The origins of ideology

The word 'ideology' was a word coined by the Frenchman Antoine Destitt De Tracy (d. 1836), with the aim of scientifically studying thought and action; a kind of 'science of ideas'. It was later appropriated by the German intellectuals Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Karl Mannheim, eventually developed further by the Marxists.

Where does that leave the people who waffle on about The (Singular) Islamic Ideology? Floundering. By their own logic of rejecting Westernisms (e.g. democracy) on the basis they're incompatible with Islam, they should not be turning Islam into an ideology. Appropriating the early Marx's use of ideology, I will say that those who promote The Islamic Ideology turn the circumstances of Muslims upside down as in a camera obscura. They offer a form of messianic religion, under which the emergence of The Islamic State will mystically solve All The Problems Of The World.

The reality is, however, that they seek power and domination (contrary to some Muslim traditions) to liquidate all those who may oppose their own ideology and political beliefs, as 'enemies of Islam'. They are more Western than they would ever care to admit. Thankfully, most Muslims are happy to ignore the prattle from the Party.

(This polemic was prompted by some of the comments from a supporter or sympathiser of the Party of Liberation on this post by Haroon.)

Comments

[Abdul Rahman Hilmi]

Assalamu alaikum
We'll go through this a small step at a time.

1)The definition of an ideology as can be seen, is generally accepted to be the system that includes social, political and economic views. Now by your way of thinking, because no such term technically existed in the English language, there never were any economic, political or social systems in the world.

2)Islam is not an English religion. You're sources are English authors, English words and English references. I think if you want to discuss whether Islam is an ideology or not, whether Islam has a social system, an economic system and a political system, then try bringing something more Islamic than that.

>Now I will start my arguments on why Islam IS an ideology and why we should implement it.

3)Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah said:
“The prophets ruled over the children of Israel. Whenever a prophet died, another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafaa’ and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil your pledge to them one after the other, and give them their dues, for verily Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.”

First of all, we can disagree on how Islamic the Abbasides, Umayyads, Muwahydoon, Ottomans, etc. were. Although at the same time the prophet (pbuh) refered to them as khulafah non the less, not only in this hadith, but several other hadiths. But for ease of argument, I will leave them temporarilly out of the picture and only consider the khulafaah al rashideen which as from ahlul sunnah, we agree by definition that they were righteous Islamic rulers.

Now my first question to you is, what did they rule with? Did they implement Western Democracy? ie, did they allow people to vote on absolutly everything, whether Allah made it halal or haram? No, they did not. Ok, so what did they rule with? I take it as we can agree that they did not implement haram and forbid the halal (at least not intentionally and in their own knowledge). Let's put that aside as that is fixed and not a single scholar disagree with it. So that leaves nothing more in their ruling except what Allah made mubaah.

For the mubaah, there is something in Islam called ijtihaad. It is reasoning taking the circumstances and the environment in the lights of the Quraan and the sunnah and bringing out rules that solves the problem. I believe one khaleef (I think it was Omar (raa)) who brought in a Persian law into the state, but this was only after he saw that it does not disagree with any Islamic concept from the Quraan and the Sunnah.

I think until now we agree in everything in point (3) as what I said is only historic fact that all the ulamaa agree with whether past or present (personally I don't put too much stress on the present ulamaa, but that's another story). It is how the khulafaah al rashidoon managed the state. All in all, everything they ruled with was looked upon in the light of the Quran and Sunnah.

4)So we know how the khulafaah al rashidoon ruled, they ruled purely by Islam. Now the question is, is social rules, politics, and economics part of their ruling? Well if not then what exactly are they ruling?? By definition a ruler or the ruling party is the manager of the social, political and economic affairs of the country. So yes, all these issues are obviously part of the state management and they are part of what the khulafah took to consideration in their every day lives as rulers. And they ruled by nothing except what Islam allows through the Quraan and Sunnah and their ijtihaad.

The above two points should be sufficient for any Muslim, but I will go further.

