What is Islam? Now and Before

[Ramin]

What do you think Islam is, and what was it intended to be? Is it a way of life, a religion, an evil ideology? What questions do you have about Islam?

[ukangel]

I would have thought its a religion and a way of life.

[Larani]

I think its a political ideology strung together with religion similair to the Theocracies of early Christian culture where the Pope actually had political power to appoint Kings and issue edicts/ ex communications hold trials (justice) and stuff.

[Ramin]

I think its a political ideology strung together with religion similair to the Theocracies of early Christian culture where the Pope actually had political power to appoint Kings and issue edicts/ ex communications hold trials (justice) and stuff.

Did you know that most Muslims oppose state run religion?

[USViking]

1. I read a passage by someone who
might not have known what he was talking
about, that according to Islam women
do not have souls.

Is this true, false, or
a matter of disagreement?

2. I have read that according to Islam,
males in paradise are entertained by 70 virgins.


Is this true, false, or a matter of disagreement?

[Ramin]

1. I read a passage by someone who
might not have known what he was talking
about, that according to Islam women
do not have souls.

Is this true, false, or
a matter of disagreement?

2. I have read that according to Islam,
males in paradise are entertained by 70 virgins.


Is this true, false, or a matter of disagreement?

Well, a way of life can't speculate these things, so Islam as it is today, says none of these things. In the Muslim way of life, women are not treated as if they don't have souls, and male domination hardly exists in the household. With certainty, therefore, I can say that both questions are unspeculated and false.

I believe you are referring to different interpretations of the Quran, not Islam. I experienced Iran for 7 years, and Syria for one year, and never heard of these topics. I also know Muslims from many different backgrounds. Perhaps the topics have been speculated by some people, somewhere, and heard by some people, maybe even effected them, however it is obvious that they are not even matters of disagreement: they are just not worth talking about. Instead, Muslims talk more about soccer, politics, philosophy, and profession. They mostly are also very respectful to women. Therefore, these topics that you mention may be in the field of politics, where extremists skew and indoctrinate the Quran as means to their ends. It does not seem therefore, that the disagreements or talk on them is to be taken seriously, neither would I think anyone would take the topics seriously ever. They are simply not even topics in Islam, even in formal Islamic education, such as in Islamic studies in Iran or Saudia Arabia. If you are trying to investigate the opinion of extremists on this issue, you may have to find people affiliated with Osama Bin Laden, or Islamic political propaganda. Even then, I don't think they will answer you because their intentions are not truth or falsity, but rather, they are political. ;)

[Larani]

Did you know that most Muslims oppose state run religion?

Then what is Sharia Law? How can you have Sharia Law without State Run Religion Sharia is religious Law, and the State imposes it (Justice System)

You say most Muslims seems to me the percentage of Muslim Countires that operate Sharia an those that battle to impose it where it is not I think would say that more then just a few support the idea.

[Ramin]

Then what is Sharia Law? How can you have Sharia Law without State Run Religion Sharia is religious Law, and the State imposes it (Justice System)

You say most Muslims seems to me the percentage of Muslim Countires that operate Sharia an those that battle to impose it where it is not I think would say that more then just a few support the idea.

You're giving a justification for why politicians would support state run religion, not people. I'll tell you why there is justification for people opposing, or not supporting it: At the same time of the Baghdad school of reuniting religions, there was dispute on exactly this topic. Many prominent Islamic scholars took different sides on the issue. The relativity of the issue came out and the certainty in favor of state religion was diminished. This gave reason for people to be more or less impartial on the issue. And currently, if you delve into how Islam is played out in people's lives, you wil notice that it has become a personal way of life. Most Iranians I know, many who comprise of the most religious parts of Iran, oppose state ruled religion, though also breaking the law. Also, those Muslims who live in Monarchies would not advocate absolute state ruled religion. Those in East Asia also; Palestinian government is not under Sharia and they aren't hard on it. Overall, most seem quite happy with it being a personal religion. The appropriateness of religious states is a completely different subject however. At times it may be appropriate, to various intensities, at times not. And they do not remain under strict Sharia law forever. There is a natural change that can occur.

