogative that has nothing to do with me. Why try to shove your perception on others throat? Plato didn't. Why should you?

Plato didn't but you are shoving it down to your own throat. Read the book before you even talk about democracy.

 

[Itachi]

Plato didn't but you are shoving it down to your own throat. Read the book before you even talk about democracy.

I don't follow others ideology. I am a practical person and will follow what makes sense in a practical scenario.

I don't believe in X, y, z system is incompetent based upon someone's opinion. Because we all are driven by our own biases and if we followed what was only taught, then theory of relativity wouldn't have existed after newtonian physics.

I already explained what's my view on this.

Democracy is similar to putting eggs in different baskets where as rest of the system be it monarchy, feudalism or any other system, you will be dictated to what you choose (similar to what religion does).

If you want to have a constructive argument based upon my perception, I am all here to answer the criticism and opposing views regarding the subject.

 

[Balthazar]

A system to keep the majority uneducated and within the religious sphere. With internet, it's going to get difficult. But, again, you can always go the Chinese way of censorships.

 

[MenInG]

A system to keep the majority uneducated and within the religious sphere. With internet, it's going to get difficult. But, again, you can always go the Chinese way of censorships.

And your analysis is referring to what exactly?

 

[Balthazar]

And your analysis is referring to what exactly?

Sharia law.

 

[Greenstorm]

In a democracy, all people are equal and all religions are equal and people are free to choose any religion they want. Islam believes it’s the only true religion and apostasy is punishable by death.

There is no such thing as Sharia law? I guess all the countries that are implementing it are jahils then.

1. Don't know what you are on about. This is the definition of democracy according to google,

'a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.'

'control of an organization or group by the majority of its members'.

2. I said sharia as generally viewed. You need to define sharia first. Every state has its own interpretation of Quran and tradition of Prophet.

 

[Greenstorm]

Islamic republic of pakistan ,islamic
Saudi arabia, saudi
Iran,iraq
Current turkey
Afghanistan
And these are few examples
Where the hell is democracy
Forget about democracy,
In middle eastern states how indian,pakistanis,bangladeshis are mistreated is a well documented fact there has been tons of videos so genius where is democracy and equality here.

Pakistan and Turkey are democracies. Most of the countries in your list are Muslim states not Islamic.

 

[Extra_Cover]

Let me put forward an unpopular opinion. Let's have a look into world democracies, the most common element you would see across the world is that public is usually given 2 options red or blue (right or left) when they go out for voting. Here is a breakdown of political parties and democracy around the world.

- USA: Republic / Democratic
- UK: Labour / Conservative
- India: BJP / Congress
- Pakistan: PTI / PMLN / PPP

The fight is always amongst the 2 big dogs but have we ever questioned how these 2 big weights are selected to rule us in the first place? Will the public select who would be the leader of any Pakistani party like PTI / PMLN / PPP? Will public vote and decide who would take over BJP / Congress? The answer is no, the parties decide themselves and public have to simply vote that candidate in power which has already been selected for them.

We like it or not we do not live in a perfect democratic society anyway.

 

[MenInG]

Afghanistan may be governed by a ruling council now that the Taliban have taken over, while the movement's supreme leader, Haibatullah Akhundzada, would likely remain in overall charge, a senior member of the group told Reuters.

The Taliban would also reach out to former pilots and soldiers from the Afghan armed forces to join its ranks, Waheedullah Hashimi, who has access to the group's decision-making, added in an interview.

How successful that recruitment is remains to be seen. Thousands of soldiers have been killed by Taliban members over the last 20 years, and recently the group targeted US-trained Afghan pilots because of their pivotal role.

The power structure that Hashimi outlined would bear similarities to how Afghanistan was run the last time the Taliban were in power from 1996 to 2001. Then, supreme leader Mullah Omar remained in the shadows and left the day-to-day running of the country to a council.

Akhundzada would likely play a role above the head of the council, who would be akin to the country's president, Hashimi added.

"Maybe his (Akhundzada's) deputy will play the role of 'president'," Hashimi said, speaking in English.

The Taliban's supreme leader has three deputies: Mullah Yaqoob, son of Mullah Omar, Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the powerful Haqqani network, and Abdul Ghani Baradar, who heads the Taliban's political office in Doha and is one of the founding members of the group.

Many issues regarding how the Taliban would run Afghanistan have yet to be finalised, Hashimi explained, but Afghanistan would not be a democracy.

"There will be no democratic system at all because it does not have any base in our country," he said. "We will not discuss what type of political system should we apply in Afghanistan because it is clear. It is Sharia law and that is it."

Hashimi said he would be joining a meeting of the Taliban leadership that would discuss issues of governance later this week.