5) Tell me about the Papist rule in Europe. Why did it fail? Why was a tyranny and a dictatorship? Well, because the Pope had nothing to rule with except for his own mind. Christianity has absolutly no or very little guidance on how to rule, it is simply put, not an ideology. Therefor, in a position of leadership, the pope will have absolute authority, not the Bible because the Bible holds very little the Pope could use. And so, with what will the people hold him to account?

So the reformation came and the Renaissance started and Church lost all its powers. Several years later, what exactly is left of the Church? Do you honestly tell me that the Church holds as much authority on the Christian's lives as it used to? Even close? How about absolutly ANY authority? How many Christians actually don't have sex outside of marriage? No, how many Christians belive in marriage? Actually, how many Christians, when you come up to ask them about their deen, they reply by saying "I'm Christian, but I have my own thoughts about god"? This is a religion that was never intended to last. This is a religion that Allah revealed to Jesus (as) and his followers that was void of any thing except of simply ibaddaat and guidance on who your god is. It was not meant to last as there will be another warning after it. The warning of Muhammad (pbuh).

6)Islam came to rule. Muhammad (pbuh) was not only a prophet, he was a ruler who created a state and fortold the khulafah and ordered the Muslims to obey them. He said the children of Israel were ruled by prophets but after Muhammad there will be only khulafah and we should obey them. This is in the sahih Bukhari I mentioned earlier in this post. And as we mentioned in point (3) the khulafah rule by Islam.

Awf Ibnu Malik Al-Ashja’i said; "I heard the Messenger of Allah say;
‘The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and whom you pray for and they pray for you, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.’ We asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?’ He said; ‘No, as long as they establish Salah among you’, narrated by Muslim.

The imam in Arabic is also a term used for a ruler, just as khilafah could be called imamat. Salah also in this hadith refers to the whole of Islam. This can be easily seen in surah Hud:87 in the Quraan;
"They said: "O Shu'aib! Does your Salat command that we leave off what our fathers used to worship, or that we leave off doing what we like with our property? Truely you are the rightly guided!"

7)So why should Islam rule? Well in point (5) I showed you why the Pope was a dictator. The fact that Islam is the last warning Allah will send to man, it should be a message that will last. To last, Islam should not be ruled by other systems or else its fate will be like that of the Christians who lost their Christianity.

We have a shariah law. This shariah law tells us how to punish criminals. On what basis do we have treaties and for how long. It tells us about the shuraa and forbiding of interests and other forms of businesses (for example the unlimited liability companies (agumentative)). With all this in mind, I have yet another question.

Why did Allah reveal the shariah laws? For example, when Allah says in the Quraan that we should cut the hand of the theif, why did Allah reveal this verse? Is it not, that in his wisdom subhaanuh wa taala, he knows that the best punishment of the theif is the cutting of his hand? And what is the purpose of laws and punishments? Is it not to stop crimes from happening? So in other words, is it not true that punishing a theif the way Allah told us will be the best solution to the problem of theft? It might not completely solve it, but it will bring us the closest as it is the law that Allah, who created man and knows man better than any other creature, told us off? Did Allah (swt) reveal this verse so that we read it and then put it back on the shelf? Or did he reveal it so that we implement it?

8) If you think Islam should not be put in a position of rule, then you're ignoring all the shariah rules which cannot (and should not) be used by citizens of any state, like for example, the criminal punishments in Islam. Not only are you doing that, but by saying that Islam can survive and the Muslims can live happily away from the implementation of shariah, you are saying that there is no point of those shariah laws, astaghfurullah. What you are saying is that even though Allah said that the cure for theft is cutting the hand of the theif, we can cure theft through other means, which is in some Muslims' case, ofcourse, growing a beard and rolling up your trousers. What you're saying is that we can create the model Muslim without the need of Allah's advice on how to create the model society.

