Would moderate Muslims be happy to leave Islamic politics behind?

[icehorse]

My claim is that Islam is: "A totalitarian ideology, with a religious component". So while it's true that Islam has a religious component, it also has a legal component, a lifestyle component, and a political component.

It seems to be the legal and political components of Islam that are the source of so much of the Islam-related conflict we see in the world today.

So I wonder whether moderate Muslims would rather just leave behind the non-religious aspects of Islam?

 

[DawudTalut]

My claim is that Islam is: "A totalitarian ideology, with a religious component". So while it's true that Islam has a religious component, it also has a legal component, a lifestyle component, and a political component.

It seems to be the legal and political components of Islam that are the source of so much of the Islam-related conflict we see in the world today.

So I wonder whether moderate Muslims would rather just leave behind the non-religious aspects of Islam?

Peace be on you.......Your fears probably stem from ideas of Muslims taking over the governments.....Today Muslims related conflicts have several dimensions. If one describe them in one word, that would be Injustice.

Islam does not ask to aim to get government....There are higher purpose. If situation comes to govern, it provides directions in this regard too.

Here are basic fundamentals given in the Quran about any system of government:
1-A government is duty-bound to protect the honour, life and property of its people....[Verily, Allah commands you to make over the trust to those entitled to them. Holy Quran 4:59].

2-A ruler must always act with justice, between individuals and between people.......[And that, when you judge between men, you judge with justice. Holy Quran 4:59].

3-National matters should be settled by consultation.........[And whose affairs are decided by mutual consultation. Holy Quran 42:39].

4-Government must arrange to fulfil the basic needs of man: that is to say, provide him food, clothing and shelter.........[It is provided for thee that thou wilt not hunger therein, nor wilt thou be naked . And that thou wilt not thirst therein, nor wilt thou be exposed to the sun. Holy Quran 119:120]

5-People should be provided a peaceful and secure environment, and their lives, property and honour protected...........[And when he is in authority, he runs about in the land to create disorder in it and destroy the crops and the progeny of man: and Allah loves not disorder . Holy Quran 2:206].

6-The economic system should be equitable and orderly [same above verse].

7-Organized health care. [same above verse].

8-There should prevail total religious freedom. [There should be no compulsion in religion. Holy Quran 2:257].
and there are more components
@ https://www.alislam.org/books/distinct/

Resource: Islamic Government @ page 230 @
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/IslamsResponseToContemporaryIssues.pdf

 

[HonestJoe]

So I wonder whether moderate Muslims would rather just leave behind the non-religious aspects of Islam?

Many Muslims have, engaging in various democratic, secular political systems around the world while still considering themselves practicing Muslims. Clearly other Muslims consider these aspects all fundamentally part of Islam and can’t/shouldn’t be separated at all.

Ultimately though, I’d suggest that’s an entirely individual question with a wide variety of answers. Muslims aren’t a single-minded amorphous mass, they’re individual human beings like you and me who happen to share a particular characteristic.

 

[Augustus]

My claim is that Islam is: "A totalitarian ideology, with a religious component". So while it's true that Islam has a religious component, it also has a legal component, a lifestyle component, and a political component.

Can you explain what you mean by totalitarian? I see people using this claim and they never explain why it qualifies for the label totalitarian.

It certainly doesn't meet any of the traditional uses of the word, and I don't see the point in trying to create a new more inclusive definition due to the excessively negative connotations of the word totalitarian. I don't see how its usage can ever enlighten more than it confuses.

Honestly, IS aren't even unequivocally totalitarian in the classic sense (for example they tolerate competing ideologies if you pay the Jizya), although you certainly can make a good case that they are and I have no problem with the label being applied to them.

Even conservative interpretations of classical Islam though really don't meet many of the criteria of a totalitarian system at all. To name them so is an abuse of the term for rhetorical purposes.

Just because it is a multifaceted/holistic ideology doesn't make it totalitarian

 

[icehorse]

Can you explain what you mean by totalitarian? I see people using this claim and they never explain why it qualifies for the label totalitarian.

It certainly doesn't meet any of the traditional uses of the word, and I don't see the point in trying to create a new more inclusive definition due to the excessively negative connotations of the word totalitarian. I don't see how its usage can ever enlighten more than it confuses.

