Secular Or Religious Government?

[Chaotic Muslem]

Salam

 

The question of the title is a very common among modern day Shia. I often read around arguments between those who support secular governments and those who support religious government (be it in theory or in practice)

 

Classically, Shia scholars are teaching the commons that what matters is justice. That we should prefer to live under a just system even if the ruler was not a Muslim. An often used example is the king of Habasha.

 

Justice is seen as the objective of political islamic laws.

Wealth distribution and social justice in a way that preserve the individual capital is the objective of the islamic economic laws.

Family health and centrality in the social network of the community is the objective of Islamic social and marital laws ( pre marital relations will not secure the right of the children due to a lack of a legal document, LGTB life style lack the ability to tom blood ties which are essential and stressed upon in Islamic thoughts etc)

 

Maqasid AlDin or the objectives of the islamic laws is usually discussed by Sunnis. Maybe it is that the sunni scholars were the first to coin the term. But the concept of Maqasid AlDin cannot be foreign to Shia thought.

 

A great example of it is the Khutba of ALZahra. I couldn't find a short, concise video, or video with pleasant English. I found a video with Iraqi speaker who's English is the typical heavy Arabic one.

 

[Deewan]

^FYI, that's Dr Khalil Tabatabai, president of the Imam Hussain Foundation (which has centers in cities across the globe), based in Montreal, Canada.

[iCambrian]

A secular government in my opinion is the better decision.  When it comes to religion, you have a lot of subjectivity amongst believers, so to put one group in charge of another by default is going to lead to some sort of stigma.

 

This is why secular governments exist today, because people recognized great challenges with setting one religious group over another.

 

Aside from that though, hypothetically, a divinely led Islamic government would be great, but without any divine beings, we are left with flawed people who often make mistakes with management. An Islamic government, in my opinion, or even a Christian government or jewish government etc, likely isn't going to fair well with its minorities. Not without some sort of a secular basis.

[El Cid]

These aren't the dark ages anymore, a secular government is the way to go. Religion should be taken as religion.

[Chaotic Muslem]

You all failed and fall to the trap os labels which will make you an easy target to be duped by empty slogans that are raised by both religious political groups and secular political groups.

 

The title dose not mean much.

 

I wonder how many of you bothered to listen to the lecture or read about the topic.

[Qa'im]

One cannot separate politics from ethics, and ethics is related to religion. You can't compartmentalize "religion" to just being a daily meditation, a weekly temple attendance, and an annual commemoration. Separating politics from religion is like separating biology from psychology. Our minds put the two in different categories to simplify or systematize knowledge and information, but the two are interrelated and interdependent. Humans have a way of organizing and categorizing different ideas, but that does not change that life is really just one big cauldron with all the ingredients mixed in: psychology, biology, sociology, anthropology, spirituality, politics, etc.

 

Western secularism and humanism are simply outgrowths of the Western Christian experience. Even if you don't see or hear the name of Jesus or attend church, Western ideas on politics, gender relations, etc. are all rooted in Western ethics and morality. Religion, especially Islam, is related to every thing you think and do.

[Ethics]

One cannot separate politics from ethics, and ethics is related to religion. You can't compartmentalize "religion" to just being a daily meditation, a weekly temple attendance, and an annual commemoration. Separating politics from religion is like separating biology from psychology. Our minds put the two in different categories to simplify or systematize knowledge and information, but the two are interrelated and interdependent. Humans have a way of organizing and categorizing different ideas, but that does not change that life is really just one big cauldron with all the ingredients mixed in: psychology, biology, sociology, anthropology, spirituality, politics, etc.

 

Western secularism and humanism are simply outgrowths of the Western Christian experience. Even if you don't see or hear the name of Jesus or attend church, Western ideas on politics, gender relations, etc. are all rooted in Western ethics and morality. Religion, especially Islam, is related to every thing you think and do.

[El Cid]

One cannot separate politics from ethics, and ethics is related to religion. You can't compartmentalize "religion" to just being a daily meditation, a weekly temple attendance, and an annual commemoration. Separating politics from religion is like separating biology from psychology. Our minds put the two in different categories to simplify or systematize knowledge and information, but the two are interrelated and interdependent. Humans have a way of organizing and categorizing different ideas, but that does not change that life is really just one big cauldron with all the ingredients mixed in: psychology, biology, sociology, anthropology, spirituality, politics, etc.

 

Western secularism and humanism are simply outgrowths of the Western Christian experience. Even if you don't see or hear the name of Jesus or attend church, Western ideas on politics, gender relations, etc. are all rooted in Western ethics and morality. Religion, especially Islam, is related to every thing you think and do.

[Chair Pundit]

The statement "ethics is compatible with politics" is used as an oversimplification to exploit the inner prejudices.

