Who wants to live in a theocracy?

[wilberhum]

I’m seeing a lot of slamming of secular governments. So I was just wondering
Who wants to live in a country where the laws are based on a specific religion?

[Fishman]

:sl:
If the UK became a 'Christian country' I would except their right to do that, and simply leave.

I would like to live in an Islamic theocracy, but failing that a secular state.
:w:

[Trumble]

I believe one of the most essential human rights is the freedom to believe in, and practice, the religion of your choice. A theocracy cannot be compatible with that (it must always go deeper than just "laws"), and hence a big "NO!!" from me.

[MusLiM 4 LiFe]

i'd love 2 liv in an islamic country! it would be like a dream come true, but then again as bro fish sed, i wud leave da country if it became a Christian country but i doubt thatl eva happen or itl be ages til it will happen bcuz britain iz multicultured and aint 2 bothered abt turnin britain in2 a Christian country (or whatever religion) tho it wud b wikid if britain became a islamic country :D:D

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[wilberhum]

I have always been appalled at the thought of living in a theocracy.

To me it only makes sense that if you don’t belong to the state religion; you are at a serious disadvantage. I have no desire to be disadvantaged and have no desire to disadvantage my friends and neighbors. So, “no theocracy for me”.

On many occasions I have seen people state how wonderful it is for the unbeliever under there system, but that conclusion seams to be only reached by the believers. From what I have read the unbelievers tell a different story. There surly are documented cases where the government that people lived under was so suppressive that they preferred to be an unbeliever in a theocracy. That is hardly an inspiration to me. Daily people risk there lives to cross from North Korea to South Korea. Is that because South Korea is so wonderful? I hardly think so. It is because North Korea is so bad. I make the same correlation with those that preferred to be an unbeliever under a government that had a state sanction religion.

I also see it as a disservice to provide social/economic advantages to people who will change, at least superficially, there religious affiliation.

Diversity within a governed group surreally has problems because of the diversity. But I think that disadvantage is greatly outweighed by the advantages of diversity.

The poll is still quite young, only 11 votes, including me. No one has picked the option of living under a state religion that is not there’s. In fact two of the three that posed there thoughts, said that if the government they are under became a theocracy that was not based on there religion, they would leave. That surly gives support to my conclusion that a theocracy is only good for the believers in the state religion.

If my government would declare a state religion, I too would move.

For the prosperity of all and with it’s many problems,
I only want to live under a secular government

[Keltoi]

I voted a resounding NO as well. A secular society is the best way to have people of different faiths living together. There will be confrontations over law and the like, but as a Christian I can honestly say that I would prefer to live in a country where a non-believer can say and do what he pleases within the law than a theocracy.

[Ghazi]

:sl:

I'm Leaving the UK ASAP just need to sort a few things like a job ect.

[Ubaidah]

I love living in a country with religious freedom, and where the LAWS aren't based on any religion. Some politicians might be driven by religious motives, but that's another story. I love the whole "melting pot" idea that we have here in America. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Hawa]

I think the idea is a bit daunting because we're used to living in a secular environment. Living in a theocracy may have plenty of advantages regarding legislation. If indeed the state religion stuck to the main principles of most religions today then it wouldn't be a problem for any of its citizens, regardless of their religion....or lack thereof.
Islam, for example, permits Religious liberty; There is no compulsion in religion...(Quran 2:256). In the early Islamic state jews lived in harmony with muslims. The Prophet (s.a.w.) signed truces with them so that he could build the state, spread the faith and make it firm inside for his followers. Their share in the constitution, which he made for the state, was considerable. If a state took into account the religious beliefs of the minority then I think it would prosper as a country under the guidelines of Divine Law.

[S_87]

:sl:

i would love to live in an islamic state.

true peace true rights true safety.

[Nawal89]

:sl:

i would love to live in an islamic state.

true peace true rights true safety.

i totally agree:)

[Woodrow]

I also would want to live in a theocracy, provided it is of my religious belief.

However, wants and reality are not always the same. With that said living in a secular state is a workable alternative.

[Abdul Fattah]

I believe one of the most essential human rights is the freedom to believe in, and practice, the religion of your choice. A theocracy cannot be compatible with that (it must always go deeper than just "laws"), and hence a big "NO!!" from me.

Well then I got good news for you:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur'an
2:256)

So if there were a truly Islamic state that respected all rules including this one, then you'd have no problem with it right?

[Trumble]

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur'an
2:256)

What is the context of that? From "Truth stands" onwards it rather implies acceptance of Judeo-Christians, but that wouldn't do me a lot of good!

So if there were a truly Islamic state that respected all rules including this one, then you'd have no problem with it right?

Subject to the above, no. The question is, though, whether what you call a "truly Islamic state" in that sense could operate in practice. I'm afraid the Taliban have rather demonstrated that that is unlikely.

[wilberhum]

and believes in Allah

So none of it applies to a non-muslim.

[snakelegs]

No! No! and No!
in a pluralistic country especially, secularism is essential.

[Joe98]

I'm Leaving the UK ASAP just need to sort a few things like a job ect.

Perhaps go to a place where you can afford a Lamborghini :happy:

[therebbe]

If the UK became a 'Christian country' I would except their right to do that, and simply leave.

Would the majority of people do what you would do? Absolutely not. Would the majority of Muslims scream bloody murder because the UK became "Christian", for sure.

true peace true rights true safety.

Please elaborate on true rights... what kind of 'rights' would you have? The ones your religion dictates?

[ripsnort]

I also would want to live in a theocracy, provided it is of my religious belief.

However, wants and reality are not always the same. With that said living in a secular state is a workable alternative.

Iran 'fits your bill'. Seems like a nice place to live.:giggling:

[Keltoi]

Iran 'fits your bill'. Seems like a nice place to live.:giggling:

I assume what Woodrow was talking about is a true Islamic state, which for a Muslim, would be the best situation for him. I doubt Woodrow believes Iran fits that criteria.

[Woodrow]

I assume what Woodrow was talking about is a true Islamic state, which for a Muslim, would be the best situation for him. I doubt Woodrow believes Iran fits that criteria.

Thank you Keltoi. That is correct.

[north_malaysian]

Hmmmmm..... if it's a theocratic Islamic or Christian or whtever religion country ... I'll abide to the rules .... and as long I've have happiness, peaceful and prosperity with my life, job, religious practices and family ... I would live in the country....

But if I cant find happiness, peaceful and prosperity with my life, job, religious practices and family because the government is so harsh or interrupt alot in my life. I'll leave...

[KAding]

:sl:
If the UK became a 'Christian country' I would except their right to do that, and simply leave.

Reponse from the hypothetical cleric in charge of migration affairs:
"Unfortunately we may not be allowed to let you leave. You have after all committed apostacy/treason and might need to be hanged.

Sorry."

:p :uuh: :heated:

[KAding]

Well then I got good news for you:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur'an
2:256)

So if there were a truly Islamic state that respected all rules including this one, then you'd have no problem with it right?

I'm glad you think there is religious freedom under Islamic law steve, but unfortunately too many Muslims with knowledge appear to disagree with you. In a true Islamic state no Muslim can leave his faith. And what is the status of atheists and polytheists who are not 'people of the book'? AFAIK we are not even allowed to be dhimmi's.

I agree compared to Christianity Islam is probably tolerant of non-Muslims, but the rule of "no compulsion in religion" has to be put in a context, since there are many caveats in the Qu'ran nuancing it.

[Woodrow]

I'm glad you think there is religious freedom under Islamic law steve, but unfortunately too many Muslims with knowledge appear to disagree with you. In a true Islamic state no Muslim can leave his faith. And what is the status of atheists and polytheists who are not 'people of the book'? AFAIK we are not even allowed to be dhimmi's.

I agree compared to Christianity Islam is probably tolerant of non-Muslims, but the rule of "no compulsion in religion" has to be put in a context, since there are many caveats in the Qu'ran nuancing it.

The one fact that is being over looked. If a nation were to be a true Islamic theocracy the nation would have to be 100% Muslim. If just one citisen is not Muslim, it would not function as a true Islamic theocracy. so there would be no problem with infringing on the rights of another person's beliefs, as they would not be living there anyhow.

So if in today's world a true Islamic theocracy is not possible, the next best choice would be a secular state. This is in regards to Muslims. The Answer would be different for those of other faiths.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I have always been appalled at the thought of living in a theocracy.

To me it only makes sense that if you don’t belong to the state religion; you are at a serious disadvantage. I have no desire to be disadvantaged and have no desire to disadvantage my friends and neighbors. So, “no theocracy for me”.t[/B]

what disadvantage will an islamic state cause you? I fail to understand :?

[Malaikah]

Please elaborate on true rights... what kind of 'rights' would you have? The ones your religion dictates?

Of course, what other rights would we want?:?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Please elaborate on true rights... what kind of 'rights' would you have? The ones your religion dictates?

well to state every islamic law would take extremely long, so how bout you post one islamic law which you find oppressive or unfair and we'll talk about it :)

[Muhammad]

Greetings wilberhum,

On many occasions I have seen people state how wonderful it is for the unbeliever under there system, but that conclusion seams to be only reached by the believers. From what I have read the unbelievers tell a different story.

See the testimony of western historians from Ansar's post here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/476083-post47.html

There are quite a few threads on the topic, where you will find statements such as: "It protected Jews from Christians and Eastern Christians from Roman Catholics. In Muslim Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Caliphs, Christians and Jews enjoyed a freedom of religion that they did not allow each other or anyone else."
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...-shari-ah.html

Also see:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...on-center.html

There surly are documented cases where the government that people lived under was so suppressive that they preferred to be an unbeliever in a theocracy. That is hardly an inspiration to me.

Islam has set the gold standard for religious tolerance in the past, and one can find many, many quotes from non-Muslims that attest to this.

That surly gives support to my conclusion that a theocracy is only good for the believers in the state religion.

I think this conclusion is flawed, not only from the theoretical perspective in which Islam grants many freedoms to non-muslims living under its rule, but also from real examples documented in history where non-Muslims actually preferred to live in such states!

Peace :).

[glo]

I am curious what those people who are shouting so loudly that they would never want to live in a 'Christian country' (!) actually mean by that??? :?
What do you think a 'Christian country' would be like?

I am asking, because historically most of the laws in most Western secular countries are based on Christian values - because at the time when the countries were formed, ground laws determined and constitutions written, the people in authority and in government were very clearly Christian. (That's my view, anyway)

So in my mind a 'Christian state' would not be all that different from our present 'secular state'.

What are Muslims so afraid of?

peace.

[IceQueen~]

I dunno glo-what are americans so afraid of?

[Malaikah]

I am curious what those people who are shouting so loudly that they would never want to live in a 'Christian country' (!) actually mean by that??? :?
What do you think a 'Christian country' would be like?

I am asking, because historically most of the laws in most Western secular countries are based on Christian values - because at the time when the countries were formed, ground laws determined and constitutions written, the people in authority and in government were very clearly Christian. (That's my view, anyway)

So in my mind a 'Christian state' would not be all that different from our present 'secular state'.

What are Muslims so afraid of?

peace.

This is what i thought also, but one member, i think it was KAding, mentioned that non-chrsitains would be killed in a christian state? :X

[Muhammad]

Hello glo,

I am curious what those people who are shouting so loudly that they would never want to live in a 'Christian country' (!) actually mean by that??? :?

I think the term 'a Christian country' has been used due to people living in the west and hence its relevance to their country, so I don't think they mean that it is the only rule under which they wouldn't want to live. In actual fact, Christianity is perhaps the closest religion to Islam in the sense that we share many Prophets and historical incidents, so maybe it would make sense to wish to live under a Christian rule if it was the only alternative to, for example, living under the rule of polytheists. There is also an incident in the life of our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in which the Muslims supported the victory of the Romans over the Persians due to this similarity in our faiths.

If there was a choice for Muslims to live in a truly Islamic country, then undoubtedly that is what they would prefer. If that is not possible, then we would have to find a place where we are allowed to practise Islam:

So given that the Muslim countries vary, as do the kaafir countries, and given that the Muslim cannot go to a Muslim state and settle there because of visa and strict settlement laws etc, and that a Muslim may not be able to practice his religion in some Muslim countries, when he may be able to do so in whole or at least in part in some kaafir countries – for all these reasons it is impossible to issue a general ruling that will cover all countries and all individuals. Rather we should say that each Muslim has his own unique set of circumstances and his own ruling that applies to him, and each person is accountable for himself. If he is able to practise his religion in the Muslim country in which he lives more than he can in a kaafir country, then it is not permissible for him to settle in a kaafir country. But if it is the other way round, then it is permissible for him to settle in a kaafir country, subject to the condition that he is confident that he can resist the desires and temptations to be found there by taking the precautionary measures prescribed in sharee’ah.