Honestly, IS aren't even unequivocally totalitarian in the classic sense (for example they tolerate competing ideologies if you pay the Jizya), although you certainly can make a good case that they are and I have no problem with the label being applied to them.

Even conservative interpretations of classical Islam though really don't meet many of the criteria of a totalitarian system at all. To name them so is an abuse of the term for rhetorical purposes.

Just because it is a multifaceted/holistic ideology doesn't make it totalitarian

A "totalitarian" approach is one that offers a total solution. Which Islam purports to do. Islam claims to have jurisdiction over politics, law, religion, fine arts, and personal affairs. What else of significance is missing?

(Now I understand the the word "totalitarian" is frequently associated with fascist regimes, but that doesn't make it the wrong word.)

 

[Augustus]

A "totalitarian" approach is one that offers a total solution. Which Islam purports to do. Islam claims to have jurisdiction over politics, law, religion, fine arts, and personal affairs. What else of significance is missing?

(Now I understand the the word "totalitarian" is frequently associated with fascist regimes, but that doesn't make it the wrong word.)

It's not that it is associated with fascist regimes that makes it wrong, it is because totalitarian simply doesn't mean what you are saying. Because it has such strong negative connotations, it is a word that should be used with extreme caution though, otherwise it distorts and obscures the reality.

Firstly, all states regulate these things to some extent. Just because the laws are based around a specific ideology, rather than a flexible societal preferences doesn't make them qualitatively different in nature. Totalitarian doesn't simply mean 'affects many parts of society'. It doesn't simply mean authoritarian or repressive either.

Totalitarian mean the absolute unrestrained authority of the state to control all aspects of an individuals thoughts and actions. It entails the complete lack of individual rights, only those of the ruling party who have the ability to exercise total and unrestrained power.

Control of the media, systematic programmes of propaganda and misinformation, the outlawing of competing ideologies, the creation of extensive secret police and domestic spying networks, the arbitrary application of justice and compulsion through systematic use of violence and terror by the government on the people.

Which of these are mandated by Sharia Law? Most of them are outright prohibited, even under conservative classical interpretation. This doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that Islamic Law is interpretive, adaptive, evolutionary and revisable. That doesn't mean it will lead to liberal, Western style democracy, but there is no singular Islamic system of government to use as a reference point.

When the phrase was coined in the 20th C, it was uniformly acknowledged that totalitarianism was a new form of government. This automatically rules out any existing system of government as being totalitarian.

Which of the historical Islamic Empires do you consider to have been totalitarian?

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion will always have a political component. That is fair and necessary.

Islam is not troubled because it has such a component, but rather because its component is so tainted with theistic dogma.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

I'm mostly concerned with practice, not theory. In practice, when a country becomes Muslim majority we often see a strong alignment with totalitarianism. Iran and SA leap to mind as examples. I'm not arguing that these are perfect examples. but I'd say that they're pretty good. The point is that Iran and SA are very plausible results of Islam.

 

[Augustus]

Hey Augustus,

I'm mostly concerned with practice, not theory. In practice, when a country becomes Muslim majority we often see a strong alignment with totalitarianism. Iran and SA leap to mind as examples. I'm not arguing that these are perfect examples. but I'd say that they're pretty good. The point is that Iran and SA are very plausible results of Islam.

Authoritarian and repressive =/= totalitarian though. And cherry picking examples and saying these represent Islam is not really fair.

What about the Umayyad, Abassid and al-Andalus Caliphates? Or Malaysia in the modern day as an officially Islamic country? Indonesia is a democracy and Islamist parties only get about 30% of the votes.

This isn't to say these were/are bastions of liberal tolerance, but you are making a very specific accusation. You are overstating your case, which ultimately invalidates it. There are many criticisms you could make which are justifiable, that Islam is intrinsically totalitarian is not one of them.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

I hear what you're saying, but can you respond to my question from post 6?

Also, authoritarian and repressive ARE two words often used in defining totalitarian.

 

[Augustus]

Hey Augustus,

I hear what you're saying, but can you respond to my question from post 6?

Also, authoritarian and repressive ARE two words often used in defining totalitarian.

I did, in detail, in post #7. Which of the things I pointed out about totalitarian systems do you think are mandated in Islam?

Being totalitarian is so much more than being authoritarian and repressive.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

It seems your definition of "totalitarian" is more black and white than mine - so be it. I would say though that I think there is some benefit to using the word. IMO Islam is far closer to being totalitarian than it is to being a religion of peace.

