0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Posts: 40
*
bd
Freeloader (اش خور)
1.I hope someone can provide a learned explanation to a nagging confusion I have been carrying in my mind for some time. "Islam" is well understood. Its jurisprudence, laws, ethics, commerce, social and cultural aspect - in fact, all facets are understood by the Muslims in general. Whether these are followed or not is another matter. From the governance of Mecca-Madina to the territorial expansions and ethnic amalgamations of around first six centuries, Muslims were subject to the teachings of The Holy Quo'ran and the Sunnah. Then the deterioration set in.

2. "Republic" is a Western/Christian concept which go back to Aristotle-Plato and even Socrates who questioned everything. This concept traveled down centuries colored by various Western cultures, Christianity and the Western thinkers like Hobbs, Locke, Russo, Machiavelli, Engels, Marx, John Adams and so on.

3. The emergence of the term "Islamic Republic" began in Pakistan under Field Marshal Ayub Khan. It is now used also by the Maldives, Iran and few others. However, Afghanistan, Libya and most Muslim nations have not adopted this.

4. My confusion is regarding the fusion of two opposite ideologies. The West and Islam are totally different in matters of culture, values, concept of morality, concept of ethics, and even very basic political ideas. For instance it is Allah SWT for whose pleasure Muslims exist and to whom is bestowed all sovereignty. But in the Western Republic sovereignty lies with the people. They decide what is ethics, what is morality, etc. For instance, homosexuality and gay marriages are legal in the West.

5. Can anyone dwell on the subject and remove my confusion?

Logged
0
Posts: 2089
*
ir
3rd lieutenant (ستوان سوم)
Republic is a very generic term. It simply denotes a form of government which is not hereditary (which the IRI is not).

Logged
0
Posts: 5295
moores law driving force of innovation
*
ir
Lieutenant colonel (سرهنگ دوم)
Republic is a very generic term. It simply denotes a form of government which is not hereditary (which the IRI is not).
i think republic means it has a president.
Iran Khodro largest auto maker in larger middle east

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWwHIPoQdw8&list=UUMF4vfECnuAPAfW0s6lMpyg&index=1&feature=plcp

<a href="http://www.quickiqtest.net" title="IQ Test"><img src="http://www.quickiqtest.net/graphic/badges/sf114.gif" width="150" height="75" alt="IQ Test" border="0"></a><br>QuickIQTest.net - <a title="Quick IQ Test" href="http://www.quickiqtest.net">IQ Test</a>

this is the fixed video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn-T-5k0_4E&list=UUMF4vfECnuAPAfW0s6lMpyg&index=1

Logged
0
Posts: 859
'Which of the favors of your Lord will you deny' - Al Rahman
*
za
Corporal (سرجوخه)
More than just the form of governance,a Republic today has nationalistic and territorial resonance.Things like nationalism or tribalism or any other ism shouldn't be what set us apart as Muslims. What is lacking in other countries you have mentioned, is the right of Muslims to elect the leadership of their choice from time to time. By being elected by people, this leadership has amanah or trust, which is like a contract that exist between the Muslims and leadership. This leadership over and above ruling justly and according to the Quraanic and Sunnah principles, have to look after the interests of the Muslims. This is an ideal scenario, that shouldn't only be practiced within certain territorial borders, but the entire Muslim lands. Even better is to have one leadership elected to do the same things but on the entire Muslim lands.But this proved impossible from our history, not because it can't be done but because the leadership was hijacked by individuals so that they can benefit themselves at the expense of the Ummah.Until we have leadership worthy of being the custodian of Islam and the Ummah,its a pipe dream.
None of you is a believer until he loves for his brother that which he loves for himself - The last Messenger

Logged
0
Posts: 40
*
bd
Freeloader (اش خور)
1.The word "Republic" goes back to the famous dialogue between Aristotle and Plato. This is a concept which is at the nerve center of Western Christian Civilization (WCC). WCC has never withdrawn from the Crusade syndrome. It is now no more covert after Bush's loud pronouncement post-9/11.

2. Therefore, how correct are we to adopt this WCC term? And why should we? Yes, of course we need to be able to select the leadership which is to guide us for a defined duration. And I use the word "selection" intentionally. Mankind's experience of open election has not been happy. WCC societies elect leaders who act according to what the people desire. It does not matter if he comes by cheating as was done by Bush or by using money and muscle. In our system ethics is very important. The leader guides and leads the society as a covenant of Allah SWT to whom he feels responsible and liable for all his actions.