From: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref...eng&txt=hijrah

Peace.

[KAding]

This is what i thought also, but one member, i think it was KAding, mentioned that non-chrsitains would be killed in a christian state? :X

In my comment against Fishman you mean? It's was actually a bit of a cheap attack on Islam and apostacy, but I suspect it is also applicable to Christianity.

I can imagine some Christian denominations being very intolerant of apostacy for example and non-Christians. I mean, if history is anything to judge a Christian controlled state will not be gentle on non-Christians, wouldn't you agree? On the other hand, Christianity does not have anything like the Sharia, so Christian law is much less clearly defined. I suspect that in Christianity a theocracy would mean rule by clerics, while in Islam it means implementation of Islamic law.

[IceQueen~]

ahh beautiful Islamic law... the peace and bliss...:wub: masha allah

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
Jizya in Islam
Non-Muslims in the Islamic Society
A Unique Tolerance
Islam and Non-Muslim Communities
Fairness in Dealing with Non-Muslims
Does Islam Tolerate Other Beliefs?

It is incorrect to call the Islamic state a theocracy to be constrasted with theocracy. The Islamic state is khilâfa, a democratic system:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-analysis.html

I'm glad you think there is religious freedom under Islamic law steve, but unfortunately too many Muslims with knowledge appear to disagree with you.

That's not true; see the above links for an in-depth analysis from Muslim scholars and classical jurists and exegetes.

and believes in Allah

So none of it applies to a non-muslim.

Quite an absurd conclusion! The verse states:
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

This is not a difficult passage to understand!! It says that there is no compulsion in religion because the truth is evident and stands out from falsehood. Therefore, whoever follows the truth - which is to believe in God and reject evil - has saved himself and 'grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold'. So it is clearly entirely about non-muslims. It is saying that non-muslims cannot be compelled to accept the truth. If they do accept the truth and believe in God and reject evil, that is to their own benefit. As the Qur'an says in another verse:

18:29 And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve."

And elsewhere:

10:99 If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?

The question is, though, whether what you call a "truly Islamic state" in that sense could operate in practice.

The question has already been answered as Muslims have a historical precedent that has lasted for centuries. See the first link I provided in this post which provides details from the age of the khilâfa.

Peace :)

[wilberhum]

I have been going over what as been said and would like to make some comments.

A post said:
Islam, for example, permits Religious liberty; there is no compulsion in religion...
But this is not what we see when we look at countries that have Islam as the state religion.
So if there were a truly Islamic state that respected all rules including this one, then you'd have no problem with it right?
Wrong. Do you think there is one and only problem for the non-believers? Well all you need is “a truly Islamic state” to test it. Where is that state?

Only one person picked other, but he posted:
As long I've have happiness, peaceful and prosperity with my life, job, religious practices and family ... I would live in the country....
And of course this place would have to be Utopia and we all know Utopia only exists in a book.

Mazed asked “what disadvantage will an Islamic state cause you? I fail to understand”.
Well I think you fail to understand because you never tried to look at it from the outside. The restrictions on the non-believer are many, even in your conception of “The Perfect State”. Now look at the reality that exists in countries that clam a state religion.

Of course a Mod comes in and provides links where Muslims tell you how good it is for a non-Muslim. I was asked to check out Testimony of Western Historians. I did and guess what I saw. The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the Umayyad rule. Give great notice to the note that they “enjoyed a degree”. So it wasn’t all bad was it. But that gives me no comfort since it clearly indicates that they did not receive any kind of equality. He says “Islam has set the gold standard for religious tolerance in the past”. There are even more links where they tell you how wonderful it was. Again we come across an operative word “was”. I don’t care how it “was”, I care how it is. I look at countries that currently have a state religion and I don’t see them as a wonderful place for a non-believer. So unless we are discussing history, I conceder all those statements irrelevant. Of course he conceders my conclusions flawed but gives no current examples to support his conclusion.

No one has chose to live in where the state religion is not there religion. So I’m not alone in my conclusion that a country that has a state religion is not a good place for the non-believer. People go on an on about how wonderful it was. They go on and on about how wonderful it would be “IF”. Since there is no country called “IF” and we don’t live in the past,
I would only chose to live under a secular government.

[Muezzin]

I voted for 'Other'. I want to live in the kingdom of Jammy Dodgers, ruled by the benevolent frog-monarch, King Kermit.

I love hypotheses.

[Abdul Fattah]

What is the context of that? From "Truth stands" onwards it rather implies acceptance of Judeo-Christians, but that wouldn't do me a lot of good!

The "let there be no cumpulsion" aplies to every human being, be he atheist, agnostic, budhist, christian, jew and so on. If you force a religion upon someone, then you force that person to sin (you force him into hypocricy). Since the sinner does not act out of free will then he cannot be taken acountable, whereas the one who forces him is responsible for turning someone to sin. Also note that a lot of rules from the shariah do not aply to
non-muslim living in a muslim country.

Subject to the above, no. The question is, though, whether what you call a "truly Islamic state" in that sense could operate in practice. I'm afraid the Taliban have rather demonstrated that that is unlikely.

Yes good point, lately it seems such a thing is very hard to obtain, there has been spread way to much hate inbetween difrent religions and groups, and perhaps more importantly, a large number of people have either lost some essential wisdoms of our beautifull religion or seem to have convieniently ignored some parts for their own purposes. War is an ugly thing and religion is quickly used as scapegoat. However, should you look in history prior to the colonisations by the west, or even more so if you loko at history prior to the crusades; you will find examples of Islamic goverments were non-muslims lived freely.

[therebbe]

Of course, what other rights would we want?

The right to speak your mind. A right that you choose to use here a lot.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
This should be obvious since Muslims are always repeating it, but just to say it again, there is no modern state that is implementing the Islamic law accurately and completely, and hence the modern Muslim-majority countries are not good representatives of the religion in any way. Once the Muslims return to their religion and unite upon it, God will elevate their condition from one of misery to one of glory.

:w:

[Muhammad]

Greetings wilberhum,

Of course a Mod comes in and provides links where Muslims tell you how good it is for a non-Muslim. I was asked to check out Testimony of Western Historians.

So a testimony of western historians is the same as Muslims telling us how good it is for a non-Muslim?

I did and guess what I saw. The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the Umayyad rule. Give great notice to the note that they “enjoyed a degree”. So it wasn’t all bad was it. But that gives me no comfort since it clearly indicates that they did not receive any kind of equality.

I believe the way you have quoted the above words is rather unfair. Had you quoted the full sentence, it would give a somewhat different meaning that renders what you have said invalid. Here is what it says:

"The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the Umayyad rule which can never be assimilated to Christian countries nowadays."

We thus learn how the phrase "degree of tolerance" is not used to imply there was little equality, but to the contrary is defined as being a degree of immense status. As for the notion that they "did not receive any kind of equality", I'm quite surprised that you think this, when the rest of the paragraph goes on to say:

They were free to practice their rituals. They maintained their churches and synagogues and the only obligation was that they should wear a special color and pay tax for every person pro rata his income. This sum ranged between two and four dinars. This tax was exclusively levied on non-Muslims who can go to war. However priests, women, children, slaves, elderly men, the disabled, the blind and the destitute were exempted from the tax. Dhimmis were exempted from military service in return. They were also exempted from zakat which is 2.5% of the annual income and the government was bound to protect them."

I hope this demonstrates at least some kind of equality!

Again we come across an operative word “was”. I don’t care how it “was”, I care how it is.

Then your problem is not with Islam, but rather how it is practised by individuals. People are simply putting forward examples from history to show how an Islamic state would be successful; the fact that there may not be a truly Islamic state now is irrelevant. You asked us whether we'd like to live in one, and we have answered yes and stated why.

Of course he conceders my conclusions flawed but gives no current examples to support his conclusion.

There is no need to give a current example to support my conclusion, since it stands perfectly fine with the facts I gave. Just because some people don't practise Islam properly now doesn't mean it never can be.

No one has chose to live in where the state religion is not there religion. So I’m not alone in my conclusion that a country that has a state religion is not a good place for the non-believer.

Yet you generalise that all state religions would rule the same. Seeing as we know most about an Islamic state, we obviously prefer it above others as it allows us the best way of life and it has been shown that it allows freedom for non-believers. So while that option is there, it makes all the others irrelevant and for this reason, the poll results cannot be interpreted in the way you have done.

[Keltoi]

Here is a comparison that I find helpful. Do some research about the lives of non-Christians in Europe in 1095, then do similar research on Christians living in Muslim lands in 1095. While no situation is perfect, it is quite obvious that the Muslim rulers were far more tolerant of non-believers than Christians ever were. That doesn't mean that Christians in Muslim lands were having a party, but as long as they followed the law and paid the appropriate taxes, nothing was done to them. As opposed to the Christians lands, where it was decided to have a Jewish massacre from time to time.

[wilberhum]

Then your problem is not with Islam, but rather how it is practised by individuals.

My problem (question) is living under anyone’s version of god’s laws.

There is no need to give a current example to support my conclusion.

There is no need to accept an historical example to support my conclusion.

Yet you generalise that all state religions would rule the same.

No, I assume the effect on the non-believer would be negative.

poll results cannot be interpreted in the way you have done.

I see no issue with the way I have interpreted the poll. But, that’ just me.

[wilberhum]

it is quite obvious that the Muslim rulers were far more tolerant of non-believers than Christians ever were.

I think you are quite right.
But the question is not which kind of state religion is better.

[Muezzin]

I think you are quite right.
But the question is not which kind of state religion is better.

That statement doesn't quite gel with this option you've provided:

Yes, but only if the state religion is my religion.

Enlighten me.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I would wana live in a Sharia implemented country. Sign me up! lol

[wilberhum]

That statement doesn't quite gel with this option you've provided:

Please show me where.

[KAding]

[QUOTE=Ansar Al-'Adl;494172]:sl:

That's not true; see the above links for an in-depth analysis from Muslim scholars and classical jurists and exegetes.

Well, this is what the Islam-QA website says on the matter:

The punishment for apostasy (riddah) is well-known in Islaamic Sharee’ah. The one who leaves Islaam will be asked to repent by the Sharee’ah judge in an Islaamic country; if he does not repent and come back to the true religion, he will be killed as a kaafir and apostate, because of the command of the Prophet

Isn't this exactly what you said in the 'Islam vs. Apostasy' thread? Namely, that in an Islamic state, if someone openly professes to have left Islam he will be asked to repent and if he does not he will have to be punished? After all, it would constitute treason?

Even if this is not what you said. Clearly many Muslims appear to think putting an apostate to death is allowed. As an outsider understand that I do not believe that there is 'just one Islam'. To me it is clear there are many different interpretations, some more liberal than others. I cannot ignore for example the Muslims who believe apostates deserve to be put to death.

Therefor, I stand by my point. If the UK would practise what Fishman preaches, he would have to be punished for apostasy. Maybe not by death, but that is only because he is a minor.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

The view that Muslims have nowadays is really incorrect. I admit a lot profess this. But whats better proof. The Qur'an or humans who are know for flaws?
If the person goes against the community or country he lives in thats when its allowed. Otherwise the apostate is allowed to follow the faith he currently believes in. As it is between him and Allah.
I hope I'm correct on this. If not then I apologize.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

My problem (question) is living under anyone’s version of god’s laws.

Yet you limit yourself to the current situation of the world today, which isn't all necessarily in complete accordance with God's laws in the first place. It's like a strawman fallacy really: a Muslim country in today's world might commit an action that you disapprove of, yet that action might not even be supported by Islam. So you can't use that action to explain why you do not want to live under an Islamic state.

There is no need to accept an historical example to support my conclusion.

But a historical example surely invalidates what you have said, no? You say a theocracy is only good for believers, but if an example of a theocracy being good for non-believers is provided, doesn't it show you are wrong?

No, I assume the effect on the non-believer would be negative.

Assumptions are not good enough; we are dealing with facts here.

I see no issue with the way I have interpreted the poll. But, that’ just me.

Well since you admitted you are working on "assumptions", hopefully that is sufficient to show you why your interpretation is flawed.

Peace.

P.S. The statement Muezzin quoted is from your poll options.

[therebbe]

Yet you limit yourself to the current situation of the world today, which isn't all necessarily in complete accordance with God's laws in the first place. It's like a strawman fallacy really: a Muslim country in today's world might commit an action that you disapprove of, yet that action might not even be supported by Islam. So you can't use that action to explain why you do not want to live under an Islamic state.

The way many of these countries justify their actions, is through Islam.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Isn't this exactly what you said in the 'Islam vs. Apostasy' thread?

