• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The history of Muslim (Islam) as rulers

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
To my Muslim friends on the board -

In the US there has been some outcry about Ihan Omar's comments about Israel - whether right or wrong - we can debate that in the political forum - BUT i as a somewhat biased individual wanted to ask this question and see what the answers are:

Other than Indonesia - perhaps there is no Islamic state that allows equal rights to women or allows other religions to practice openly

Remember the second largest concentration of Muslims is in India - and while you may hear (some true) accounts of Hindu nationalism - there are Muslim Universities and Mosques galore and the state of affairs would not have gotten to where it is without a modicum of tolerance from the majority population

Same towards refugees from Muslim African countries (such as Somalia) in Europe and parts of the US

But when I look back to 1300's - Mohammed Ghori, followed by Mohammed Ghazni - then Jehangir and Aurangzeb - it would appear that every time that there are Islamic leaning individuals in power - Shari'ah becomes the law and the kafirs have to pay the Jazi'yah

The middle Sikh history is replete with struggles against a regime bent on Muslim conversion and even now the ISIS while it was still in power - talked about establishing a Caliphate and applying Shari'ah law banning music and education of females etc.

I know the Qu'ran is also a politico - religious document - and indeed just the other day came the news that the largest Muslim organization in Indonesia has requested that the word kafir not be used anymore.

So - where does the truth lie? I know the Sunnis and Shia's have different viewpoints and some of the Sikh practices such as the singing of hymns is very similar to Sufi Mystic practices. Also there is the undeniable stories of Ghani Khan and Nabi Khan and Nawab Sher Khan during the trial of the Guru's younger sons - so no - in no way shape or form - condemning the religion or its people but - the question remains - should they be allowed to rule a multi cultural population?
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
No country's laws should be based on a single religion.

Ideally the laws should be accepting of all religions (and none) and make its laws based on knowledge, common sense and not dogma.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
where does the truth lie?

We have groups in the all the major religions that want the country's laws to follow their scripture. This is true of the "America is a Christian Country" types in the USA, the Muslims as you've noted, the Hindus in India, The Buddhists in Burma and the Jews in Israel.

This is especially notable historically if we look back at the last 1000 years or so and consider the time when the Pope was the de factor secular ruler of Europe etc.

The theological justification seems to hardly matter to those that believe this. If they can find something in their scripture to support their beliefs, they'll of course us that. If they can't, they'll fall back on "we are the Truth and it is thus our right to rule according to what we believe is the Truth".

The question to me becomes "how do we prevent such "true believers" from trying to turn nations back into outmoded and obsolete systems?
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I am a , American convert to Sunni Islam and was very active for 7+ years. From the classes we were taught at the Masjids, my own feeling is that the best Islam was while Muhammad PBUH was alive. He authored "The Constitution of Medina" and I think must have been a sweet man. Sadly, I think that Islam largely died with him. After that, his successors took it in a very dark direction. The Sunni/Shia rift is because the Sunni wanted to elect a leader and the Shia wanted birth succession. The fact that they have not been able to settle that conflict in 1400+ years goes a long way to disillusion me.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I am a , American convert to Sunni Islam and was very active for 7+ years. From the classes we were taught at the Masjids, my own feeling is that the best Islam was while Muhammad PBUH was alive. He authored "The Constitution of Medina" and I think must have been a sweet man.

A very sweet man who "forcefully converted " most of the Arabian Peninsula to his new faith"
Muhammad and the Faith of Islam [ushistory.org]
Muhammad fought a number of battles against the people of Mecca. In 629, Muhammad returned to Mecca with an army of 1500 converts to Islam and entered the city unopposed and without bloodshed. Before his death two years later, he forcefully converted most of the Arabian Peninsula to his new faith and built a small empire.
How do you think that sweet man accomplished that forceful conversion?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Problems start when Religion and political laws get mixed. they should not be mixed in my view
I agree, especially because it's all too tempting for the religious and political leaders to work in cahoots to drive a partisan agenda.that allows them to dominate in both arenas. It's sortofa nasty and potentially oppressive version of "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine".
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Islaam is inherently political in nature. There is no real solution to that.

It is certainly true that multitudes of Muslims are virtuous in many and varied ways.

But it is IMO a serious mistake to assume that Islaam is consistently helpful in attaining that reality.

We should keep in mind that, in the absence of clear motivation to the contrary, most people are indeed at least decent, and often more virtuous than they have been taught that they should strive to be.

While a core goal of most religions, including Islaam, is to develop moral virtue, it does not necessarily follow that any success on that field should be credited to some faith or combination of faiths that happen to be present in the scene. Such advancements very often happen in spite of said doctrines as opposed to because of them.

As a matter of fact, a solid mark of healthy doctrine is its ability to learn and improve itself from such situations.

Because I have observed all that, I happen to hold an opinion regarding Muslims and Islaam as a doctrine that seems to be in direct opposition to that of nearly all Muslims (understandably, given the self-imposed constraints of Islaam). Namely, that far from being a source of divinely-revealed perfection, Islaam is actually a very flawed doctrine and probably can't very well endure much longer. By rights it should not have lasted nearly as much as it did.