On recruiting soldiers and pilots who fought for the ousted Afghan government, Hashimi said the Taliban planned to set up a new national force that would include its own members as well as government soldiers willing to join.

"Most of them have got training in Turkey and Germany and England. So we will talk to them to get back to their positions," he said.

"Of course we will have some changes, to have some reforms in the army, but still we need them and will call them to join us."

Hashimi said the Taliban especially needed pilots because they had none, while they had seized helicopters and other aircraft in various Afghan airfields during their lightning conquest of the country after foreign troops withdrew.

"We have contact with many pilots," he said. "And we have asked them to come and join, join their brothers, their government. We called many of them and are in search of [others'] numbers to call them and invite them to their jobs."

He said the Taliban expected neighbouring countries to return aircraft that had landed in their territory — an apparent reference to the 22 military planes, 24 helicopters and hundreds of Afghan soldiers who fled to Uzbekistan over the weekend.

DAWN

 

[ahmedzee]

Let me put forward an unpopular opinion. Let's have a look into world democracies, the most common element you would see across the world is that public is usually given 2 options red or blue (right or left) when they go out for voting. Here is a breakdown of political parties and democracy around the world.

- USA: Republic / Democratic
- UK: Labour / Conservative
- India: BJP / Congress
- Pakistan: PTI / PMLN / PPP

The fight is always amongst the 2 big dogs but have we ever questioned how these 2 big weights are selected to rule us in the first place? Will the public select who would be the leader of any Pakistani party like PTI / PMLN / PPP? Will public vote and decide who would take over BJP / Congress? The answer is no, the parties decide themselves and public have to simply vote that candidate in power which has already been selected for them.

We like it or not we do not live in a perfect democratic society anyway.

Brilliant post! Sums it up perfectly. Democracy is good but has limitations as stated in this excellent post.

 

[OMB]

Let me put forward an unpopular opinion. Let's have a look into world democracies, the most common element you would see across the world is that public is usually given 2 options red or blue (right or left) when they go out for voting. Here is a breakdown of political parties and democracy around the world.

- USA: Republic / Democratic
- UK: Labour / Conservative
- India: BJP / Congress
- Pakistan: PTI / PMLN / PPP

The fight is always amongst the 2 big dogs but have we ever questioned how these 2 big weights are selected to rule us in the first place? Will the public select who would be the leader of any Pakistani party like PTI / PMLN / PPP? Will public vote and decide who would take over BJP / Congress? The answer is no, the parties decide themselves and public have to simply vote that candidate in power which has already been selected for them.

We like it or not we do not live in a perfect democratic society anyway.

Absolutely agreed with the last line and the same holds true for any form of government.

However you have got it wrong with India: BJP / Congress. US style red/blue or rightwing or leftist leaning doesn't fit in India. There are many big dogs in India and all of them are crucial for different parts of India's success. Also, the party selects leaders well before the election. The leaders campaign and release their manifesto, make lots of election promises and basically start targeting the opposition PM candidate. so you always knew who was going to lead for which party unless it is a poorly concocted coalition (like happened in Maharashtra election where Chief Minister or Dy CM posts were under intense power struggle)
Also, US style red/blue is not valid in other regions as ultra right or ultra left elements exists in all

 

[Extra_Cover]

Absolutely agreed with the last line and the same holds true for any form of government.

However you have got it wrong with India: BJP / Congress. US style red/blue or rightwing or leftist leaning doesn't fit in India. There are many big dogs in India and all of them are crucial for different parts of India's success. Also, the party selects leaders well before the election. The leaders campaign and release their manifesto, make lots of election promises and basically start targeting the opposition PM candidate. so you always knew who was going to lead for which party unless it is a poorly concocted coalition (like happened in Maharashtra election where Chief Minister or Dy CM posts were under intense power struggle)
Also, US style red/blue is not valid in other regions as ultra right or ultra left elements exists in all

The point I was trying to make is that the public is given 2 options to choose from but not given an option to make a selection for any of those 2 options. Let me explain, there are many people in India who would acknowledge that the ministers and cabinet of Congress is more progressive, educated and can deliver on long term goals however these people absolutely do not support the notion of Rahul Gandhi leading this party but alas they can never choose the leader of Congress.

Similarly in Pakistan there would be many people who would hold the cabinet of PPP in high regards but at same time would argue that Bilawal has no merit in leading such a forward thinking cabinet but they do not have the option of voting for the PPP leader. The public is given Bilawal and that is what they have to vote for, they are not given with the choice to elect a leader for PPP. Hence, although we all live in a democratic society we do not have full democracy in force.