Yes it is. But it should be obvious that this is a red-herring. There is no compulsion upon non-muslims to enter Islam, and this is why there is religious freedom. For MUSLIMS, there is compulsion to follow Islam. A Muslim must pay zakat. They must pray their Salat. They must abstain from adultery and fornication. All their religious obligations in the public sector will be enforced (the state doesn't care about what they do in private so long as they are not harming society physically or morally). Thus the verse 2:256 is understood more precisely as, "There is no compulsion into the religion." Once you are in the religion, you must abide by their laws. This is actually very similar to Judaism in that those who are born as Jews are expected to follow the 613 Mitzvot, while non-jews need only follow the basic 7 noahide laws. [any Jew can feel free to step in and correct me if I am mistaken].

It should also be noted that when speaking of any type of freedom, freedom is never absolute. EVERY society places limits and restrictions on individual freedoms in accordance with what they feel to be reasonable and in balance with the safety and welfare of the general public. Thus, someone's religious freedoms never extend to the point of causing harm to others or disturbing societal order.

Peace

[therebbe]

the state doesn't care about what they do in private so long as they are not harming society physically or morally

Wait. Are you implying that in a country run by Shariah law, if you commit adultry in "private" the so called "religious police" will not judge you according to religious law? I was under a major impression from many Muslims here that Shariah law intrudes in your private affairs as well as public. Could you please clear up for me if Shariah law enforces religion in ones private life or not.

This is actually very similar to Judaism in that those who are born as Jews are expected to follow the 613 Mitzvot, while non-jews need only follow the basic 7 noahide laws. [any Jew can feel free to step in and correct me if I am mistaken].

Yes. A Jew if born into the covananent with Hashem, or converted in cannot then decided to not want to follow the 613 laws. Therefore, it takes around a year for a Rabbi to judge and see if someone is suitable to convert to Judaism.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi therebbe,

Wait. Are you implying that in a country run by Shariah law, if you commit adultry in "private" the so called "religious police" will not judge you according to religious law? I was under a major impression from many Muslims here that Shariah law intrudes in your private affairs as well as public. Could you please clear up for me if Shariah law enforces religion in ones private life or not.

The punishment for adultery requires 4 individual witnesses. There is a purpose for this massive burden of evidence. As Shaykh Abdul-Wahhab At-Turayri, former Professor at Al-Imam Univeristy [Riyadh, Saudi Arabia], writes:

The punishments for fornication and adultery are designed more to protect society from the open practice of licentious sexual behavior than they are designed to punish people.

It is nearly impossible to get a conviction for adultery except in a case where it is carried out in public for all eyes to see. With this threat of severe punishment, people will keep their evil deeds concealed and society as a whole will be protected.

So if someone commits a sin in private, they will be held accountable before God for that sin. But the function of the Islamic state, in terms of penal law, is to protect the society from harm. If people practice immoral deeds publicly then they are not only sinning themselves, but they are harming the society by spreading their immorality, and it is the latter action that requires the intervention of the state.

We can also look at the same issue from the opposite perspective. It is very easy for a person to skip one of the daily prayers without anyone knowing. It is very easy to break the fast in the middle of the day, sneak a bite, while everyone else thinks you are still fasting. If someone sins in private then God will hold them accountable for it but there is no way the state can get involved in the personal private affairs of the people.

Yes. A Jew if born into the covananent with Hashem, or converted in cannot then decided to not want to follow the 613 laws. Therefore, it takes around a year for a Rabbi to judge and see if someone is suitable to convert to Judaism.

Thank you :)

Peace.

[KAding]

Yes it is. But it should be obvious that this is a red-herring. There is no compulsion upon non-muslims to enter Islam, and this is why there is religious freedom.

That is simply incorrect. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are born Muslims. These 98+% never made the choice, yet they are still bound by it.

Besides, that was not my point. My point was that Fishman demands a religious government, while at the same time ignoring the fact that a religious government in the UK would have prevented him from becoming a Muslim. It would have denied him his salvation! The same goes for Muslims wanting to become Christians or atheist in Islamic states. It prevents people from choosing their own path to achieve happiness and/or salvation. That is what bothers me, Fishman used his right to choose his own path in life, yet he then demands that that same choice is refused to others.

For MUSLIMS, there is compulsion to follow Islam. A Muslim must pay zakat. They must pray their Salat. They must abstain from adultery and fornication. All their religious obligations in the public sector will be enforced (the state doesn't care about what they do in private so long as they are not harming society physically or morally). Thus the verse 2:256 is understood more precisely as, "There is no compulsion into the religion." Once you are in the religion, you must abide by their laws. This is actually very similar to Judaism in that those who are born as Jews are expected to follow the 613 Mitzvot, while non-jews need only follow the basic 7 noahide laws. [any Jew can feel free to step in and correct me if I am mistaken].

It should also be noted that when speaking of any type of freedom, freedom is never absolute. EVERY society places limits and restrictions on individual freedoms in accordance with what they feel to be reasonable and in balance with the safety and welfare of the general public. Thus, someone's religious freedoms never extend to the point of causing harm to others or disturbing societal order.

Peace

I agree. But we were never talking about any harm being done. Islam does not seem to require that harm is being done to punish apostates. Islam-QA does not talk about harm in relation to apostasy.

[nishom]

Im A Muslim But Id Prefer To Live In A Seculoar Government-because If I Was To Live Under A Country Imposing Islamic Law, Id Be Pretty Sure That Theyd Use The Religion To Control The Masses And To Enhance Their Power Over The Country. The Prob Is That Power Corrupts. At Least In A Secular Country The Governmet Isnt Using The Name Of Religion In Vein In Order To Justify Despicable Acts As The Taliban Did.

[Abdul Fattah]

Isn't this exactly what you said in the 'Islam vs. Apostasy' thread? Namely, that in an Islamic state, if someone openly professes to have left Islam he will be asked to repent and if he does not he will have to be punished? After all, it would constitute treason?

Even if this is not what you said. Clearly many Muslims appear to think putting an apostate to death is allowed. As an outsider understand that I do not believe that there is 'just one Islam'. To me it is clear there are many different interpretations, some more liberal than others. I cannot ignore for example the Muslims who believe apostates deserve to be put to death.

Therefor, I stand by my point. If the UK would practise what Fishman preaches, he would have to be punished for apostasy. Maybe not by death, but that is only because he is a minor.

The view that apostates should be killed is unislamic.
For a more in depth explenation please read teh following post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/490525-post51.html

Now it's true that some people might claim one has to kill apostates, and they might claim that it islamic. And I can see howto an outsider that might seem as two branches of the same religion. But one goes against the teachings of that religion, so one view is obviously wrong. The death penalty is only for apostates who commit treason during war (like give strategic information to the enemy, or attack muslims himself). Denouncing faith is very bad and worse then treason, but it is not treason to the people, only treason to Allah (swt). His case is with Allah (swt) and the people are not to punish him. In thehadeeth there are plenty examples of muslims who openly denounced their faith in front of the prophet (pbuh). And the prophet (pbuh) did not arrest them or harm them in any way. Only when this denounciation was combined with another sin/transgression then they would be punished.

[KAding]

The view that apostates should be killed is unislamic.
For a more in depth explenation please read teh following post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/490525-post51.html

An interesting read. Thank you steve.

Now it's true that some people might claim one has to kill apostates, and they might claim that it islamic. And I can see howto an outsider that might seem as two branches of the same religion. But one goes against the teachings of that religion, so one view is obviously wrong. The death penalty is only for apostates who commit treason during war (like give strategic information to the enemy, or attack muslims himself). Denouncing faith is very bad and worse then treason, but it is not treason to the people, only treason to Allah (swt). His case is with Allah (swt) and the people are not to punish him. In thehadeeth there are plenty examples of muslims who openly denounced their faith in front of the prophet (pbuh). And the prophet (pbuh) did not arrest them or harm them in any way. Only when this denounciation was combined with another sin/transgression then they would be punished.

Well, like I said. The fatwa on the website Islam-qa appears to disagree. It's clear Islamic scholars disagree on this matter. It appears to me that websites like islamonline (which mostly seems to rely on Western-based Islamic scholars) follow your line, while those who reside in the Muslim world appear to be more strict versus apostates. Of course, this is merely a generalization, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

For now I'll file it as a 'could go either way' ;).

[Abdul Fattah]

Yeah I know, a lot of peopel disagree. Just remember, wheter an interpretation is wrong or right is not a matter of pupolarity. Just because they claim it's islamic doesn't necesairly make it so. If a million people say a foolish thing it's still a foolish thing.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi KAding,

That is simply incorrect. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are born Muslims. These 98+% never made the choice, yet they are still bound by it.

What is incorrect? It is true the overwhelming majority of Muslims today are born Muslims, but it is incorrect to say that means they didn't make a choice. You can see for yourself on this forum all of us who were born and raised as Muslims who love Islam and choose to follow it.

Again, I draw the analogy with Judaism. The overwhelming majority of Jews are born Jews, even moreso than Islam since they discourage conversions. It is wrong to conclude from that that they reluctantly follow their faith.

Besides, that was not my point. My point was that Fishman demands a religious government, while at the same time ignoring the fact that a religious government in the UK would have prevented him from becoming a Muslim. It would have denied him his salvation!

Not so; Fishman used to be atheist, not Christian. [post] Also from the article on Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations:

However, one who personally abandons the faith and leaves the country would not be hunted down and assassinated, nor would one who remains inside the state conforming to outward laws be tracked down and executed. The notion of establishing inquisition courts to determine peoples' faith, as done in the Spanish Inquisition, is something contrary to Islamic law. As illustrated by the historical context in which it was mandated, the death penalty is mainly for those who collaborate with enemy forces in order to aid them in their attacks against the Islamic state or for those who seek to promote civil unrest and rebellion from within the Islamic state. When someone publicly announces their rejection of Islam within an Islamic state it is basically a challenge to the Islamic government, since such an individual can keep it to themselves like the personal affair it is made out to be. (Main article)

The same goes for Muslims wanting to become Christians or atheist in Islamic states. It prevents people from choosing their own path to achieve happiness and/or salvation.

This is the fallacy I outlined above. If you want to make religion purely a private affair and personal choice for salvation, then keep it like that.

Islam-QA does not talk about harm in relation to apostasy.

But I do:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...conceptions#28

Peace

[wilberhum]

Im A Muslim But Id Prefer To Live In A Seculoar Government-because If I Was To Live Under A Country Imposing Islamic Law, Id Be Pretty Sure That Theyd Use The Religion To Control The Masses And To Enhance Their Power Over The Country. The Prob Is That Power Corrupts. At Least In A Secular Country The Governmet Isnt Using The Name Of Religion In Vein In Order To Justify Despicable Acts As The Taliban Did.

Well Nishom gets the point. Id Be Pretty Sure That Theyd Use The Religion To Control The Masses And To Enhance Their Power Over The Country. I’m pretty sure too. That is the nature of man. People will distort the meaning of the religious laws with there own interpretation. The major problem then for a citizen is that isn’t taking on the government, he is taking on god. That is an action that could cost you your life.
I do not see these problems being limited to Islam; I see them as problems with all governments that claim a state religion.

[Muezzin]

I think that problem is present in some way in every form of Government, to be fair. It's not right, it's just part of being human, unfortunately.

[snakelegs]

i wonder how much freedom would a muslim be allowed in an islamic theocracy?
would the gov't force him to pray 5 times a day?
in general, how much force would the government use to be sure a muslim is following his religion properly?

[Abdul Fattah]

Well if we speak of a hypotetical state that follows the rules of the shariah then there are strict rules to what it can and cannot do. It has to follow the Qur'an and sunnah. Example, it cannot force someone to pray as the Qur'an states:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur’an 2:256)

[north_malaysian]

i wonder how much freedom would a muslim be allowed in an islamic theocracy?
would the gov't force him to pray 5 times a day?
in general, how much force would the government use to be sure a muslim is following his religion properly?

In Malaysia, the government doesnt care whether you perform the 5 daily prayers....but there are so strict with Friday prayer observation.... you can be fined for not performing the Friday Prayer in Malaysia. But as all religious officers are at the mosque during that time, thus nobody been caught for that offence.

Yeah... in Ramadhan, the religious officers would go to the streets and would catch any Muslims who are eating in the public .... in some states, they would be paraded around the town in funeral cars.... That's why Ramadhan observation is so high in Malaysia... even those who never pray... also fast.

[snakelegs]

since a coalition of religious parties MMA has been in power in pakistan's frontier province, people must pray.
steve, does this sound like the famous "let there be no compulsion in religion" to you?
do you think that they are acting unislamically?
i don't think muslims would be free to not practice their religion, in an islamic state. how can anyone be forced to pray?
and as n_m has said even in malaysia, which is not that strictly islamic as some muslim countries - you can get fined for not praying the friday prayers.
does islam believe that god values the prayers of someone who is praying because the gov't punishes him if he doesn't?
do you think the government should force you to practice your religion? would you like to live in a state with morality police?