9)For the model society, it cannot be created by individuals. To create a model society you need to have governmental authority, you need to determine what is sold in the market, what the TV broadcasts, the criminal laws, the societal and social rules, the education curriculem, etc etc etc. You cannot close yourself inside your own mosque and try to seclude yourself from the outside world. If you are able to do that, not only is it haram as the Prophet (pbuh) said: "Allah does not punish the individuals for the sins of the community until they see the evil spreading among themselves, and while they have the power to stop it, do not do so" (Ahmed) but also, what about your brothers and sisters who fell prey to the corrupt society? Who will help them? You? What will you do? Gather a group and start preaching to every door? But I have an alternative I'm offering you. What if instead of running around trying to pick up every single Muslim who falls prey to a society that you yourself live in, why not create and Islamic society that will not prey on anyone and get it over with? Now I'm not saying we establish Islam in the US or France or UK or Germany. No, that's just silly. We have countries with a more than 90% population of Muslims, it makes more sense there than anywhere else.

10)My last point to you is this. Islam came as a final message of Allah. Abu Bakr (raa) said, "Muhammad has indeed died. This Deen needs some one to maintain it." You, as a Muslim, simply cannot live properly while living in a society that implement rules that are clearly against the rules of Islam. You cannot do so, and it is even more dangerous to raise your child in such a system. Each generation will slowly loose step until, as in the example of Christianity, nothing will be left of Islam in the minds of the Muslims. Personally, this prophecy the prophet (pbuh) said, I believe we have reached. And I believe that the we are in dire need of a khaleefah to bring us together under the shade of Islam. Umar Ibn Al-Khatab said: "There can be no Islam without Jama'a; no Jama'a without an Ameer (leader); and no leadership without obedience."

Here were 10 points that really are very simple to understand. I have a couple of article in my blog about ideology and what it means and how it effects people that go much more indepth.
The Ideology
The Ideology II

I would also envite you to read or at least scan through the following books by the Tahrireen.

Economic System in Islam
Social System in Islam
Funds in the State

Wa barakallahu feek and may Allah keep Islam the main subject amongst Muslims and guide his ummah into what is khair for her.

wassalamu alaikum

[haroon]

This is a terrible argument. You've completely ignored reasonable processes of time, changes in time period, and so on and so forth, not to mention the change in Islam's interpretations and diffusions of various populations, undermining the initial cohesiveness of the community, which makes this all problematic.

Furthermore, the nation-state is NOT the form of government of tribal Arabia, and hence, that nation-state will become far more dangerous, Islamically, than in the past.

Finally, a small point. You notice that the Papacy did not "fail" over Europe because it was a tyranny, but because he had "nothing but his own mind". This is a terribly juvenile argument for two reasons, one Islamic and one historic.

Islamically, all states fall. No state endures forever. Because, being human, our efforts can never be "perfect" -- that is the nature of life. Tyrannies are more likely to fall than other governments, but even democracies will change and pass over time, because we believe the world will eventually end; people die, states die, the Earth dies, all except God.

Historically, if the Papacy failed because it had nothing to go on but the Pope's mind, then how come the Islamic Khilafat you so laud collapsed? Not to mention that there was no meaningful Khilafat past the 9th century, and after that, its symbolic value indicates a change in government -- with the diffusion and diversity of Islam, a single government was impossible and, as such, the Khilafat, where it existed, become a symbol, though a contested one.

There's no reason new forms of symbolism could evolve in an Islamic context.

[Abdul Rahman Hilmi]

Assalamu alaikum
Putting aside the fact that you only replied to exactly two points out of the 10, I will give you a reply nontheless.

Harron said:------------
You've completely ignored reasonable processes of time, changes in time period, and so on and so forth
-----------------
what exactly is the difference between "reasonable processes of time" and "changes in time period"? and what is the "so on and so forth"?

The argument in the above quote is a change of time. Exactly what about change of time that defines how man should be ruled? Technology? Does the fact that today we have computers change the how we should punish crime? Tell me. Saying "changes in time" is such a general statment that really has no meaning at all when said on its own, like you did. What about the change time? What exactly changed? Human value? What is it? What exactly changed since the time of the prophet until now other than technology?

