Author Topic: Political philosophies  (Read 2438 times)

SarahY

  • Global Moderator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2225
  • Gender: Female
Political philosophies
« on: May 22, 2010, 04:19:12 PM »
Peace everyone.

All of us are born in a society filled with discourses adopted by our parents and generations beforehand. As children we donít have a choice in the matter we grow up into it and as adults we submissively accept that this is the way it is.

Some of us might not agree with how society runs and maybe migrate to a different country. People may find comfort in a society where laws are upheld rather than chaotic uproar due to unjust hegemony, it might be better but not necessarily ideal. For example my family migrated from Lebanon. In Australia there is more order, i.e. some children in Lebanon donít even have a birth certificate, laws in Australia are enforced i.e. if people break road rules we get fines, you canít get away with corruption as easily you can in Lebanon i.e. sometimes money can actually talk, in Australia you have to pay interests for a home buying, in Lebanon you can buy a home without interest.

Different societies have different benefits and disadvantages and some of us might think: what if we could change society? Maybe we should establish an ďislamic stateĒ. People think all sorts of things. all for the betterment.. So many theories but whatís ideal?

Ok all of you will say Quranic philosophy is what is ideal. Ok if thatís the case what are your thoughts on Quranic philosophy? What is the Quranic philosophy? Many people say democracy and Quran are congruent with each other.  I think in certain ways yes but in certain ways no. for example Australia follows the Westminster democratic system (which I think is the same as UK) it gives people right to vote which is good no doubt but is it totally Quranic? We have to follow a Constitution based on the commonwealth. The parliament passes on laws. The senate and the house of representative pass the bill how many of the senate and the house represent us?

So there is no compulsion in deen, people might start saying anarchism. How would that be practiced. How can we ensure people would be just? Was it ever put into practice?

There are all sorts of theories. Iím totally ignorant about politics so whatever you have to share, let me know :)
We all have blind spots.
Follow your heart but take your brain with you.
ambiguity is there for a reason, why do you think?
We're all different, so how can we all be equal?

Hoppean

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political philosophies
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2010, 04:38:09 AM »
Peace everyone.

All of us are born in a society filled with discourses adopted by our parents and generations beforehand. As children we donít have a choice in the matter we grow up into it and as adults we submissively accept that this is the way it is.

Some of us might not agree with how society runs and maybe migrate to a different country. People may find comfort in a society where laws are upheld rather than chaotic uproar due to unjust hegemony, it might be better but not necessarily ideal. For example my family migrated from Lebanon. In Australia there is more order, i.e. some children in Lebanon donít even have a birth certificate, laws in Australia are enforced i.e. if people break road rules we get fines, you canít get away with corruption as easily you can in Lebanon i.e. sometimes money can actually talk, in Australia you have to pay interests for a home buying, in Lebanon you can buy a home without interest.

Different societies have different benefits and disadvantages and some of us might think: what if we could change society? Maybe we should establish an ďislamic stateĒ. People think all sorts of things. all for the betterment.. So many theories but whatís ideal?

Ok all of you will say Quranic philosophy is what is ideal. Ok if thatís the case what are your thoughts on Quranic philosophy? What is the Quranic philosophy? Many people say democracy and Quran are congruent with each other.  I think in certain ways yes but in certain ways no. for example Australia follows the Westminster democratic system (which I think is the same as UK) it gives people right to vote which is good no doubt but is it totally Quranic? We have to follow a Constitution based on the commonwealth. The parliament passes on laws. The senate and the house of representative pass the bill how many of the senate and the house represent us?

So there is no compulsion in deen, people might start saying anarchism. How would that be practiced. How can we ensure people would be just? Was it ever put into practice?

There are all sorts of theories. Iím totally ignorant about politics so whatever you have to share, let me know :)



Peace,
The assumption by almost all political philosophers throughout history is that the state is a necessary prerequisite for society and civilization. The argument runs thus: In order for their to be civil society, and because there will always be a criminal element, law and order is required, therefore a state, as the provider of law and order, is necessary in order for humanity to coexist peacefully.

The fallacy in this line of argumentation is that the statist political philosopher has not proven that the state (a taxing and adjudicating monopoly) is the only form in which law and order can be provided; instead he has simply smuggled in this assumption. Furthermore, the state, as a taxing institution, cannot logically precede civilized society, rather it must assume some level of social wealth creation, in order to have anything at all to tax!