- Chair Pundit

[ImamAliLover]

أَفَحُكمَ الجاهِلِيَّةِ يَبغونَ ۚ وَمَن أَحسَنُ مِنَ اللَّـهِ حُكمًا لِقَومٍ يوقِنونَ

[5:50] Saheeh International

Then is it the judgement of [the time of] ignorance they desire? But who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who are certain [in faith].

 

وَمَن لَم يَحكُم بِما أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولـٰئِكَ هُمُ الكافِرونَ

And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.

 

وَمَن لَم يَحكُم بِما أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولـٰئِكَ هُمُ الظّالِمونَ

And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

 

وَليَحكُم أَهلُ الإِنجيلِ بِما أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فيهِ ۚ وَمَن لَم يَحكُم بِما أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولـٰئِكَ هُمُ الفاسِقونَ

[5:47] Saheeh International

And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

[Jahangiram]

One of the best arguments for secularism that eventually caused it to dominate western politics is the fact that when convincing people your faith is true you shouldn't need outward pressure as an addition to the convincing.

 

The only thing here is, probably 95% of those exporting this discourse to the muslim world have no idea what rights Islamic texts have afforded dhimmis (non-muslim citizens), or at least the nuances of those rights. `For example no one would even imagine books of fiqh afforded minorities the right to administer their own punishments  for the criminals in their communities - and yet this is exactly the case! In contrast to this we currently have big debates in Europe about whether religious courts should even be allowed to merely administer family law (punishments are simply out of the question naturally!). 'One Law For All', as the militant secularists would put it. Secular countries make it a central mission to persecute any religion that is 'politicized', yet almost every religion out there has a political dimension to its teachings. Oh well, reform that religion at the point of the sword. 

 

Let's remember that much of the legal rulings of religions have a lot of rationale - 'secular reasoning' if you will - behind them; which is why many of those rules are usually maintained in modern secular countries from west to east. Provided that the conservatives win the vote ofcourse.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Jahangiram

[David66]

Hello,

 

 

One cannot separate politics from ethics, and ethics is related to religion. You can't compartmentalize "religion" to just being a daily meditation, a weekly temple attendance, and an annual commemoration. Separating politics from religion is like separating biology from psychology. Our minds put the two in different categories to simplify or systematize knowledge and information, but the two are interrelated and interdependent. Humans have a way of organizing and categorizing different ideas, but that does not change that life is really just one big cauldron with all the ingredients mixed in: psychology, biology, sociology, anthropology, spirituality, politics, etc.

 

 

[iCambrian]

People seem to get this backwards quite often.  Religion isnt the root of morality, morality is the root of religion.

 

Religion cannot exist without morality, but morality can exist without religion, and so can a secular moral government.

[myouvial]

What do you mean by secular and religious ?

 

Abu Bakar chose secular government with the robe of religion to control people. While the most religious man still lives but has been corrupted and manipulated by him (Abu Bakar and cronies).

[Chair Pundit]

The only thing here is, probably 95% of those exporting this discourse to the muslim world have no idea what rights Islamic texts have afforded dhimmis (non-muslim citizens), or at least the nuances of those rights. `For example no one would even imagine books of fiqh afforded minorities the right to administer their own punishments for the criminals in their communities - and yet this is exactly the case! In contrast to this we currently have big debates in Europe about whether religious courts should even be allowed to merely administer family law (punishments are simply out of the question naturally!). 'One Law For All', as the militant secularists would put it.

[Jahangiram]

^ Who in their right mind would tolerate incest? Yet many fuqaha were in favour of tolerating Zoroastrians practising self-marriage! (privately ofcourse)

 

And your apocalyptic vision has been disproven by history itself. The multicultural system laid out by the early jurists was effectively implemented by the Ottoman Empire for centuries under what was known as the 'millet system'. And it was a strong, cohesive and prosperous Empire in all those centuries, from Bosnia to Constantinople to Egypt.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Jahangiram

[S.M.H.A.]

Secular (Theology, Philosophy, Ethics, Psychology, Sociology, Law, Politics, Economics) -(wolf in the sheeps clothing) i.e, Atheism

 

Humans can exploit "any" system which installs them in a position of power over other human.

 

Question is which system , is better [ Secular (accountability in this world(if caught): Religious(Real, comprehensive accountability) ].

 

Secular/Atheist system - the unanswered question is "Why" be moral, ethical,lawful etc?

[Chaotic Muslem]

People seem to get this backwards quite often.  Religion isnt the root of morality, morality is the root of religion.

 

Religion cannot exist without morality, but morality can exist without religion, and so can a secular moral government.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Chaotic Muslem

[Abu Hadi]

People seem to get this backwards quite often.  Religion isnt the root of morality, morality is the root of religion.