3. Whether synthesizing a WCC concept with Islamic ideology is necessary or desirable is to be debated?

Logged
0
Posts: 1599
*
S.M. Sergeant (استوار دوم)
I don’t see any contradiction in the term “Islamic Republic”.

The whole concept of a Republic is the fact that it is not based on mob rule as pure democracy is based on. In a pure Democracy whatever the majority says becomes the rule or the law of the land no matter how the population derives to it or decides on it and regardless of its morality.

While a Republic is based on the predetermined document (the Constitution) and all the laws are based on the constitution and regardless what the majority feels as time goes by the law of the land would stay within the rights and guidance permitted by the Constitution.

What that constitution says and how it is derived upon is based on the society, for example in the US they are big on separation of “Church and State” while other countries like the UK specifically have the head of their royal family as the head of the church.

Therefore Iran is no different and certainly no contradiction when they based their constitution on the Islamic law.
There are times like these where the resolve of a Nation is shown clearly to the world. Oh this great Nation of Iran together with its proud citizens showed the world that when the Silent Majority gets rattled the world better pay attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ls4I37lQrw&feature=player_embedded#at=42  2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbYqckFvUJI&feature=player_embedded   2010

=======================================
This brings back sooooo much memory and tears to my eyes.
http://www.iranclip.com/player/169

Logged
0
Posts: 1484
فقط ولایت فقیه
*
ir
Master Sergeant (گروهبان)
Salam,

Dear brother Asad, the Imam Khomeini has explained these two concepts and the necessity of both Islamic and Republic. Republic is a translated English term, in Farsi we say Jomhuri. Jomhuri = Public masses from Jama'a. It denotes nothing more essentially than illustrating how the people in that system have a direct right to intervene in the affairs of state policy, through electoral behaviour and rule of law, in contrast to a theocracy, which is an absolute form of religious rule.

Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 05:12:16 PM by Bolbol

Logged
0
Posts: 40
*
bd
Freeloader (اش خور)
Salam, brother Bolbol,

1. Translation from one language to another can never convey the total meaning, emotional attachment and the cultural/historical background. I think I can see what has been bothering me, and no doubt, many like me.

2. The solution, and the right thing for Iran, Pakistan and others would be to call themselves officially Jamhuria. In the UN and in official reference this term ought to be used. "Jamhuria" is not "Republic" which has WCC culture, heritage and tradition attached to it. A Muslim will understand the difference that "Jamhuria" carries with it. It is part of our political ideas as developed in our societies beginning with the injunctions of the Holy Qu'oran. For example, in my idea of Jamhuria, laws, governance, jurisprudence and state affairs do not divorce ethics. Ethics has no recognition in fundamentals of a Republic.

Logged
0
Posts: 1484
فقط ولایت فقیه
*
ir
Master Sergeant (گروهبان)
The problem is how complex do you want to make it for your English speaking crowd. Using words like Jomhuri is meaningless to an international body like the UN, and if anything portrays an even darker, sinister image of what the 'skeleton' of your state consists of.

Logged
0
rouz
Posts:
What is wrong with the term republic?

re·pub·lic

A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.


I'd say it sums it up very well...

It would be very odd to mix in Arabic or Persian words when speaking English, especially when there are good English equivalents. Arabic is already an official language of the UN and you could use Arabic only, if you wanted to.

Logged
0
Posts: 2089
*
ir
3rd lieutenant (ستوان سوم)

Logged
0
Posts: 40
*
bd
Freeloader (اش خور)
What is wrong with the term republic?

re·pub·lic

A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.


I'd say it sums it up very well...

It would be very odd to mix in Arabic or Persian words when speaking English, especially when there are good English equivalents. Arabic is already an official language of the UN and you could use Arabic only, if you wanted to.
1. In the Muslim community supreme power/sovereignty does not rest in its citizens. Sovereignty for the Muslims lie in Allah SWT. Man is only His agent and is required to conduct himself and his activities as laid down in the Sovereign's Constitution called The Holy Qu'oran.

2. That is why the use of the WCC word rep-ub-lic is looking odd here. In the WCC the word republic takes them back into their heritage, history, the values they hold dear, the customs in their society, their culture, etc. Say the word "republic" and you straightaway is reminded of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. We don't necessarily aggree with or accept all of them.

