A republic is a type of democracy. India is also a republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_India
Not quite. Fiqh is the body of legal opinion derived from religion and society. Sharia is the politically resultant laws laid down by jurists based on their (or the peoples) opinion of what constitutes justice. e.g. Israeli legal system incorporates elements from Ottoman law which is based on sharia which is based on fiqh which incorporates elements of Jewish law. The journey from Judea to Israel is the journey that social elements have made, not the journet that clerics have made. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Republics do not have to be democracies in the way that westerners think of the term. The Roman Republic, People's Republic of China and the Republic of Cuba come to mind.
A hell of a lot better than Sharia law. Also, I prefer that this be done BEFORE an act of rape against humans, as a preventitive.
Right. Meanwhile: As the rest of your post was about something else, I am still unenlightened about exactly what was wrong with my imagined melding of sharia law and democracy. It was drawn from an acceptance of the descriptions of sharia law by its defenders here on this forum, as it might fit into an actual democratic state. We have to deal in hypotheticals, here, because we have no real world examples (pace Iran). But the claim that sharia law is compatible with democracy would be on much solider ground if at least some hypothetical setup were described in which we could see the compatibility, no?
The assumption being -that sharia has to be attached to a religion -that sharia requires clerics to play a role in its implementation Thats not how it is. The Quran is a reminder and Islam is a universal religion for all people. So also, sharia should be for society by society, following the rules that are universal, not individual or special. I think a great deal can be learned by examining all the aspects of sharia and making them applicable to present day society. It is the Muslim legal resource, not the Islamic one. Theoretically, Islamic perspective on socio-political organisation has four cardinal principles: 1. The Shura or Council 2. Justice 3. Equality 4. Human Dignity
You’re such an idiot. Iraq has a population 28 million people. Are you speaking on behalf of the ~0.1% of the population that are acting as insurgents, or are you speaking on behalf of the ~99.9% who are innocent civilians who are simply trying to rise their families and live their lives? I would wager that the majority of the latter group do want democracy.
Could you please provide a list showing which misdemeanors will result in amputations and which will result in stonings, you know, so we learn a great deal about Sharia? And then everyone can update their insurance policies to include their wives as assets.
Correct. All that's required for a republic is that it is a representative system. Some nations use democratic methods to select the representatives and some do not....
Hmm so whats the American system? Is the electoral college a democratic system? India has the single representative vote
The American system is a Republic with democratic principles. The Electoral College is an indirect, democratic way of electing a leader but it is not used to choose representatives. The President and Vice President are the only members of government chosen by the Electoral College and they belong to the Executive branch instead of the Representative branch.
The Indian President is also chosen by the elected representatives of Parliament. However power is vested in the Parliament, rather than the President.
OK, so what was wrong with my hypothetical situation ? It specifically included your correction, as taken directly from earlier posts by you and arsalan here - no clerics, no religion, necessary, got it. I' m taking you at your word there - I have to say I've heard different, from different Muslims, but we're going with this version. The question before us is: how does one set up a country to be a democracy under sharia law? There aren't any, and the suggestion was that there aren't any because it can't be done. We are trying to show that it can be done. So far no luck, I guess.
You're still confused. A Muslim society sets up a democracy based on shura. Any consequent changes in legal opinions and laws passed are just added to sharia. You do not set up a political system under sharia. Sharia is consequent to the existing system. Its not the constitution, its the judiciary. e.g. Turkish government abolition of the hijab could be added to the sharia, however, no scholars are currently interested in this field, or maybe the Turks prefer not to consider themselves as Islamic or there is a lack of a coherent organisation after the fall of the Caliphate. Al-Azhar is taking some baby steps in this direction (like the fatwa against FGM) but none of their opinions have been translated to law and hence are not a part of sharia.
OK. Now how about an answer to the question: what's wrong with the hypothetical setup you said "not quite" about, and how do we go about setting up an actual democracy compatible with sharia law,under sharia law, with sharia law consequent to it, however you want to say it ? Democracy: sharia law: same country. That's the problem. Can it be done, and if so how - hypothetically.
The abolition of the hijab in universities has been removed. Stop rehashing yesterday's news. The rest of what you wrote was (more or less) nonsense. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