 

[OMB]

Ok. I got you now.
Yet the fact remains that Democracy thouhg not perfect is closer to freedom and choice than all other forms of government.
As far as your example of Rahul or Bilawal or like is concerned, you are seeing that we don't select them and their party doesn't understand the public demand hence we don't elect the party too.

 

[Technics 1210]

Democracy is one man one vote. This is not practised in the West. The one time it was (Brexit) it was the democratic public on the remain side that were hell bent on overturning the results. Dictators and authoritarians! Or how 35% odd vote for RSS and they win!

True democracy doesn't exist anywhere - it's a myth.

 

[Major]

Its just everyone's own interpretation of Islam.

Forget democracy. In 1996 Taliban said we will implement Shariah and 2021 Taliban again says they will implement Shariah. However, in 1996 Shariah females are not allowed to go to School or work and cant be out with a male and burkha is mandatory.

In 2021 Shariah, females can go to school, work and have to wear Hijab and doesnt have to be a burkha.

Even the Taliban are not 100% sure about their Shariah. Same way democracy is viewed. For the likes of Taliban the issue is that they believe their version of Islam is correct and should be followed, thus they will bash democracy based on the fact they could lose power and control.

I think the misinterpretation comes from the times of Caliph. As the Prophet had once asked Hazrat Abu Bakr to lead the prayers, after the Prophets death it was understood that he was probably the chosen one as the leader. The Rashidun Caliphates were never really democratic
However, there is a reason why the Prophet or the Quran never stated that who should lead the society after the Prophets death. I believe it was so that civilization needed to learn to make its own decisions based on rationality.
For some dictatorship is a rational was while for others democracy is a rational way of leading a nation.

The advantage of dictatorship is that the power stays in the circle or in the family. It doesnt matter if the people like it or not. But the only way to remove someone in power is through their death.

Muslims of subcontinent suffered because of the Mughals as they had became to lazy by the end and were doing no good for the muslims as the world was evolving.

Even the caliphs govt has different interpetations. Allama Iqbal considered it a democracy based on the fact that the chosen Caliphs were popular amongest the people of the time.

I think the issue becomes when you have different school of thoughts existing and you want to implement that thinking on the society and consider yourself as the best.

Example being Saudi Arabia and the Wahabi backing.

 

[Napa]

In Islam, there is a huge emphasis on the piety of leaders - they have to meet stringent conditions in terms of standards which is similar to what we have in democracies as well.

Once a person meets those standards, whether you select them using a vote or ballot or my show of hands, it doesnt matter.

If that sounds like democracy, then all good.

In the real world leaders who base their power on religion will always claim to be pious.

The question is whether the people are allowed to judge whether their leaders are fit to serve?

In a democracy the people decide through a vote.

In Islam the people are forbidden from rebelling against their existing leaders if those leaders are Muslims. Rather they are supposed to pray that the bad leaders see the right path. This ban on rebellion against the leaders is an attempt to prevent civil wars, but historically Muslim nations have been beset by civil wars after the death of their rulers as there are rival claimants to the throne. One way to avoid these succession wars is prolicide, with Suleiman the Magnificent having killed two of his own sons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent#Sons

The bar on revolting against the ruler is very attractive to rulers and a reason for them to promote Islam.

 

[Major]

In the real world leaders who base their power on religion will always claim to be pious.

The question is whether the people are allowed to judge whether their leaders are fit to serve?

In a democracy the people decide through a vote.

In Islam the people are forbidden from rebelling against their existing leaders if those leaders are Muslims. Rather they are supposed to pray that the bad leaders see the right path. This ban on rebellion against the leaders is an attempt to prevent civil wars, but historically Muslim nations have been beset by civil wars after the death of their rulers as there are rival claimants to the throne. One way to avoid these succession wars is prolicide, with Suleiman the Magnificent having killed two of his own sons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent#Sons

The bar on revolting against the ruler is very attractive to rulers and a reason for them to promote Islam.

What I have learned over the years is that in Politics, no one is pious. Everyone (interms of Parties) has some dirt or has done something that makes them the bad guy. Its the media narrative that matters.

Take the example of Afghanistan's politics, Taliban are the bad guys due to their human rights violations against all genders. Gulbadin Hekmatyar and Abdul Rashid Dostum is a bad guy for the killings and murders they were involved in.

Now, the media often portrays Ahmad Shah Masood as the good guy that died. However, I read a book that gave an account of what was happening in Afghanistan in the 90s. Before Taliban came into power, Gulbadin, Taliban and Ahmad Masoods group were involved in not only killing other but also civilians. Many people dont view Ahmad Shah Masood as the guy as his party was also involved in many civilian killlings and murders.

