Recent events in the Middle East have many commentators frantically speculating about what the future holds for Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Iran, Bahrain, Libya, Syria and any other country whose citizens are choosing to rise up in protest. Across the region, people are bravely standing up, with many common demands -- chiefly, social and economic reforms, as well as an end to rampant corruption and human rights abuses. Who could find fault with that? Unfortunately, a whole lot of people.
Among Western nations and their respective media outlets, an intense fear has been perpetuated as a result of these protests: namely, that of an "Islamized" (whatever that means) Middle East. In this case, world leaders and commentators seem to be on the same page. They are terrified that more regimes will go the way of post-revolutionary Iran and become Islamic Republics as well. Stop there.
Is Iran really an Islamic Republic? No. The mullahs and ayatollahs have created a brutal dictatorship that is about as legitimately Islamic in nature as the Ku Klux Klan is Christian. In fact, the protests in Iran (both in 2009 after the fraudulent election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and more recently this week) have shown the world that even the Iranian people aren't moving in the direction of Iran circa 1979. Far from it.
But does that mean that Iranians are turning away from their Islamic roots? Again, no. In fact, they are turning toward a more Islamic republic, or better put, a true Islamic republic. So too, others across the Middle East (whether they recognize it or not) are turning toward more genuinely Islamic states.
If Western nations understood what a true Islamic republic looked like, I expect that they wouldn't be nearly as jarred or frightened by the recent wave of popular protests spreading across the Middle East. A bona fide Islamic republic is one that respects the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, one that doesn't torture, one that eschews institutionalized sexism and honors human rights. But above all, an authentic Islamic republic is one that is both democratic and secular.
The Holy Quran, the only uncontested source of revelation for all Muslims, explicitly states that there should be "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Key to all Islamic belief and practice is the concept of niyyat or "intention." And no full, pure and independent intention can be achieved under a theocratic regime, especially (as is the case in Iran) when that regime is trying to force its adulterated interpretation of Islam down its people's throats.
Thus, the phrase "Islamic republic" is an inherently misleading one, for a theocratic state is, by definition, an un-Islamic state -- not merely because it interferes with the establishment of the pure intentions necessary to practice Islam, but also because it assumes the impossible. To become a Muslim, one must make the following proclamation of faith, or shahada: "I bear witness that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is His messenger."
As much as the leaders of the "Islamic" Republic of Iran would like us to believe that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is the voice of God on earth, they are sorely mistaken. Why? Because la ilaha ilallah. Translation: There is no god but God. For Muslims, God speaks through the Holy Quran, which teaches that God is as close to any human being as his or her jugular vein (50:16). As such, Muslims seeking union with the Divine possess no need for an intermediary -- no ayatollahs or mullahs or even imams.
Muslims around the Middle East are demanding their rights today -- not just as granted by their constitutions or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are demanding the rights guaranteed to them by the Holy Quran itself: rights to freedom, democracy, independence and yes, secular rule.
Follow Melody Moezzi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MelodyMoezzi
Islamic republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religion, by its very nature, is discriminatory. A Muslim considers himself superior to people of other religions, because he/she follows the true God and the true prophet. The same is true of Christians.
----------------------
Example from The Quran: "The likeness of those who disbelieve (in relation to the messenger) is as the likeness of one who calleth unto that which heareth naught except a shout and cry. Deaf, dumb, blind, therefore they have no sense."(2.171).
Example from the Bible:
(Matthew 10)
10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law
---------------------------
Secularism is essential to a true democracy.
It might be even more useful if mid-eastern nations understood what a true Islamic republic looked like.
Seriously, what's the point of this article? To point out that every ideology, in theory, offers a perfect world? No offense, but the same has been claimed by Christianity, communism, national-socialism, just name it. Maybe at one point it would be wise to just accept the fact that in real life this utopia just doesn't materialize.