If we treat law and order as goods that society desires, in the same way people desire food, clothing, and shelter, then we see that just as a coercive state monopoly provider of food, clothing and shelter cannot be in the interest of the consumer, so too a coercive state monopoly on law and order cannot ultimately serve the consumer. The burden of proof is on the political philosopher who insists that law and order are categorically different than other fundamental human needs. It would seem obvious, however, that food, clothing and shelter are even more basic than courts and police.

What would a non statist legal system look like without the state? Well this is akin to living, and having to "buy" groceries, in the old soviet union (or north korea now) and wondering how a non statist food system would look like. Essentially it would be very heterogeneous, with consumers having the freedom to choose under which legal system they would rather live. Similarly, it is not difficult to imagine people voluntarily segregating themselves into communities where they can practice their own deen peacefully, and where "private" courts will uphold the laws of that deen. If a member of the community refuses to submit to the authority of the courts then they are ipso facto ex-communicated from that society. I give this only as an example, there are obviously many details and circumstances that can be considered. However, just as one living in north korea cannot foresee exact details on how a private system of competitive food providers would operate, it is not possible to give exact details for every possible legal scenario, all one can do is speculate. This is not a weakness, however, rather this dynamic flexibility gives the best chance for justice to exist within human societies; in contrast to the institutionalized tyranny of coercive state legal systems. In addition, it is important to note that many of the "problems" people see with a non statist legal system, also exist in a statist legal system. As a side note, since every nation has its own laws and courts, the world is itself in a state of "anarchy". One who advocates statist legal systems, to be consistent, would ultimately have to argue for one global system of laws and courts. Historically see how the nascent community of believers dealt with the sectarian religious communities they governed in Roman and Persian lands, other than having a poll tax, they basically left these communites alone to administer their own courts etc.

Regarding scriptural references, the quran clearly prohibits compulsion in deen (the modern english use of the word religion, is wholly inadequate as a translation) as well as aggression in general. All other social injunctions should be viewed in that light. The verse on "mutual consultation" (42:38) is sometimes used to promote democracy, there are two major problems with this, however. First, this isn't even democracy! Democracy is literally majority rule, a worse form of government could not be conceived. In fact, the virtues that people ascribe to democracy, such as rights and freedoms, are themselves not even democratic! They are established rules of law, not subject to the current whims of any majority. Deriving "democracy" from mutual consulation is not only a non sequitur, but also hugely anachronistic. The other verse that is used to promote statism in general is 4:59, "obey those with authority"; again similar problems as before, since when is authority synonymous with the state? But even if it somehow were, our Lord tells us that the final authority will be Him and His messenger/message. I think the only explicit example of the state that the quran gives is Pharoah. Taken as a whole, scripture consistently rejects those ideas which underlie the state.

An excellent example is 1 Samuel chapter 8, where Isreal is asking for a King so that they can be just like the other nations. here's what our Lord says: "But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." Before this Israel was ruled by Judges, essentially a system of common law and private courts. Our Lord goes on to explain what it means to have a king:

"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

SarahY

  • Global Moderator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2225
  • Gender: Female
Re: Political philosophies
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2010, 01:59:53 AM »
Peace Hoppean

The assumption of a state being adopted is maybe because most people donít know any other way and just accept that thatís how it should beÖ must a state include a taxing monopoly? Would other systems not?

Of course food, clothing and shelter are the basics and essentials.

About your example of communities practice their own deen or segregating themselves. In communities today it kinda happens; people branch off in areas with other people who are alike be it culture religion background class etc.. though they still need to comply by state law they may do additional ďextracurricularĒ activities based on their grouping but I couldnít imagine them implementing laws well at least not laws that are frowned about in society.

Thing is, if people donít want to follow a specific path what private courts do they go under?

Democracy is more like a sugar coated term which makes people assume freedom of rights, weíre limited democratically because maybe not all people vote how is it a valid poll? Plus rights might get impeded due to majority so if youíre a minority youíre likely to be marginalised. However in certain things democracy isnít necessarily bad.  though comparing to different countries I assume people donít havea problem with questioning the democracies of a country

In regards to 4:59, I donít see that as promoting statism, though having a body of authority to follow would seem easier in a state like structure or the example of ascribing to an authority.