 

Religion cannot exist without morality, but morality can exist without religion, and so can a secular moral government.

 

God is the root of religion, and religion is the root of ethics and morality. 

 

That is for people who believe in God. 

 

For people who don't believe in God, then anything could be the basis of morality, which could then be the basis of religion. 

For people who don't believe in God, then whatever your opinion is concerning morality then becomes moral, which then becomes your religion

Edited August 22, 2014 by Abu Hadi

[Chaotic Muslem]

God is the root of religion, and religion is the root of ethics and morality. 

 

That is for people who believe in God. 

 

For people who don't believe in God, then anything could be the basis of morality, which could then be the basis of religion. 

For people who don't believe in God, then whatever your opinion is concerning morality then becomes moral, which then becomes your religion

[Abu Hadi]

Salam, 

 

What I meant by the above is not that atheists have no hope, but in order to have religion and morality, you must first believe in God. 

Then you can understand religion and then morality. 

 

Morality and Ethics is a subset of religion. It concerns relationships, between  oneself and oneself, and oneself with the people. 

Religion includes this but has other aspects such as belief in Tauhid(oneness of God) and the life of the hereafter, etc. 

[iCambrian]

God is the root of religion, and religion is the root of ethics and morality. 

 

That is for people who believe in God. 

 

For people who don't believe in God, then anything could be the basis of morality, which could then be the basis of religion. 

For people who don't believe in God, then whatever your opinion is concerning morality then becomes moral, which then becomes your religion

Edited August 22, 2014 by iCambrian

[godzapostle]

For people who believe in God, then whatever your opinion is concerning morality, then becomes moral.  Which then becomes your religion.

 

How do we know this? Look at the world around us right now.

 

I would say the contrary for the prior statement as well.  For those who do not believe in God or do not believe in a specific God (such as the God depicted of the Quran or bible or torah, hindu texts, greek, polytheistic etc., you can still find a basis for morality, beyond imaginary ideas promoted by random people of your community. (not to say that I do not believe in God however)

Edited August 22, 2014 by godzapostle

[S.M.H.A.]

If man is only matter, then his actions are simply the result of mechanical Impulses. This notion, called behaviorism, is inconsistent because it directly contradicts the Humanist/Atheistic Theology and naturalistic philosophy, which claims that man is the master of his fate

 

 

It is already understood, that people will use whatever mean to oppress others, using  so-called religious or secular ideas. When Europeans were religious, they used religion for worldly territorial gains, in the current century, due to lack of religion in the west, war are fought in the name of other beliefs (freedom, democracy, capitalism, communism).

Middle East, is in the same position as european were when they used religion for wargames.

 

To use what people are doing, as an excuse for not believing in the creator, or divine religion is the oldest trick in the book. Because religious texts themselves talk about this potential in humans and they are informed to avoid committing injustice, and are given ample examples of people who committed these types of evils/injustices in the past and are told of their end in this life and afterlife. So, this line of argument is invalid.

 

It is not true that non-muslims can’t live in an Islamic state. ( google : Constitution of Medina, or Read Letter #53 Nahjul Balagha).

 

People will have you believe that secular government is ideal, how so? If 51 % of the population believes in marrying dogs then that will become the new moral of that society. So, one group (with money, power to purchase media/votes can influence) is always in control, and the rest of the population will have to follow the morals set by the majority.

 

Secular government mean that the federal government is the highest moral, ethical legal- Authority. Rules set by the powerful/resourceful for their benefit in that society. If religious organization influenced governments and policy in the past, this job is done by corporations and lobbyists(they do not represent the minority)  As you know that states rely on funding from the federal government, and federal /central government can mandate or tie funding to the states with its own agenda.

People are willing to give the divine status to a worldly government (controlled and directed by the rich and powerful who shape policy/morals) and have a problem in obeying Creators will. Why, because it serves the most powerful, its the survival of the fittest, and they have the money to buy media to indoctrinate people - show its for their benefit but is it really ? They can dictate their own will in a secular government and keep the minority oppressed.

 

Someone said look around the world- lets Look around the world, and figure out the beneficiaries of these atrocities- ( religion or secularism) ?  Its hurting religion, and benefitting who?   One of the major beneficiaries are the Defence contractor/companies- they are winning on both side of the conflict. People with money , economic interest are looking to reshape geo-political landscape , people who subscribe to secular views(rule of the majority, regardless of their ethical or moral values) who else ? use your imagination here, is Wall St - religious or secular? Are the multinational corporations ( religious or secular) - What about business ethics-  who dictate policy change in the country,  by lobbying and campaign contributions.  Secular States (demigods) are either at war or using proxies for their own benefits? We have two major high ranking  Secular States(demi gods )and their followers are at war (social, political, economic etc) against each other in every theater in the world. We have lower ranking States(mini gods) jockeying for favor with one of the two major demi gods for economic, political protection and so you have the current state of this world.

