@
Armstrong
Mate , the consensus of majority doesn't infringe upon others right because I do not want to believe that religion is the same as the mode of governance , you are so keen to discuss . Something which is a personal thing to practice isn't the same as deciding something for society . The society can draw lines in religion and it does , but I seriously do not agree that it should unless it concerns/affects them
Where do the rights of Others stop & the rights of the Society begin ?
Where is that fine line ?
And how would one determine that ?
And why does one use that & that particular barometer or determinant ?
The answer is that the Society decides these things for itself for, purely from an Academic Point of View, these are nothing but things agreed upon either unconsciously so or consciously so !
Therefore if the Society can decide a cut-off point at X why can it not decide at Y ?
Religion isn't as flexible as you make it out to be . That , you are a Quranist , may explain things why you think so that it is and ready for alteration and revivalism , but for the rest of us , Armstrong , it is somehow complicated and exhausting somehow differentiating and thinking about dozens of interpretations and ways , we are presented with and worse , even asked to follow . Just start by telling me , if you start treating religion as governance , please what you will codify for the others ? Begin with the timing of prayers and percentage of Zakat , will you reach a consensus on them from the majority even thought its written that " I have perfected the religion for you " . Does it make sense ? How much scope for " setting " things even is there ? The best , I believe is to treat the religion as a personal thing and not a full broad spectrum because it turns ugly the moment , it is treated as such . Doubt me , see the history of Islam , full of civil wars for the same reasons because people tried to enforce and others weren't ready for that .
I'm not a Koranists in the literal sense of the word; I just advocate Koran & Rationality which isn't really a call for ignoring other interpretations or even the Hadith just treating them as Historical Evidence as part of the best available Commentary on the Koran not an addition to the Koran itself !
And I never said or implied 'treat Religion as Governance'; I said treat Religious Paradigms for what they are !
Which is to say if the Swiss Civil Code is a Legal Paradigm what do you think Islamic Jurisprudence is ?
If the advocacy of the institutionalization of the Swiss Civil Code neither infringes upon the rights of others nor does it pronounce us to cry everything from 'discrimination' to 'fascism' in the same breath, I wonder why the call for Islamic Jurisprudence induces such a different response when they are both Legal Paradigms by nature !
As far the percentage of the Zakat or the timing of the Prayer is concerned you must consider a set of things !
Firstly we're not contradicting God here we're simply giving our interpretations of what they are therefore the Finality of the Message doesn't really apply here & whatever inherent inflexibility you're implying here seems paradoxical in the face of the presence of dozens upon dozens of sects even within these sects & the many varied interpretations that come with it !
Secondly the Society has to consider where it draws the Line ? What does it decide to be in the domain of the Personal & what in the domain of the Societal which is to say just as the Society can decide that a Society has Rights over a Family whereby it reserves the right to tell what a Parent can or cannot do & a plethora of other such examples, it can decide once more here !
Thirdly there is a huge spectrum of opinions on what the Zakat Percentage is or isn't & what the timing of the Prayers are or are not & after you've decided which of the two or whether none of the two or even both of the two, the Society is going to decide what should or should not be Institutionalized you put it to vote !
As for the element of Violence you're talking about that is a common denominator wherever you force something down people's throat whether it be in case of a particular language, ethnicity, geography or religion & that & that alone is what is the reason behind it whereas everything else is a symptom of the reaction....an intensifier if you will !
Therefore don't shove down anything people's throat - Ask them !
Asking them what they want is the essence of the Democratic Principle !
Give them a choice to choose or to refuse !
If you're looking for unanimity of opinions then I ask - Why ?
Why look for unanimity here where everyone's on board when such a consideration is never applied to anything else ?
What will or what won't be decided would be done so based upon the respective bargaining powers of the ayes & the nays & the environment of consensus or pluralism here - Give & Take !
Mate , the " masses " thing is a reality , I am not denying that . But somehow still I believe religion is quite different than what you are making it out to be here . Even today , the " majority consensus " or a part of it is present in the driving ideology of sects/schools of thought because there is no clear single interpretation and everyone is somehow instructed by the God himself to force his version on other - no contest over it ! But to govern religion on democratic principles would again codify the codification of the same " taking things too literal and trying to explain things for which there's no need " .
That confusion comes when we start seeing Oriental things from a Western Lens without thoroughly considering the rhyme & meter of the dynamics that each faced !
Consider this - There has always been Pluralism in Islam interspersed with Tyranny & yet never Secularism - Why ?
Because we never had an ecclesiastical order to induce such a reaction & because in Islam the Spiritual & the Worldly was never ripped asunder in much the same manner !
You just are certain of everything you present
I've raked my brain about this for some time now !
Maybe @
Oscar would agree with me on this ?
Maybe not !