Yet, we see Ahmad Shah Masood have a favorable support in the media. So humans cant really define someone as pious that easily.

 

[Napa]

What I have learned over the years is that in Politics, no one is pious. Everyone (interms of Parties) has some dirt or has done something that makes them the bad guy. Its the media narrative that matters.

Take the example of Afghanistan's politics, Taliban are the bad guys due to their human rights violations against all genders. Gulbadin Hekmatyar and Abdul Rashid Dostum is a bad guy for the killings and murders they were involved in.

Now, the media often portrays Ahmad Shah Masood as the good guy that died. However, I read a book that gave an account of what was happening in Afghanistan in the 90s. Before Taliban came into power, Gulbadin, Taliban and Ahmad Masoods group were involved in not only killing other but also civilians. Many people dont view Ahmad Shah Masood as the guy as his party was also involved in many civilian killlings and murders.

Yet, we see Ahmad Shah Masood have a favorable support in the media. So humans cant really define someone as pious that easily.

Normally by the time someone gets to be a leader, he or she has done a lot of scheming, backstabbing etc. After becoming the leader it is all about "image management".

Gore Vidal famously said "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so."

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

In the real world leaders who base their power on religion will always claim to be pious.

The question is whether the people are allowed to judge whether their leaders are fit to serve?

In a democracy the people decide through a vote.

In Islam the people are forbidden from rebelling against their existing leaders if those leaders are Muslims. Rather they are supposed to pray that the bad leaders see the right path. This ban on rebellion against the leaders is an attempt to prevent civil wars, but historically Muslim nations have been beset by civil wars after the death of their rulers as there are rival claimants to the throne. One way to avoid these succession wars is prolicide, with Suleiman the Magnificent having killed two of his own sons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent#Sons

The bar on revolting against the ruler is very attractive to rulers and a reason for them to promote Islam.

In times of emergency I am pretty sure democracy goes by the wayside. So for example times of war there will be provisions of martial law in most nations, democratic or not.

So democracy needs to be viewed in context, not as some absolute generalisation.

 

[mustang]

In times of emergency I am pretty sure democracy goes by the wayside. So for example times of war there will be provisions of martial law in most nations, democratic or not.

So democracy needs to be viewed in context, not as some absolute generalisation.

Times of Emergency = Exception situations

You design a legal/constitutional framework that can work for majority of the time, have a structure for handling exception situations (emergencies/war), and also have a process for the system to come back to its stable state once the emergency situation is done with. This is not generalization but a viable way for democracy to work by representing the views of the people while at the same time provisioning for emergencies.

Trying to design a framework for statistical exceptions like emergencies by possibly trampling on the fundamental freedoms of people would be asinine at best.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Times of Emergency = Exception situations

You design a legal/constitutional framework that can work for majority of the time, have a structure for handling exception situations (emergencies/war), and also have a process for the system to come back to its stable state once the emergency situation is done with. This is not generalization but a viable way for democracy to work by representing the views of the people while at the same time provisioning for emergencies.

Trying to design a framework for statistical exceptions like emergencies by possibly trampling on the fundamental freedoms of people would be asinine at best.

Agreed if you are talking about your country or mine. Which country are we talking about here?

 

[mustang]

Agreed if you are talking about your country or mine. Which country are we talking about here?

Governance through the will of the people holds true for all countries. Who are we to decide which humans of planet earth should have a say about their lives and which humans do not have a say? What grants us that hubris? Every human should have the right to decide how her/his life should be governed.

Reasoning like - "they are a poor third world country with corruption, no education etc, so they cannot make proper choices through democracy" are seriously poor thought processes - if at all you are trying to reason it that way. For anyone trying to put forth that reason, the UK will still be with feudals+serfs and the US will still be with slaves+masters to this day. Change has to start at some point and it will take a few generations to become viable.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Governance through the will of the people holds true for all countries. Who are we to decide which humans of planet earth should have a say about their lives and which humans do not have a say? What grants us that hubris? Every human should have the right to decide how her/his life should be governed.

Reasoning like - "they are a poor third world country with corruption, no education etc, so they cannot make proper choices through democracy" are seriously poor thought processes - if at all you are trying to reason it that way. For anyone trying to put forth that reason, the UK will still be with feudals+serfs and the US will still be with slaves+masters to this day. Change has to start at some point and it will take a few generations to become viable.

You didn't answer my question. Which country are we talking about? Yours or mine?

 

[Stewie]

Islam doesn’t support monarchy, dictatorship, fascism, any kind of ism, the Emir is selected by a council of elder statesmen, it’s a closest system to democracy you can find. But no democracy is perfect, mind you. So this form of democracy will have its flaws too. But these flaws can be/should be fixed with modern day thinking.

