format_quote Originally Posted by
Ahmed Waheed
:sl:
Nowhere did I write about imposing Islamic law or values upon non-Muslims.
Pardon me, but the very next statement sounds like imposing an Islamic system of jurisprudence on non-Muslims.
Islam has a system for life in any situation; for individuals and government. If someone is a Jew; he will be judged by Jewish law, not by Islamic law. If someone is a Christian; he will be judged by Christian law. This is not only justice, but it ensures one doesn't impose their law above the law of the individual being judged.
It may be that Islam holds this to the way the world should run. It might even make a good logical argument. But why should Isalm have any say whatsoever, even if it makes perfect sense within an Islamic system of thought, with regard to laws for non-Muslims? A united Ummah does not have to automatically mean Sharia law.
I'm not arguing as to whether Islamic law is better or worse than other laws. I'm simply saying that I have no fear of a united Ummah unless it is the position of that Ummah to impose their values on people outside of it. What I saw you suggesting was that
Crimes are dealt with very strictly with the judgement of each person by his own religious law.
The way I read this statement, it seemed to me you were implying that somehow when Muslims unite that this will be the way that all crimes are dealt with. And I do call that a decision to impose someone else's religious values on me.
Just as no Muslim would accept the interpretation of the Islamic jurisprudence by a non-Muslim over that of Muslim scholars, nor should any member of the Ummah deem themselves capable of interpreting another religions text sufficiently to impose law or consequence of law derived from those text on them.
But beyond that, let us say that Muslims unite and quit fighting among themselves. And let us say that in those countries where Muslims significantly outnumber non-Muslims they decide to implement Sharia law as the law of the land. Again, why should this be something that non-Muslims (at least in other countries) are afraid of? Surely your statements above, such as,
format_quote Originally Posted by
Ahmed Waheed
Riba (Interest) is Haram, and would be non-existent in an Islamic State. This wouldn't demolish the banking system, but would revert it to how it was when started centuries ago by Muslims. Those who live on money made through interest, would have to find honest means of earning instead. This isn't welcome by the capitalist world we live in.
are not intended to imply that the Ummah would seek to impose those same laws in non-Islamic states.
Couldn't the Ummah be satisfied with a situation in which there existed a world in which there were different laws in different countries as determined by those who actually lived within those countries? Then if Mulsims were united and were of the character of those I cited above, in those countries in which they represented the majority they may indeed establish laws in accord with Islamic values, but their rule would still protect the minority populations who lived among them. Of that I don't have any fear. I only fear when it seems you suggest that a united Ummah would push for more than that, and try to make it the same law which they themselves practice be the law of the land everywhere. That is going beyond Muslims being united; to me that does imply complusion.