People can subjugate others with (their) authority, people have trust or are forced to give authority their trust so whether people like it or not authority can take advantage..

For a change to happen donít you think following the current system and say, setting up a political party with their own philosophies etc be a way or a step for a change?  Because how would people know or be willing to accept a new system itís not like youíd get the numbers.. but maybe if a political party started it would attract people esp if they see positive outcomes. Not many people like change and to come up with some system people would just think itís radical theyíll start thinking anarchism and joker like batman or something.. ok maybe not that extreme but thereíd be some hot heads who would think like that
 
We all have blind spots.
Follow your heart but take your brain with you.
ambiguity is there for a reason, why do you think?
We're all different, so how can we all be equal?

Hoppean

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political philosophies
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2010, 10:52:33 AM »
The assumption of a state being adopted is maybe because most people donít know any other way and just accept that thatís how it should beÖ must a state include a taxing monopoly? Would other systems not?

A state by definition must be a monopoly because it claims to be the final arbiter in all legal cases. If it is not a monopoly then people are free to opt out of their arrangement with the state. There is no state in the world that will allow you to cease being their subject, while still living in their jurisdiction. If it did, it would be no different than any other voluntary organization, from which you can withdraw your support at any time.

Of course food, clothing and shelter are the basics and essentials.

My only point was that if these goods/needs, which are even more fundamental than law and order, can be provided on the basis of voluntary payment from to consumers to producers, then a legal system should be no exception.

About your example of communities practice their own deen or segregating themselves. In communities today it kinda happens; people branch off in areas with other people who are alike be it culture religion background class etc.. though they still need to comply by state law they may do additional ďextracurricularĒ activities based on their grouping but I couldnít imagine them implementing laws well at least not laws that are frowned about in society. .

Thing is, if people donít want to follow a specific path what private courts do they go under?

Different ethnic groups/cultures already do establish their own courts of law, they are called nation states. Each nation has its own laws and is independent of other nations. The laws in Australia are not enforceable in America etc. So the question becomes, what is the logical end game? Should we stop at the arbitrary political boundaries that currently exist? If France and Germany can have independent legal systems, then cannot individual jurisdictions within France or Germany have independent legal systems as well? That's why I said before that a consistent statist must advocate a one world state. The world is in "anarchy" as we speak.

Regarding private courts: The courts are there to enforce the laws of society, in this case it would be akin to common law. To live within society is to implicitly accept those rules on which the society is founded. A notorious criminal who rejected society's laws and did not submit to a court of law, would soon find himself excommunicated from that society, it is not conceivable that a society would tolerate a serial killer walking around, he would be dealt with one way or another, with or without courts. Currently, people depend on the state to stop criminals, but this has not always been the case, nor is it the only logical possibility. 

Democracy is more like a sugar coated term which makes people assume freedom of rights, weíre limited democratically because maybe not all people vote how is it a valid poll? Plus rights might get impeded due to majority so if youíre a minority youíre likely to be marginalised. However in certain things democracy isnít necessarily bad.  though comparing to different countries I assume people donít havea problem with questioning the democracies of a country

Sorry you lost me here. What I meant was that many of the good things ascribed to democracy, have nothing to do with democratic ideas. At this point it's just a buzzword for whatever people might think is good. Do you see anything scripturally good in the political philosophy of democracy?


For a change to happen donít you think following the current system and say, setting up a political party with their own philosophies etc be a way or a step for a change?
 

I do not think that it is valid to work within an immoral system. The problems are systemic, changing political parties will not address these problems.

Because how would people know or be willing to accept a new system itís not like youíd get the numbers.. but maybe if a political party started it would attract people esp if they see positive outcomes.

Organizing society on the basis of voluntary association, as opposed to state coercion, is the logical conclusion of taking the command about "no compulsion in deen", seriously.

 
Not many people like change and to come up with some system people would just think itís radical theyíll start thinking anarchism and joker like batman or something.. ok maybe not that extreme but thereíd be some hot heads who would think like that

Practically speaking you're right, there's no real hope for anything to change, or even get better. However, since we're talking political philosophy I wasn't too concerned about being pragmatic.

