Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

Some brothers were discussing democracy vs. theocracy.

Democracy has more than one form.

Theocracy is a form of an Oligarchy.

Pros and Cons of each?

Refer to these links for details:

Forms of Government - Wikipedia

Forms of Government - Scholastic

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Salam I'm one of supporters of this system , during Iran history the system that inspired from western countries was a poison for Iran ,that current system of Government of Iran is one of them  which 

Which form of government will appeal to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى?

Islam is the truth so I do not see why you, as a muslim, would want to question whether or not to implement its laws or if another religion should be chosen instead. Since when has the opinion of

  • Veteran Member

My personal opinion is that any form of government will appeal to a group of people and not appeal to another group of people.

There are pros and cons of each so as such it doesn't really matter.

There are people in Iraq who say they were better of under the dictatorship of Saddam than they are now under the democracy of the West.

Asians, Europeans, Africans, Americans  leave the democracy of their countries to live happily under ME dictatorships.

What truly matters is the freedom and respect afforded to citizens.

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Some brothers were discussing democracy vs. theocracy.

Democracy has more than one form.

Theocracy is a form of an Oligarchy.

Pros and Cons of each?

Refer to these links for details:

Forms of Government - Wikipedia

Forms of Government - Scholastic

All forms are inherently flawed because all involve Humans and anytime you have a Human involved you have the possibility of corruption and eventual failure.

Only time we're going to have a perfect govt. will be with the Oligarchy established by the arrival of the 12th Imam (AS) and then during the rule after that of Prophet Isa (AS) after the Imam's (AS) martyrdom. Until then its all flawed concepts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
38 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Brother @ShiaMan14, read this and tell me what you think;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Kuwait

It's aristocracy veiled under democracy. The line, "   The prime minister is a member of the ruling family and is appointed by the Emir.  " gives it away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

It's aristocracy veiled under democracy. The line, "   The prime minister is a member of the ruling family and is appointed by the Emir.  " gives it away.

Yea I wouldn't mind it. Look at their economy and how stable it is. Lol. Means they're doing something right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Carlzone said:

So what are you saying really? 

Which form would you choose?

I am saying they are all one and the same. Americans laud democracy but live quite well in UAE/Qatar/Kuwait/Bahrain.

I choose to live in America because it gives me the most opportunities. I could be a drug-addicted, alcoholic womanizer in the best Islamic country or be the most pious of men in a decadent society. 

The onus is on the person. We shouldn't use society as a crutch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, IbnSina said:

Which form of government will appeal to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى?

 

55 minutes ago, Akbar673 said:

All forms are inherently flawed because all involve Humans and anytime you have a Human involved you have the possibility of corruption and eventual failure.

Only time we're going to have a perfect govt. will be with the Oligarchy established by the arrival of the 12th Imam (AS) and then during the rule after that of Prophet Isa (AS) after the Imam's (AS) martyrdom. Until then its all flawed concepts.

While no doubt the best would the rulership under our Imam Mahdi (as), it would still depend on us. We have to help him be successful just like Imam Ali (as) had Malik Al-Ashtar.

But for every Malik Al-Ashtar, there are thousands of Abu Musa Al-Asharis.

3 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Yea I wouldn't mind it. Look at their economy and how stable it is. Lol. Means they're doing something right.

Exactly. Economic freedom is more important than "democracy".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
31 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I am saying they are all one and the same. Americans laud democracy but live quite well in UAE/Qatar/Kuwait/Bahrain.

I choose to live in America because it gives me the most opportunities. I could be a drug-addicted, alcoholic womanizer in the best Islamic country or be the most pious of men in a decadent society. 

The onus is on the person. We shouldn't use society as a crutch. 

As human beings we have a tendency to conform. This is known in psychology. 

This means that most people will conform with the larger society, especially as time passes. There are strong momins yes, but they are few. Most immigrants assimilate with the larger society in 3 generations. There are studies that show this. After that there will be no differences between the natives and the old immigrants in the way they live. One must be really strong in conviction in order to stand against these forces. 

Therefore it is important to choose a system that promotes islam so that the likelihood of people conforming to Islamic practices increases. 

This will not be perfected until imam Mahdi a.a.f. reappears but it should not hinder us from doing our best to achieve that until then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
16 minutes ago, Carlzone said:

As human beings we have a tendency to conform. This is known in psychology. 

This means that most people will conform with the larger society, especially as time passes. There are strong momins yes, but they are few. Most immigrants assimilate with the larger society in 3 generations. There are studies that show this. After that there will be no differences between the natives and the old immigrants in the way they live. One must be really strong in conviction in order to stand against these forces. 