It’s just unfortunate most muslim countries have western planted monarchs sitting there. The mode of governance in these countries is not Islamic no matter how many Islamic laws they implement internally. That’s an important point and should be delineated from the rest.

 

[mustang]

You didn't answer my question. Which country are we talking about? Yours or mine?

I did answer your question. My point in post #45 in this thread is for any country. Yours and mine, and all others.

 

[mustang]

Islam doesn’t support monarchy, dictatorship, fascism, any kind of ism, the Emir is selected by a council of elder statesmen, it’s a closest system to democracy you can find. But no democracy is perfect, mind you. So this form of democracy will have its flaws too. But these flaws can be/should be fixed with modern day thinking.

It’s just unfortunate most muslim countries have western planted monarchs sitting there. The mode of governance in these countries is not Islamic no matter how many Islamic laws they implement internally. That’s an important point and should be delineated from the rest.

People electing these Emirs - are they from all walks of life? How about women, do women get to elect these Emirs or is it only men electing them?

 

[Colorblind Genius]

I don't follow others ideology. I am a practical person and will follow what makes sense in a practical scenario.

I don't believe in X, y, z system is incompetent based upon someone's opinion. Because we all are driven by our own biases and if we followed what was only taught, then theory of relativity wouldn't have existed after newtonian physics.

I already explained what's my view on this.

Democracy is similar to putting eggs in different baskets where as rest of the system be it monarchy, feudalism or any other system, you will be dictated to what you choose (similar to what religion does).

If you want to have a constructive argument based upon my perception, I am all here to answer the criticism and opposing views regarding the subject.

Obviously, you are free to follow your own ideologies and I don't have an issue with it.
Whatever you follow, either explain it precisely or don't call it "democracy".

In this particular thread, we are talking "democracy" and not what YOU follow.

If you want to discuss "democracy", then read Plato's book, understand what democracy is, and we will talk.

If you want to follow something else, please be my guest; however, this thread is simply not the place to discuss it.

 

[captain.hansolo]

There are a couple of interesting points here when we yearn for democracy.

First, Democracy even though the world believes is the best system we have, is not always a guarantee of success for the betterment of a country and it's people. For example, What democracy does China have?

And the same "democracy" brought terrorists like Modi and Hamas into power in India and Palestine.

See the issue and the other side of the coin?

And then an even more interesting phenomenon.
We in the third world countries become copy cats of the west and follow to implement "democracy" in our third world countries - NOT knowing or realizing that - western form of democracies have two fundamental ground checks.

No 1 - There are only TWO major parties run in the election and their senates or parliaments have almost all the seats divided between these two parties only.

No 2 - The entire country, speaks ONE LANGUAGE.


But what happens in our third world countries when we try to implement "democracy"?

The nation is deeply divided based on language, culture, feudal system, religion and various subsets within the religion, geographical divisions, ethnics divisions and whatnot ...

So what happens? The election becomes a fish market. Many, many parties run for seats, and when they reach the parliament, none can actually form a govt.
So trading starts - giving and taking of ministers in return of coalitions.

I think when Pakistan was made, our first parliament had 9 parties, and last time it was 29 or something, compared to ONLY TWO in many first world countries.

This kind of democracy is perhaps the worst possible form of govt that you can probably have.
A chunk of voters voted for a candidate who wins the seat as an individual or have his own small party. These voters do NOT agree with the agenda of any other party but then the winning candidate joins such a party because he is bribed with a ministry or something. And now he is bound to follow the orders of his lords instead of the public he represents.

If you read Plato's book, "The Republic", where he actually introduces to the world for the first time with the 5 forms of govt, including democracy, he actually REJECTS democracy.

The person who introduced us to the idea of democracy actually rejects it.

I think, in the third world countries, we need to have some form of democracy but we work on the ground rules. ONLY TWO parties should be allowed to run in the election. We should also see how wise and literate is the voter?
For example, if in Pakistan, the literacy rate is 40% and we have a fair election, then majority (60%) is illiterates and hence they should be in power.

Otherwise, we are trying to sow a rose seed in a garbage pile. We don't have the ground work set up for westernized form of democracy.

Maybe just focus on literacy for now. And not the stagnant, religious scripture indoctrination, but actual literacy: science, mathematics and rational thinking… the stuff Islam was once a paragon of.

How democratic one must be, would come later. There are also the ghosts of colonialism that bundled Pashtun, Tajiks and et al into one artificial construct.

 

[mustang]

Maybe just focus on literacy for now. And not the stagnant, religious scripture indoctrination, but actual literacy: science, mathematics and rational thinking… the stuff Islam was once a paragon of.