[mehnaz]

Assalamoalaikum,

theocracy is fine with me as long as the state religion is Islam!!:)

W'salaam

[north_malaysian]

as n_m has said even in malaysia, which is not that strictly islamic as some muslim countries - you can get fined for not praying the friday prayers.

Actually, there was a big debate among Muslims in Malaysia regarding to Morality police. Some liberal Muslims insisted that it's personal sins and would injured no one.... so no need for moral policing around.

Currently, more than 90% of Muslims in Malaysia wants the government to keep on doing this practice, the Muslim public really behind the religious officers and some organised their own religious police groups.... that's why Malaysians have to state their religious affiliation on their ID card.

[Woodrow]

since a coalition of religious parties MMA has been in power in pakistan's frontier province, people must pray.
steve, does this sound like the famous "let there be no compulsion in religion" to you?
do you think that they are acting unislamically?
i don't think muslims would be free to not practice their religion, in an islamic state. how can anyone be forced to pray?
and as n_m has said even in malaysia, which is not that strictly islamic as some muslim countries - you can get fined for not praying the friday prayers.
does islam believe that god values the prayers of someone who is praying because the gov't punishes him if he doesn't?
do you think the government should force you to practice your religion? would you like to live in a state with morality police?

Sometimes laws are for the benefit of the people and not for the control of the masses.

At first glance this looks very harsh and is enforced worship.

you can get fined for not praying the friday prayers

Now let us take another view as to what else that law does.

It prevents an employer from firing a worker for taking time off to pray.

It establishes definite closing times for businesses and prevents some from unfair competitive practices by being open during prayer when most will be closed.

[north_malaysian]

Sometimes laws are for the benefit of the people and not for the control of the masses.

At first glance this looks very harsh and is enforced worship.



Now let us take another view as to what else that law does.

It prevents an employer from firing a worker for taking time off to pray.

It establishes definite closing times for businesses and prevents some from unfair competitive practices by being open during prayer when most will be closed.

Any employer who prevented his workers from doing his friday prayer would be fined by the government too......

[snakelegs]

i don't know, maybe it's because i'm a "westerner" - i just can't understand this concept about being forced to pray and how it could be a good thing. even if i belonged to the same religion as the theocratic government, i would not like government sticking its nose in to my degree of religious practice.
how is this "let there be no compulsion in religion"?
i say thank god for secularism! to each his own.

[north_malaysian]

how is this "let there be no compulsion in religion"?

This ONLY applicable for converting Non Muslims to Islam by force....


Actually our gov't wants to show Non Muslims that Muslims are religion-abiding people.

If a Muslim man going shopping in Carrefour during Friday Prayer time, of course the Non Muslims would say .... "You see, they says that Friday Prayer is obligatory for Muslim man, the gov't even ordered all employers to give extra times for 2 hours for them to do it.... so this man got his extra hour break but refuse to pray ... is it fair that nothing happen to him?"

[snakelegs]

This ONLY applicable for converting Non Muslims to Islam by force....]

i didn't know that - thanks for info!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

i don't know, maybe it's because i'm a "westerner" - i just can't understand this concept about being forced to pray and how it could be a good thing. even if i belonged to the same religion as the theocratic government, i would not like government sticking its nose in to my degree of religious practice.
how is this "let there be no compulsion in religion"?
i say thank god for secularism! to each his own.

Hi Snakelges,
I don't know if you saw one of my earlier posts in this thread on the issue of compulsion for Muslims:

the state doesn't care about what they do in private so long as they are not harming society physically or morally

Wait. Are you implying that in a country run by Shariah law, if you commit adultry in "private" the so called "religious police" will not judge you according to religious law? I was under a major impression from many Muslims here that Shariah law intrudes in your private affairs as well as public. Could you please clear up for me if Shariah law enforces religion in ones private life or not.

The punishment for adultery requires 4 individual witnesses. There is a purpose for this massive burden of evidence. As Shaykh Abdul-Wahhab At-Turayri, former Professor at Al-Imam Univeristy [Riyadh, Saudi Arabia], writes:

The punishments for fornication and adultery are designed more to protect society from the open practice of licentious sexual behavior than they are designed to punish people.

It is nearly impossible to get a conviction for adultery except in a case where it is carried out in public for all eyes to see. With this threat of severe punishment, people will keep their evil deeds concealed and society as a whole will be protected.

So if someone commits a sin in private, they will be held accountable before God for that sin. But the function of the Islamic state, in terms of penal law, is to protect the society from harm. If people practice immoral deeds publicly then they are not only sinning themselves, but they are harming the society by spreading their immorality, and it is the latter action that requires the intervention of the state.

We can also look at the same issue from the opposite perspective. It is very easy for a person to skip one of the daily prayers without anyone knowing. It is very easy to break the fast in the middle of the day, sneak a bite, while everyone else thinks you are still fasting. If someone sins in private then God will hold them accountable for it but there is no way the state can get involved in the personal private affairs of the people.

The Islamic state preserves both the security and morality of its society. At the same time it is not there to police the personal commitment of individuals before God. It is God alone who will deal with those who sinned against Him and did not fulfill their obligations. If someone skips his prayers in private, or violates his fast, or drinks alcohol hidden away from society, it is of no concern to the state so long as it is not affecting the society. God alone will punish the perpetrator of such sins. But if someone's sins enter into the public domain then it is obligatory for the state to step in and prevent the spread of sin and this is where people are compelled to abide by the laws. This is why a person has the opportunity to repent before their sin becomes public but if it comes before the state the punishment is given to function as both deterrence and denunciation of the sin so as to prevent it from spreading. Did you know that if a Muslim sees another Muslim commiting sins he is actually to conceal that? The Prophet said: The Muslim who conceals the faults of another Muslim, Allah wil conceal his faults on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahîh Muslim). One is to follow the Prophetic method of correcting the other person privately and advising them kindly. Also, a Muslim is forbidden from spying on another Muslim; Qur'an 49:12 And do not spy nor backbite one another. Islam is not about digging out the defects of people and dragging them into public to be disciplined. Nor is it about monitoring one's relationship with God. These are things for which each individual is accountable for.

how can anyone be forced to pray?

Concerning prayer, Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips provides valuable comments on this issue, paraphrased from an audio lecture as follows:

There is no compulsion to join the religion. This is the point...
Also, there is compulsion in the society - as we spoke about earlier - where hijab is obligatory. There is compulsion there. Salat is obligatory. There is compulsion there: people have to close their businesses down, people are obliged to go to the prayers.
Some people raise objection to that also. "Why?" [they ask]. "You're forcing people" - like in Saudi Arabia when the time comes to pray, shops are closed, people have to go to prayer. [...]If you consider the issue of a person who goes and [prays because they are forced to], some will say, "What kind of prayer is this? There is no value in his prayer. So why drive him in the Masjid? Let him go by his choice." Well the point is that in an Islamic state you will have this principle that people will be obliged to go to the Masjid, even if they don't want to. And if they go and they pray a hypocrites prayer - they're praying but they don't really believe in it, they're just going through the motions - still from the Islamic perspective it is better that they do that than that they stay outside and not pray and then become a fitnah for other people whose faith is weak. So for the protection of the society as a whole, the Islamic law doesn't have a problem with some people going in and praying as hypocrites. Because some people will object ot this issue saying, "Why should you force people to pray?" So the point is that if they don't pray outside because they dont have the motivation to pray, [then] they dont get any reward, they're in sin. If they go inside and they pray because they were forced, they didn't have the intention, [then] they don't get any reward and they're in sin. It's the same. Relative to themselves and to Allah it is the same, in that sense. However, relative to the society as a whole it is better. (Philips, Contemporary Issues, CD 8, track 4, 2:02-4:48)

One may say, "Well, why are there people of weak faith that may be influenced by this?" Again the response is that Islam is about helping to strengthen our brethren who may be weaker than us in their commitment to God. It is not about abandoning them to the tricks of Satan to fend for themselves.

i don't think muslims would be free to not practice their religion, in an islamic state.

The fact is that Muslims would much prefer the support to come closer to God over the freedom to run away from Him. We would rather be free of such false freedoms. The greatest freedom is to be liberated from the imprisoned confines of earthly desires and satanic whispers to the vast expanse of devotion and submission to God.

17:15 Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs upon himself. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.

Peace :)

[glo]

In Malaysia, the government doesnt care whether you perform the 5 daily prayers....but there are so strict with Friday prayer observation.... you can be fined for not performing the Friday Prayer in Malaysia.

I'm assuming that only applies to Muslims??? :?

But as all religious officers are at the mosque during that time, thus nobody been caught for that offence.

lol
That's quite funny! :giggling:

[glo]

Sometimes laws are for the benefit of the people and not for the control of the masses.

At first glance this looks very harsh and is enforced worship.

Now let us take another view as to what else that law does.

It prevents an employer from firing a worker for taking time off to pray.

It establishes definite closing times for businesses and prevents some from unfair competitive practices by being open during prayer when most will be closed.

I respectfully disagree, Woodrow.

These things could be prevented through employer's rights laws without enforced worship!

My main issue here is that (I've said it before, and I'll say it again) enforced worship is meaningless worship!

God wants us to seek him and spend time with him willingly and joyfully - not because we have the threat of fines, imprisonment or worse hanging over our heads. :heated:

Peace :)

[snakelegs]

hi ansar,
i've read your post. i understand what you are saying. what i don't understand is the mindset that would like the government to keep them from sinning - and the concept that people's relationship to god is so weak that they might be dragged into sin because the guy who owns the coffee shop doesn't close his shop to pray, or how this is a threat to the society.
but this is exactly why i do not ever want to live in any kind of theocracy.
god bless secularism! :D

[Mohsin]

hi ansar,
i've read your post. i understand what you are saying. what i don't understand is the mindset that would like the government to keep them from sinning - and the concept that people's relationship to god is so weak that they might be dragged into sin because the guy who owns the coffee shop doesn't close his shop to pray, or how this is a threat to the society.
but this is exactly why i do not ever want to live in any kind of theocracy.
god bless secularism! :D

I dunno, maybe I can explain this. Snakelegs, I have several friends right, who you can say aren't practising Muslims. When just one of them on his own is with me, they won't swear, backbite, listen to music, and of course they'll come pray with me. BHut as soon as another one of his friends comes and makes a rubbish excuse and says he can not pray, then my friend, who is clearly weak in faith, will go off with him and chill put with him rather than come pray etc, and he'll also start doing stuff he wouldn't do infront of me like swear backbite etc.

So if you read Brother ansar's post in light of what some weak minded muslims like my friend for example, it is better that people are forced to pray as then society as a whole will benefit

[Keltoi]

The idea of being forced to pray by any government entity is actually quite frightening to me. I don't care if it's a Christian theocracy or an Islamic one, the thought just makes me cringe. Perhaps it is the American in me. Too many people have died for the freedoms I hold sacred.

[snakelegs]

I dunno, maybe I can explain this. Snakelegs, I have several friends right, who you can say aren't practising Muslims. When just one of them on his own is with me, they won't swear, backbite, listen to music, and of course they'll come pray with me. BHut as soon as another one of his friends comes and makes a rubbish excuse and says he can not pray, then my friend, who is clearly weak in faith, will go off with him and chill put with him rather than come pray etc, and he'll also start doing stuff he wouldn't do infront of me like swear backbite etc.

So if you read Brother ansar's post in light of what some weak minded muslims like my friend for example, it is better that people are forced to pray as then society as a whole will benefit

yes, this is how i understood ansar's post too. i have no problem understanding what he wrote. i have a problem with understanding the concept behind this. like keltoi said, maybe it is the american in me.

[north_malaysian]

I'm assuming that only applies to Muslims??? :?

Yes... only for Muslim man.

Because the religious officials are not around some Muslims used these extra 2 hour break to drink alcohol or do adultery.

But in Ramadhan, the religious officials will be so active .... and for Non Muslims it's advisable to bring their ID card as it carries your religious affiliations in it.

It's hard to say who is Muslim or who is not in Malaysia, because millions of Malays have Chinese or Indian or even European look... So the ID card is important.

[Abdulwaheed]

WOw!! THats pretty interesting.
I Wish it was in place here in Australia though. The morality police - Defender of justice and human morals :D

[sacred_rose]

i rekon that if a government was to do that alot of protest and wars will begin

[wilberhum]

The idea of being forced to pray by any government entity is actually quite frightening to me. I don't care if it's a Christian theocracy or an Islamic one, the thought just makes me cringe. Perhaps it is the American in me. Too many people have died for the freedoms I hold sacred.

