Ask a Muslim

[Salah-Al-Din]

To any Muslim, but specifically to more conservative people like Salah al-Din.

Democracy. Many posters here in CFC often point out the lack of democracy in Islamic societies. My questions to you:

1) In your view, does Islam (or the Islamic world) have a democratic tradition? In what way?

2) What do most Muslims consider as "democratic"? How is the Muslim perspective of "democracy" differs from the Western perspective?

3) Do you support the implementation of a Western-style democracy or a variation of it in Islamic societies? Can it work?

I think that Western people should stop trying to say that Muslim countries must become democracies, because they are actually just saying that the Muslim countries should become capitalistic. Democracy is just a pretty word, when capitalism is the true thing that it is. Capitalism is not compatible with the Islamic system.

I think that the focus of everyone should not be that we implement capitalism but rather that we should implement "popular sovereignity" which means that the people are ruled according to the law system they wished to be ruled by. America supports the tyrants, dictators, monarchs, and imbeciles that rule the Muslim lands, and they are the ones who help prevent popular sovereignity in the Muslim world. If the Muslims actually had popular sovereignity, then you would see a very different form of grass-roots government. But instead, popular sovereignity is stiffled and autocratic dictatorships are put in place, regimes which oppress the people and prohibit any movements that call for popular sovereignity.

America pretended to implement democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but instead what they did was facilitate the rise of their own puppet regimes. In Afghanistan, for example, all of the really popular candidates were barred from running for office. America chooses who can run for government, and then says vote amongst these people, as if that is a democracy. That is not democracy. That is a big farce.

I think all Islamists would *love* to have free and fair elections in the Muslim world. As Fareed Zakaria--the traitor of the Muslim world--said: if free and fair elections were held in the Muslim world, then Islamists would be in power, and they would all be anti-American. This is the truth. And that's why America cannot possibly afford to give free and fair elections in Afghanistan and Iraq or any other place in the Muslim world, because then it would be the Islamists who would win a landslide victory.

 

[CCA]

So because Capitalism is not compatible with Islam. Is there a chance for a form of Communism (WITHOUT THE ATHEISM) to be implemented?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

So because Capitalism is not compatible with Islam. Is there a chance for a form of Communism (WITHOUT THE ATHEISM) to be implemented?

I'm actually not qualified to answer such questions about capitalism and communism, because this is not my area of expertise. In fact, I would say that I lack in knowledge in this area. Therefore, I think I will excuse myself from this conversation. Someone who would be really knowledgeable about the Islamic stance on such forms of government would be a member of HT (Hizb Ut-Tahrir). Unfortunately, I don't think we have any HT members on this forum.

Having said that, every HT member I've come across has stated that communism is also not compatible with the Islamic system of governance. Generally, they hold that Islam has its own system which is Divine and it is superior to all "man-made" systems of governance such as capitalism and communism. I, however, have not read up much about this topic and therefore I can only answer based on hearsay.

 

[REDY]

Why capitalism is forbiden in Islam?

 

[CCA]

But what about Islamic Socialism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism
?
Can it be compatible with Islam?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I think i'll step out of the thread or else i might get banned. Because, quite frankly i can't share such view on women as you do salah without starting to be rude.

I'm an atheist, so perhaps you'll understand that my reaction would have been the same towards a christian fundie.

Oh and for the record, i'm a bastard by your definition and i'm ok with that. Marriage is a religious "stamp". Nothing more.

Lastly, whats your thoughts on this :

My use of the term "bastard" is a confusion based on language difference. In the West, this term is offensive towards the person who is illegitimate. In the Islamic context, however, this term "bastard" is aimed at the two people who conceived out of wed-lock, and not at the actual illegitimate person himself. Because there can be no blame on the person for who his parents were.