For the most part we fail to notice that very clearly, because most Muslims are sincere in their practice and go above and beyond what is taught, correcting some of the most serious mistakes of the doctrine without even realizing that those mistakes exist.

That is by no means a situation exclusive to Islaam. It is however very consequential in that doctrine.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Namely, that far from being a source of divinely-revealed perfection, Islaam is actually a very flawed doctrine and probably can't very well endure much longer. By rights it should not have lasted nearly as much as it did.

When you speak of the demise of Islam, you fail to take into account...
  • the intense indoctrination Islam imposes on its young.
  • the harshness of the penalties Islam imposes on those who speak against it.
  • the harshness of the penalties Islam imposes on those who would leave.
  • that it is the officially sanctioned religion of many Governments.
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
By rights it should not have lasted nearly as much as it did.
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion - Islam had a huge middle eastern empire over 1000 years and again seems poised to become the world's largest religion in terms of sheer numbers by 2030-2050 somewhere - so for all its perceived flaws - there must be something that appeals to its adherents
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
When you speak of the demise of Islam, you fail to take into account...
  • the intense indoctrination Islam imposes on its young.
  • the harshness of the penalties Islam imposes on those who speak against it.
  • the harshness of the penalties Islam imposes on those who would leave.
  • that it is the officially sanctioned religion of many Governments.

All of those count both as explanations for its lasting power and as decisive reasons why it will doubtless collapse under its own weight.


While you are certainly entitled to your opinion - Islam had a huge middle eastern empire over 1000 years and again seems poised to become the world's largest religion in terms of sheer numbers by 2030-2050 somewhere - so for all its perceived flaws - there must be something that appeals to its adherents

Indeed. It is a fascinating subject matter for research and study.

If only that appeal was better justified.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
the question remains - should they be allowed to rule a multi cultural population?

IMO, as long as they have no expectation of anyone else having any respect for their religious belief.

Here's a question. Does being critical of Israel make one anti-semitic?
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
MO, as long as they have no expectation of anyone else having any respect for their religious belief.

It is not a question of respect as much as perhaps standing up and being counted - when there were forced conversions in Northern India in the 17th century - I don't think the emperor cared whether one respected Islam - only that one acknowledged and worshipped Allah

Here's a question. Does being critical of Israel make one anti-semitic?

I was trying to stay away from that one
I would guardedly say Yes - since Israel is a nation of Jewish people and by being critical of the nation you are criticizing the people and their religion
But I think that comment on the policies of Israel whether it be settlements or the denial of rights to persons of Arab persuasion - is another thing altogether: Here is what a writer about Antisemitism had to say about it
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Problems start when Religion and political laws get mixed. they should not be mixed in my view
Historically government and religion aren't mixed but are the same thing, and it is our modern language and perspective which differentiate them. Many people are surprised about it, but the religions of the world continue to press for religious government. Which religions do not?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Historically government and religion aren't mixed but are the same thing, and it is our modern language and perspective which differentiate them. Many people are surprised about it, but the religions of the world continue to press for religious government. Which religions do not?
I do not think buddhism has pushed for governmental power, but in Tibet they see Dalai lama as a leder but more as spiritual leader. Some countries has leaders who see them self as Buddhists, but for those who take buddhism serious we do not think of politics (Daila lama do take his practice seriously but was chosen as far as i know to lead them)
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion - Islam had a huge middle eastern empire over 1000 years and again seems poised to become the world's largest religion in terms of sheer numbers by 2030-2050 somewhere - so for all its perceived flaws - there must be something that appeals to its adherents

I'm thinking birthrate has something to do with that plus being born into Islam it's not easy to become an apostate and can have severe consequences.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
A very sweet man who "forcefully converted " most of the Arabian Peninsula to his new faith"
Muhammad and the Faith of Islam [ushistory.org]
Muhammad fought a number of battles against the people of Mecca. In 629, Muhammad returned to Mecca with an army of 1500 converts to Islam and entered the city unopposed and without bloodshed. Before his death two years later, he forcefully converted most of the Arabian Peninsula to his new faith and built a small empire.
How do you think that sweet man accomplished that forceful conversion?

All I know is what was taught by teachers in Sunni Muslim Mosques. At least I give people some idea of where I am from and some background, so I may understand your point of view. HMPH !
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
@Ellen Brown

The history of Northern India in the late 17th and 18th centuries is replete with forced conversions to Islam - read here for an example - as I stated in the OP - that is part of my own bias - and of course looking around at countries like Saudi Arabia where women are just getting the right to drive and still if I am not mistaken - a woman has to have a "guardian" - whether it be husband / father / son / brother that can speak for her - so that is in part what at least prompted my OP
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion - Islam had a huge middle eastern empire over 1000 years and again seems poised to become the world's largest religion in terms of sheer numbers by 2030-2050 somewhere - so for all its perceived flaws - there must be something that appeals to its adherents

It's a fair point, and for me an extremely depressing one. My best guess is that in a world full of difficulties, it's easy for people to be attracted to a system (a total ideology like Islam), that claims to have all the answers.
 
Top