I'm in total agreement. The more I read the more I'm sure that basic freedoms are more likely to exists in a seculat society.

[Curaezipirid]

:sl:
If the UK became a 'Christian country' I would except their right to do that, and simply leave.

I would like to live in an Islamic theocracy, but failing that a secular state.
:w:

Dude! the thing is that the UK already has been a Christian Country. Before the Houses of Parliament and all that. Remember about King Henry the Eigth and he got ex-communicated but went ahead and married again even though that was inevitable, but he only could by starting the Church of England. The Queen still is the head of the Church of England, and she opens the Houses of Parliament within that function each session. The Law that the House of Commons and House of Lords upholds is meant to be that combination of Common Law and legislature as it accords with Kabalah of Christian Faith. (but they are so sneaky at getting around it all the time) Most Lawyers, when they sit their bar exams, need to know a surprising quantity of what is called Canon Law. That is the rulings made previously by Church of England elders. English Canon Law is a subject of study by Australian Law students.

Its just that they forgot to enforce believing. Truly I believe that any good Islamic Lawyer with a thorough comprehension of Jurisprudence, could whip the pants of any English language Lawyer. (that is if they could stomache the disgust with what might be found)

I would rather live in any country that at least even fakes that God exists over the head of state, rather than a country in which persons are encouraged in atheism overtly.

wasalam

[therebbe]

Dude! the thing is that the UK already has been a Christian Country.

It is not run by Christian Law, or is it?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello,
On the issue of 'forced prayer', I would like to quote the following from IslamToday:

In some countries the people are forced to pray (often by mutawwa or religious police). What is the Islamic basis for this? Hoping to get a detailed answer on this, JazakAllah khayr.

Dear questioner:
Al-Salâm `Alaykum wa Rahmah Allah wa Barakâtuh.
We do not know what country you may be speaking about. As for Saudi Arabia, no one is forced to physically enter the mosque and pray. What is enforced is respect for the time of prayer. This means that all places of business are required to close at prayer time.

This is not only a display of respect for the rites of Allah, it also safeguards the rights of the Muslims who wish to pray. If the shops were allowed to stay open, many employers might force their poor workers to stay at their jobs and not pray on time. Since the shops have to close for the prayers, the employers have no reason to prevent their workers from praying.

Fatwâ Department Research Committee of IslamToday chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî

The idea of being forced to pray by any government entity is actually quite frightening to me. I don't care if it's a Christian theocracy or an Islamic one, the thought just makes me cringe. Perhaps it is the American in me. Too many people have died for the freedoms I hold sacred.

You're not Muslim!! Why are you speaking about forced prayer with reference to YOURSELF?! Non-muslims are not forced to perform any religious observances in an Islamic state; they can do what they want. Muslims on the other hand would gladly have their freedom to sin restricted in exchange for protection of their right to offer prayer on time. It doesn't make sense for you to object to the Islamic state on the grounds of something that is only applicable to Muslims. If you were a Muslim then that would be different, but you're not.

hi ansar,
i've read your post. i understand what you are saying. what i don't understand is the mindset that would like the government to keep them from sinning

First of all, the government cannot prevent sin, it doesn't have that level of omniscience or control. What the government does do is ensure the preservation of the rights of its citizens and protect society in terms of both security and morality.

Secondly, the Muslim community is a team. Just as I would want my teammates in anything to help me if I slip, to point out my weaknesses so I can work on them, to support me and work alongside me towards the final goal, the same is true for Islam. In teamwork, people need encouragement and coaching. They rely on those with more experience to advise them so they can avoid major problems. Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself. If you see someone heading for danger, like walking towards the edge of a cliff, you try to warn them and prevent them from doing so. The community all works together helping eachother come closer to God and no one wants to be the weak link. That is the mindset that you don't understand.

- and the concept that people's relationship to god is so weak

There are some people with a very weak relationship to God. There are others with such a strong relationship with God that nothing will break it. The Prophet's companions would have their bodies torn apart without even a scratch on their relationship with God. Muslims want to improve their relationship with God.

that they might be dragged into sin because the guy who owns the coffee shop doesn't close his shop to pray

That is not the case. What happens with the coffee shop open, as mentioned at the start of the post, is the potential for infirngement of the religious rights of employees, aside from the disrespect it shows for prayer to God.

How could someone be negatively affected by it? Suppose a Muslim is with his friends and the time comes to pray. He is planning on going but he is going to miss out on his friends' party so they pressure him to stay. At first it is just one prayer, and gradually one becomes weaker and more vulnerable to such opportunities to sin until they begin to miss prayers regularly and their relationship with God is in a wreck.

or how this is a threat to the society.

The broken link in the chain is a threat to the strength of the whole chain. The performance of a team is threatened by the poor performance of even one team member. If you have ever worked on projects in which you need to collaborate your efforts with other team members you know the importance of teamwork and how the whole team can be dragged down by one team member. The Qur'an says:
49:10 The believers are but a single brotherhood.

but this is exactly why i do not ever want to live in any kind of theocracy.

You make the same mistake as Keltoi. What has this to do with you? This is an issue affecting Muslims that is not in any way applicable to Non-muslims. What I don't understand is how this is "exactly" why you don't want to live in a religious state. How could this possibly be a reason when it doesn't affect you?

I'm in total agreement. The more I read the more I'm sure that basic freedoms are more likely to exists in a seculat society.

Which 'basic' freedoms? Don't forget that individual freedoms are always balanced with the rights of the society.

Peace.

[wilberhum]

Which 'basic' freedoms?

I would guess those basic freedoms that people who voted for a secular state want.

[Keltoi]

Ansar, the fact that I'm not a Muslim doesn't mean I can't comment on a debate about theocracy.

[therebbe]

they can do what they want.

In an Islamic State can non-Muslims drink Alcohol, or break other moral laws that may be suitable for them, but not for you?

Which 'basic' freedoms? Don't forget that individual freedoms are always balanced with the rights of the society.

A basic freedom may be the freedom to worship freely. Now if a Muslim decides to convert from Islam in an Islamic country, is the punishment not death? I think that may be seen as a basic violation to some members on this board ansar, no matter what type of analogy you use.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi therebbe

In an Islamic State can non-Muslims drink Alcohol, or break other moral laws that may be suitable for them, but not for you?

Yes. To quote Shaykh Monqiz As-Saqqar (PhD from Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah):

The Islamic rule was a pioneer in protecting the rights of the people of dhimma. This is reflected in the maintenance of their rituals and churches. The shari'a law provides for the following: "The second issue: The rights due to them by us, namely to maintain their residence in our countries except the Arab Peninsula namely Hijaz and Yemen; to secure their lives and property and not to impair their churches, wine and pigs so long as they do not display the same."[ Canonical Laws 176]


Al-Tahawi accounts for Muslims' consensus on the freedom of the people of dhimma to eat pork and drink wine or the like which is permitted by their religion. He says:

"They unanimously agreed that the Imam, ruler, may not prevent the people of dhimma from drinking wine, eating pork or residing in the houses which they took by consent where such people are in a non-Islamic country (in countries where they form a majority)"[Ikhtilâf Al-Fuqâhâ, 233]

Taken from:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions

A basic freedom may be the freedom to worship freely. Now if a Muslim decides to convert from Islam in an Islamic country, is the punishment not death? I think that may be seen as a basic violation to some members on this board ansar, no matter what type of analogy you use.

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...conceptions#28
I have explained here why this would be percieved as a 'basic violation' as you mentioned.

Helo Keltoi,

Ansar, the fact that I'm not a Muslim doesn't mean I can't comment on a debate about theocracy.

Those are your words not mine. I'm puzzled as to how you could have come off with such an absurd notion after reading my post despite the emphasis:

The idea of being forced to pray by any government entity is actually quite frightening to me. I don't care if it's a Christian theocracy or an Islamic one, the thought just makes me cringe. Perhaps it is the American in me. Too many people have died for the freedoms I hold sacred.

Why are you speaking about forced prayer with reference to YOURSELF?! Non-muslims are not forced to perform any religious observances in an Islamic state; they can do what they want.

Look at what I highlighted in your comment.

Regards

[*love4isl@m*]

:sl:

i would love to live in an islamic state.

true peace true rights true safety.

:salaam:

Absolutely correct!!! MAsha'allah i totally agree with u...
True Say, Wallahi if i had an option of living in an islamic state or
Uk i would definately say Islamic State as every1 surrounding u
will strengthen ur belief by sharing and gaining more islaimc Knowledge...
*Also i wanna live and Leave the world In Islamic Country INSHA'ALLAH!*
Insha'allah i will move sometime 2 an arab islamic State with my family!!! :)

:w:

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

InshAllah =))

[therebbe]

Ansar, the link you gave me says: "1. Islam has never compelled anyone to accept the religion. Anyone who becomes a Muslim does so purely through objective study of the religion." But, if you are born into Islam, then what are the circumstances. You may believe they were 'meant' to be a Muslim, but in reality, they did not join Islam through choice, so should they not have the option to leave?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

They must decide on their own what path they want to chose. Some may be born Muslim, but its up to them to decide. They must follow it willfully without force. I think when they get to a certain age. I'm not sure, so wait for Ansar I guess =)

[Keltoi]

Ansar, My apologies, I misunderstood your statement. That being said, my comment wasn't directed towards forced prayer for Muslims, I was speaking more in general terms about the idea of theocracy. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi therebbe,

But, if you are born into Islam, then what are the circumstances. You may believe they were 'meant' to be a Muslim, but in reality, they did not join Islam through choice, so should they not have the option to leave?

We did choose Islam though we were born into it. I think KAding raised the same issue in this very thread earlier. To avoid going off on a detailed tangent here, I would just refer you to the first half of pt. 2 and the entirety of pt. 3 in my article; it explains what all this means in practice as well. I'm wondering though - many jews are born as such and did not 'choose' their religion either. Should they not have the option to leave? Are Jews perfectly comfortable with allowing their brethren to abandon their faith?

Hello Keltoi,

Ansar, My apologies, I misunderstood your statement. That being said, my comment wasn't directed towards forced prayer for Muslims, I was speaking more in general terms about the idea of theocracy. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Not a problem. :) Thanks for the clarification.

Peace!

[Curaezipirid]

It is not run by Christian Law, or is it?

It tries to portray that the fundamental basis of the English people ever having taken any semblence of belief in need to obey Law was not of Christian origin.

That is, many modern European, and Euro-Centric Nation States have a legislative justice system that has its origins 100% within the Law as it is Governed by Royalty and Priests whom had professed Faith in Christianity and so followed Torah. In England there has been no Revolution to overthrow that basic faith.

We can argue until we are blue in the face that they were not really believers or that they were not truly adhereing to Torah; but that will never relieve leaders of the fact that they are professed in belief, and that the structures of Governance are established as Religious.

When we try to deny this fact we inadvertently deny the worth of common people whom might never have accepted the like of King Arthur on the throne if he had not converted to Christian Faith in One God.

(by the way I had a history teacher at high school who wrote a PhD thesis in Scottish history as recorded in poetry; and it is her express belief that there is documentary evidence that the line of Windor is within the ancestral heritage of the historic figure whom King Arthur is believed to have been. Cousins of the direct line of descent.)

If we fail to hold the leadership of Governance of Nation States to these fundamental facts then we fail ourselves in the same way as if we were to fail to hold Islamic leaders accountible to what they profess.

There is no leadership without accountiblity because if we fail to believe that followers hold leaders to account then we fail to believe that followers are themselves accountible, so no follower could have any complaint against any leader whom they are not taking responsiblity for holding to account.

That the Governance of Nations like Britain and Australian and the USA is by persons whom profess Christian belief causes all citizens have a means of knowing what method by which to hold their leaders to account. So we are not in a secular state. The Queen can say that she will not hold Australian Governments accountible to the Church but she is named head of state and owner of all non-privately owned land in Australia, and she is also head of the Church of England. (While the Church of England in Australia has a bad track record in child protection it is no wonder that she tries to establish that she has no actually realisable authority here - even though her representative here sacked a Labour Government. There is a sound Law abiding argument that Australia is still a colony and an argument exists within the Aboriginal community about what is the Law under which Sovereign rights were or were not ceded. That legal argument is in connection with the Queen's head upon coins, and that fact of whether holding Her personally, therefore, accountible for need to use money, is an act of cedeing Sovereign rights to land.)

I believe it is essential that we not fail to recognise the beneficience to all concerned of living within a legal system which has any historical connection to recognised Religious Law, upholding Faith in One God.

wasalam

wasalam

[Curaezipirid]

Assalamalaikum,

Another issue in connection with all this is the simple fact that the State need never actualise physical enforcement of Religious practise to be a non-secular State.

