69 million page views

Taj: Not really? Really?

Reader comment on item: A Democratic Islam?
in response to reader comment: Allah is never presumptuous

Submitted by Plato (India), May 18, 2008 at 08:38

You wrote:

Islam requires a theocratic regime for its survival which is why it is supportive of governments that claim to rule by Islamic sharia.

>>Not really. but I'd be interested in seeing proof of this requirement<<

In your post you had written about Islam having ‘, the first instance of a "constitution", and even elections...'

Would I be wrong in assuming that the Koran is the touchstone for the constitutions of true Muslim countries? All sharia laws have to be Koran-compliant. Muslims in Hindu majority India want sharia laws, Muslims in the UK want sharia laws there and other countries with a respectable number of Muslims. So in a Muslim majority country no government will survive that does not rule or at least claim to rule by sharia.

Islam gave rights to women, but on the plea that the Koran is Allah's final word froze them forever to be subservient to men and to be a degree lower than them.

>>Not really (example, who is a single woman subservient to?). The "degree" is one of responsibility, ie, a woman need not contribute to supporting a household, a man must contribute 100%.<<

She is subservient to her her father, brother, son. The last sermon makes clear what degree Muslim women have: a man's prisoner or an animal. (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari. You can of course throw suspicion on their reports). If the degree is only referring to responsibility in contributing to supporting the household then why are two women required to witness a deed or why do they inherit only half what their brothers get (Oh I forgot she has no responsibility to support the household. But what if she wants to and is capable of it as millions of women have proved?)

You claim the first major instance of elections was from Islam. What about the Greeks, Romans, Magadh and Vaishali in India? All nearly a 1000 years before Islam.

>>Re-read my post - I did not ascribe the first elections to Islam...<<

Since you seem to want to quibble about sentence construction and their INTENDED meaning even in such hastily written posts I have pasted below what you had written regarding elections. If the ‘first' does not qualify elections then you are right you have not ascribed any such thing. Now look at your first ‘first' where it qualifies only women's rights with ‘support of the poor' standing by itself without an ‘and' so apparently you are saying that first instance of major instance of support for the poor was not in Islam. You have used the conjunction ‘and' to link constitution and elections which I naturally took to mean that the first qualifies both constitution and election.

"an actual historical examination of Islam, expecially at its inception reveals the first major instance of women's rights, support of the poor, the first instance of a "constitution", and even elections..."

If these great democratic practices were to be found at Islam's inception have you wondered why they petered out quickly? Could it be that these Allah-given institutions were very weak to begin with?

>>Womens rights, support for the poor, elections, or constitutions are not "democratic practices"...<<

Just an affirmative statement. Nothing to support it? Anyway it they are not democratic practices what are they? Islamic? (I know, you did not say so)

No I have not wondered why they petered out, if in fact they did....nothing God gives is weak...people are...<<

So in fact did they or did they not? And pure Islamic logic. Nothing Allah gives is weak. People are weak. But you clean forgot that humans have been given the faculty of thinking, emotions etc by Allah (were you referring to physical weakness by any chance?). So Allah made people weak.

Regards

Plato

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Taj: Not really? Really? by Plato

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)