Therefore it is important to choose a system that promotes islam so that the likelihood of people conforming to Islamic practices increases. 

This will not be perfected until imam Mahdi a.a.f. reappears but it should not hinder us from doing our best to achieve that until then.

I agree with you up to a point but please remember that even during the time of the Prophet, the majority of the world was non-Muslim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I agree with you up to a point but please remember that even during the time of the Prophet, the majority of the world was non-Muslim.

Do you mean that this will be a problem for non-Muslims if we had an Islamic government? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

The danger of theocracy the same as the danger of monarchy. Both of these work great as long as the leaders are good and put the needs of the people first. They are risky because not all who become the leader will be good. 

The unique danger of theocracy is that it is easily confused with actual religion. A government based on religious values is great. A government that dictates religious values is not so great, though the common citizen is unlikely to distinguish the two. 

 

There is no perfect system of government. Each people must choose and establish what works for them, and change them out through revolution as needed. Each system has strengths and weaknesses. The people need to fully use the strengths and be aware of and take steps to mitigate the results of the weaknesses. 

 

Edited by notme
Typo.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Carlzone said:

Most immigrants assimilate with the larger society in 3 generations. There are studies that show this.

That's why we're all speaking Powhatan around here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, notme said:

That's why we're all speaking Powhatan around here. 

In general this is what happens. One will always find exceptions. But on the other hand one can find exceptions in the other direction as well. Some leave religion and everything behind, even change to European names, as soon as they move to a new country. It didn't even take one generation for them to leave everything behind.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
17 minutes ago, Carlzone said:

In general this is what happens. One will always find exceptions. But on the other hand one can find exceptions in the other direction as well. Some leave religion and everything behind, even change to European names, as soon as they move to a new country. It didn't even take one generation for them to leave everything behind.

 

Religion has no location. What is wrong with people participating in the culture of their community, so long as it doesn't violate the religion? And how is culture relevant to system of government? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If I have understood it correctly, then some argue that since Islamic governing cannot be perfected without a perfect leader, the Imam(ajf), its a bad idea since it will give people a bad image of Islam.

But following that logic, we should not be muslims either, because we cannot be perfect muslims, that could give people a bad image of Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, notme said:

Religion has no location. What is wrong with people participating in the culture of their community, so long as it doesn't violate the religion? And how is culture relevant to system of government? 

It's when it violates religion that is the problem.

The system of government will forbid practices that are unislamic, thus limiting the unislamic practices that the culture promotes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
12 minutes ago, Carlzone said:

It's when it violates religion that is the problem.

Agree, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with participating in a culture, as long as it doesn't violate Islam. For example, my family enjoys a nice halal cookout from time to time. 

Can you give some examples where a democratic government has voted to allow sinful cultural practices? (I can think of a couple, but not many.)

12 minutes ago, Carlzone said:

The system of government will forbid practices that are unislamic, thus limiting the unislamic practices that the culture promotes.

This would be a strength of an Islamic government, but in my opinion it doesn't outweigh the risk. Obviously my opinion isn't the only one in the world, nor does it count for much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
41 minutes ago, notme said:

Agree, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with participating in a culture, as long as it doesn't violate Islam. For example, my family enjoys a nice halal cookout from time to time. 

Can you give some examples where a democratic government has voted to allow sinful cultural practices? (I can think of a couple, but not many.)

This would be a strength of an Islamic government, but in my opinion it doesn't outweigh the risk. Obviously my opinion isn't the only one in the world, nor does it count for much. 

Yes there's nothing wrong with participating if it doesn't violate religion. 

I don't know if they always vote about everything, but where I live it is allowed to do zina, to do adultery, drink alcohol and it is a very "normal" part of the society. If one doesn't drink alcohol one is considered very strange.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
19 minutes ago, Carlzone said:

I don't know if they always vote about everything, but where I live it is allowed to do zina, to do adultery, drink alcohol and it is a very "normal" part of the society. If one doesn't drink alcohol one is considered very strange.

There can never be laws regulating everything. Even from an Islamic perspective, anything not prohibited is permitted. Smoking cigarettes used to be allowed for Muslims until science proved that it was self harm. New things will always be invented. Therefore, not having a law prohibiting something proves nothing.

Adultery and fornication are actually illegal where i live, though the laws are rarely enforced.  Nobody wants government agents peeping into homes.