For example a person living in a Muslim country can not be forced to believe. Belief is that fundamental choice of will in Allah. If a person living in a Muslim country choose to ignore the wealth of Religious comprehension available to them, and then choose to face the world with no reality; why they will then be thus accounted. The point is, no body can force any other person's Spirit into acceptance of Allah. We can only notice that in specific situations if a person has been disabled from accessing the means of sustaining belief; it could be more compassionate to end their life since the consequences for their own existance otherwise could be worse.

So even in that extreme of Law in which a death penalty exists (as in the USA) for failing to sustain belief in the Law of Allah: there is still Freedom.

(The Law about a death penalty is that it needs be enacted with compassion and within a evidence that the continuing life is not able to access the means to sustain belief in Allah, and therefore is not able to access the means to sustain belief in Holy Law.)

wasalam

[wilberhum]

Curaezipirid
I see that you selected that you would want to live in a theocracy “even if the state religion is not my religion”. I find this quite surprising. Reading some of your posts, you seam to be a very intelligent woman. That leaves me quite perplexed. My only conclusion is that you assume that the government would not make you a second class citizen or offend your moral values. If that is your assumption, I think you have assumed incorrectly. Below are some laws that governments have/do/could impose.
• Carrying any non-state authorized “Holy Book” is illegal.
• Public prayer to anyone other than the “state god” is illegal.
• No structure may be build to any deity other than the “state god” without approval. (Which is never given).
• Only members of the state religion can vote.
• Only members of the state religion can hold public office.
• Only members of the state religion can work/serve in the defense of the country.
• Members of any religion other that the state religion will pay a special tax.
• Making negative statements about the state religion is a crime.
• Making negative statements about state religion’s prophets is punishable under slander laws.
• All non-essential business must be closed during state religion times of worship.
• No non-state religious symbols may be displayed in public.
• It is against the law to tell a member of the state religion about any other religion.
• Citizenship is only available to members of the state religion.
• People not belonging to the state religion must ware a symbol of there non-belief.
• Since all power comes from the state god or the devil, anyone praying to any power that is not the state god is praying to Satan which is punishable by death.
• Stating that a state religious doctrine is false is heresy which is punishable by death.

If these become law, would you still make the same choice?

[Keltoi]

Curaezipirid
I see that you selected that you would want to live in a theocracy “even if the state religion is not my religion”. I find this quite surprising. Reading some of your posts, you seam to be a very intelligent woman. That leaves me quite perplexed. My only conclusion is that you assume that the government would not make you a second class citizen or offend your moral values. If that is your assumption, I think you have assumed incorrectly. Below are some laws that governments have/do/could impose.
• Carrying any non-state authorized “Holy Book” is illegal.
• Public prayer to anyone other than the “state god” is illegal.
• No structure may be build to any deity other than the “state god” without approval. (Which is never given).
• Only members of the state religion can vote.
• Only members of the state religion can hold public office.
• Only members of the state religion can work/serve in the defense of the country.
• Members of any religion other that the state religion will pay a special tax.
• Making negative statements about the state religion is a crime.
• Making negative statements about state religion’s prophets is punishable under slander laws.
• All non-essential business must be closed during state religion times of worship.
• No non-state religious symbols may be displayed in public.
• It is against the law to tell a member of the state religion about any other religion.
• Citizenship is only available to members of the state religion.
• People not belonging to the state religion must ware a symbol of there non-belief.
• Since all power comes from the state god or the devil, anyone praying to any power that is not the state god is praying to Satan which is punishable by death.
• Stating that a state religious doctrine is false is heresy which is punishable by death.

If these become law, would you still make the same choice?

These reasons are exactly why I don't trust theocracy. Like communism, it can sound good in theory, but people are imperfect, and human rights will be violated. Perhaps if there was a successful theocratic model to look back on I might look at it differently, but there isn't.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Wilber,
THe vast majority of what you listed does not apply in an Islamic state.

• Carrying any non-state authorized “Holy Book” is illegal.

Not in an Islamic state!

• Public prayer to anyone other than the “state god” is illegal.

Not in an Islamic state!

• No structure may be build to any deity other than the “state god” without approval. (Which is never given).

Not in an Islamic state!

• Only members of the state religion can vote.
• Only members of the state religion can hold public office.

The head of the state is a religious leader as well as a political leader. He is the supreme leader for the Muslims so obviously he must be Muslim. Non-muslims are free to elect their own leaders and representatives.

• Only members of the state religion can work/serve in the defense of the country
• Members of any religion other that the state religion will pay a special tax.

Jizya is paid instead of the Zakat for Muslims as the Non-muslims will be defended by the Muslims; more info here:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions

• Making negative statements about the state religion is a crime.
• Making negative statements about state religion’s prophets is punishable under slander laws.

If you don't like the religion why would you choose to live in that religious state?? Just to create trouble?

• All non-essential business must be closed during state religion times of worship.

I think this was explained earlier in terms of the rights of employees to pray; if this is not infringed then there is no problem here.

• No non-state religious symbols may be displayed in public.

Not in an Islamic state!

• It is against the law to tell a member of the state religion about any other religion.

Not in an Islamic state!

• Citizenship is only available to members of the state religion.

Not in an Islamic state!

• People not belonging to the state religion must ware a symbol of there non-belief.

Not in an Islamic state!

• Since all power comes from the state god or the devil, anyone praying to any power that is not the state god is praying to Satan which is punishable by death.

Not in an Islamic state!

• Stating that a state religious doctrine is false is heresy which is punishable by death.

Not in an Islamic state!

Hi Keltoi,

Perhaps if there was a successful theocratic model to look back on I might look at it differently, but there isn't.

Did you check the links I gave earlier about the Islamic state?

Peace

[wilberhum]

The vast majority of what you listed does not apply in an Islamic state.

Did I say they did?

Not in an Islamic state!

Da! Since she is a Muslim, a state religion that is not her religion would not be a Islamic state.
So your entire post has nothing to do with my question.

But maybe you could tell us which law/situation never existed in a country that had/has a state religion?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
As long as the laws are fair and enforced properly, I don't mind where I live. :)

[wilberhum]

:sl:
As long as the laws are fair and enforced properly, I don't mind where I live. :)

Where are "the laws are fair and enforced properly"?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Where are "the laws are fair and enforced properly"?

UK at the minute (although, some would disagree and are entitled to. Additionally, I personally think some laws should be changed but that's not really required on this thread). Not sure about the US seeing as I don't actually live there.

[Curaezipirid]

Curaezipirid
I see that you selected that you would want to live in a theocracy “even if the state religion is not my religion”. I find this quite surprising. Reading some of your posts, you seam to be a very intelligent woman. That leaves me quite perplexed. My only conclusion is that you assume that the government would not make you a second class citizen or offend your moral values. If that is your assumption, I think you have assumed incorrectly. Below are some laws that governments have/do/could impose.
• Carrying any non-state authorized “Holy Book” is illegal.
• Public prayer to anyone other than the “state god” is illegal.
• No structure may be build to any deity other than the “state god” without approval. (Which is never given).
• Only members of the state religion can vote.
• Only members of the state religion can hold public office.
• Only members of the state religion can work/serve in the defense of the country.
• Members of any religion other that the state religion will pay a special tax.
• Making negative statements about the state religion is a crime.
• Making negative statements about state religion’s prophets is punishable under slander laws.
• All non-essential business must be closed during state religion times of worship.
• No non-state religious symbols may be displayed in public.
• It is against the law to tell a member of the state religion about any other religion.
• Citizenship is only available to members of the state religion.
• People not belonging to the state religion must ware a symbol of there non-belief.
• Since all power comes from the state god or the devil, anyone praying to any power that is not the state god is praying to Satan which is punishable by death.
• Stating that a state religious doctrine is false is heresy which is punishable by death.

If these become law, would you still make the same choice?

I have a base line belief that to answer such a questions posed with an "If" is wrong. I shall try to explain why. But first provide some other commentary. The truth is that I have no information about an Religious state that is ALREADY IN EXISTANCE in which I would not prefer to be living than in any secular state also already in existance.

I believe that to SPECULATE upon 'what if' a Religious state established particular conditions, is black magic. It is using imagination actively to cause a situation to seem faulted only because there is imagined a possiblity of it becoming faulted in the future. The science of kabbalah provides that we must understand that if we account ourself against an imagined specualtion of the potential future, rather than the past as it has already been realised, then we are at fault in causing that such a future becomes actualised.

For example: if European Crusaders actualised accounting money against believing that Islam in State Governance was wrong and that Religion should be kept seperate from politics; then Muslims can actually account that such a projection upon Islam caused the predominance of a specific sect in Governance of Saudi Arabia.

Even by a Judaic accounting method money can not be held against any fault which is not already within the arena of an already physically experienced hardship. The is no point in speculating about what could possibly manifest as wrong with any thing that is not already in existance because such speculation (even if money is not being accounted within the speculation) is factually causal to such a phenomena coming into existance.

I will even prefer a state governed by Religions that I am not in Faith in such as Buddhism or Hinduism. There is also no point speculation as to whether any minor fanatic type Religious belief system could Govern any country in a way that could make me not want to live there: simply because so far such things have not come into existance, therefore why would we worry or base our behaviour in worry that such could occur. If only we all believe that such things will never occur, then they will never occur.

But neither can any person imagine that reality in Allah is not already existance and cause this reality Muslims share to un-become. Reality I know is the Governance by persons committed to a knowable and definable belief system is better than Governance by persons who try to establish that people can change what is good to believe in by whim.

wasalam

[therebbe]

I have a base line belief that to answer such a questions posed with an "If" is wrong. I shall try to explain why. But first provide some other commentary. The truth is that I have no information about an Religious state that is ALREADY IN EXISTANCE in which I would not prefer to be living than in any secular state also already in existance.

This line is often repeated, yet the countries that closely mimic religious states governed by a "Holy Book" are countries which no person as a minority would want to live in currently.

I will even prefer a state governed by Religions that I am not in Faith in such as Buddhism or Hinduism.

Please elaborate further... you would rather live in a Polythiestic society instead of a secular one that allows you to choose and worship freely?

[wilberhum]

Curaezipirid
I understand your problem with answering “If” questions. But, I do believe that each and every one of my “If” statements did or do exist where there is/was a state religion. Therefore they are not just “If” statements that have no bearing on reality. So such things have come into existence. It is interesting that you picked Hinduism and Buddhism as examples of where you would live. Looking, I can not find an example of a country that incorporates those religious beliefs into there government. Maybe that is why they don’t sound so bad. But being a Muslim in Spain in 1478 could have been a death sentence.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Wilber,

So your entire post has nothing to do with my question.

You're right, it doesn't. But since a couple of them pertained to an Islamic state, I thought it was worth pointing out which did and which didn't. Sorry for the confusion.

Peace :)

[Hijrah]

Hi Wilber,
THe vast majority of what you listed does not apply in an Islamic state.
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
The head of the state is a religious leader as well as a political leader. He is the supreme leader for the Muslims so obviously he must be Muslim. Non-muslims are free to elect their own leaders and representatives.
Jizya is paid instead of the Zakat for Muslims as the Non-muslims will be defended by the Muslims; more info here:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions
If you don't like the religion why would you choose to live in that religious state?? Just to create trouble?
I think this was explained earlier in terms of the rights of employees to pray; if this is not infringed then there is no problem here.
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!

Hi Keltoi,
Did you check the links I gave earlier about the Islamic state?

Peace

:sl:
Ansar, I have a few questions regarding what you have stated. Isn't it true that if a Muslim doesn't pray, it is punishable by death.

And also, concerning other religiois groups having their own courts, wouldn't there be transgression of the Islamic Law concerning many things!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:

I have a few questions regarding what you have stated.

Okay; but both your questions are not related to anything I've stated.

Isn't it true that if a Muslim doesn't pray, it is punishable by death.

You may be thinking of something more along the lines of apostasy, in which case you should check the link I provided earlier.

And also, concerning other religiois groups having their own courts, wouldn't there be transgression of the Islamic Law concerning many things!

I never saw the issue of courts mentioned in this thread before. At any rate, it works like secular states. Family matters can be done through religious groups but criminal matters need to be dealt with by the state.

:w:

[Hijrah]

:sl:
Okay; but both your questions are not related to anything I've stated.

You may be thinking of something more along the lines of apostasy, in which case you should check the link I provided earlier.
I never saw the issue of courts mentioned in this thread before. At any rate, it works like secular states. Family matters can be done through religious groups but criminal matters need to be dealt with by the state.