3. I think brother Bolbol has given us a direction here. The word Jamhuria is our. It denotes our links to our history, culture, ideals and values.

Logged
0
rouz
Posts:
1. In the Muslim community supreme power/sovereignty does not rest in its citizens. Sovereignty for the Muslims lie in Allah SWT. Man is only His agent and is required to conduct himself and his activities as laid down in the Sovereign's Constitution called The Holy Qu'oran.

We are talking about the state of Iran's republic and not some idealized notion of divine rule. It is very pointless to engage in any discussion if you are going to mix the issues. The current system in place is a republic and should be referred to as such. 

Quote
2. That is why the use of the WCC word rep-ub-lic is looking odd here. In the WCC the word republic takes them back into their heritage, history, the values they hold dear, the customs in their society, their culture, etc. Say the word "republic" and you straightaway is reminded of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. We don't necessarily aggree with or accept all of them.

The leader of Iran's revolution studied and drew inspiration from various sources, including Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and did not solely study the Quran. Other ideologues of the Islamic Revolution were greatly influenced by the popular ideas of Marxism that had gained support in Iran. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with learning from others. In the past Iran was a leading power and the west learned from us, now, however, we are learning from the great minds of others. Mind you, much of what you criticize as western culture has its roots in the east. Borders are man made and meaningless, being a religious man you ought to have a wider perspective than defining your world in such shallow terminology.

Quote
3. I think brother Bolbol has given us a direction here. The word Jamhuria is our. It denotes our links to our history, culture, ideals and values.

Yes, use it if you speak Arabic or Persian. No need to make up new languages by adding and mixing words when there are perfectly adequate words in place already.

BTW, why do you number your posts?

Logged
0
rouz
Posts:
We have already had this discussion prior to your membership. Ideas are received and translated to fit the local context, otherwise they will not withstand the test of time. So even if Iran was to look at the west for inspiration, it would translate the notion of a republic into something unique and adapted for Iran: hence the Islamic Republic.

Words are nothing more than the meaning you prescribe to them. This is why you have different understandings of one and the same text, such as for example even the Quran.
Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 12:08:30 PM by Barberry

Logged
0
Posts: 40
*
bd
Freeloader (اش خور)
1. The debate I have sought to raise is fundamental and in the context of the concept of the Islamic Republic being used by the Muslim diaspora. Although this is an Iranian forum, the issue is not Iran-centric. Iran adopted the Islamic Republic only in 1979. But the earliest we know of this was in 1933 by the short lived Turkish Islamic Republic of Turkestan. Then Pakistan (1956), Mauritania (1958) and Karzai's Afghanistan (2001). The concept appears one only in name but not in its adherence or utility. The genesis is also interesting to note. In Iran it was the natural culmination of the Revolution - but approved through a referendum, which needs to be noted. In Pakistan it was born out of Iskandar Mirza's efforts to overcome political opposition. Ayub dropped it, but again went back to it for his survival it would seem. Karzai's has been a mischievous  trick to outsmart the Islamic Emirate of Mulla Omar.

2.It would appear the term or concept of Islamic Republic has come to mean several different things, some contradictory to others. To those Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa who advocate it, an Islamic Republic is a state under a particular theocratic form of government. They see it as a compromise between a purely Islamic Caliphate, and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception of the Islamic republic, the penal code of the state is required to be compatible with some laws of Sharia. The state may not be a monarchy as many Middle Eastern states are presently.
In other cases, it is merely a symbol of cultural identity, as was the case when Pakistan adopted the title.

3. Many contend that an Islamic Republic strikes a middle path between a completely secular and a theocratic (and/or Orthodox Islamic) system of government. This may be the view closest to what brother Barberry has suggested. Here an Islamic Republic  leans towards  socialistic Islamic principles such as the Islamic concepts of jizya or zakat and provide welfare and pension to its citizens.

4.There are nations like the Maldives where The Holy Qu'oran and the Sharia are supreme. To be a citizen a person must be a Muslim. But it is just a Republic of the Maldives. Many Muslim nations have adopted Islam as the official/state religion.

5. The objective of initiating this discussion is really to understand whether and how this concept may be applied to all Muslim nations. Is there a need for that? What are the advantages/disadvantages?

6. All military papers have paragraphs numbered. This being a military forum I am sticking to that tradition. That also helps in identifying a point, beside preventing ideas jumping from para to para. Take it as my style if you would.

Logged
0