Haroon said:---------
Furthermore, the nation-state is NOT the form of government of tribal Arabia, and hence, that nation-state will become far more dangerous, Islamically, than in the past.
-------------
The Khilafah was divided into wilayaat each wilayah ruled by a waali who in his turn answers to the Khaleefah. This IS how is was under the khulafaah al rashidoon. Second it with whom ever you want.

Haroon said:------
Finally, a small point.
-----------------
Yep, cause you covered everything I said.

Haroon said:---------
Islamically, all states fall. No state endures forever. Because, being human, our efforts can never be "perfect" -- that is the nature of life. Tyrannies are more likely to fall than other governments, but even democracies will change and pass over time, because we believe the world will eventually end; people die, states die, the Earth dies, all except God.
-------------------
I am not concerned with this argument. Saying that the papist rule fell because all states will eventually fall is a very shallow argument so I'm not even going to reply to it. Allah created us in a world with cause and effect, action and reaction. He (swt) gave us brains to think and reason with.

Haroon said:------------
Historically, if the Papacy failed because it had nothing to go on but the Pope's mind, then how come the Islamic Khilafat you so laud collapsed? Not to mention that there was no meaningful Khilafat past the 9th century, and after that, its symbolic value indicates a change in government -- with the diffusion and diversity of Islam, a single government was impossible and, as such, the Khilafat, where it existed, become a symbol, though a contested one.
-------------------
First of all there is a difference between the papacy and the caliphate. Not a single year under the Holy See was a good year for the Europeans. Compared to the Caliphate, even Western historians agree that that the Caliphate was a bright spark in the world. No one said it was perfect throughout. But never the less, the exceptions don't make the rules. The general outcome of the caliphate was great progress for the world and every nation that interacted with it.

Now as for why the caliphate fell. First of all, again, there is a difference between the fall of the caliphate and that of the Papacy. The Papacy was stripped of its power by the Europeans themselves. The caliphate was destroyed through forign interference into the state. Even the Arab revolution's its aim was to establish an "Arab caliphate" instead of a Turkish one. So the caliphate itself never failed and even when Mustapha Kemal took control of the Turkish parliment, the Indians and the Egyptians sent several delegations asking Mustapha Kemal not to abolish the Caliphate. They even said he himself could be the caliph in return to keep the caliphate alive. So the Muslims never really fought against the concept of the caliphate as compared to what happened against the Pope.

Thirdly, although the caliphate was Islamic, there has been problems in the implementation of Islam. Meaning, the caliphate remained using the Quran and Sunnah as the basis of its rules, but the ijtihaad to implement the different laws of the state became flawed. This was especially devestating when the people's ijtihaad was stopped and only the Grand Mufti was allowed to make ijtihaad. So there has been errors in the implementation, which slowly caused the caliphate to weaken.

But that is really besides the point. I'll be waiting for an actual reply to my post. A reply to shariah aspects that I spoke off, to whether you can perfect society using other than what Allah told us to do. I only replied to a couple of points akhi.

assalamu alaikum

[Abdul Rahman Hilmi]

Last sentence before the salam said "I only replied to a couple of points akhi." It should read "you only replied to a couple of points akhi."

wassalam

[eteraz]

I'll be more than willing to give you a refutation of all ten of these atemporal points. Of course, I warn you in advance so that your ego doesn't shatter later.

Anyway, just quickly to the Papist point: It is patently incorrect to use the term "papist rule" unless you first explain which European countries you are talking about. When England broke away from the Papacy, it remained a Christian nation. Similarly, non-papal European nations (Greek Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox) also remained incredibly Christian despite not having "papal rule." So, to say that the next step in the end of Papal Influence was lack of religious authority in the West is a beautiful misrepresentation of history.

By the way, thanks for giving me one of the best laughs of the day:

"So the reformation came and the Renaissance started and Church lost all its powers. Several years later, what exactly is left of the Church?"

Several years later? LOL. Never seen anyone refer to hundreds of years like that.

Then again, HT is caught in a temporal flux, regurgitating idiocy, oh, sorry, ideology, and then eating it over and over.