If "a True Islamic Republic" is characterized by "freedom, democracy, independence and yes, secular rule" why call it an Islamic republic in the first place?
We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies.
We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers...
We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience...
We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called "Islamaphobia" in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.
We call on the governments of the world to reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy,... eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence; reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims; and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.
Islamic religious leaders see the distinction between politics and religious ideology as superfluous and harmful.
This is used to also true for Christianity. However, currently in the West and Far East the influence and control religious leaders exert on body politic has been gradually whittled down over the last 3 centuries to its present minor position.
"The process of haves and have-nots in the Middle East continues, but it only came to the forefront against the background of outside cultures penetrating the fabric of the Middle Eastern way of life. Maitreya says: An Arab is supposed to be an Arab, with an Arab culture, an Arab background. The masses remain Arab. The rulers lead a double life. This means that at home they show they are Arabs. Abroad they identify with nonArabs. This process guarantees a type of aura which makes one fall apart.
Maitreya says: Look at the Sheikhs. They tell their people they defend and nurture their countries with the Arab way of life. But what have they done? The wealth of the nations has been spent on arms, on personal luxuries and investments abroad, while the masses struggle for existence. . .
Maitreya says to these rulers: “It is time for you to go. Government will be by the people and for the people. The wealth of the nation is for the nation. If the nation is deprived of its health and wealth, it will rise up.”
Maitreya has made it clear to various Middle Eastern rulers that although they have tried to involve
the Americans, the consequences spell disaster."
- World Teacher Maitreya through an associate as reported by Share International
Most of which were destroyed by the Caliphate.
Just because one CLAIMS that an "authentic Islamic republic" is democratic and secular, does not mean that is true. And it is not what the vast majority of Muslims want, according to surveys (in Egypt, for example, or even in Turkey, which is becoming less and less secular and most citizens want even more Islam in their politics). Pakistan and Egypt and Iran had reasonably secular societies for brief periods at one time, decades ago, but the citizens DEMANDED theocracies and dictatorships and Sharia Law and the intrusion of Islam into every aspect of their daily lives. And are still doing so.
This article tells me that the author is really sort of embarrassed by this state of affairs. So rather than viewing it without blinders or rose-colored glasses, she paints this very whitewashed vision of the state of affairs in the Ummah. This is either meant to placate the gullible progressive element in the West (most of those who read HP), or is some sign of her own internal desperate yearnings.
What might be better is to take a good hard cold look at why the Islamic world is the way it is, and has been for centuries. And sorry, some of it has to do with the interpretation of Islam.
Fix Islam first. Then brag.
That ship has has sunk together with Soviet Union and their indoctrination departments, funding and Patrice Lumumba university.
Current trend is unquestionably towards increased ultra-conservatism.
By all accounts some decades ago women in Western dress and uncovered heads were a normal sight on streets of Egyptian, Iranian and Pakistani metro-areas. No longer.
Is it still ok to fear all of the despotic regimes that call themselves islamic republics??
People think they hate "islamic republics", but they don't understand what a "true" "islamic republic" is. OK. Fair enough.
But right now there are no true islamic republics. BUT there are a bunch of places that call themselves islamic republics that are despotic regimes.
So what is the point?? Might as well have titled the article "Stop calling Iran an Islamic Republic".
I happen to enjoy our freedom of expression and freedom of (religious/political) satire. I also strongly oppose the death penalty and the amputation of hands in cases of thievery [1]. Furthermore, I long for a society that fully accepts same-sex couples.
If you think you can convince me that a "genuine Islamic state" would offer freedom of (and from) religion, freedom to criticise/ridicule religion, equal rights for men/women, as well as equal rights for homosexuals, please go ahead! If not, please stop pretending that the only reason for skepticism and rejection is the result of a lack of information.
______
[1] "As for the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent punishment from Allah" -- Quran, 5:38
No thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
A little reading may help.
Maybe this is what is burning a hole in your under- pants !