Two Opposing Terms: Islamic and Republic

[ssethii]

khilafat khilafat kerny waaly kabhi ye nhi bataty ke khilafat main phly 5 main se 4 khaleefa ka kya bana or kitni barbaadi civil war thi khilafat e rashida main

why are you trying to distort history. The period of Hazrat Umer (R.A) is a given reference system all around world. Never mind you shouldn't be giving lectures about Islam after you have declared yourself atheist. Am i right na?
OT: My understanding about the topic is that there are two forms of system for govt. i.e socialism and capitalism. As a matter of fact all forms of govts revolve around their economical models. (I am assuming the kingship falls under capitalism). So until there is a third economical model as per Islamic rules the word Islamic in Pakistan and other states has no meaning at all.

 

[FaujHistorian]

why are you trying to distort history. The period of Hazrat Umer (R.A) is a given reference system all around world

hahahah

Around the world?

by whom?


and in what context?

Please enlighten us.

Thank you.

.....
A democracy can declare to pass laws, such as to kill all first born infants,

if you want to make a point, don't do so that others laugh at your intellect.

Which modern day democracy has made laws to kill first borns.

Please don't get so emotional that you start adding kiddy examples.

Thank you.

 

[RangerPK]

if you want to make a point, don't do so that others laugh at your intellect.

Which modern day democracy has made laws to kill first borns.

Please don't get so emotional that you start adding kiddy examples.

Thank you.

That is an example, that I have given that how far can rule of majority can go. They can pass ANY law they want. Demorcracy has nothing to do with the "articles", those articles are irrelevant to what democracy actually is. . I guess you didn't get the point., but I am not surprised.

Democracy has however, legalized prostitution in the form of pornography, and it has also legalized homosexual marriages.

I guess you are trolling...

 

[Dubious]

A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern of the rulers, in which public offices are consequently appointed or elected rather than privately accommodated (i.e., through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times, the common definition of a republic is a government which excludes a monarch...

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic, which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the period when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.

In modern republics such as France, Russia, the United States, India, and Mexico the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.


Soooo....How is THIS contradicting ISLAM? Islam also says form a council and elect your ruler...So how is this choking the word republic or is OPPOSITE in any form?!?!

 

[RangerPK]

A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern of the rulers, in which public offices are consequently appointed or elected rather than privately accommodated (i.e., through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times, the common definition of a republic is a government which excludes a monarch...

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic, which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the period when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.

In modern republics such as France, Russia, the United States, India, and Mexico the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.


Soooo....How is THIS contradicting ISLAM? Islam also says form a council and elect your ruler...So how is this choking the word republic or is OPPOSITE in any form?!?!

I am actually surprised at how some people here are trolling the thread but have little knowledge about 101 political science, and Islam.

They simply do not know what they are talking about, but I guess anyone who bashes Islam can instantly become "smart" and a self proclaimed "intellectual" these days.

 

[Dubious]

For those who think that the West is actually REPUBLIC OR SECULAR need to dig deeper:

Republic | Our proposed model

this is just 1 example of what is lurking below all the happy glow people want to give as an example! If you can find crap against Islam and stuff I am sure you can find crap against anything ANYWHERE!

 

[ssethii]

hahahah

Around the world?

by whom?


and in what context?

Please enlighten us.

Thank you.

By Muslims are they not "All around the world".
In context that it developed a model Islamic welfare state during that age of misery and blood shed.

 

[RangerPK]

For those who think that the West is actually REPUBLIC OR SECULAR need to dig deeper:

Republic | Our proposed model

this is just 1 example of what is lurking below all the happy glow people want to give as an example! If you can find crap against Islam and stuff I am sure you can find crap against anything ANYWHERE!

A "Theocratic Democracy" is not a good idea ... They are different modes of government and there is no need to mix them ... The hybrid "Islamic Republic" is a practically failed idea


If the Muslims want democracy so much , then they should know that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 contradicts with Islamic law & Doctrine :

(by Ibn Warraq)
Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The idea of democracy has nothing to do with "human rights" and it is not the condition of democracy to must have Any of those articles. democracy is the rule of the majority, and if the majority wants, they can pass ANY law they want, and can write any form of constitution

A democracy can declare to pass laws, such as to kill all first born infants, if the majority wants that, so it shall be! No matter how insane the law might be. Democracy can do that. Even if democracy wants to make incest legal it can also do that too. Make prostitution legal, democracy can also do that. Kill all minorities, democracy can do that too.

Democracy is essentially rule of the majority and has nothing to do with "human rights" or the articles you posted. If a democracy wants, it can also make those "Islamic laws" (not sure if those are correct or not) you posted, to be passed as laws. If the majority wants it. So it shall be.

Democracy is means to an end, not an end in itself.


I would also like to add.

Britain is a democratic country, and De Lolme says that “The British Parliament can do everything but make woman a man and man a woman.”