I apologize for this confusion. Trust me, it is a language barrier only. Whenever the word "bastard" is used, it is in condemnation of the parents, not of the child. As for the child, there is no blame on him. In fact, there were Sahabah--the Prophet's Companions (i.e. disciples)--who were born out of wedlock, and they are considered the highest in rank. Here is a fatwa on illegitimate children written by Amani Aboul Fadl Farag:

"He/she is considered an equal individual/citizen, who should not inherit or pay for a sin, which he/she is not responsible for. Islam denies that any person should be blamed for a sin that is committed by another person, even if that person is the father or the mother. Islam confirms that every one is only responsible for his own deeds. This has always stressed in the Qur’an:

...Every soul draws the consequences of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear of burden of another. Your goal in the end is towards God: He will tell you the truth of the things wherein ye disputed. (Quran, 6:64)

"That is the reason why Islam does not share the belief of inheriting any "original sin" and confirms the concept of original innocence. How can God punish people for things they have not done? Such is the justice of God...

"If Allah's justice demands that no one is held accountable for acts they did not commit, then how can we do so? Clearly we must not. This illustrates the basis of ethics in Islam, which states that we should behave to others with the generosity, justice, kindness and forgiveness that we hope Allah will show towards us. This is exactly what Christ taught people to pray for:

"... forgive us our traspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...".

"Thus, according to shari`a, it is forbidden for members of society to discriminate against illegitimate children or humiliate them..."

---------------------

I apologize for offending you and I realize that my wording was off.

 

[Ansar]

How many times have you been to Mecca?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Why capitalism is forbiden in Islam?

But what about Islamic Socialism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism
?
Can it be compatible with Islam?

Again, I am not qualified to answer these questions. I will try getting an HT member to answer your questions and then get back to you all. I am not qualified to answer this question for two reasons:

1) I am unfamiliar with the details of capitalism, communism, etc.
2) I am also unfamiliar with the details of the Islamic system of governance.

The HT are a group who specialize in this topic and this is what they say:

"Democracy in capitalist states is undoubtedly a ruling system that is distinct from the Islamic ruling system. This is because Islam and Capitalism are built on entirely different fundamental philosophies."

As for the reasons, I will look into those by asking one of their members, and get back to you all, Allah Willing.

This is also an interesting tid-bit:

Spoiler :

So we should also ask whether Islam is compatible with it, i.e. a free market economy, or, capitalism.

Most Islamists would reply to this question with a resounding "no!" Since they perceive Islam as an all-encompassing socio-political system, they regard capitalism as a rival and an enemy. The struggle against both communism and capitalism has been one of the standard themes in Islamist literature. Sayyid Qutb, the prominent ideologue of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, wrote a book titled Ma'arakat al-Islam wa'l-Ra's Maliyya (The Battle Between Islam and Capitalism) in 1951. At an Islamic conference held in the Spanish city of Granada on July 2003, attended by about 2,000 Muslims, a call was made to "bring about the end of the capitalist system."

So there is an entire book written by a very prominent Islamist, Sayyid Qutb, on why Islam and capitalism are not compatible. I just haven't read it yet.

 

[REDY]

Its interesting, I sadly havent known it.

 

[Sidhe]

How many times have you been to Mecca?

I'd like to follow up on this one, if you haven't since it's obligatory, when do you plan on going?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

How many times have you been to Mecca?

Twice.

I'd like to follow up on this one, if you haven't since it's obligatory, when do you plan on going?

Actually, even though I've gone twice, I've never actually done Hajj (the Greater Pilgramage). I've only done Umrah (the Lesser Pilgramage)--which I've completed twice.

Therefore, I am still due to make the Hajj, which I plan on doing a few years after I start earning, Allah Willing. Haven't really thought much into that, as to exactly when.

 

[Ansar]

Twice.

Cool.

Should a Muslim try to go to Mecca as much as possible in his/her lifetime?

 

[aneeshm]

Yes, Islam's revelation (i.e. the canon) is complete and finalized. There can be no further additions. It is considered perfected and beyond change.

However, for new problems that arise, it is permissible to use Ijtihad and Qiyas, which basically means deriving the laws from the Islamic canon by use of analogy. So for example, the Quran commands us to be prepare our steeds of war, but for the modern day we can use analogy and say that this would mean we should prepare our tanks and figher planes.