[Larani]

You're giving a justification for why politicians would support state run religion, not people. I'll tell you why there is justification for people opposing, or not supporting it: At the same time of the Baghdad school of reuniting religions, there was dispute on exactly this topic. Many prominent Islamic scholars took different sides on the issue. The relativity of the issue came out and the certainty in favor of state religion was diminished. This gave reason for people to be more or less impartial on the issue. And currently, if you delve into how Islam is played out in people's lives, you wil notice that it has become a personal way of life. Most Iranians I know, many who comprise of the most religious parts of Iran, oppose state ruled religion, though also breaking the law. Also, those Muslims who live in Monarchies would not advocate absolute state ruled religion. Those in East Asia also; Palestinian government is not under Sharia and they aren't hard on it. Overall, most seem quite happy with it being a personal religion. The appropriateness of religious states is a completely different subject however. At times it may be appropriate, to various intensities, at times not. And they do not remain under strict Sharia law forever. There is a natural change that can occur.


It seems to me Ramin that you place a large majority of people into the secularists if that were so the Why the Theocracies? Why the battle in Pakistan and in the Sudan and other places to impose Sharia Law. Why the dispute in France to have the Hijab be worn in state run non-religious schools.

As a person I have no problem with the Hijab but if my wife didn't want to wear one and somebody told her she had to I would most definitely have a problem with that person or group. Suffice to say I would support going to war with any group that forced any member of my family to wear what they wanted them to wear without giving them the freedom to choose for themselves.

I have no problem prohibiting things that are obviously and rational harmful, though you better present indisputable facts to back it up, but there is no rational reason I cannot choose to wear a pair of sandals or that my wife has to wear a scarf on her head. unless she wants too, and to bring harm to her in anyway because she won't well even if its by ignoring her and ostracizing her well those people got serious issues.

[Ramin]

It seems to me Ramin that you place a large majority of people into the secularists if that were so the Why the Theocracies?

Theocracies are part of political philosophy. Power politics and propaganda are the reason for theocracies.


Why the battle in Pakistan and in the Sudan and other places to impose Sharia Law. Why the dispute in France to have the Hijab be worn in state run non-religious schools.

So to not sell one's soul. Freedom is one thing, buying and selling souls another.


As a person I have no problem with the Hijab but if my wife didn't want to wear one and somebody told her she had to I would most definitely have a problem with that person or group. Suffice to say I would support going to war with any group that forced any member of my family to wear what they wanted them to wear without giving them the freedom to choose for themselves.
Living under a super power has its privelages as well I guess, in a sense. Though a superpower is good theoretically at times, soon without a superpower, everyone will have the same level of privelage.

But this is all off our real topic. The topic was that the majority of Muslism use Islam as a personal way of life, and not a political ideology. This remains to be the case, and I'm sorry to break the news to you if it conflicts with propaganda in the U.S. Dumb, mindless, racist power politics guided by various dumb, mindless institutions in the world cause hatred and defensiveness. If the Muslim identity was not targetted as part of this, and if there was no racism, there would be no motivation to attempt to force people to do follow Sharia, as is the case with all current attempts and successes in installing Sharia. All you have to do is look at the political climate. Furthermore, this has not altered Islam's real function as a way of life, as seen through the majority of Muslim's non-ideological Muslim way of life.

[Larani]

Theocracies are part of political philosophy. Power politics and propaganda are the reason for theocracies.

Political philosophy funny I have always believed Theocracies were Religious Philosophy and Democracies were political philosophies


So to not sell one's soul. Freedom is one thing, buying and selling souls another.

Whats the going rate for souls these days funny I did not know God put a price tag on them. Is there a stock exchange where these things are traded?


Living under a super power has its privelages as well I guess, in a sense. Though a superpower is good theoretically at times, soon without a superpower, everyone will have the same level of privelage.

As in all things power in and of itself corrupts thats why I said if anyone tried imposing on my wife I would have a problem with them. Let her be free to choose I truly believe that is what God would want. If he wanted mindless slaves why wouldn't he just make us that way? And anyone who has a problem with her choice well its obviously their problem not hers. Maybe they need to do a little self evaluation.

[Ramin]

Political philosophy funny I have always believed Theocracies were Religious Philosophy and Democracies were political philosophies.
Theocracy is a political philosophy, obviously. Its the political philosophy that incorporates religion. Philosophy of religion is far off from being this; rather, it attempts to prove God and the nature of existence.