[Abdul Rahman Hilmi]

Assalamu alaikum Eteraz,

Keeping in mind that only Catholics have a Pope and Papal rule is thus Catholic rule;
Eteraz said:--------
When England broke away from the Papacy, it remained a Christian nation.
--------------
England was no longer Catholic but adopted the Church of England. And today the UK is far from being a Christian nation.

Eteraz said:--------
Similarly, non-papal European nations (Greek Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox) also remained incredibly Christian despite not having "papal rule."
--------------
That is not true. Russia actually has 2% practicing Orthodox Christians. This is common amongst most other East European states. There are a few exceptions, states like Greece have more in common in their cultural and social values with Sicily and Spain for a reason. They do not share the same Christian sect, most other countries of the same Christian sect have very low practicing Christians, the only thing that these countries have in common is a history under Islamic rule. However, these countries are nontheless on a straight road towards the same consequence as that of the rest of Europe.

Eteraz said:----------
So, to say that the next step in the end of Papal Influence was lack of religious authority in the West is a beautiful misrepresentation of history.
----------------------
Tell me what exactly influences people's thoughts and emotions? Are you telling me that the environment has no effect on people? That the society has no effect on people? Exactly what brings forth our personalities? All our actions are based on our thoughts and our thoughts comes from concepts we hold. These concepts are the result of information we gather, whether that information is from school, TV, advertisments, the way people dress, the way people interact, what the people frown upon, what the people look up to, your parents, the society as a whole. All these things effect our thinking and all these things are the basis of our thoughts. To say that the people's thinking didn't change when under the Papal rule as compared to that under absolute freedom of Western Democracy is turning a blind eye on reality.

Eteraz said--------------------
Several years later? LOL. Never seen anyone refer to hundreds of years like that.
Then again, HT is caught in a temporal flux, regurgitating idiocy, oh, sorry, ideology, and then eating it over and over.
----------------------------------------------
While the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was sitting with some of his companions, a man reviled AbuBakr and insulted him. But AbuBakr remained silent. He insulted him twice, but AbuBakr controlled himself. He insulted him thrice and AbuBakr took revenge on him. Then the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) got up when AbuBakr took revenge.
AbuBakr said: Were you angry with me, Apostle of Allah?
The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) replied: An angel came down from Heaven and he was rejecting what he had said to you. When you took revenge, a devil came down. I was not going to sit when the devil came down.

Eteraz said:---------
I'll be more than willing to give you a refutation of all ten of these atemporal points.
-------------------------
I hope that was not what your refering to and that I should be expecting another post, because all what you did here is repeat similar points to that brother Haroon made. I'll be waiting for an actual reply.

assalamu alaikum

[thabet]

assalamu alaykum

Abdurrahman,

What can I say? I suppose I should thank you for taking your time to type all that out. May God reward your good intentions.

However, for every one point someone rasies you write a further dozen. This is a standard HT maneouvere; before you question me on this, you should know that I was involved with them in the UK. I still have many of their publications (e.g. Khilafah Magazine which is distributed here) and Nabhani's work.

I would say that I resent your assumptions that I believe Muslims are incapable of forming indigenous governments and forming legal systems that are both "Islamic" and "democratic". I also resent the facile tactics, common amongst all Party members and sympathisers, of conflating Islam in its entirity with their own narrow ideology. HIZB AL-TAHRIR IS NOT ISLAM. AND ISLAM IS NOT HIZB AL-TAHRIR; anymore than me, or Haroon or Eteraz are Islam. We form constituents in a process within Islamic history, within an unfolding tradition, who will ultimately perish.

I would also suggest you brush up on your arguments: on the one hand you're saying that Muslims must only ever rule by Islam, yet on the other hand cite Hazrat Umar's (ra) incorporation of Persian law as a method of RULING amongst people. Islamic law, traditionally, devloped outside the state, yet you suggest there is no Islam without a state.