So in your view, the doors of ijtihad are not closed (as is the popular interpretation today)? The tradition of reasoning-by-analogy , qiyas, is alive and well (because it is necessary), but I thought that the doors of ijtihad were closed a long time ago.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

So in your view, the doors of ijtihad are not closed (as is the popular interpretation today)? The tradition of reasoning-by-analogy , qiyas, is alive and well (because it is necessary), but I thought that the doors of ijtihad were closed a long time ago.

There are two groups amongst the religious Muslims, which are the traditionalists and the fundamentalists.

The traditionalists include the Muqallids, groups such as the Deobandi and Barewli movements.

The fundamentalists include the Salafis.

The traditionalists believe that the gates of Ijtihad have been closed, but the fundamentalists do not. I myself am a fundamentalist, not a traditionalist. Therefore, I believe that the gates of Ijtihad are still open.

It should be noted that the traditionalists are in the middle of the spectrum, and on the left of them you have the Progressives or "liberal Muslims" (considered heretics), and on the opposite side you have fundamentalists on the right.

The traditionalists in the middle believe that the Gates of Ijtihad were closed. However, both the left (the liberals) and the right (the fundamentalists) believe that the gates never closed and in fact cannot close. Both the left and right accuse the other of using Ijtihad in a manner as to destroy Islam. The fundamentalists are strict on following only the Islamic canon and do Ijtihad based on that. The traditionalists, on the other hand, say that all the Ijtihad has already been done by past scholars so we should rely on them. However, the fundamentalists find this a type of blasphemy by placing scholars above the Islamic canon, since it would entail going to the scholars first instead of going to the canon first.

It should be noted that the Gates of Ijtihad were closed as a precautionary measure during the 12th century or so because at that time many heretical sects were being formed justifying their absurd rulings by saying this is new Ijtihad. Therefore, to prevent this heresy, the Gates of Ijtihad were closed in a reaction to them.

So Itjihad is like nuclear energy. Used in a positive fashion, it can reap great rewards. Used in a destructive fashion, it can create chaos. I believe that we have no right to close the Gates of Ijtihad, and we have to accept the risks that come along with it. Mostly, the traditionalists are wary of allowing Ijtihad because of heretical progressive scholars who flout the traditional canon using Ijtihad as a cheap justification. This is a real danger in today's world in which there are many defeatists and apologetics who are operating under the name of Islam. Nonetheless, I think they are easily identified by demanding proof from the canon, and by refuting them with the canon.

Cool.

Should a Muslim try to go to Mecca as much as possible in his/her lifetime?

Well, it is a very spiritual trip and Muslims are highly rewarded for doing Hajj. However, it should be remembered that it is but one religious ritual and there are many other parts to the religion that should not be ignored.

I have a question: why is your name "ansar"? That means "helper" in Arabic and refers to a group that helped Prophet Muhammad (s).

Also, I noticed that Spiffor had Mansa Musa as his avatar. He was Muslim.

 

[Ansar]

Well, it is a very spiritual trip and Muslims are highly rewarded for doing Hajj. However, it should be remembered that it is but one religious ritual and there are many other parts to the religion that should not be ignored.

Hajj = pilgrimage to Mecca?

Yes I know there are many other parts, I was just curious since AFAIK, Mecca is the most important spot.

I have a question: why is your name "ansar"? That means "helper" in Arabic and refers to a group that helped Prophet Muhammad (s).

I thought it was cool.

But it's also pretty cool knowing that "ansar" means helper in Arabic!

 

[Yeeek]

So i'm infidel, or worse, i don't have a god. What's going to happen to me when i die?

 

[Sidhe]

I can answer that it comes from Ansar warriors the specialised units of the Arab Civ. Horsemen with extra mobility(light armour)& reduced cost over knights. In ptw they were devastating as the only 3 move unit and in a golden age you could churn them out, a civ with a golden age could run all over everyone else. Need Iron and horses though as strategic resources. People used to think me mad for chosing them but in the middle ages they were devastating, I killed many a noob with them

Or maybe it just sounds good

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/civilizations/arabs.php

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hajj = pilgrimage to Mecca?

Yes, pilgramage to the Sacred House of God in Mecca.

Yes I know there are many other parts, I was just curious since AFAIK, Mecca is the most important spot.

