From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Subject: Re: Algeria Vs. the US hypocrisy -From NYT-
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:02:11 GMT

In article <BuJyvB.GLD@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T
Minhas) writes:
> 
> man you opened up a can of worms. let me tell you this much, the majority
> of muslim scholars have not decided that yet. however there are some common
> themes that muslim scholars to in a country ruled by islamic law:
> 


It is a fact that there's no divine rule book of Islamic law given to us by
God which states clearly and unambiguously the 'true Islamic Laws or the
constitution' of an Islamic State. As such whatever is passed off as 'Islamic
Law' by Islamic scholars is necessarily an inaccurate interpretation of the
existing but imprecise divine book - the Quran. 




> 1)respect for life (all lives)
> 2)freedom of religion (not necessarily respect for them)
> 3)strict laws of evidenc when making accusations and trials
> 4)freedom of speech (only though in such a manner that they do not
>   offend people nor do they call for anarchistic tendencies, this freedom of
>   speech is also not allowed for things already against islam. for example
>   nude paintings and music glorifying sex or crime is not allowed).
> 
> 5)all people are allowed to run for office with the exception of the head of
>   the government and that is only for a muslim (which makes sense since in an
>   islamic state the head of the government would have to be a muslim)
> 
> 6)the non-muslims of that country enjoy special rights (they do not have to
>   be in the military, in return the pay a jizyah, the money which is used is
>   for their protection in war) the non-musims are known as dhimmi which is
>   short for dhimmat-ullah (protected by god).
> 
> 7)elections are held to choose the khaifah or amir
> 
> the process of choosing a leader is much different in a true islamic country
> than in western democracies and even in muslim countries you see today
> 
> 1)no one is allowed to announce that he wants to run
> 2)the person does not have to be a citizen of the country
               


Isn't it stupid to allow a non-citizen to run for office? 



> 3)i think that a large minority of scholars believe that it is acceptable
>   for a woman to be chosen as khalifah or amirah. **
> 
> ** controversial statement so i will explain my view from what i read later
> 
> from 1 the basic model i see for holding elections is like teh following:
> 
> 1) a spcific time period is given for nominations. people are nominated.


Who's going to nominate them? Is there a caucus which is permanent in nature
and has the unrestricted right to nominate candidates?


> 2) a specific time period is given for people to then choose those nominees.
> 3) a specific time period is then given for people to choose those that
>    are left.
> 4) pick the one that has the majority or continue until one person is left
> 


This system seems identical to the procedure followed in a Communist state.
And remember the Communist model failed.


> 
> The ulema, muslim scholars can also choose who can be the leader as well
> but it if preferable that the masses do.


The question arises as to who form the ulema/muslim-scholars? Is there a 
criteria for declaring a person to be a muslim scholar? Can women be declared
as a muslim scholar and have the same powers as a male 'scholar'?

Why is direct elections of the representatives by the masses being bypassed?
Why are the so called muslim scholars being given such a privilege?
What about the rights of non-muslims?


> the principle of legislation is shura, mutual consultation. there is no
> single man decree, all decisions must be made after consultation from
> knowledgable people.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Again the reference to an ill-defined entity of people.


> in an islamic country the khalifah or amir has the added responsibility
> that all of the people are properly clothed and fed, not a single person
> can go unclothed or unfed.
> 
> the basic principle is that islamic laws are implemented so i guess you 
> could call it a "kingdom of God". it is democratic, it is not democracy
> as you can see, but it is very democratic. maybe in familiar terms you
> could call it a democracy under an islamic constitution.
> 
> i expect there to be a response from a man by the name of joachim carlos
> santos martillo ajami. i wouldn't take much of anything he says seriously,
> his intentional use of an edited version of history and his inferiority
> complex have caused him to be more or less of a liar when it comes
> to the east and islam in particular. so i'd just brush his antics aside.
> also these are theoretical things, tell me if you see a true islamic nation
> and i'll go there.
> 
> hope this helps
> 
> zafar minhas
> 
> 
> 

How is the present system of democracy as is practised today, inferior to
the so called Islamic democracy?

--Javed.