OT: Could Bush Have Been Right?

[Mr Punch]

Apologies Rogue, I was only joking.

I didn't think you were trolling (any more than usual! )

[Mr Punch]

See Kungy, though I think your crap debating technique is relevant to this subject, I don't have time to address the original question.

Apologies to everyone else for a slight derailment.

FWIW (probably not a great deal! ) IF I have time, I'll come back later and join in.

[rogue]

Apologies Rogue, I was only joking.

I didn't think you were trolling (any more than usual! )

No problems Mat. I don't think I've trolled once this thread. Most of what I've said or asked has been serious. No matter how stupidly I may have put it.

[Merryprankster]

In language you understand, just because Merry says he doesn't think oil was a reason for going into Iraq, it doesn't mean he supports Bush (just because Bush's admin obviously doesn't want anyone to believe oil was a factor). And just because I am now presenting an argument using one of Merry's arguments, does not mean that I support Merry and therefore Bush!

I'm afraid you'll get nowhere with this Mat. I've tried repeatedly to explain the concept of reductionism, using "Grok like fire" language to KL, but it's sort of like ****ing up a tree.

Like thinking the idea that a nation has the right to exercise its power in the manner it sees fit, without getting trumped by the UN, is quite separate from whether or not the war in Iraq was justified and legal. You can believe the first, for instance, and still find fault with the war.

But KL prefers the apoplectic fit method of argumentation. I believe you'll find it right next to the building blocks, near the napping mats, by the kid who eats paste.

Merry's views are not a coherent whole.

My views are a coherent whole, thank you very much! :P That whole, strangely, is not the neo-con whole, which I think you are trying to get at (and I appreciate).

[Merryprankster]

Just for sh1ts and giggles what if there are a couple of democratic states or benevolent kingdoms in the ME? And what if they formed a kind of European Union. Would you have Caliphate Lite?

The historical Caliphate or the Salafist/AQ version?

[rogue]

Historical. I'm an optimist.

[cam]

Troll time
Someone suggested that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of oil though they didn't know why. How about China?
As China continues to grow their dependency on foreign oil grows as well. Who will control the flow of oil? Whose interests are best served if a majority of the world's oil reserves are controlled by a few multinationals?

[Christopher M]

Like thinking the idea that a nation has the right to exercise its power in the manner it sees fit, without getting trumped by the UN, is quite separate from whether or not the war in Iraq was justified and legal.

To an unprincipled person, the only meaning a principle has is its ability to communicate support or opposition for a belief someone already holds.

[dezhen2001]

Just for sh1ts and giggles what if there are a couple of democratic states or benevolent kingdoms in the ME? And what if they formed a kind of European Union. Would you have Caliphate Lite?

Now it gets interesting, and sadly a bit boring Off the top of my head (after a brain-killing day at work) there are a few things i can think of. Its pretty heavy, and forgive my incoherence if i dont make sense, and the rambling...

Lets make clear that there are a few very different things that you would need to talk about here:

1) The actual Islamic Legal principles of government
2) The historical application of those principles.
3) How the legal tradition defines the scope of these principles
4) Ability/Need to change

Now, without writing pages and pages, first of all its clear that the understanding and hence application of principles is dependant on the historical social reality at the time. So what scholars today may understand as "islamic government" is not neccessarily the same thing as the Ummayad dynasty scholars (around 700AD) saw as "islamic".

There are a few really important issues that have happened in the last few centuries which are basically unprecedented before this time. This is where the "ijtihad" comes in, and is needed.

1) The establishment of nation states based on citizenship - not based on tribe, creed, ethnicity or race.

This is completely unprecedented (almost - which i will come to later) as it *technically* guarantees anyone who is a citizen of that country equal status before the law.

2) The universal declaration of human rights

Again something unprecedented, which again *technically* guarantees the protection and establishment of certain key rights that all human beings should have.

To start with, these are quite biggies, and for a "Muslim" perspective (meaning my own ) there is lots to think about.