 

[Augustus]

Hey Augustus,

It seems your definition of "totalitarian" is more black and white than mine - so be it. I would say though that I think there is some benefit to using the word. IMO Islam is far closer to being totalitarian than it is to being a religion of peace.

So do we define words by choosing 2 polar opposites and deciding which one it is closer to? Or do we use words for their actual meaning?

There is no exact definition of the term, but it is generally agreed that a totalitarian system must at least meet most of a certain number of criteria. The points I raised are an approximation of the academic definition of the term. You seem to be suggesting we throw that away and adopt an internet based anti-Islam polemical definition of the term simply because it suits your rhetorical purpose.

This isn't about semantic nit picking, it is about a fundamental misuse of a word simply because it carries negative connotations. A bit like the classic "Just like the Nazis" hyperbole so commonly expressed about any minor tyrant.

Can you specifically state which of the mentioned criteria you believe are applicable?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Religion will always have a political component. That is fair and necessary.

Islam is not troubled because it has such a component, but rather because its component is so tainted with theistic dogma.

As someone who has struck me as a secularist, how can you reconcile that with such a position - assuming said position isn't just a figment of my imagination? Surely the best thing for everyone is for every religion to remove its political components?

 

[icehorse]

So do we define words by choosing 2 polar opposites and deciding which one it is closer to? Or do we use words for their actual meaning?

There is no exact definition of the term, but it is generally agreed that a totalitarian system must at least meet most of a certain number of criteria. The points I raised are an approximation of the academic definition of the term. You seem to be suggesting we throw that away and adopt an internet based anti-Islam polemical definition of the term simply because it suits your rhetorical purpose.

This isn't about semantic nit picking, it is about a fundamental misuse of a word simply because it carries negative connotations. A bit like the classic "Just like the Nazis" hyperbole so commonly expressed about any minor tyrant.

Can you specifically state which of the mentioned criteria you believe are applicable?

You claim that you have "a generally agreed on definition" of totalitarian. I'm using Christopher Hitchens' definition of totalitarian. I believe Hitchens was an authority on such states, having spent more time in them than perhaps any other journalist from the West.

 

[LuisDantas]

As someone who has struck me as a secularist, how can you reconcile that with such a position - assuming said position isn't just a figment of my imagination? Surely the best thing for everyone is for every religion to remove its political components?

Religion is about deciding what should be pursued. So is politics. I just don't see how the overlap can fail to exist.

The way I see it, secularism is indeed necessary and should be implemented by avoiding any and all references to religious groups, scriptures, dogmas and doctrines from laws and other political tools. Whatever is perceived as politically acceptable or desirable should stand or fall on its own merits, without needing religious justification,

 

[Augustus]

You claim that you have "a generally agreed on definition" of totalitarian. I'm using Christopher Hitchens' definition of totalitarian. I believe Hitchens was an authority on such states, having spent more time in them than perhaps any other journalist from the West.

What is his definition then? It must have some criteria. You say my criteria aren't valid, so there must be an alternative surely?

Hitchens was a polemicist well known for rhetorical flourishes, not someone taken to using words for precise meaning, just for whatever suited his agenda. Hardly a renowned expert on anything, simply a very intelligent and capable polemicist, more about the argument than objective analysis. An expert at writing and speaking, not on any issues really.

He even described religion in general as totalitarian. Pretty meaningless if you ask me.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is his definition then? It must have some criteria. You say my criteria aren't valid, so there must be an alternative surely?

Hitchens was a polemicist well known for rhetorical flourishes, not someone taken to using words for precise meaning, just for whatever suited his agenda. Hardly a renowned expert on anything, simply a very intelligent and capable polemicist, more about the argument than objective analysis. An expert at writing and speaking, not on any issues really.

He even described religion in general as totalitarian. Pretty meaningless if you ask me.

Admitedly, he lacked a sense of nuance. He is spot on on Christianity and Islam, though.

 

[Augustus]

Admitedly, he lacked a sense of nuance. He is spot on on Christianity and Islam, though.

Can't say I see liberal Anglicanism as totalitarian, do you?

 

[LuisDantas]

Can't say I see liberal Anglicanism as totalitarian, do you?

No, of course not. And we have the insight of people such as Hitchens, who know better than to let superstition and dogma run unleashed, to thank for that.