:w:

but in a previous post, you said concerning criminal matter, the Imaam or the ruler can not prevent the kaafirs in an Islamic state from drinking alcohol or eating pork.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:

but in a previous post, you said concerning criminal matter, the Imaam or the ruler can not prevent the kaafirs in an Islamic state from drinking alcohol or eating pork.

Those aren't criminal matters for non-muslims. Criminal matters would be theft, murder, etc. Those crimes against other people.

:w:

[Curaezipirid]

Curaezipirid
I understand your problem with answering “If” questions. But, I do believe that each and every one of my “If” statements did or do exist where there is/was a state religion. Therefore they are not just “If” statements that have no bearing on reality. So such things have come into existence. It is interesting that you picked Hinduism and Buddhism as examples of where you would live. Looking, I can not find an example of a country that incorporates those religious beliefs into there government. Maybe that is why they don’t sound so bad. But being a Muslim in Spain in 1478 could have been a death sentence.

I should note that my saying I would live under Hinduism or Buddhism is a matter of that I would rather than live in a secular country: in that if we can be certain in the belief system which legislators subscribe to then there is a greater presence of democratic opportunity regardless of the means by which the government came to power. Obviously my preference is to live in a Muslim state. But I am also in favour of that occuring through ordinary processes. For example if Sentors gradually convert and more who are known to actualise Islamic accountibility become elected etc. This is factually possible in a Nation State like Australia once Muslims and Aborigines have reconciled the establised Indigenous belief with Islam.

(You gotta wonder if the Queen would still want to have her head on our coins when that happens? -I say "when" only knowing that movements are already afoot among organised crime in Australia to align with Islam, of all the daft ironies!-but at that most of those whom are sustaining Islamic belief are hiding the fact of, often for immediate safety; so would the Queen even know? -she'll probably only suspect that too many heroin users were liking the Afgan flavour which is not too far from the truth in fact.)

Critically the way in which the state deals with crime, and what the state defines as crime, is the essential fact in which we need bear this dialogue.

Good point about Spain; and could I point out that well before it amounted to murder in many countries Muslims have placed back a Christian hat upon their heads. Yet once Qur'an is comprehended Christianity has a markedly different flavour; and it could exist that a Christian State is aligned with Muslim method of accounting for crime.

wasalam

[Pygoscelis]

To me the question "Would you like to live in a theocracy" is no different from "Would you like to live in a repressive dictatorship".

Keep in mind that any theocracy is going to have high priests who interpret the religious creed and tell you all how to live your lives. Not only will nonbelievers in the state religion be ostracized but so will those who DO believe the state religion but just not in the "proper way" (ie, the way the guy in charge decides things must be).

[Bittersteel]

I’m seeing a lot of slamming of secular governments.

I don't have problem with secularism(as long its not like in Turkey) but with liberalism.

[manaal]

Yes, but only if the state religion is my religion..... and they do not practice extremism.

[ranma1/2]

:sl:

i would love to live in an islamic state.

true peace true rights true safety.

true rights? as soon as you have a theocracy you lose rights, especially if you are not of that religion.

[Woodrow]

true rights? as soon as you have a theocracy you lose rights, especially if you are not of that religion.

The only time any human ever had full rights was when Adam(PBUH) was alone. The minute the second human was created his rights were cut in half to give equal rights to his companion.

So it is in any nation you never have any more rights than the rights of the majority. If your desires are not the same as the majority, you will loose rights even in a democracy.

Here in the US there are many people who advocate the use of marijuana and feel they have the right to smoke it. But, the majority says that is a no-no so they have lost their right to smoke it.

Us Muslims believe the sale of pork violates our rights. however the majority feels different so we have lost our right to live in an pork free nation. I know to many non-Muslims that sounds very trivial. However, it limits us highly. We can not eat in a restaurant that serves pork as even the vegetables may have come in contact with pork during handling back in the kitchen. many candies, and other enjoyable products are denied to us as pork gelatin and/or enzymes may have been used in the manufacture of them. We even have to be cautious of where we buy our meat and dairy products as even halal meat and cheeses may have come in contact with pork products as they may be sold and/or stored on the same shelves.

No matter what country we live in or what form of government we live under our rights are limited and dictated by either the majority or the strongest in power.

For those of us with a strong belief in God(swt) a theocracy serves us best. Although admitadly it may restrict the rights of those who do not believe the same. A Muslim or even a Baptist Christian would feel a lot of rights were removed if we lived in Vatican City. But, i will not deny The Vatican it's rights to be a theocracy even if I would feel unwelcome there. Then again I do not foresee myself ever living there.

True rights any place on earth are non-existent and a figment of our imagination. The closest possible is when all of the residents of a country have the same beliefs and ideologies.

[ranma1/2]

I am curious what those people who are shouting so loudly that they would never want to live in a 'Christian country' (!) actually mean by that??? :?
What do you think a 'Christian country' would be like?

I am asking, because historically most of the laws in most Western secular countries are based on Christian values - because at the time when the countries were formed, ground laws determined and constitutions written, the people in authority and in government were very clearly Christian. (That's my view, anyway)

So in my mind a 'Christian state' would not be all that different from our present 'secular state'.

What are Muslims so afraid of?

peace.

Well for one thing The USA was not found on christian values anymore than it was buddhists or islamic values. There have been of course blue laws which thankfully are being slowly gotten rid of. I can think of no good "christian values" that did not exist before christanity. And a christian theocracy would be a horrible state. Of course which version of christanity are you talking about? So many to choose from so many differnt takes on what is and isnt moral or good and evil.

Not to mention how easily corrup a theocracy can be. Look at the spanish inquisition. or the crusades etc... darkages.....

Of course it depends on which version of which religion but still i see it as bad.

[ranma1/2]

The only time any human ever had full rights was when Adam(PBUH) was alone. The minute the second human was created his rights were cut in half to give equal rights to his companion.

So it is in any nation you never have any more rights than the rights of the majority. If your desires are not the same as the majority, you will loose rights even in a democracy.

Here in the US there are many people who advocate the use of marijuana and feel they have the right to smoke it. But, the majority says that is a no-no so they have lost their right to smoke it.

Us Muslims believe the sale of pork violates our rights. however the majority feels different so we have lost our right to live in an pork free nation. I know to many non-Muslims that sounds very trivial. However, it limits us highly. We can not eat in a restaurant that serves pork as even the vegetables may have come in contact with pork during handling back in the kitchen. many candies, and other enjoyable products are denied to us as pork gelatin and/or enzymes may have been used in the manufacture of them. We even have to be cautious of where we buy our meat and dairy products as even halal meat and cheeses may have come in contact with pork products as they may be sold and/or stored on the same shelves.

No matter what country we live in or what form of government we live under our rights are limited and dictated by either the majority or the strongest in power.

For those of us with a strong belief in God(swt) a theocracy serves us best. Although admitadly it may restrict the rights of those who do not believe the same. A Muslim or even a Baptist Christian would feel a lot of rights were removed if we lived in Vatican City. But, i will not deny The Vatican it's rights to be a theocracy even if I would feel unwelcome there. Then again I do not foresee myself ever living there.

True rights any place on earth are non-existent and a figment of our imagination. The closest possible is when all of the residents of a country have the same beliefs and ideologies.

You havent stated what true rights are. You have brought up your opinon about creation and such but no mention of what true rights are.

In the US there are ideally barriers in certain aspect so majority does not necessarily make the rights. We have in the US certain rights that can not be voted away by the public "idealy" The freedom of religon or to not have one is important.

The right to sell pork does not go against your rights. You can "not sell" pork if you dont want to. Also we dont make you eat pork. As with any limitation you have to accept the problems associated with it. I myself have a vegitarian for a GF and there are certain things you have to work for. Think about it this way, your not eating pork means more when you have to try not to. Of course it sounds like what you think of "rights" is different than others.

[ranma1/2]

To me the question "Would you like to live in a theocracy" is no different from "Would you like to live in a repressive dictatorship".

Keep in mind that any theocracy is going to have high priests who interpret the religious creed and tell you all how to live your lives. Not only will nonbelievers in the state religion be ostracized but so will those who DO believe the state religion but just not in the "proper way" (ie, the way the guy in charge decides things must be).

well said.

[- Qatada -]

Hey ranma. This was from a previous post of mine;

First of all, let's see the rights of non muslims in an Islamic state (which follows the authentic teachings, just take a look:

Rights of Citizens in an Islamic State


Islam protects the rights belonging to the citizens of an Islamic state, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims.

• The first is the right to security of life and property. Islam prohibits killing except for that which is done in the due process of law at the hands of a God-fearing court. No government has the right to murder its citizens, openly or secretly, because they oppose its unjust policies and actions or criticize it. Furthermore, Islam confers the right of security of ownership of property.

• Another right is that of the protection of honor. Under Islamic Law, if one is proved to have said things that could have damaged the reputation and honor of the plaintiff, the accused is declared guilty of defamation — regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is able to prove that he is respectable and honorable in the first place.

• Citizens of an Islamic state have the right to the sanctity and security of private life. Thus spying on others, reading their mail, tapping their phones, etc., is illegal. Espionage on the life of the individual cannot be justified on moral grounds. In fact, when a government does begin to spy on its own people, the common citizens cannot speak freely even in their own homes, and society begins to suffer from a state of general distrust and suspicion — which in turn leads to more dissatisfaction and eventually unrest.

• No citizen can be imprisoned unless his guilt has been proven in an open court in which he has the opportunity to defend himself.

• Citizens have the God-given right to protest against the government’s tyranny, whether that abuse is directed against individuals, groups, or the entire population.

Citizens have absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law regardless of their religion

• Islam grants the right of freedom of thought and expression on the condition that it should be used to propagate virtue and truth, not to spread evil and wickedness. Further, no one has the right to use abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism. In fact, the citizen not only has the right of freedom of expression in order to propagate virtue, but also the duty to propagate virtue and stop the spread of evil.

• Islam gives people the right to freedom of association and formation of parties or organizations, provided that this right is exercised to spread virtue and righteousness, not to spread evil and mischief.

• Citizens of an Islamic state have the right to freedom of conscience and conviction. Non-Muslim citizens cannot be forced to accept Islam, and no moral, social, or political pressure can be put on them to make them change their minds.

• Religious sentiments are to be protected. Discussion and debate on religious matters can be held, but these must be conducted in decency with no abusive language. This applies to followers of all faiths.

• An individual cannot be arrested or imprisoned for the offenses of others. Every person is responsible for his own acts.

• Citizens have the right to the basic necessities of life. It is the responsibility of the State to provide the basic necessities for the poor and needy, invalid, orphaned, elderly, unemployed, et cetera. Even a dead person with no guardian or heir has the right to a proper burial by the State.

• The citizens of an Islamic state have absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law, regardless of their religion.

• In an Islamic state, the rulers are not above the law. All officials of the state, whether they are the head or ordinary employees, are equal in the eyes of the law. None can claim immunity. Even an ordinary citizen has the right to forward a claim or file a complaint against the highest executive in the country.

• Citizens have the right to avoid sin. No government, or administrator, or head of a department can order another person to do wrong. A person who is so ordered has the right to refuse to comply, and this would not be seen as an offense under Islamic Law.

• Islam grants the right to participate in the affairs of state. Thus every citizen has the right to have a direct say in the affairs of the state or a representative chosen by him and others.

The issue of there being an Islamic State in the world today has already been discussed in different parts of the forum, and the answer is no - there isn't today as it's been prophecised.


Now, if we're to look at a religion on it's teachings, instead of some who claim to follow it, then we can say that these Islamic Teachings which i quoted above are way more advanced than even the world we live in today! Yet alone 14 centuries ago.

That was a time when one wasn't even allowed to follow another religion apart from their rulers, and if they did - they would be beheaded. Yet God/Allaah sent His servant and final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - a man just like us - who was well known for his honesty and trustworthiness, to free the world from the oppression it faces.



That's what Divine revelation is supposed to do - it's supposed to free mankind from the hardships and oppression they are facing. And free the weak and the oppressed. This is Islaam, and without a doubt without Islaam, mankind is oppressed, since the rulers (i.e. of today) may say that we are 'freeing people from the oppression of religion' - when in reality, all they're doing is forcing people to accept their ideology, and anyone who speaks out - they get locked up.

So is this really freedom, or is it not? If God can send a perfect law to mankind 14 centuries ago which is more advanced than the laws of today, then i'm sure that it is even more perfect and suitable for the future also.

[Woodrow]

You havent stated what true rights are. You have brought up your opinon about creation and such but no mention of what true rights are.

True rights are very individual. I do not believe there can be any rule as to what are universal rights. There are some thing we all need and want, but as far as being rights, that probably varies with the time and the people. I doubt if what you consider to be rights would be all the same as to what I believe to be rights. I think we would have a difficult time to find any two people to come up with what they see as the same rights in all aspects. We do have universal needs that probably can not be disputed, but rights will vary. Of course I feel it is my right to say that.