It just shows how unrestricted these decision making bodies are, but certain limits are placed, and certain actions are "encouraged" in these systems in the form of "articles" in constitution.

So the idea of having guidelines for these system, which puts limitation and and encourages certain narrative is not an Oxymoron, since it is ALREADY happening in the world democracies, in the form of constitutional articles.

So the idea of Islam inspired articles in a constitution, which adds certain limits and encourages certain narrative, is not an Oxymoron. It becomes an Islamic Democratic system.....

American society was conservative just 70 years back, and it has been for the most part of its history, but within these 60 years, they have made Homosexuality, **** Industry, Legal, and are on their way to make abortion of babies legalized too. How ever, Americans struggle with banning guns because the right to own weapons is in their Constitution!


So why can not Islamic inspired Articles in democracy to prevent the out come of Homosexual legalization, **** Industry, can be done?

We can call this idea Islamic Democracy or Republic, what ever you wanna name it..



PS: I would also like to add, we are talking about abstract ideas here in a hypothetical sense, This is not physical science, with two magnets in a lab, which either stick together or repel each other. Thus the title of the thread is a troll title, and the thread is being trolled too.

 

[Panther 57]

You think big name huge bearded Mullahs and Ayatullahs have not done any reading of Islam?

I will refrain from any altercation on the subject as I have very clearly given my stance on Islamic values, clergy and followers of Islam. It does not need any further elaboration. My last comment on this point is "As clergy is not supported in Islam, all those who have clergy as their profession or who use the veil of religious scholar to gain political interests are shopkeepers, selling their own product and declaring product sold by others of like as fake."

Brother I will reply in full detail that how this declaration contradicts with Islam (with quranic , sunni & shia refrences) tomorrow ...

Please dont give myopic references like other mullas are doing. Quran is not a code of conduct outlining its rules line by line. It is a code in wholesome and has to be analysed at mega level, not myopically.

 

[FaujHistorian]

By Muslims are they not "All around the world".
In context that it developed a model Islamic welfare state during that age of misery and blood shed.

I see.

But so are the stories of St. Nick.

Little children believe he comes down from the North and leaves little presents for them.

But children grow up

and tell the story to their kids

But the grown ups know these are just stories.

Grown up do not try to convince other grown ups that Santa is real.

Why

Such stories are meant for kids, actually toddlers.


I hope you understand it now.

And quit convincing other grown ups about your stories.


Thank you.

I will refrain from any altercation on the subject as I have very clearly given my stance on Islamic values, clergy and followers of Islam. It does not need any further elaboration. My last comment on this point is "As clergy is not supported in Islam, all those who have clergy as their profession or who use the veil of religious scholar to gain political interests are shopkeepers, selling their own product and declaring product sold by others of like as fake."
.

You know the valley is flooded.

people are drowning in sea of ignorance.

And

yet you keep your eyes closed

Trying to convince everyone,

there is no flood in 2013

no one is drowning in 2013

Because there was a story in 700AD that the valley will not never be flooded. Never ever ever


So you want to live on edicts and forecasts made in 700 AD

instead of seeing the sea of religious hate, religious arrogance, Ayatullahs and Mullahs that are present all around you in 2013.


Will you please quit telling us 700AD stories. May be it is your way of coping with reality, coping with trauma, that simply refuse to see it. That could be it. But who knows. Who knows.

Will you please.

 

[qamar1990]

Brother I gave explanation in post # 59 .. May be u didn't read through

.

no you didn't, all you said in post # 59 is that islam and republic are incompatible and i asked you to elaborate on it, explain what makes islam and a republic not go together!
also please just give me your definition of a republic, because what we were taught in school here in America seems to be totally different from your and @FaujHistorian s definition.

All these may be ideals of a "Republic" ... But they contradict with "Islam" ....

perhaps it is you who doesn't read everything.
everything i had stated in post you quoted is compatible with have a republic government.
please for once just show me how they contradict with islam. i want you to explain what part seems to be contradicting each other.

You are rejecting the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari/Muslim (regarding Apostasy) and by Mullah definition you are rejecting "Islam" and hence u r a Apostate yourself .. Shia also believe in execution of Apostate ... Hadith rejection is FITNA and now you deserve punishment

I'm not rejecting nothing, but i will not accept any Hadith that contradicts the noble Quran! weather its shahih or not. for ex: the hadith that says kill apostates, i reject that hadith on the basis that Quran says there is no compulsion in religion!
by rejecting hadith nobody becomes a non-muslim i hope you know that, and please don't tell me that you actually believe what you wrote because it just shows you as a very ignorant and arrogant person.
And as for you calling me an apostate or me calling somebody else an apostate and that person claims to be a muslim is actually un-islamic. so this article in our constitution in pakistan about ahmadis being kafirs is actually unislamic because ahmadis claim to be muslims.

Females can't have "equal" rights in a Islamic system

they can and they do @Talon is a female and she will explain to you about this.
if you ask her.