Plenty of non-Muslims do not drink alcohol, so it's not at all weird to not drink here. However, alcohol was one of the examples i was thinking of, of a sinful thing being permitted by law. The United States government did outlaw alcohol for a time, but the problem of abuse was made worse since they had not put in place a way to deal with the addicts. The law ended up being revoked since a solution was not apparent.

The other example i thought of is abortion, which, again, had been made illegal until the courts struck down the law. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, Carlzone said:

As human beings we have a tendency to conform. This is known in psychology. 

This means that most people will conform with the larger society, especially as time passes. There are strong momins yes, but they are few. Most immigrants assimilate with the larger society in 3 generations. There are studies that show this. After that there will be no differences between the natives and the old immigrants in the way they live. One must be really strong in conviction in order to stand against these forces. 

Therefore it is important to choose a system that promotes islam so that the likelihood of people conforming to Islamic practices increases. 

This will not be perfected until imam Mahdi a.a.f. reappears but it should not hinder us from doing our best to achieve that until then.

Same thing happened with Jews in America. Those who were able to keep Jewish religious practice were the "ultra-orthodox" who isolated themselves from secular society. They totally kept their traditions, language, religion, etc. Other Jews in America have by in large lost it or totally assimilated or will in the future. This is why I think its bad for Muslims to live in western countries generally. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Same thing happened with Jews in America. Those who were able to keep Jewish religious practice were the "ultra-orthodox" who isolated themselves from secular society. They totally kept their traditions, language, religion, etc. Other Jews in America have by in large lost it or totally assimilated or will in the future. This is why I think its bad for Muslims to live in western countries generally. 

I agree. I even think that I once read that it's wajib to move back if one risks losing ones religion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, IbnSina said:

If I have understood it correctly, then some argue that since Islamic governing cannot be perfected without a perfect leader, the Imam(ajf), its a bad idea since it will give people a bad image of Islam.

But following that logic, we should not be muslims either, because we cannot be perfect muslims, that could give people a bad image of Islam.

You've understood incorrectly brother. You are looking at perfection from your perspective only. We are saying any form of government will alienate a certain group of people.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Same thing happened with Jews in America. Those who were able to keep Jewish religious practice were the "ultra-orthodox" who isolated themselves from secular society. They totally kept their traditions, language, religion, etc. Other Jews in America have by in large lost it or totally assimilated or will in the future. This is why I think its bad for Muslims to live in western countries generally. 

That is true. But the discussion is most best place to live, it's best form of government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Carlzone said:

I agree. I even think that I once read that it's wajib to move back if one risks losing ones religion. 

This is true. It's also wajib to move away if staying damages one's religion. Migration to avoid oppression is always wajib, but that has nothing to do with system of government. That is related to, for example, living in a location that prohibits hijab or criminalizes prayer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, notme said:

This is true. It's also wajib to move away if staying damages one's religion. Migration to avoid oppression is always wajib, but that has nothing to do with system of government. That is related to, for example, living in a location that prohibits hijab or criminalizes prayer. 

The order in every level of the society affects the individual in the end. For instance if the system of government in the place one lives in creates laws that allows fasad and that leads to a corrupt society which in turn creates a social pressure towards fasad and that pressure makes some Muslims weak and start straying from the right path, then that system of government did have a part in this happening. Of course a strong Islamic conviction can fight those influences but why run in a thunderstorm if you can run under a clear blue sky?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

You've understood incorrectly brother. You are looking at perfection from your perspective only. We are saying any form of government will alienate a certain group of people.

Well even if an Islamic government alienates some people, it's still for their own good. They just don't know what is best for them and therefor oppose islam. Islam will not harm them. Islam just wants a decent society. And also, there is protection for other minorities in Islam. It's not like we are gonna do thulm on them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

You've understood incorrectly brother. You are looking at perfection from your perspective only. We are saying any form of government will alienate a certain group of people.

 

Which group of people would a Islamic society alienate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
55 minutes ago, Carlzone said:

Well even if an Islamic government alienates some people, it's still for their own good. They just don't know what is best for them and therefor oppose islam. Islam will not harm them. Islam just wants a decent society. And also, there is protection for other minorities in Islam. It's not like we are gonna do thulm on them. 

Well even if a Christian government alienates some people, it's still for their own good. They just don't know what is best for them and therefor oppose Christianity. Christianity will not harm them. Christianity just wants a decent society. And also, there is protection for other minorities in Christianity. It's not like they are gonna do thulm on us. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
13 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

Which group of people would a Islamic society alienate?

Non-Muslims...

Keep in mind, we are not discussing Islam or a specific religion.

First you establish the form of government. If everyone accepts theocracy, then you can delve into which religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...