How democratic one must be, would come later. There are also the ghosts of colonialism that bundled Pashtun, Tajiks and et al into one artificial construct.

THIS!

There was a thread about 45% of kids in Pakistan not even having primary education. I'm pretty sure the case is abysmally lower in Afghanistan and lower overall once you discount religious schools as valid education.

Democracy = freedom to make objective choices without retributions .... IMO.

When you break that down, one of the operative words here is "objective". Objectivity comes when you have access to knowledge and critical thinking. Access to knowledge is through access to education.

Pretty much most repressive regimes control majority of the population by restricting access to knowledge/education, thus blunting the objectivity of multiple generations and making them subservient.

 

[PakLFC]

If a Muslim man does unethical things, I think blame should go to the religion also since religion has failed to prevent the man's mind from corruption in the first place.

You think wrong. The blame should go to the man for not understanding the message of his religion. This applies to non Muslims as well, why only Muslim's??

 

[rhony]

Islamic countries with rich natural resources have been governed by the victors in the early wars. They aren't going to relinquish their power and money by going democratic. There is no beacon of democracy in Islamic world to emulate.

It is easy in Islamic countries to influence people with religion. It's the religious leaders that usually revolt against the dictators as they can unite people through a common medium.

Its in the best interest of the West to deal.with dictators in Islamic countries. This way there will be consistency in business and they don't have to change policy based on changing governments every few years.

 

[Robert]

One observation I would make is that some but not all conservative Muslims appear to favour totalitarian regimes over democracy.

I opine that this is a macrocosm-microcosm thing. If God is a judging dominator patriarch, then surely the ideal form of government is, if not by Caliph, then by a strongman like Putin or Xi Jinping because that is closer to their God-model than this modern Western voting-for-people nonsense.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Maybe just focus on literacy for now. And not the stagnant, religious scripture indoctrination, but actual literacy: science, mathematics and rational thinking… the stuff Islam was once a paragon of.

How democratic one must be, would come later. There are also the ghosts of colonialism that bundled Pashtun, Tajiks and et al into one artificial construct.

Literacy is important, but rule of law is even more so, especially in a country where civil war seems to be a constant theme. Unfortunately I think those forced out of Afghanistan will now turn to proxy war so I don't see peace returning any time soon. This in itself will be a big test for the new regime, first they have to secure the country, then they will need to focus on growth.

 

[sweep_shot]

I compare democracy to Bitcoin (filled with uncertainties). Democracy is very faulty.

Unchecked and absolute democracy can degrade society in the long run.

 

[mustang]

Literacy is important, but rule of law is even more so, especially in a country where civil war seems to be a constant theme. Unfortunately I think those forced out of Afghanistan will now turn to proxy war so I don't see peace returning any time soon. This in itself will be a big test for the new regime, first they have to secure the country, then they will need to focus on growth.

True, rule of law is important but at what context? What is the definition of rule of law?

70 years ago in my country I cannot legally sit at the same table as a white man even though I served and shed blood for my country.
200+ years ago I would have been legally shackled as a slave per the rule of law.
Today you cannot eat what you want (beef) in India per the rule of law.

What is legal may not the what is actually right and there is ample evidence in history.

I get your point about rule of law in the context of avoiding civil war, warlords, lawlessness, etc. But the order out of that chaos is suppression of basic human rights. So now people have 2 choices ...

#1 - Have no restrictions to your access to knowledge, behaviors, mobility in life & social status but contend with disruptions in your legal/civil structure.
#2 - Give up everything to be controlled by a state sponsored regime (hello North Korea).

If these are the only 2 choices then most people (especially the possibly oppressed demographic group of #1) will choose #1 where they can at least have some control/say in their lives as opposed to advocating for changing their country to the #2 model - a theocracy regime that even controls my personal life.

As I said before, who are we to deny those people the basic human freedoms under the guise of what we assume we know is best for them? What grants us that special hubris?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

True, rule of law is important but at what context? What is the definition of rule of law?

70 years ago in my country I cannot legally sit at the same table as a white man even though I served and shed blood for my country.
200+ years ago I would have been legally shackled as a slave per the rule of law.
Today you cannot eat what you want (beef) in India per the rule of law.

What is legal may not the what is actually right and there is ample evidence in history.

I get your point about rule of law in the context of avoiding civil war, warlords, lawlessness, etc. But the order out of that chaos is suppression of basic human rights. So now people have 2 choices ...

#1 - Have no restrictions to your access to knowledge, behaviors, mobility in life & social status but contend with disruptions in your legal/civil structure.
#2 - Give up everything to be controlled by a state sponsored regime (hello North Korea).