Study of Islam is not "optional" in a Islamic theocracy

of course it is, who told is it isn't? in an islamic republic true principles islam will be applied, and in islam there is no compulsion in religion!!!

Non muslims& muslims can never have same rights in a Islamic system

thats another lie as well, non-muslims will have same rights as any muslim citizen.
in history minorities like the jews migrated to muslim lands because they faced persecution in europe.

And that exactly is what @FaujHistorian is trying to say ; Islam & Republic/political democracy are incompatible

democracy and republic is basically failed by them selves as well.
what needs to be done is have mixture of different things. for example communism is pure evil by it self but watering it down can do wonders for a society.
the only thing islamic about the government in an islamic republic would be that like its laws will be inspired by islam.
people of the land will still elect all officials, we don't need to permanent posts for any officials like a king or a khalifa that rules for life.
what you and @FaujHistorian don't seem to understand what democracy or a republic really is lol.

No brother , its a very important issue and is highly relevant
The so called "Islamic Provisions" in our constitution provide shelter to Islamic Terrorists/Extremists ...

i hate to burst your bubble but pakistan will be a islamic republic for a good long time me and you in our life times will never see a secular pakistan.
try not to confuse "secularism" with "republic" they are 2 different things.

 

[FaujHistorian]

......
they can and they do @Talon is a female and she will explain to you about this.
if you ask her..

Me thinks you are picking wrong example. She dumped Islamist countries and now enjoys secular environment that truly protects women's rights.

Just like you my dear just like you.


peace

 

[qamar1990]

There are only 4 self-claimed "Islamic Republics" in the world ..

1) Islamic Republic of Pakistan
2) Islamic Republic of Iran
3) Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
4) Islamic Republic of Mauritania

ok….. iran actually made more progress economically being a islamic republic, they certain need to get rid of the ayatollah because there is no room for that kind of figure in a islamic republic.
pakistan really is a good islamic republic its just that some laws certain do need to be changed, for example the law about ahmadis and punishment for apostates.the corruption will be eradicated as our country makes progress and please don't try to blame the corruption on pakistan being"islamic" because all third world countries are facing similar situations.

By what standards/criteria a "Islamic Republic" is better than a NORMAL Republic ?????
(plz base your answers on "ground realities" and not on some "hypothetical future scenarios" or "Religious Optimism")

its probably not better nor is it worse, but if people of the islamic republic are muslims and they want their country to be an islamic republic then there is no problem with it!, for example by being "an islamic republic" our soldiers believe that they are gods soldiers and are very brave they believe that they are fighting the good fight and that i believe is a good thing to have.
Also by being an "islamic republic" we have better relationship with fellow muslim countries. for example muslims in india sold their gold to send money to turkey about 100 years ago so they could win the war, the turks today are very thankful for that help. even though muslims of india should get that credit as well but pakistan gets all of it instead because we represent the muslims of south asia.

i live in america and i interact with muslims from all over the world and i know how much they love pakistan, because they see us as a country that will actually get somewhere one day and also being islamic republic they feel close to us. they like us better then bengalis or even turks in general. beucase we are more islamic.

Me thinks you are picking wrong example. She dumped Islamist countries and now enjoys secular environment that truly protects women's rights.

Just like you my dear just like you.


peace

she puts you in your place that why you have a problem with her lol.

i enjoy the freedom to do anything, but so do most pakistanis as well if the laws of pakistan actually gets applied!!! the thing is that the government needs to get balls and start giving people their rights which they have, and they need to get rid of stupid laws like calling ahmadis non-muslims ( @Pakistani Exile )

instead of actually talking shit on the internet perhaps you should just help educate a few kids in pakistan, we expats already are saving the whole countries *** perhaps you lazy fucks in pakistan should start helping educate your fellow pakistanis and encourage them to go to school instead of eating our heads on this forum.

 

[FaujHistorian]

ok….. iran actually made more progress economically being a islamic republic, .

yaar bhai sahib

meri jaan bhai

why are you hell bent on spreading ignorance.

Iran's economy during Shah was showing 1 dollar = some 60 ryals.

Iran's economy during Ayatullah's inept hands shows 1 dollar= 25,000 to 35,000 ryals.

And you hold them as a forkign model of progress.

Wow.

Mulalhs can definitely make their followers blind and deaf. They definitely can.

power black magic perhaps.

 

[qamar1990]

yaar bhai sahib

meri jaan bhai

why are you hell bent on spreading ignorance.

Iran's economy during Shah was showing 1 dollar = some 60 ryals.

Iran's economy during Ayatullah's inept hands shows 1 dollar= 25,000 to 35,000 ryals.

And you hold them as a forkign model of progress.

Wow.

Mulalhs can definitely make their followers blind and deaf. They definitely can.

power black magic perhaps.

why are spreading lies?
the whole world knows iran made more progress under the islamic government!!!
if you say otherwise then your either very ignorant or a pathological liar.

what the price of their currency is not a big deal. and what ever happened with that is very recent because of the sanctions, so stop lying and spreading bs