I would also suggest that in order to understand democracy you use something other than the "define" operator on Google. Democracy does not, in theory, allow anything to be voted in or out: democratic governments are meant to uphold the rule of law and the law is meant to be judged according to fundamental rights granted in constitutions, bills of rights, legal precedents and the like.

Incidentally, when Marx and Engels developed the use of ideology, they had in mind ideas which were false; ideas that painted over the cracks and flaws in society (of which religion was one false element). Islam, at its core, is about a revealed truth and its interaction with created truths. I'll even concede that a multitude of ideologies are possible for Muslims to create and dispute, for ultimately Muslims must also fight ideological battles. I do not accept "Islam is an ideology".

And lastly, yes: law and culture are intrinsically linked. Your talk of "social systems" is scary because it reminds me of communuism and scientific socialism and all the other "scientific" attempts to forms "perfect" societies. Instead, humans, as Muslims believe them to have souls, form organic relationships: this is how systems arise. Not the other way around. So, I would like to help the brother up from the floor, even if I must do it a hundred times.

And Allah knows best.

wasalam

[haroon moghul]

This is kind of fun. It reminds me of the days at ISNA, when we'd argue with HTers until we realized they were parrots in the form of human beings, repeating slogans and not making arguments.

Your reading of history is like understanding the Vietnam War based on the Swift Boat Veterans. The Caliphate didn't collapse because of "foreign influence"; the Caliphate was dead by the 9th century.

Since you think the Ottoman Empire is fully caliphate and fully legitimate, what made it the Caliphate? The claim to the Caliphate was a lame (as in failed, stunted) attempt to retrieve political legitimacy and reunite the state at a time of increasing fragmentation.

For most of their history, when the Ottomans were a "bright spark," they were concerned not with Muslim territories, but with Rumelia and to some extent Anatolia. They only turned to the Arab world when they had lost their (to them) more valuable Balkan possessions; claims to the Caliphate by Abdul-Majid, in the 1870s and onwards, were coupled with the strengthening of the police state apparatus. Hence, when I hear HT fans applaud the Ottoman state, I wonder how quickly they'll bring about a police state.

The Ottomans, moreover, were not a Caliphate by even the demographic sense; arguably, the Mughals ruled over as many, if not more, Muslims, during much of their ascendancy, and some Mughals claimed the Caliphate. How do we historically adjudicate which claim is more important? Why should we? How can we? Why can we?

Finally, your complete disregard for European history: If the Papacy was so terrible, why has it survived as an institution, whereas the Islamic Caliphate switched from house to house and lost all legitimacy within a few hundred years? Unless Catholicism is the true faith, or we are wrong to judge Islam on the basis of politics and politics alone.

[Abdul Rahman Hilmi]

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

Thabet said---------
However, for every one point someone rasies you write a further dozen.
-------------------
alhamdullilah.

Thabet said:-------------
I also resent the facile tactics, common amongst all Party members and sympathisers, of conflating Islam in its entirity with their own narrow ideology. HIZB AL-TAHRIR IS NOT ISLAM. AND ISLAM IS NOT HIZB AL-TAHRIR; anymore than me, or Haroon or Eteraz are Islam. We form constituents in a process within Islamic history, within an unfolding tradition, who will ultimately perish.
-------------------------
Hizb ut-Tahrir never claimed to be the entire Islam. "Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political group and not a priestly one. Nor is it an academic, educational or a charity group."

Thabet said:--------------
I would also suggest you brush up on your arguments: on the one hand you're saying that Muslims must only ever rule by Islam, yet on the other hand cite Hazrat Umar's (ra) incorporation of Persian law as a method of RULING amongst people. Islamic law, traditionally, devloped outside the state, yet you suggest there is no Islam without a state.
---------------------
But as long as ijtihaad was made insure that this particular law your importing does not disagree with neither the Quraan and the sunnah, they there is no harm in implementing it. You cannot say that every single law implemented by the khulafah of the past were imported from outside. Most of the laws were actually through the Muslim's ijtihaad on the prophet's Sunnah and Allah's book. If you have the book The Economic System of Islam you will see that. There is also a pdf version in the party's websites.