Whats the going rate for souls these days funny I did not know God put a price tag on them. Is there a stock exchange where these things are traded?
God didn't. They were stolen by brainwashers. Since you are not a brainwasher, (I don't think), you will not be even capable of stealing, i.e. "buying" a soul. However, I recommend you investigate teenagers, in order to find where and how much of the buying and selling takes place. If you look deep enough in immigrant populations in Canada and the U.S., also, you will find some exchanges.


As in all things power in and of itself corrupts thats why I said if anyone tried imposing on my wife I would have a problem with them. Let her be free to choose I truly believe that is what God would want. If he wanted mindless slaves why wouldn't he just make us that way? And anyone who has a problem with her choice well its obviously their problem not hers. Maybe they need to do a little self evaluation.
What? Who's a mindless slave? Are you referring to anyone? If not, what's your point?

[Larani]

Theocracy is a political philosophy, obviously. Its the political philosophy that incorporates religion. Philosophy of religion is far off from being this; rather, it attempts to prove God and the nature of existence.

Correct me if I am wrong I suppose I can get a definition online but Theocracies are lead by God are they not with some Representative acting on his behalf and his orders?



What? Who's a mindless slave? Are you referring to anyone? If not, what's your point?

I was only referring to my thoughts on how I would think God would want it. Which I must admit is my thinking too. It fits the do onto others as you would want them to do onto you. And since I don't want to tell people how to dress and especially not apply force to make them comply to my demands I wouldn't want someone doing it to me or my wife.

[Ramin]

Correct me if I am wrong I suppose I can get a definition online but Theocracies are lead by God are they not with some Representative acting on his behalf and his orders?


That is not a definition; its a description. Any political system is inevitably part of political philosophy. One such system (that is inevitably part of political philosophy) is a theocracy which you've described. The reason why any political system is part of political philosophy is that it is a theory of how a nation should be run.

[Michele]

A sane thread. Finally, a persian, with more intimate and empirical experience on this topic, speaking up. Rather than the usual speculative opines from non-Muslim, whether compassionate or vitriolic. Interesting these were the delineations I thought needed to be made just on the bases of intuition. Manipulations occur with regard to interpretation based on desired political end (whether it be radical Jihad or just the usual political corruptions within any secular government wherein god can be invoked).

[Larani]

That is not a definition; its a description. Any political system is inevitably part of political philosophy. One such system (that is inevitably part of political philosophy) is a theocracy which you've described. The reason why any political system is part of political philosophy is that it is a theory of how a nation should be run.


Webster's 1913 Dictionary
The`oc´ra`cy
n. 1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.
2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom.

WordNet Dictionary
Noun 1. theocracy - a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
2. theocracy - the belief in government by divine guidance

Legal Dictionary
THEOCRACY. A species of government which claims to be immediately directed by God.
2. La religion qui, dans l'antiquite, s'associa souvent au despotisms, pour regner. par son bras ou a son ombrage, a quelquefois tents de regner seule. Clest ce qu'elle appelait le regne de Dieu, la thiocratie. Matter, De l'influence des Moeurs sur les lois, et de l'influence dos Lois sur les moeurs, 189. Religion, which in former times, frequently associated itself with despotism, to reign, by its power, or under its shadow, has sometimes attempted to reign alone, and this she has called the reign of God, theocracy.

Related Words
absolute monarchy, aristocracy, autarchy, autocracy, autonomy, coalition government, colonialism, commonwealth, constitutional government, constitutional monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, dominion rule, duarchy, duumvirate, dyarchy, federal government, federation, feudal system, garrison state, gerontocracy, heteronomy, hierarchy, hierocracy, home rule, limited monarchy, martial law, meritocracy, militarism, military government, mob rule, mobocracy, monarchy, neocolonialism, ochlocracy, oligarchy, pantisocracy, patriarchate, patriarchy, police state, pure democracy, regency, representative democracy, representative government, republic, self-determination, self-government, social democracy, stratocracy, technocracy, thearchy, totalitarian government, totalitarian regime, triarchy, triumvirate, tyranny, welfare state

I am not arguing that a Theocracy is not a a system of governance, and hence some would say political in that vein, And I think Ramin in this were both correct the difference in where were debating is simply a perception of definitions. Since many definitions are by there very nature can easily be applied in a crossing sort of way.

I think here are sticking points may be how are we defining. Religion, Philosophy and Politics. Are the separate or are they all the same thing?
Its true the share many of the same characteristics and I think that is what were debating and what appears to be are sticking points.