If these are the only 2 choices then most people (especially the possibly oppressed demographic group of #1) will choose #1 where they can at least have some control/say in their lives as opposed to advocating for changing their country to the #2 model - a theocracy regime that even controls my personal life.

As I said before, who are we to deny those people the basic human freedoms under the guise of what we assume we know is best for them? What grants us that special hubris?

We can't deny or grant those people anything in reality. We can only comment on it. Everyone should be entitled to education, alongside safety and security. At the moment I am not sure if Taliban are officially governing Afghanistan. Is the war officially over?

 

[mustang]

We can't deny or grant those people anything in reality. We can only comment on it. Everyone should be entitled to education, alongside safety and security. At the moment I am not sure if Taliban are officially governing Afghanistan. Is the war officially over?

I would say it is largely over given they have control over most of the country, and given how they themselves are giving press conferences regarding how their governance will supposedly be.

 

[Local.Dada]

This seems like a sensitive subject probably because Sharia law has a religious connection so will tread carefully.

I am not a Muslim so this is solely based on my general observation

Any law that has a religious connotation to it is not practical to be applied as a regular day to day common law in 2021.

Sure you can take some great points and adapt it to modern times but you can’t directly implement it. I am not even debating the merits and demerits of the original sharia law and I am not qualified to do that as I have not read the original and my information is based on the various interpretations out there. I am sure that is the case for most.

Let’s take example of Islamic countries.

From what I hear, the punishments in Pakistan for crimes etc are no more different from India or anywhere else. Now there are some laws may be like blasphemy law etc( I am not debating the right and wrong here ) I am assuming that has a religious connotation to it or it could be a man made law to protect the religion. I am sure the more remote areas have their own law and order system.

I am told Middle East has sharia law but then some middle eastern countries have allowed women to work etc and some until recently prohibited that. When we hear Taliban statements etc they seem to have a total different interpretation.

How can you form an entire constitution and law and order on something where things are based on interpretation. This isn’t just about Islam but any religion I am familiar with there are 100 interpretations and conclusions/view points on the scriptures. Have seen it with Hinduism,Christianity and Islam.

Even in India Muslims are given some freedom eg, polygamy , Triple Talaq (outlawed now), property rights in accordance to Islamic laws etc that a lot of Muslims themselves disagree with but some scholars call that the definitive Islamic law. I am told some of these are outlawed in even Pakistan.

What are the odds that if tomorrow one religious scholar from Iran says this is the definitive Sharia law, then some other religious scholar from Turkey will find faults in it .

It’s basically impractical to base a law on sharia. What can happen is maybe take some points from sharia law and have a hybrid system that most countries are doing. That again is not a novel concept, countries have laws that are compatible with their cultural sensibilities along with religion.

 

[Stewie]

People electing these Emirs - are they from all walks of life? How about women, do women get to elect these Emirs or is it only men electing them?

There are no written rules about that ad far as I know. But I do know that women of power in Arab history had a lot of influence. I say Arab because I don’t want non Muslims to use that as a precedent in regards to the religion. Mostly governance and politics of each region is very specific to that region.

Mind you, we are discussing politics of the 7th century. The bastion of freedom and democracy USA didn’t allow black women to vote till 1920 and men couldn’t vote till 1870.

Islam is probably the only religion that gives you a full system of laws and while the mode of governance is not well defined, it is the closest to democracy you can get amongst all human faiths.

 

[KingKhanWC]

One observation I would make is that some but not all conservative Muslims appear to favour totalitarian regimes over democracy.

I opine that this is a macrocosm-microcosm thing. If God is a judging dominator patriarch, then surely the ideal form of government is, if not by Caliph, then by a strongman like Putin or Xi Jinping because that is closer to their God-model than this modern Western voting-for-people nonsense.

Saudi is a puppet regime installed by the British. Its the Brits and westerners who have created these hardline, totaltarisn regimes in the middle east. They are puppets, they wont allow people to choose their way of living because the British, Americans wont let them.

The so called DEMOCRACY in the west, is nothing more than an illusion, a decpetion. It doesnt matter who you vote for, their main policies are made by others, the politicians here are also no more than puppets on a string.

Id say western democracy is very dangerous, it fools people into thinking they have some sort of say on what goes on. lol

 

[the Great Khan]

One observation I would make is that some but not all conservative Muslims appear to favour totalitarian regimes over democracy.

I opine that this is a macrocosm-microcosm thing. If God is a judging dominator patriarch, then surely the ideal form of government is, if not by Caliph, then by a strongman like Putin or Xi Jinping because that is closer to their God-model than this modern Western voting-for-people nonsense.