SarahY

  • Global Moderator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2225
  • Gender: Female
Re: Political philosophies
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2010, 02:51:13 AM »
Quote
A state by definition must be a monopoly because it claims to be the final arbiter in all legal cases. If it is not a monopoly then people are free to opt out of their arrangement with the state. There is no state in the world that will allow you to cease being their subject, while still living in their jurisdiction. If it did, it would be no different than any other voluntary organization, from which you can withdraw your support at any time.

Ok true, but in that case how is the whole world in state of anarchy?  People still follow a dependent legal system even if they donít agree.. or do you mean just that the world is chaotic

Good things are associated with democratic ideas, true but thatís how the country runs (after years of having different influences) so itís kinda ďnormalĒ that people just associate democracy with it.  hmm anything scripturally good in the political philosophy of democracyÖ In scripture itís about upholding justice. the constitution I guess, would be the Quran. There is mentioning of following a shura; a consultation but thatís not necessarily in line with democracy thought, though it could be if itís with true justice. Democracy gives choice and choice is important but the only problem is sometimes people are succumbed by other peopleís choice unwillingly due to numbers or government intervention. 

Quote
I do not think that it is valid to work within an immoral system. The problems are systemic, changing political parties will not address these problems.

It may not change the problems but if a change was to happen I donít think it would be a simple task to eradicate current practices.

By not being involved in the current system i.e. not voting or establishing a better political party then it just leaves gaps. There would be fragments of people who donít have a say. currently theyíre probably not majority of the people so current practices just keep getting maintained.. that's not good either

Quote
Organizing society on the basis of voluntary association, as opposed to state coercion, is the logical conclusion of taking the command about "no compulsion in deen", seriously.
is there evidence of something like this happening in history?
We all have blind spots.
Follow your heart but take your brain with you.
ambiguity is there for a reason, why do you think?
We're all different, so how can we all be equal?

Hoppean

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political philosophies
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2010, 09:10:52 AM »
Ok true, but in that case how is the whole world in state of anarchy?  People still follow a dependent legal system even if they donít agree.. or do you mean just that the world is chaotic

What I mean is that according to statist philosophers (e.g. Hobbes), in order to have civil society, there must be a monoplist on law and order (the state), if not we will have "anarchy". By this standard however, the world is already in "anarchy" since we do not have a global monopolist over law and order, and each nation has their own legal system. Logically then, the statist philosopher must advocate a world government. On the other hand, if it is conceded that the world can function with different nation states having their own laws and jurisdiction, then it must also be possible for areas and communities within a nation to have independent legal systems. There is no logical stopping point, any stop would be arbitrary, right down to the smallest village.

Good things are associated with democratic ideas, true but thatís how the country runs (after years of having different influences) so itís kinda ďnormalĒ that people just associate democracy with it. 

Agreed, but it is unfortunate because the cause and effect is backwards. The good things, such as enshrined legal rights etc, are non democratic in nature.

 
hmm anything scripturally good in the political philosophy of democracyÖ In scripture itís about upholding justice. the constitution I guess, would be the Quran.

In theory though, a constitution is not subject to a vote, once it's established it's the law of the land. Any legislation must conform to it. We know in practice it doesn't work that way, but could a "quranic constitution" be changed after the fact based on some vote? If so then any "fundamental" principle would be completely subjective and ultimately at the mercy of the whims of particular groups. So democracy is, at its core, incompatible with legal principles, and must eventually embrace positive law, and the state as a god whose dictates are supreme.
 
It may not change the problems but if a change was to happen I donít think it would be a simple task to eradicate current practices.

Current practices stem from current values, which are bad. Politics won't influence people's values, rather the politics will reflect them.

By not being involved in the current system i.e. not voting or establishing a better political party then it just leaves gaps. There would be fragments of people who donít have a say. currently theyíre probably not majority of the people so current practices just keep getting maintained.. that's not good either
 is there evidence of something like this happening in history?

For historical examples we can look at America before its constitution and the creation of a federal government. For about 12 years before the federalists took control, there was only the articles of confederation, wherein congress had no taxing power and only could fund itself through voluntary contributions by each state. During the 13th century we see a similar decentralization of political power among the city states of northern Italy, which led to the establishment of commercial city states in northern europe. These small, independent political units were the cause of European commercial success in the late middle ages. It seems that these periods of general freedom are very short lived, but they are possible when the underlying culture has the correct belief system. I would say too that the scholastic system of thought was very instrumental in keeping Europe on top, despite set backs, not just during the middle ages but also after the reformation. So cultural belief system is the foundation for how a society will develop.