Firstly: There is a historical precedent within the Islamic tradition that shows different religious and tribal groups can live together in one coherent community. This is the treaty of Medina. Now, forgetting all the historical horror stories folks like to talk about when mentioning Jiyza and all these other things a moment, the Medinan community for a number of years did actually include Muslims, a few Jewish tribes, as well as a few Pagain tribes (who didnt convert to Islam until after Muhammad died, i think). Everyone basically followed their own code of Laws, unless a specific situation was brought to the Head of State - which was of course Muhammad. Even in those cases (which are documented) he used the Jewish law to punish adultery and other things.

Now its complex because this is where the historical expression vs. universal principle aspect comes in to play. We have to remember that at that time, not only were various religions present - but tribes of people were known by their religion. Not only that, but Arabia at that time was basically in a constant state of warfare based on clan battles, honor and all this other stuff.

We have the example of past scholars who have worked on this area and set out basic examples of how a government should run, from the medieval period up until recently. One main key points is "Shura" which is a type of consultation. In Muhammads time it was based on a type of tribal leaders council, and was modified to suit the needs of the community, usually including (but not always) the most experienced and wisest Muslims around Medina. How we can apply this today is something that there are many differing views on. Many people envisage some type of electoral representative council, which even includes the representation of religious minorities. Historically there are instances, even in Muhammads time when the needs of a minority community were given full attention, and some were appointed in to the equivalent of a "government" office, especially in later history.

Also who qualifies for leadership? This is where the history between the Sunni and Shia comes in, as well as other minority sects. The early "orthodoxy" upheld that basically only amember of Muhammads clan could be leader (ie: Quarysh, which Muhammads Hashemite clan was only a sub-group), whereas the Shia held it should be hereditary. On the other hand we have another group called the Khairji (some say the fore-runner to the Salafi's, but not entirely true), who said anyone (male) who was of the correct skill level and ability could lead the Islamic State. Historically both these other opinions were crushed, but they are interesting to note. Historically also, it is clear why they were crushed, as the society was still based on clan structure and the Ummayads was basically a type of Arab Imperialism, so accomodating different "clans" who were different religions is not exactly the way to go about consolidating your power base.

The consequences for modern times gets quite interesting, because not only are most of the Muslims on the planet not Arab, the actual descendants of Quarysh is pretty much negligible. On top of that, we are also dealing with distinct soverign states, so it gets complicated.

Now, im not a scholar (though can sure talk smack like one), but this raises another few key issues - which are all being debated right now between groups who are theoretically trying to figure out how islamic governance can work today.

A couple are:

1) Pan "islamic" Nationalism (excuse the pun) - does any Islamic "state" accept and comply with the current UN borders and so on?

2) Does any Islamic State comply with and accept the UN charter for human rights, and other related things?

As you can imagine, the decisions and outcomes have extreme consequences and could be quite scary for those of us who dont exist in this theoretical Islamic State (including all of us western muslims, and those of "muslim" countries too).

Thats before getting in to the well known catchphrases of dar al-harb (abode of war) and dar al-islam (abode of islam/peace) and how they relate to this situation. Most people think they know all about them and stuf, but its actually a really complex area of jurisprudence that there are many different opinions on, and its not as "clear cut" as many non-Muslims, and others including the "Salafi" groups make it to be. Especially considering that there is no dar al-islam technically in existence today, with any legislative authority.

Anyway, this is getting boring. A few other areas that really need to be developed and discussed before even thinking of anything else is to do with such things as:

1) Contractural obligations - are treaties with outher "muslim" and non-muslim countries going to be honored? What about trade and other things?

2) How to create an Islamic State in the first place - is it Islamically legitimate to overthrow a despotic ruler to create an islamic state? (this is not as clear cut as it sounds)

3) How the governmental system will work - courts, judges and so on.

many, many things - and this is just from the "islamic" side - let alone the international community which would of course have to be worked with at some stage.

Unfortunately for us Muslims - an "islamic state" is much more than simply "establishing the Hudud; commanding the good anf forbidding the evil" as so many slogans say. It is also a juristic and legal issue - not to be confused with a purely emotion-driven issue, which is based on a utopia and not reality.