Actually most conservatives support a presidential model with a council and judges to ensure checks and balances.

Extremists believe in a dictator model. But then thats why they are extremists.

With regards to democracy, the initial Medina state was a first attempt at democracy for a tribal society and it lasted about 30-35 years before anarchy descended and the eventual emergence of the Ummayads. It was just too ahead of its time unfortunately.

But we now have a number of models that can be used that would be compatible with the Shariah. A presidential system is what most Muslims prefer but with a strong army, executive and judiciary to ensure checks..Parliamentary democracy isnt a system that works well for Muslims inmho..

 

[Ashmal]

If a Muslim man does unethical things, I think blame should go to the religion also since religion has failed to prevent the man's mind from corruption in the first place.

So if an Indian commits a crime....then whole of India should be blamed as well....since the country, its culture and it's system couldn't prevent the man from becoming a criminal.

 

[Stewie]

This seems like a sensitive subject probably because Sharia law has a religious connection so will tread carefully.

I am not a Muslim so this is solely based on my general observation

Any law that has a religious connotation to it is not practical to be applied as a regular day to day common law in 2021.

Sure you can take some great points and adapt it to modern times but you can’t directly implement it. I am not even debating the merits and demerits of the original sharia law and I am not qualified to do that as I have not read the original and my information is based on the various interpretations out there. I am sure that is the case for most.

Let’s take example of Islamic countries.

From what I hear, the punishments in Pakistan for crimes etc are no more different from India or anywhere else. Now there are some laws may be like blasphemy law etc( I am not debating the right and wrong here ) I am assuming that has a religious connotation to it or it could be a man made law to protect the religion. I am sure the more remote areas have their own law and order system.

I am told Middle East has sharia law but then some middle eastern countries have allowed women to work etc and some until recently prohibited that. When we hear Taliban statements etc they seem to have a total different interpretation.

How can you form an entire constitution and law and order on something where things are based on interpretation. This isn’t just about Islam but any religion I am familiar with there are 100 interpretations and conclusions/view points on the scriptures. Have seen it with Hinduism,Christianity and Islam.

Even in India Muslims are given some freedom eg, polygamy , Triple Talaq (outlawed now), property rights in accordance to Islamic laws etc that a lot of Muslims themselves disagree with but some scholars call that the definitive Islamic law. I am told some of these are outlawed in even Pakistan.

What are the odds that if tomorrow one religious scholar from Iran says this is the definitive Sharia law, then some other religious scholar from Turkey will find faults in it .

It’s basically impractical to base a law on sharia. What can happen is maybe take some points from sharia law and have a hybrid system that most countries are doing. That again is not a novel concept, countries have laws that are compatible with their cultural sensibilities along with religion.

Most of your logic is flawed here and based on a very ill begotten understanding of Islamic law.

Islamic law doesn’t prohibit women from working/driving that sort of stuff. The Prophet’s wife Khadija was a business woman and had her own business. Islamic law doesn’t impose any of the ridiculous restrictions wahhabis/taliban impose.

I feel the “practicality” of any laws are actually determined by the people of the land and not a third person. I can sit here and write books on how Some US laws are not practical but yet they are here. In fact thst goes for any and every Soviet and country in the world. Yet they are “practical” and in place in so the countries they are in effect and democratically, if I may I add.

Islamic laws are no different. Islamic laws give you a framework and if the entire society is aligned with that framework, it works. I do agree some of them are draconian and probably need to reviewed for the 21st century. But there is a lot of misrepresentation and outright fabrication of some of them. Women are allowed a right to education, to be entrepreneurs, to work, play sports, etc there is no Islamic law that prohibits such activities.

I thought I should clarify it here because most non Muslim posters here have embraced the radical notions of Islamic laws based on how some countries are using them to control their people or how the western media is portraying it.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Maybe just focus on literacy for now. And not the stagnant, religious scripture indoctrination, but actual literacy: science, mathematics and rational thinking… the stuff Islam was once a paragon of.

How democratic one must be, would come later. There are also the ghosts of colonialism that bundled Pashtun, Tajiks and et al into one artificial construct.

Yes, I wrote on it and took Pakistan as an example.

Literacy in Pakistan itself is a major issue. And it's NOT the question of what percentage of the nation is literate and what percentage is illiterate? No, that's not the issue.

New exploration in academia is a far fetched dream. We need to start with getting the basics right before we can even think of winning Nobel prices.

We don't even know the right reason why we should send our kids to school, to begin with?

Here, take a read when you get a moment.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ems-of-Pakistan-and-their-solution&highlight=

The more we educate, the more corrupt we create. That's the issue.