SarahY

  • Global Moderator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2225
  • Gender: Female
Re: Political philosophies
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2010, 04:55:13 AM »
But the world(?? I think some countries donít) still has to conform to the UN conventions of human rights? Child rights? Etc but I guess not entirely enforced.

Quote
Agreed, but it is unfortunate because the cause and effect is backwards. The good things, such as enshrined legal rights etc, are non democratic in nature.

But because democrats include it or have adopted it, itís like democratic systems have morphedÖ  so itís more liked mixed government systems

Quote
In theory though, a constitution is not subject to a vote, once it's established it's the law of the land. Any legislation must conform to it. We know in practice it doesn't work that way, but could a "quranic constitution" be changed after the fact based on some vote? If so then any "fundamental" principle would be completely subjective and ultimately at the mercy of the whims of particular groups. So democracy is, at its core, incompatible with legal principles, and must eventually embrace positive law, and the state as a god whose dictates are supreme.

True itís not necessarily subject to a vote, people couldnít vote to change a quranic constitution, it wouldnt be based on Quran. Well in theory they couldnít/shouldnít but practically people could if they wanted to but then it wouldnít be quranic constitution It would be Quranic inspiredÖ

Quranic law would be subject to interpretation and we can just see through this forum how some things can have differing views though things would need to be verified to be accepted. would everything need to be included into a law? Maybe not.

In my break I might do some studies on this, Quranic fundamental laws and see what I can find.

Quote
Current practices stem from current values, which are bad. Politics won't influence people's values, rather the politics will reflect them.
Politics can reflect peopleís values true but politics are represented by politicians and politicians donít necessarily reflect a true nature of the people because people are limited to what party they want to prescribe to, besides politician deal with a lot of propaganda, broken promises and compromises.

People value good things (even bad things) but maybe people just donít know a lot of things, like me for example. Itís just easier to follow what everyone else does and just ďimproveĒ current issues such as pick a party that suits the individuals current needs even though it wonít be in totality it might be a slight betterment. We stick to the choices given to us rather than making our own choices so our values are compromised.

Quote
For historical examples we can look at America before its constitution and the creation of a federal government. For about 12 years before the federalists took control, there was only the articles of confederation, wherein congress had no taxing power and only could fund itself through voluntary contributions by each state. During the 13th century we see a similar decentralization of political power among the city states of northern Italy, which led to the establishment of commercial city states in northern europe. These small, independent political units were the cause of European commercial success in the late middle ages. It seems that these periods of general freedom are very short lived, but they are possible when the underlying culture has the correct belief system. I would say too that the scholastic system of thought was very instrumental in keeping Europe on top, despite set backs, not just during the middle ages but also after the reformation. So cultural belief system is the foundation for how a society will develop.

Interesting, thanks for that. I think peopleís cultural belief systems are influenced by dominant popular culture, it leaves question marks on other peoples belief systems. It kind of makes me think of taghoot.. which from my understanding is dominance of unjust power and obedience to it or obedience to other than God. which makes me think society is kinda like that.. westernised ideologies are upheld and promoted through media other cultural beliefs are frowned upon, looked at as Ďbackwardsí, mocked through comedy, assimilation is droned into people. So in western societies peoples cultural beliefs tend to be marginalised and frowned upon so they might feel ashamed and tend to hide or adopt current practices due to wanting to be accepted (so in effect accepting taghoot?) In saying that I donít think all of western cultural beliefs are bad just talking about its dominance in society and how that setbacks others..


We all have blind spots.
Follow your heart but take your brain with you.
ambiguity is there for a reason, why do you think?
We're all different, so how can we all be equal?

Hoppean

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political philosophies
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2010, 07:56:02 PM »
But the world(?? I think some countries donít) still has to conform to the UN conventions of human rights? Child rights? Etc but I guess not entirely enforced.

