Anarchism in the Qur'an

[Asfandyar]

It is for this reason that the Qur'an prefers consensus as opposed to "democracy" as the latter (as we know it today) is simply the election of leaders which then violate 2:256.

This is a SEVERE MIS-STATEMENT on my part. Democracy is not just "simply the election of leaders" at all. I was reffering to the CORRUPTED form of democracy which is beginning to take hold is one in which the only power the people have is to elect others to make the decisions for the. True democracy IS consultation between the people which grants them the power to make decisions as opposed to leaders who are then able to impose their System upon others (and therefore violate 2:256).

[progod]

Peace,

Asfandyar,

I agree with that you are saying. Sort of reminds me of the Islamic Courts of Somalia (in name only).  However, I believe that Quranist should from an organization that provides these court services. Obviously membership is voluntary, even accepting punishment is based on one's voluntary profession to hold to the laws of the Quran. In which case we see punishment among believers not as punishment but as compensation to God for our wrong doings. But organization is very important for progress and protection. And that only comes about from active participation in such an organization. I'm not a border person and I don't think it's necessary for us to have our own land-based nation. But we do need a Quranic organization dedicated to the success and protection of all of it's members and capable of promoting the Quranic agenda in a respectable way world-wide. And such an organization would be able to facilitate the necessary role of Quranic courts and preserve the freedom of individuals as individuals are always voluntarily funded. You can be a Quranist who is submissive to God and not be apart of the Quranist organization of course if you find something unquranic in such an organization. Hopefully such a Quranic organization would represent Quranists submissive to God world-wide, and most importantly represent the Quran. But it is a voluntary entity that serves the purpose of providing Quranic courts, protection, housing, welfare and any other Quran-based service and whose existence depends on the the love and will of the people.


Godbless,
Anwar

[liquiddharma]

P.S. liquiddharma,

Surely the Qur'an is for all times?

Peace

But some aspects of it are clearly temporally limited, like when it is telling the Prophet who he is allowed to marry, or when it is talking about a specific city or tribe who do not exist any more, or a specific war, transgression, or conflict. Islam, as submission to God's will, is for all time. As I see it only the parts of the Quran which refer to our relationship with God are for all time. The rest of them need to be contextualised.

[progod]

Peace,


Liqquiddarma, I see your point. I however think that we always need to look at those contexts, their vocabulary and their grammar to see if they can carry a message for all time (post-Quranic times obviously). And even in the case of topics that specifically relate to the prophet I think these contexts are our access to the sunnah of the last prophet in the Quran, giving us insight into what he did do, where he did it and why, from a first hand account.

Godbless,
Anwar

[truthseeker11]

Peace Asfandyar and Anwar,

Thank you for your quranic understanding on this issue. 

[huruf]

ANY system will only be as good as the people in it are. Any system can fail absolutely if the people lack moral qualities. Most systems fail because of the greed and dishonesty and abuses of the people rather than trough the failings of the system.

I think that that is the most clear and worthwhile teaching of the Quran and in that it is anarchistic. That is society is YOU. If you fail, do not expect much.

Be moral and then think and plan and talk. Of course, part of the islamic moral is relfection and thorough thought, not blind adherence to any course somebody throws on you. I think any islamic system seems to call for some assambleistic elements and the sustained participation of people in everyday as well as long term running of affairs. The shape it takes is a matter to study for every society or situation, but all people must be involved.

Salaam

[Supernaut]

That is society is YOU. If you fail, do not expect much.

Perfect words!

[liquiddharma]

Huruf, where you cannot reconcile the two - Islam and government - is that there is no compulsion in the faith, but there most certainly has to be compulsion in government. As you say, most systems fail because of greed and dishonesty and abuses of the people. That isn't just government. That is companies, individuals, families, gangs - anyone can be corrupt and violent. That is why government needs to balance this, where criminals use force to get their way, government must use force to uphold the law, a system of fairness for everyone. The government can take may forms, but the one form it cannot take is pacifism. It cannot refrain from force as the criminals and lunatics in society certainly will not -if it does, it will not be the government - someone else will be.

[Asfandyar]

Huruf, where you cannot reconcile the two - Islam and government - is that there is no compulsion in the faith, but there most certainly has to be compulsion in government. As you say, most systems fail because of greed and dishonesty and abuses of the people. That isn't just government. That is companies, individuals, families, gangs - anyone can be corrupt and violent. That is why government needs to balance this, where criminals use force to get their way, government must use force to uphold the law, a system of fairness for everyone. The government can take may forms, but the one form it cannot take is pacifism. It cannot refrain from force as the criminals and lunatics in society certainly will not -if it does, it will not be the government - someone else will be.

You appear to misunderstand anarcho-capitalism.

In anarcho-capitalism, there are competing systems of government and people may chose to belong to which ever one they wish. However, it is most likeley that the role of government itself will be split between defence agencies, insurance companies, courts, e.t.c. Laws passed under one system would only apply to those who accept it and in intra-group conflict (where the group involved all accept the system).

However, any actions (including laws) which violate another person's property or rights would be dealt with by local libertarian consensus (which ALWAYS have emerged in every anarcho-capitalist society, or those similar to them, in history). In actuality it is MUCH, MUCH more complex than that but, unfortuantely, I do not have the time to explain.

I reccomend you read the publications of the Mises Institute (mises.org) as well as works by authors such as Murray N. Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Bruce L. Benson for more information.

Peace

[liquiddharma]

Well, the reason that I don't understand it is because there isn't any consensus to understand, every libertarian/anarcho-capitalist has a different understanding of what constitutes libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism. But I am interested - what anarcho-capitalist societies in history are you referring to?