Thabet said:-----------
Democracy does not, in theory, allow anything to be voted in or out: democratic governments are meant to uphold the rule of law and the law is meant to be judged according to fundamental rights granted in constitutions, bills of rights, legal precedents and the like.
-------------------
But that's also in Islam. If this is your idea of an ideal government then we really don't have any problem. The only thing that bothers me now is, why are you calling it democracy if we agree that this is in Islam? Why not call it 'Islam'? Actually, if we agree that the definition you gave of what a democracy is is exactly available in Islam, would it even make sense to ask "is Islam compatible with democracy"? Or saying "Islamic and democratic country"? If, according to your definition, Islam is the same as democracy and those statements will be meaningless, don't you think?

That is not to say ofcourse that I agree with your definition of a democracy. As Wikipedia says, it comes from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule". The democracy definition I gave earlier that is the people rule in everything is the correct definition. But no matter! If we can agree that such a thing is wrong, and that Islam should be implemented as government rule. Then that is enough for me. wa barakallahu feek ya akhiiiiiii! :)

Thabet said:----------
Islam, at its core, is about a revealed truth and its interaction with created truths. I'll even concede that a multitude of ideologies are possible for Muslims to create and dispute, for ultimately Muslims must also fight ideological battles. I do not accept "Islam is an ideology".
---------------------
I agree with absolutly everything you said except for the last sentence.

First let us agree on what an ideology is. As you did not dispute with my previous definition that I gave, then I take it that you agree with it.

Second step would be to ask whether Islam is ideological. It is only required of Islam to have economic, social and political ideas for it to be ideological. Does Islam have these? Now maybe Islam does not have DIRECT answers to absolutly every rule a Muslim ruler will face in his lifetime, but I say this for the third time now, we as Muslims have the concept of ijtihaad. Ijtihaad is taking the environment, circumstances and the problem in the lights of the Quraan and sunnah and finding a solution. You can agree or disagree on whether this solution is "islamic" per se, but I am certain we will agree that the method used to bring these solutions are Islamic as we are using the Quraan and sunnah in the process. And if from these ijtihaads we get answers to political question, economic questions, social questions, then I believe this will actually give Islam the quality of an ideology.

Never the less, it is not important. I believe that as long as we agree that Islam should rule and that my definition of democracy should not be implemented, then I really don't have any problem. At this stage, whether we call Islam ideological or not is just technical.

Thabet said:----------
And lastly, yes: law and culture are intrinsically linked. Your talk of "social systems" is scary because it reminds me of communuism and scientific socialism and all the other "scientific" attempts to forms "perfect" societies. Instead, humans, as Muslims believe them to have souls, form organic relationships: this is how systems arise.
------------------------
Nobody said we want to perfect anything. All what I'm saying is that we want to implement what Allah told us to implement. And if Allah told us such and such a rule should be implemented, then he (swt) did it for a reason. As the rule is a social rule, it MUST effect the community in some way. For example the veil and modest, cutting the hand of the theif to solve (or at least reduce) theft. These laws are from Allah and they are certainly better than anything man can devise. They might not PERFECT society, but they will be better than everything man could possibly adobt and thus it would make it better than anything else.

wassalamu alaikum

Assalamu alaikum brother Haroon. First, I wish you would read brother Thabet's reply and try to learn from his behaviour. We might disagree on some issues but I am still your Muslim brother and I wont continue discussing with you if you're going to insult me in every post.

As for a reply to your post, it would suffice for me to quote a section of what I wrote in my first post here.

"First of all, we can disagree on how Islamic the Abbasides, Umayyads, Muwahydoon, Ottomans, etc. were. Although at the same time the prophet (pbuh) refered to them as khulafah non the less, not only in this hadith, but several other hadiths. But for ease of argument, I will leave them temporarilly out of the picture and only consider the khulafaah al rashideen which as from ahlul sunnah, we agree by definition that they were righteous Islamic rulers."