Well according the logic of the statist philosophers, one would have to say that the whole world is in a state of anarchy, given that there is no monopoly on legal jurisdiction and adjudication. Each nation has its own legal sovereignty, the UN notwithstanding, thus if a state (a coercive monopoly) is required, in order to have law and order, then it would follow that since there is no current global monopoly on legal jurisdiction, the world is in a state of anarchy. I hope that makes sense. 

But because democrats include it or have adopted it, itís like democratic systems have morphedÖ  so itís more liked mixed government systems


In theory, western countries are supposed to be constitutional republics, and with the extension of the franchise, also democracies. The more the franchise is extended, that is the more democratic a state is, the more difficult it becomes to maintain "constitutional" principles; the two are very incompatible.

True itís not necessarily subject to a vote, people couldnít vote to change a quranic constitution, it wouldnt be based on Quran. Well in theory they couldnít/shouldnít but practically people could if they wanted to but then it wouldnít be quranic constitution It would be Quranic inspiredÖ

So then I think you would agree that this poses a problem for "quranic consitutional states". If any majority (whether passively or actively) rejects this consitution or any laws based on it, would they be allowed to secede? If so, then the "state" becomes no more than a voluntary organisation, like a club, people are free to belong to it, or not. In the end it would not be a "state" at all, which is precisely the underlying assumption in mainstream political philosophy, that a state (legal coercive monopoly) is necessary for law and order to exist. 

Quranic law would be subject to interpretation and we can just see through this forum how some things can have differing views though things would need to be verified to be accepted. would everything need to be included into a law? Maybe not.

This is interesting, how would a "quranic state" handle someone who did not agree with the state's "interpretation" of scripture? Would they be punished? Unlikely, I think. Would they be excommunicated? That makes little sense, since they reject the state's authority anyway. Either way though, the state  has to compel someone in their deen, or the state must be impotent to enforce its own constitution and legislation. The result being that only a voluntary society can avoid the tyranny of the state (people are free to secede), and at the same time, pronounce meaningful excommunications to those who reject the rules.

In my break I might do some studies on this, Quranic fundamental laws and see what I can find.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that all the social injunction in the scripture must be understood with the revealed principle that there is no compulsion in deen, otherwise it becomes self contradictory.
 
Politics can reflect peopleís values true but politics are represented by politicians and politicians donít necessarily reflect a true nature of the people because people are limited to what party they want to prescribe to, besides politician deal with a lot of propaganda, broken promises and compromises. People value good things (even bad things) but maybe people just donít know a lot of things, like me for example. Itís just easier to follow what everyone else does and just ďimproveĒ current issues such as pick a party that suits the individuals current needs even though it wonít be in totality it might be a slight betterment. We stick to the choices given to us rather than making our own choices so our values are compromised.


I would only ask you this: Which view do you think is more in line with the scripture, that people can have false values, commit mortal sin, and live without God, but be justified because of ignorance; Or that all men are ignorant of something at all times, but that God has given us a divine promise that He alone is our Lord and guide, and He guides who He wills. In other words, people's values of what is right and what is wrong, ultimately cannot be separated from God's will, He alone can guide people to the truth.Therefore, the darkness we see in the world is because men have cut themselves off from God, as His mercy can only be compatible with His active guidance in one's life.

Interesting, thanks for that. I think peopleís cultural belief systems are influenced by dominant popular culture, it leaves question marks on other peoples belief systems. It kind of makes me think of taghoot.. which from my understanding is dominance of unjust power and obedience to it or obedience to other than God. which makes me think society is kinda like that.. westernised ideologies are upheld and promoted through media other cultural beliefs are frowned upon, looked at as Ďbackwardsí, mocked through comedy, assimilation is droned into people.

I would agree that western societies are completely involved in the adoration and worship of everything and anything other than God. Sadly people tend to associate the current material achievements of a culture, and assume that this is a consequence of its current value system. When in fact, the west is much like an heir who is squandering an enormous inheritance. The values of the heir are not the cause of his inheritance, rather they are the cause of his squandering.

So in western societies peoples cultural beliefs tend to be marginalised and frowned upon so they might feel ashamed and tend to hide or adopt current practices due to wanting to be accepted (so in effect accepting taghoot?) In saying that I donít think all of western cultural beliefs are bad just talking about its dominance in society and how that setbacks others..

