The debate emphasizes that a clear line should be drawn between religion and politics in matters relating to citizen welfare. The government is to be responsible for the needs of its citizens, and matters relating to the support of citizens are not to be mixed with religion due to their universal nature. The government has the right to protect the health and life of its citizens without interference of religion. The government should also provide the necessary facilities, such as healthcare facilities, and fight against poverty. Religion could intervene in cases of need but should not interfere with the activities of the government. However, religion has always intervened in most political decisions in both the United States and Great Britain. The debate manifests itself in American society in the manner people criticize others for worshipping the government in the provision of necessary resources. Some citizens feel that it is improper to treat the government like a god just because it provides some resources. Individuals should also work hard and believe in God. Thus, in the current American society the debate does not hold because people have to get help from both sides (Moes, 76). The development of religion has helped solve problems facing different individuals in American society. In addition, the debate is manifested in the decisions made by the government. Religious leaders have always had the opportunity to comment on the decisions made by political leaders in Great Britain and the United States. This means that political institutions do not have the freedom to make decisions that would mislead individuals. Thus, they should make decisions that would be beneficial to their citizens. Religion is a part of political institutions and helps them in solving different problems.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Theocracy is a form of government that recognizes God as the supreme leader. It is a system where leadership is determined by divine order, thus making it godly in nature. There are various reasons that make it difficult for individuals to understand the world they live in. It is, extremely difficult to understand a world that is constantly changing.. Technology is taking over even in the field of politics, thus making it difficult for individuals to understand the world they live in. This is caused by the high speed at which matters change all over the globe. Secondly, the world is composed of many different traditional beliefs and practices. Individuals are not able to understand some of the beliefs that exist in the world they live in, thus complicating their understanding of the area they reside in. Some of these traditional practices and beliefs conflict, and it is difficult for individuals to determine the correct course of action that could help them believe either of the traditions. Lastly, the large boundaries that separate different parts of the world make it difficult for people to understand the world that they live in. People are not in a position to move from one place to another to learn different things about the world. Understanding is limited by the boundaries that effectively separate the different parts of the world (Perl, 98). Different activities are carried out in different parts of the world, and people do not have the opportunity to witness them all. This makes it difficult for people to understand the world in which they live.
I disagree with the notion that Islam is compatible with a democratic concept of popular sovereignty. It is claimed that Islamic religion is responsible for the rise in the number of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups, such as the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front and Al-Qaeda. These groups and their actions reflect a clash of civilizations that threatens peaceful co-existence of the Muslim and Western world. The co-existence may be disrupted mainly due to the values held by the aforementioned two cultures. The most notable example that depicts the incompatibility of liberal-democratic values and the Muslim world is the stoning of a woman accused of adultery in Nigeria. It should be noted that the sentence had been overturned on appeal. The incomparability of the two cultures is also evident in polygyny, which is widely practiced in the Muslim world, as well terrorist attacks that Islamic terrorists claimed responsibility for. Thus, the aforementioned points indicate that Islam is not comparable with democracy.
Ramadan’s claim concerning Western Muslims and their responsibility seeks to refute the idea that Islam is divided across the world. He notes that in as much as differences abound regarding Muslims’ beliefs and practices across the world, it is essential that Muslims should consider themselves along the same lines. By claiming that Muslims have been witnesses before mankind, Ramadan tries to urge Muslims to act. His also calls for reviewing the fundamental principles that exist in the Muslim world, as this will promote taking responsibility for their religion. Ramadan denounces the socially conservative code of traditionalist jurists and advocates welfare of the non-Muslims and universalism. In addition, Ramadan tries to show solidarity with non-Islamic societies instead of the common practice of Muslims making injunctions on such societies (Bunzl, 85). Thus, this can interpreted as a call for action for all Muslims, especially those of them that wield influence in Western countries, to utilize their position in preaching universalism rather than divisions between Muslims and those not believing in the faith (Bunzl, 116).
Thus, various reasons abound why Muslims should review some of their fundamental principles and take care of their own faith. Firstly, it is essential that Muslims take the aforementioned steps, as it will help fight the notion that Islam differentiates people by dividing them into faithful and unfaithful ones. This will promote peace between Muslims and non-Muslims, as some commonly held stereotypes regarding Muslims will be done away with. For instance, a typical stereotype held about Muslims is that they are all terrorists. Ramadan asserts that by reviewing some of the fundamental principles of their religion Muslims will be able to change perception of Islam in the West. Westerners will no longer confuse Islam with some of the cultural and political realities existent in the Middle East. By claiming that Muslims should take responsibility for their faith, Ramadan tries to reason that every Muslim should embrace the contemporary society and not drag the Quran’s interpretations into people’s daily lives. Thus, taking responsibility for their faith means that every person should abide by what one deems as correct and refrain from using their faith for judging others.