WITWIAFAIK? = What in the world is AFAIK?

I thought it was cool.

You just randomly picked the name???

But it's also pretty cool knowing that "ansar" means helper in Arabic!

It specifically refers to a group that took Prophet Muhammad (s) in and gave him refuge when his life was in peril. The Ansar became the vanguard of Islam. Allah says in the Quran:

"Allah has turned in mercy to the Prophet, and to the Muhajireen and the Ansar who followed him in the hour of hardship." (Quran, 9:117)

EDIT: Oh, ok. Thanks for the explanation, Brother Sidhe.

 

[Ansar]

WITWIAFAIK? = What in the world is AFAIK?

AFAIK = As Far As I Know.

You just randomly picked the name???

Well, I picked a name which was similar to mine, and Ansar seemed to fit the bill. Plus, Ansar sounds cool.

Also, thanks for the background info.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

So i'm infidel, or worse, i don't have a god. What's going to happen to me when i die?

The basic principle is that anyone with even a grain or iota of Iman (faith) in his heart will get Paradise. And we have also been told that no human being can judge any other human being because we cannot see what is inside the hearts.

Therefore, it just might be that YOU have more Iman (faith) in your heart than I do. You see, on the Day of Judgment, your tongue will be connected to your heart, not your mind. The Angels will ask what your faith is, and you will respond what your heart says. Hence, Muslims who claim to be Muslim verbally but who are hypocrites and don't really have faith...well, they won't respond that they are Muslim.

On the other hand, a person who verbally said he was Jewish or Christian (or even athiest/Hindu/Bhuddist/etc) might on that day say that he is a Muslim.

Actually, Muslim is just the Arabic word for "submittor", referring to "one who submits to God."

The point is that Paradise is only for Muslims, but that being a Muslim simply means submitting to the Will of Allah.

Furthermore--and this is a point I cannot stress enough--we are not allowed to judge others and say he/she is going to hell or not. Only Allah knows, and only Allah is the Judge. We should be more worried about our ownselves than the fate of others.

In Islam, we believe that "kaffirs" will go to hell. It is usually translated as "infidel" but actually it translates to "rejector." It is someone who hears the Message and then rejects it. Therefore, there may be people who simply never heard of Islam (or never seriously studied it), and therefore they will not be classified as rejectors (i.e. kaffirs).

Oftentimes people will ask similar questions to Muslims in order only to galvanize the audience, as they wish for a Muslim to say "yes you will burn in Hell" so that they can portray Muslims as a mean folk who like condemning others to Hell-Fire. (I am not saying that this is *your* intention necessarily.)

Almost *all* religions on earth say that people who have XYZ beliefs will not get Paradise. Judaism and Christianity also warn against idolatery and say that those who are idolaters will be thrown into Hell. A similar stance is that of Islam.

Having said that, in Islam we are forbidden to judge other people specifically, and nobody can say "I will go to Paradise" or "you will go to Hell-Fire." We do not know what is in the hearts of people, and it could be that--despite your professed claims--you have a grain of Iman (faith) in your heart, and it is only a grain (or iota) of Iman that is required to get Paradise.

The principle in Islam is that you can say that generally speaking polythiests and idolaters will not see Paradise, but you *cannot* call any *individual* person to be a person of Hell-Fire, because that person may have a grain of Iman (faith, i.e. faith in Hanifiyyah or absolute monotheism) hidden in his heart somewhere.

In fact, Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad (s) is the most pious person ever, and yet even he said that he doesn't know what will happen to himself when he dies, wether or not he will get Paradise or not. Allah commands him in the Quran:

“Say (O Muhammed), ‘I am not different from other messengers. I have no idea what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is revealed to me. I am no more than a profound warner.’” (Quran, 46:9)

One of the Prophet's disciples (i.e. the Sahabah) used to lament that he was so sinful that he feared Hell-Fire, even though he was actually the most pious of people. This is the example that the Muslims are encouraged to emulate. No matter what stage of piety you are at, you should never think you are going to Paradise and view yourself as superior to anyone else, because this would be Khibr (arrogance) which is forbidden. Everyone should have humility since nobody knows their eventual destination.