Well I don't see much difference between the current dominant culture of the west and ancient greece, for instance. If people choose to adopt these customs and practices, it is because they have imbibed the underlying values on some level. Maybe you could be more specific though?

SarahY

  • Global Moderator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2225
  • Gender: Female
Re: Political philosophies
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2010, 05:05:26 PM »
Quote
Well according the logic of the statist philosophers, one would have to say that the whole world is in a state of anarchy, given that there is no monopoly on legal jurisdiction and adjudication. Each nation has its own legal sovereignty, the UN notwithstanding, thus if a state (a coercive monopoly) is required, in order to have law and order, then it would follow that since there is no current global monopoly on legal jurisdiction, the world is in a state of anarchy. I hope that makes sense.  

It makes sense I think basically each nation follows its own laws there is no worldwide law that all domains needs to accept thus theyíre all in a state of anarchy.

Quote
So then I think you would agree that this poses a problem for "quranic consitutional states". If any majority (whether passively or actively) rejects this consitution or any laws based on it, would they be allowed to secede? If so, then the "state" becomes no more than a voluntary organisation, like a club, people are free to belong to it, or not. In the end it would not be a "state" at all, which is precisely the underlying assumption in mainstream political philosophy, that a state (legal coercive monopoly) is necessary for law and order to exist.
 
if we were to follow the political framework of whatís happening now? No, they couldnít secede but they could vote against it. If they had the option of rejecting the constitution and being a part of something else then yeh I can see how a state doesnít become necessary. Though if this was to happen I can imagine many groups would be marginalised how do you ensure all organisations are protected? Wouldnít it be anarchy unless there was a worldwide law? Or would the world wide law be to partake or register to an organisation. Plus if there was say people enlisted to organisations.. just thinking about it seems weird I can see a lot of positive in it but I can see how it can go so terribly wrong..  I think logically those people would come together, though who would build the future? Take care of infrastructure etc? would there still be a base structure or it would be like total management of each to their own.

Quote
This is interesting, how would a "quranic state" handle someone who did not agree with the state's "interpretation" of scripture? Would they be punished? Unlikely, I think. Would they be excommunicated? That makes little sense, since they reject the state's authority anyway. Either way though, the state has to compel someone in their deen, or the state must be impotent to enforce its own constitution and legislation. The result being that only a voluntary society can avoid the tyranny of the state (people are free to secede), and at the same time, pronounce meaningful excommunications to those who reject the rules.
Well I guess the state has a duty into explaining the interpretation or maybe even providing a public/private forum to refute it or come to an agreement? What if the state had multiple interpretations and based on your subscription you take that punishment? Dunno but otherwise many people can just utter things in times of fear just to escape from the consequences.

Quote
As I mentioned earlier, I believe that all the social injunction in the scripture must be understood with the revealed principle that there is no compulsion in deen, otherwise it becomes self contradictory.
 
Yeh of course, but Iíd say if one accepted that deen it would be contradictory if they just uttered ďno compulsion in deen so I donít need to do itĒ. That would be chaotic.  

Quote
I would only ask you this: Which view do you think is more in line with the scripture, that people can have false values, commit mortal sin, and live without God, but be justified because of ignorance; Or that all men are ignorant of something at all times, but that God has given us a divine promise that He alone is our Lord and guide, and He guides who He wills. In other words, people's values of what is right and what is wrong, ultimately cannot be separated from God's will, He alone can guide people to the truth.Therefore, the darkness we see in the world is because men have cut themselves off from God, as His mercy can only be compatible with His active guidance in one's life.

Obviously the latter but you canít really change the world.. most you can do is change yourself and if that influences other than awesome.

Quote
Well I don't see much difference between the current dominant culture of the west and ancient greece, for instance. If people choose to adopt these customs and practices, it is because they have imbibed the underlying values on some level. Maybe you could be more specific though?

I think whatever the dominant culture, it would have influences in the society we live in. though today western culture dramatically influences other cultures. Take for example the English language. I bet the poorest country in the world would have someone speaking English, is it a bad thing? No, not at all though I think it becomes bad when we just accept it as the be all and end all. English is the dominant language and itís great to be able to talk to someone in another country in the same language but not at the expense of another language or degrading and looking down upon others who arenít as eloquent or articulate. I have muslim friends who degrade this sheikh because of his English itís somewhat broken, stutters etc. though he preaches at a mosque which is 95% Arabic speaking or from Arabic speaking backgrounds. The sermon getís translated in English right after him by another person. Yet people donít appreciate the lesson but rather his lack of ability.

