Jump to content
Sumerian

National sovereignty

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Is there a limit to the principle of national sovereignty or is it unconditional?

Should countries have the right to do whatever they want in their own countries without the interference of other countries at all? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reza said:

Most definitely NOT a wind up.

:sign_war:

1) you're not meant to derail my thread, follow the rules that you are meant to enforce

2) a wind up is not the intention. In my O.P I didn't mention any specific entity for a reason, I would rather the answers remain general the same way the question is

3) perhaps you want a wind up.

Either way, it would be best if you delete your comment and my comment from this thread, so that the topic can be answered and discussed without interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Is there a limit to the principle of national sovereignty or is it unconditional?

Should countries have the right to do whatever they want in their own countries without the interference of other countries at all? 

That's an interesting question and I hope it leads to good discussion. 

No, it isn't unconditional. We Muslims have an obligation to oppose all forms of oppression. If people are being oppressed, we as a community should intervene. 

However, things like dress codes, economic policies, treaties, criminal and social laws, each nation has a right to set their own. 

With that in mind, the people of any nation have a right and in some cases an obligation to rise up against government who aren't acting in the interest the people, and if they seek outside help, it's within the rights of the other nation or group to form an alliance with the revolutionaries or not, or to align with the standing government or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, notme said:

If people are being oppressed, we as a community should intervene. 

Problem with this is what is oppression and what is the limit to it that justifies invasion. What is and what isnt oppression is totally dependent on worldview. From a western perspective Iran is totally oppressive therefore invading it is justified to "free" the Iranian people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they do not have this right. It is not that foreign intervention is never justified, it is just that throughout history such interventions have usually made things worse and were not well-intentioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, repenter said:

In that case if it was truly international instead of 5 countries ruling...then i would say its ok? 

As l remember from class, we covered single country interventions, but not the conditions and all required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion intervention should only be sought if the country that wishes to intervene has 1) righteous principles, is 2) strong enough to intervene and be victorious and 3) the country which they want to intervene in is an oppressive regime which oppresses other Muslims and especially Shi'a Muslims.

@notme revolutions should only be supported if they are righteous revolutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Is there a limit to the principle of national sovereignty or is it unconditional?

Should countries have the right to do whatever they want in their own countries without the interference of other countries at all? 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough question. It depends on the type of intervention. If the intervention is designed to directly violate the huquq of people, then it is haram. If the intervention is in the form of military expansionism without an Imam, then that may be problematic, unless you believe that the Wali al-Faqih has all of the tashri`i prerogatives of the Imam. If the intervention is in the form of `urfi transactions (cultural, soft-power), then that's permissible, as long as the motives are not ethically subversive. It is wajib kifa'i for us to be against all oppression everywhere, but our intervention has to be ethical. The extreme of absolute sovereignty is what is happening to the Rohingya Muslims, where a state is ethnically cleansing its Muslim population "legally". It's incumbent on us (collectively) to hate what Myanmar is doing and aid the victims to their crimes. That aid can even be in the form of giving them a means to defend themselves. As for the UN Charter, there may be areas of overlap with our ethics, but overall it is not binding on us, and it does not really matter what kind of intervention they support and what kind they condemn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sumerian said:

I mean from a Muslim point of view

I think it falls under amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar then.

The concept of national borders does not apply when speaking of muslims because muslims are a collective group, if only we could remember that.

Edited by IbnSina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Qa'im said:

Tough question. It depends on the type of intervention. If the intervention is designed to directly violate the huquq of people, then it is haram. If the intervention is in the form of military expansionism without an Imam, then that may be problematic, unless you believe that the Wali al-Faqih has all of the tashri`i prerogatives of the Imam. If the intervention is in the form of `urfi transactions (cultural, soft-power), then that's permissible, as long as the motives are not ethically subversive. It is wajib kifa'i for us to be against all oppression everywhere, but our intervention has to be ethical. The extreme of absolute sovereignty is what is happening to the Rohingya Muslims, where a state is ethnically cleansing its Muslim population "legally". It's incumbent on us (collectively) to hate what Myanmar is doing and aid the victims to their crimes. That aid can even be in the form of giving them a means to defend themselves. As for the UN Charter, there may be areas of overlap with our ethics, but overall it is not binding on us, and it does not really matter what kind of intervention they support and what kind they condemn.

Apparently Sayyed Al-Khoei declared it wajib or permissible (cant remember) to uprise against an apostate ruler. I heard that in a lecture. Not sure how authentic that is, but I remember the Shaykh referred us to the source which was one of the Sayyed's books.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

What about the Uighurs? Rohyngya? etc.

Internal problem to China and Burma.

Both countries view them as dissidents respectively and are trying to crush them. It's wrong but at the same time, they are a sovereign state.

OP question was do they have a right to do whatever they want -  Yes. Do I have to like it or agree with it - no.

If you are okay with interference in China and Burma, then you should be okay with American interference anywhere in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I think they should arm the UNSC. Nationalism is stupid anyway, best way is to create a body that will comprise of people from diff countries, and that will be well armed to respond to any violations of int'l law.

What if a country doesn't believe in international law or international bodies being above it? What if it wants ultimate power within its borders without any exterior interference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

What if a country doesn't believe in international law or international bodies being above it? What if it wants ultimate power within its borders without any exterior interference?

Internal politics is tricky, I think you have to have an independent judiciary to hold executive branch accountable. I think every country should be held accountable with no exception. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we should keep things minimal especially if the other country which has their own sovereignty doenst ask for help. then that [country] shouldn’t interfere

individiuals and religious revolutions really fall out of this kind of categorization 

countries or governments shouldn’t interfere unless it’s been asked for help and has a means to

ie pretty much what Iran is doing [country wise] 

sending out religious scholars to countries depraved of religion and morality doenst infringe on sovereignty and if it brings revolution well its was God brought :)

and if a person wants to help out then they should like our religious obligation to help those in need

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×