[Chaotic Muslem]

Salam, 

 

What I meant by the above is not that atheists have no hope, but in order to have religion and morality, you must first believe in God. 

Then you can understand religion and then morality. 

 

Morality and Ethics is a subset of religion. It concerns relationships, between  oneself and oneself, and oneself with the people. 

Religion includes this but has other aspects such as belief in Tauhid(oneness of God) and the life of the hereafter, etc. 

[AnaAmmar1]

its is strange when those who follow wilaya of Ali ibne Abi Talib (AS) says secular govt is better.

it goes against struggle and teachings of our Aimma (AS) 

(wasalam)

[El Cid]

its is strange when those who follow wilaya of Ali ibne Abi Talib (as) says secular govt is better.

it goes against struggle and teachings of our Aimma (as)

(wasalam)

 

I am sorry, how many people like Imam Ali(a.s) are there in the world to run said religious govt? None. Until then, we'll stick to a system that can protect all groups and rights.

[Shamati]

I believe that nations shouldnt define an official religion, but that religion should play a large role in the government of the state through the elections of representatives that are religious (if that's what the people desire). So in a majority muslim nation this would mean that the party that wins power would make sure its legislation complies with the sharia't by seeking council with the most learned scholar at the moment.

Like in Iraq, Sistani should be counciled on every legislation he deems appropriate but if another scholar shows up who is even more knowledgable, there shouldnt be a barrier to him servona the same purpose. The sunni regions should be managed by sunni representatives who legislate in their fashion & the secular region by secular ways.

The federal government shouldnt have to be too much concerned with religiosity anyway.

A big downside to having state defined clericalism is that religious institutions inevitably becomes soiled with the inherent corruption that's always present in politics as politics is about management large Sums of national wealth.

Religious institutions that are completely independent from the state (except in specific councelings) is ALOT stronger than if the state defined a religion for the above reason and because there's a fairer playing field of competition between religious institutions that are independent vs having a state defined religious institutions.

This is the reason why the church is so strong in USA but so weak in Europe: most nations of Europe are officially designated Christian states of for example lutheran(Scandinavia) or anglican (UK) denominations & christianity has declined extremely rapidly in Europe partly because of this fact.

[AnaAmmar1]

I am sorry, how many people like Imam Ali(a.s) are there in the world to run said religious govt? None. Until then, we'll stick to a system that can protect all groups and rights.

[iCambrian]

You absolutely cannot derive a basis for objective morality without God. This is not a controversial statement, even atheist philosophers are in general agreement with it.

 

This is not to say that you cannot be moral without believing in God or that everyone that believes in God is moral.

Edited August 22, 2014 by iCambrian

[Shamati]

You cannot objectively derive a basis for objective morality with belief in God either.  This too is as clear as day, as we can see around the world.

 

We can all sit here  and bicker and debate all we want.  At the end of the day, it is the heavily religious who are putting on a show for the world with their lunacy. The non believers or less religious people need not defend secularism, over religious leadership.  We can sit and let reality speak for itself as to which is more or less "moral".

[El Cid]

First of all,Islam as a Religion can protect all groups and rights.

we have pious Ulema who are deputies of our Aimma (as)

 

2ndly we shias believe that our Imam (as) havent left us,instead we have left him.We have all the responsibilities of building and helping an islamic society in occultation.

It is part of our faith.

Edited August 22, 2014 by El Cid

[godzapostle]

You cannot objectively derive a basis for objective morality with belief in God either.  This too is as clear as day, as we can see around the world.

 

We can all sit here  and bicker and debate all we want.  At the end of the day, it is the heavily religious who are putting on a show for the world with their lunacy. The non believers or less religious people need not defend secularism, over religious leadership.  We can sit and let reality speak for itself as to which is more or less "moral".

[iCambrian]

Against which universal standard to you judge what is moral or not moral? Where does this universal come from? Is it a figment of the mind?

Edited August 22, 2014 by iCambrian

[Jahangiram]

Nazis, Mussolini, the USSR, the Ba'ath party, all are secular and they've historically imposed the most oppressive regimes in the 20th century. Secularism by itself doesn't prevent people turning into crazed fanatics. The only difference is the cause will be a 'secular' worldly cause and not a religious cause. The oppression will either be done in the name of race, culture or economics.

 

So this idea that the crazed fanatics prove we need secularism doesn't hold water, as countless atrocities have been perpetrated under secular regimes as well. The Khmer Rouge can safely be said to be the secular equivalent of ISIS.