[Ramin]

I am not arguing that a Theocracy is not a a system of governance, and hence some would say political in that vein, And I think Ramin in this were both correct the difference in where were debating is simply a perception of definitions. Since many definitions are by there very nature can easily be applied in a crossing sort of way.

I think here are sticking points may be how are we defining. Religion, Philosophy and Politics. Are the separate or are they all the same thing?
Its true the share many of the same characteristics and I think that is what were debating and what appears to be are sticking points.

But in being theocratic, you are being political. Politics is a necessary ingredient of it. Being religios is NOT a necessary ingredient. You could be pretending to be religious, but really be oppressing people with religious laws for your own benefit.

[Larani]

But in being theocratic, you are being political. Politics is a necessary ingredient of it. Being religios is NOT a necessary ingredient. You could be pretending to be religious, but really be oppressing people with religious laws for your own benefit.


Aahhhh but religion is a neccessary incredient in a Theocracy. Look at the definition I posted how could you take the religious component out it wouldn't be a Theocracy then.

As far as someone just pretending thats very vague. Who decides whether one man or the next is practicing thier religion correctly. If a circle of Mullahs supports some religious figurehead with their endorsment whether we like it or disagree with it how can we say they are not practicing their religion?

Its simply your word against theirs.

[Ramin]

Aahhhh but religion is a neccessary incredient in a Theocracy. Look at the definition I posted how could you take the religious component out it wouldn't be a Theocracy then.

As far as someone just pretending thats very vague. Who decides whether one man or the next is practicing thier religion correctly. If a circle of Mullahs supports some religious figurehead with their endorsment whether we like it or disagree with it how can we say they are not practicing their religion?

Its simply your word against theirs.
You're right about that last point. However, the point that I made before still clearly stands. Because a theocracy's function is political, it is a type of political philosophy and should be categorized this way.

[Larani]

You're right about that last point. However, the point that I made before still clearly stands. Because a theocracy's function is political, it is a type of political philosophy and should be categorized this way.

It not political philosophy unless you take out the God component. That is what makes it unique and thus classified as a Theocracy.

Look secular political philosophies are based more on enlighten scientific facts and theories. Religion on the other hand is based on Spiritual / Superstitions and rituals and the like. Though they do share some similarities the stark differences preclude them to be categorized the same.

[Ramin]

It not political philosophy unless you take out the God component. That is what makes it unique and thus classified as a Theocracy.

Its a political philosophy that involves religion. Since it is has a theoretical political purpose it is a political philosophy. Very simple. Ofcourse it involves religion![/i]

Look secular political philosophies are based more on enlighten scientific facts and theories. Religion on the other hand is based on Spiritual / Superstitions and rituals and the like. Though they do share some similarities the stark differences preclude them to be categorized the same.
Are you comparing two specific kinds of political philosophies such as 1)Muslim, and 2)American? Because you are unclear. Religion is not always based on spritual superstitions and rituals; in fact, the very coming of Islam was associated with more and more advancements in metaphysics! Further, their philosophies obviously are based a lot on psychology. Doesn't look like they are based on superstition now does it?

[Larani]

Are you comparing two specific kinds of political philosophies such as 1)Muslim, and 2)American? Because you are unclear. Religion is not always based on spritual superstitions and rituals; in fact, the very coming of Islam was associated with more and more advancements in metaphysics! Further, their philosophies obviously are based a lot on psychology. Doesn't look like they are based on superstition now does it?

No I wasn't comparing any particular Theocracy with any particular Plutocracy. And what psychology might that be? As one who has read lots of psychology books I know I haven't come across it yet. Could you give me its name so I might look it up in a Psychology Encyclopedia?

[Ramin]

No I wasn't comparing any particular Theocracy with any particular Plutocracy. And what psychology might that be? As one who has read lots of psychology books I know I haven't come across it yet. Could you give me its name so I might look it up in a Psychology Encyclopedia?
You've read Western psychological science books? A new field that has started from scratch. And I support it. But there is an immense stack of psychological literature through logical and philosophical methods currently available from 400 B.C. to now, made by pure genuises, that answer many questions Western psychology hasn't gotten to yet. Islam for instance uses so much philosophical and logical psychology its not even funny; its how it was made. Even looking at Christianity. Why did they say Jesus is the son of God? Why did they say Jesus sacrificed for our sins? Why did they show him as someone who did miracles? These all have psychological reasons.