Perhaps the most important question that needs to be asked first though is simply this: "What is the state of obligation in establishing an Islamic State in these times? Particularly for western Muslims who were born and raised in the west?".

its also not as easy to answer as it seems. It again comes down to the compatability of democracy - or democratic principles - with islam, and how thyey both relate to the contextual situation in the modern world.

MP: Also keep your eye out on Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun if you want to read some scary things.

(Sorry for boring y'all - but you did want to play devil's advocate)

[Mr Punch]

My views are a coherent whole, thank you very much! :P That whole, strangely, is not the neo-con whole, which I think you are trying to get at (and I appreciate).

No that's not what I was getting at. Anyone with two brain cells they can rub together without causing a fire could tell your're not a neocon.

I was using coherent not in the sense of logically developed argument but in the sense of a ****genous, indivisible mass. Therefore someone cannot provide "a counterpoint" to your "view" because maybe your view is not one set of ideals you've subscribed to (and this is the case with most people) so unless he refutes/disagrees with every single one of your opinions on everything, he is not providing a counterpoint. Of course it is feasible that he disagrees with every point, and also that he is unread about some of your points, therefore the kneejerk thing comes into play.

You can believe the first, for instance, and still find fault with the war.

Precisely. Thus subscribing to one view about one thing and one view about another.

As opposed to rattling on about how we shouldn't have been in Iraq (a point to which I partially subscribe) when the question is about whether there was a domino effect in the ME and whether it's the one Bush was predicting.

[Mr Punch]

(Sorry for boring y'all - but you did want to play devil's advocate)

You don't have to apologize for writing long posts mate! Thank you for educating those of us without first-hand access or experience of Moslem history or philosophy... must be a thankless task!

I'll go back and read them all at some point!

[rogue]

(Sorry for boring y'all - but you did want to play devil's advocate)

Not boring at all Dawood. I figured that there would be some issues and that's why I used the horrble term "Caliphate Lite". It's almost a caliphate but without some parts.

[dezhen2001]

It all depends on what you define the term "caliphate" as - if its the same as the historical construct, then i really dont think that it is possible any time in the near future. Why should people be forced to regress to such a state when even flawed application of democracy gives better rights? Just because of some mistaken notion of spirituality or religious obligation?

Know what i mean?

An interesting thing is that one fo the scholars that i follow from Malaysia actually wrote a short book against the establishment of an "islamic state" in Kelentan, Malaysia which was initially what this state wanted to try and do. He basically creamed them, showing how their "Hudud bill" and other bills they had suggested were not well thought out and did not apply islamic law correctly for this time.

Who would have thought it - a qualified Muslim scholar fighting against the imposition of "Shariah"

[Merryprankster]

rogue,

I agree with dezhen, on the caliphate thing. I was asking what YOU wanted because I was sort of being difficult.

I also agree with dezhen on everything else he posted. How the Salafists define things is not the end all, be all.

Dezhen, you make a nice point of rounding out (providing the meat) of the argument I engaged in on the "underpants gnomes" part. You've outlined the implimentation difficulties.

[dezhen2001]

you make a nice point of rounding out (providing the meat) of the argument I engaged in on the "underpants gnomes" part.

Guess it gives me an excuse to watch South Park - for "educational" purposes

One of the most important things to keep in mind in any endeavour - Islamic or not is the simple fact that a jurist can only give an adequate answer, if he/she has the adequate resources and understanding of the problem. This is the main problem right now, even if the tools are there, and its why communication and understanding (as well as mutual respect) are important, in my humble opinion.

My main concern is to try to get specialists (scholars, whatever you want to call them) out of the reactionary mindset that makes things appear black and white. The situation in Iraq is slightly different because its a Shia majority - and their Islamic Jurisprudence is slightly different than the Sunni version i study - especially to do with Ijtihad and the idea of an Imam as leader. So its interesting for me to see how it all will play out.