At home I speak mostly English with my siblings even with my parents. they might talk to me in Arabic and then I might respond in english then Iíd be like ah.. why donít they remind me to speak in Arabic I end up repeating myself in Arabic just so I maintain it. my father would be like youíre lucky you know Arabic in Australia, so many donít know Arabic and they come from Arabic backgrounds what you know is good enough. I think my Arabic is terrible out of all the things theyíre strict about I wish they were stricter about learning Arabic. itís like cultural values get lost or forgotten because of other values or predominate practices in society.

What about t.v? just about every household has a tv. And tv shows get franchised or copied it in other countries, they just imitate each other. Like Australian/American Idol; becoming a singer, Arabic channel has Star Academy which is basically the same thing. Lots of tv reality shows like become a millionaire, answer all these questions, join in and win bla bla, register and call to win a prize. Itís hard not to be materialistic when popular culture just promotes it.

When i was doing my prac, kids would talk to me about "Ben 10" it's some cartoon then they just break out and start imitating things it's kinda funny but also its like damn they are so influenced and then they're parents will buy them all these toys and gadgets that relate to it.
We all have blind spots.
Follow your heart but take your brain with you.
ambiguity is there for a reason, why do you think?
We're all different, so how can we all be equal?

Hoppean

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Political philosophies
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2010, 06:17:05 PM »
if we were to follow the political framework of whatís happening now? No, they couldnít secede but they could vote against it. If they had the option of rejecting the constitution and being a part of something else then yeh I can see how a state doesnít become necessary. Though if this was to happen I can imagine many groups would be marginalised how do you ensure all organisations are protected? Wouldnít it be anarchy unless there was a worldwide law? Or would the world wide law be to partake or register to an organisation. Plus if there was say people enlisted to organisations.. just thinking about it seems weird I can see a lot of positive in it but I can see how it can go so terribly wrong..  I think logically those people would come together, though who would build the future? Take care of infrastructure etc? would there still be a base structure or it would be like total management of each to their own.

Basically I would say it would very much operate like a club. A club has dues and privileges, but you're not forced to belong. If someone gives up membership, they give up the privileges, in this case it would be the benefit of law and order. A quranic state is an oxymoron, they must either compel their subjects or be nothing more than a voluntary organization, like a club.

It has always been individuals voluntarily cooperating with each other that maintained a nation's infrastucture. Superficially it looks like the government is building "xyz project" but those resources are coming from somewhere, namely the tax payers.
 
Well I guess the state has a duty into explaining the interpretation or maybe even providing a public/private forum to refute it or come to an agreement? What if the state had multiple interpretations and based on your subscription you take that punishment? Dunno but otherwise many people can just utter things in times of fear just to escape from the consequences. Yeh of course, but Iíd say if one accepted that deen it would be contradictory if they just uttered ďno compulsion in deen so I donít need to do itĒ. That would be chaotic.
 

Again such an attitude would carry major ramifications for that individual.


Obviously the latter but you canít really change the world.. most you can do is change yourself and if that influences other than awesome.

My point was just that the cause and effect is rather the opposite of what might appear. Namely, people are not the way they are because they are "ignorant", instead they are ignorant because of the way they are.

I think whatever the dominant culture, it would have influences in the society we live in. though today western culture dramatically influences other cultures. Take for example the English language. I bet the poorest country in the world would have someone speaking English, is it a bad thing? No, not at all though I think it becomes bad when we just accept it as the be all and end all. English is the dominant language and itís great to be able to talk to someone in another country in the same language but not at the expense of another language or degrading and looking down upon others who arenít as eloquent or articulate. I have muslim friends who degrade this sheikh because of his English itís somewhat broken, stutters etc. though he preaches at a mosque which is 95% Arabic speaking or from Arabic speaking backgrounds. The sermon getís translated in English right after him by another person. Yet people donít appreciate the lesson but rather his lack of ability.

What about other cultural values? Such as moral or ethical values etc, do you find there's a difference between traditional western moral values and eastern ones, say over the last millenium? This would have a major impact on how each would view politics.