In the US there are ideally barriers in certain aspect so majority does not necessarily make the rights. We have in the US certain rights that can not be voted away by the public "idealy" The freedom of religon or to not have one is important.

Actually they can be voted away by the majority. It is only by law that any rights become available. It was not long ago segregation was the norm, woman could not vote and Native Americans could not live where they chose. But, laws that where voted for changed that. Yes, the constitution does have it's "Bill of Rights" that are supposedly inalienable. yet we know that ammendments have been added to most of them, thereby changing some from the original intent.

The right to sell pork does not go against your rights. You can "not sell" pork if you dont want to. Also we dont make you eat pork. As with any limitation you have to accept the problems associated with it. I myself have a vegitarian for a GF and there are certain things you have to work for. Think about it this way, your not eating pork means more when you have to try not to. Of course it sounds like what you think of "rights" is different than others.

Like I said in my post most people would consider that a trivial matter.

And yes what I think of rights is probably different than what you think of as rights and what you think of rights is probably different than what your neighbor thinks. But, that is our right.

[Amadeus85]

In Malaysia, the government doesnt care whether you perform the 5 daily prayers....but there are so strict with Friday prayer observation.... you can be fined for not performing the Friday Prayer in Malaysia. But as all religious officers are at the mosque during that time, thus nobody been caught for that offence.

Yeah... in Ramadhan, the religious officers would go to the streets and would catch any Muslims who are eating in the public .... in some states, they would be paraded around the town in funeral cars.... That's why Ramadhan observation is so high in Malaysia... even those who never pray... also fast.

Sounds like a totalitarian methods to me. So i see that a Malay born doesnt have other opportunity but to be a muslim.

[Amadeus85]

I have a question- which one of these countries is closer to pure islamic state?:
-Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under taliban rule,Somalia under taliban rule.
Could you explain also why they are not close to islamic states ( if they are not of course).
Regards.

[Hashim_507]

England,Israel, Vatican City,Iran are all theocrocy.

[Keltoi]

England,Israel, Vatican City,Iran are all theocrocy.

How is England a theocracy? Or Israel for that matter?

[Hashim_507]

Andorra
Andorra's government is in some aspect nominally theocratic in that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Urgell is one of its co-princes, although the role is virtually entirely ceremonial.


England
England has a minor theocratic aspect because the monarch is "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England and "defender of the faith." This has been the case since the Protestant Reformation in England, under Henry VIII. It should be noted however, that the monarch has virtually no real power and their positions as head of state and of the church are purely ceremonial. Hence, the ruling government is not subject to any religious interference, and England is a multi-faith society. This does not apply to Scotland, whose Church of Scotland does not have the same relation to the state, nor to Wales and Northern Ireland, which have no established church. Queen Elizabeth II, however, is a member of the Church of Scotland and appoints a representative to the General Assembly of the church if she cannot attend personally.

Iran
Most observers would consider Iran a theocracy,[citation needed] since the elected president and legislature are constitutionally subject to the supervision of two offices reserved for Shia clerics: the Supreme Leader of Iran (Rahbar) and the Guardian Council, which even decide who may run for office.

Iran is also considered a "semi-democracy", like China or Russia.[citation needed] However, Iranian authorities themselves consider Iran a theo-democracy or religious democracy.[citation needed] The Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of state and government, whereas the President is granted as the prime executor of policy. However, in the recent years Mohammad Khatami has called Iranian political system as an alternative democratic model so called religious democracy.[citation needed]


Israel
Israel can be regarded as somewhat theocratic given the state promotion of Jewish institutions for the purposes of the country's integrity as the 'Jewish Homeland'. There is a small amount of intertwining of rabbinical law (Halakha) and civil law, particularly with regards to the enforcement of orthodox Jewish weddings for Jewish citizens, rather than allowing freedom to have a civil marriage (although these sorts of laws are being fought and revoked on a constant basis). Another promoted institution is that of the 'yeshiva'- an Orthodox Jewish, rabbinical learning centre, often funded in whole by the state. Israel's Law of Return grants any Jew the right to become a citizen of the country with the aim of facilitating their immigration to what the State of Israel views as their ancestral homeland. Israel's Basic Law: The Knesset (1985, Amendment No 9) states that a political list may not participate in elections if its party platform implies the "denial of the existence of the state of Israel as the state of Jewish people".[1] A member of any religion can be a citizen of Israel with full and equal rights under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

[saira-k]

what is a theocracy :S :$

[Hashim_507]

what is a theocracy :S :$

For believers in a religion whose institutions have been more or less equated with the state's institutions in a theocracy, a theocracy is a form of government in which the divine power (for example, in monotheisms, the one God) governs an earthly human state, either in person (e.g., as incarnation in a human being) or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s) (e.g., church, temple), either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s). [1]

Most modern descriptive dictionaries explain that the word is used in most carefully edited texts in English to mean either government by doing immediate divine guidance (close to the usage described above) or, more commonly, as government by or subject to religious institutions and priests (or a state ruled in this way). In other words, for people who do not believe in a theocracy's religion or feel that its religious institutions do not represent the religion well, a theocracy is a form of oligarchy or even tyranny that purports to fulfill a divine intention but instead simply fulfills the goals of the ruling priests.

[Keltoi]

A theocracy is a form of goverment where a religious institution and the government are for all intents and purposes one and the same. Neither the U.K. or Israel are a theocracy.

[saira-k]

oh i see,thanks. Is Saudi Arabia one then and countries in the Middle East?

[Hashim_507]

A theocracy is a form of goverment where a religious institution and the government are for all intents and purposes one and the same. Neither the U.K. or Israel are a theocracy.

Israel have laws from Judaism, the country enforce the laws to Israeli jews. There Is religious party that enforce the laws to the judical system England have Church of England, there ruling is very influcial to the nation.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

To the muslims who have selected other:

do you not wish to live in an islamic state>? (i mean a truelly islamic one, not the fake ones we see today?)

[wilberhum]

Wow who dug up this old dirt?
It was interesting going through the new posts. As this is a subject that is near and dear to the hart of “The Defiant Dhimmi”.

Two things I still find note worthy:
First, still only Muslims want a theocracy. But when you stop and think about it is an article of faith.
The other one is the standard stupidity where some one thinks that
[MAD]Being a Dalit in the Islamic cast system was so wonderful.[/MAD]
[PIE]And it would be so wonderful that I would love to give up my cherished freedoms and gladly become a third class citizen of his vision of Utopia.[/PIE]
Oh well, not too worried though. Muslims can’t even get it right in Muslim countries. The West is safe from the ideology of the minority and the Christian majority doesn’t want it.

[Muezzin]

To the muslims who have selected other:

do you not wish to live in an islamic state>? (i mean a truelly islamic one, not the fake ones we see today?)

Maybe they want to live in space.

...It's possible.

[carpetguy]

as long as we are free to be muslim without being frowned upon

[Muezzin]

as long as we are free to be muslim without being frowned upon

Every group, every person is frowned upon by others, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. Those groups and people are just supposed to ignore it and keep moving forward. That's life.

I'd agree with something along the lines of 'As long as we are free to be Muslim without being killed for our belief'.

[carpetguy]

Every group, every person is frowned upon by others, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. Those groups and people are just supposed to ignore it and keep moving forward. That's life.

I'd agree with something along the lines of 'As long as we are free to be Muslim without being killed for our belief'.

yes i agree totally, thats a better way of putting it

[Grace Seeker]

I would totally love to live in a theocracy, if I could trust that it was really God who was in charge.

However, given that I have very little confidence in even the best of men to always interpret what it is that God's will is, and even less confidence that it will be the best of men who exercise power in any government, I do not want to live in any earthly theocracy where humans are the intepreters of the divine will. I therefore paradoxically think that it a secular govenment which truly grants freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) would be the safest form of a government for those seeking to be free from demonic influences infiltrating the exercise of power in the government.

[Grace Seeker]

[INDENT]
First of all, let's see the rights of non muslims in an Islamic state (which follows the authentic teachings, just take a look:

Rights of Citizens in an Islamic State


Islam protects the rights belonging to the citizens of an Islamic state, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims.

• The citizens of an Islamic state have absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law, regardless of their religion.

There was a time when one wasn't even allowed to follow another religion apart from their rulers, and if they did - they would be beheaded. Yet God/Allaah sent His servant and final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - a man just like us - who was well known for his honesty and trustworthiness, to free the world from the oppression it faces.



That's what Divine revelation is supposed to do - it's supposed to free mankind from the hardships and oppression they are facing. And free the weak and the oppressed. This is Islaam, and without a doubt without Islaam, mankind is oppressed, since the rulers (i.e. of today) may say that we are 'freeing people from the oppression of religion' - when in reality, all they're doing is forcing people to accept their ideology, and anyone who speaks out - they get locked up.

So is this really freedom, or is it not? If God can send a perfect law to mankind 14 centuries ago which is more advanced than the laws of today, then i'm sure that it is even more perfect and suitable for the future also.

And yet in a supposedly secular state that accepts Islam as its official religion we have a woman being persecuted because she wants her official government ID to indicate that she is Christian and not Muslim: Malaysian Christian Convert Denied Recognition.

I don't see the freedoms you speak of being granted to this woman.

[Woodrow]

And yet in a supposedly secular state that accepts Islam as its official religion we have a woman being persecuted because she wants her official government ID to indicate that she is Christian and not Muslim: Malaysian Christian Convert Denied Recognition.

I don't see the freedoms you speak of being granted to this woman.

That is quite a controversial case in Malaysia about that woman. I think it would be best if a Malaysian answers that. I know someplace we have an old thread about it.

The whole issue seems to have more to do with the legal status of Malaysians than it has to do with Islam. But, I do not know the whole story.

[Grace Seeker]

That is quite a controversial case in Malaysia about that woman. I think it would be best if a Malaysian answers that. I know someplace we have an old thread about it.

The whole issue seems to have more to do with the legal status of Malaysians than it has to do with Islam. But, I do not know the whole story.

I hope to get some response. I learned about this a few weeks ago from a Christian friend who is from Malaysia. He told me some of his other experiences growing up there before moving to the USA. But I figure there is always more than one side to a story. I have tried 3 times to get the other side to this story on this board and have yet to receive an answer. Maybe there isn't one. Maybe it really is as bad as it looks.

I think the issue it raises is the center of the question posed by this thread: "Who wants to live in a theocracy?" Do people have individual personal rights in a theocracy to believe and practice something different than that of the theocratic ruler? Should they? If the answer is "No" to that question then I think that takes us right back to the height of the Spanish Inquisition. If that was wrong, then the concept of theocratic rule must allow for beliefs (and the actual uninterfered practice of beliefs) outside of those of the ruling clerics' views.

[Woodrow]

I found one of the old threads about Lina Joy. It is over in World Affairs and was closed a few weekd ago. But, it can still be read. It may help a little. Here is a link to it.

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-lina-joy.html

There had been a few other threads about her, but I can not recal the name of them. this has actually been going on for several years.

I could be wrong on this part, but if memory serves me right she originaly did not convert to Christianity and simply left Islam. However, once she found out that she had left Islam she no longer had rights under Sharia Law and she then sought to become a Christian in order to obtain the rights as a Christian.

I know my memory probably has some flaws in it it, but that is roughly what I remember. I am quite certain that originaly she did not want to convert to Christianity, but wanted to retain Islamic rights under Sharia and not be Muslim.

Like I said this story goes back for several years, the Christian twist seems to be a recent innovation in her case.

[Grace Seeker]

From some of the article about the Lina Joy case in Malaysia:

"It is not about one person, it is about challenging the Islamic system in Malaysia," said Muslim Youth Movement President Yusri Mohammad, who set up a coalition of 80 Islamic groups to oppose Joy's case.

"By doing this openly, she is encouraging others to do the same. It may open the floodgates to other Muslims because once it is a precedent, it becomes an option."

Indeed it is about challenging the Islamic system, both in Malaysia and the very idea that one can have an Islmaic system of government to rule non-Muslims. Espcially when one considers what the application of Muhammad's (Pbuh) statement:

the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did say, in the above historical context, "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him" (Bukhari, Abu Dawud) but how exactly do we understand this statement and does it conflict with the principles of freedom? The Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself clarified this statement in another hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim where he mentioned that the one who was to be fought against was the one who "abandons his religion and the Muslim community".

The following is a commentary on the above ideas expressed by Muhammad:

Islam is not just a set of beliefs, it is a complete system of life which includes a Muslim's allegiance to the Islamic state. Thus, a rejection against that would be akin to treason.

This is why I cannot support a theocracy unless it is God himself who is the ruler. I will trust God to carry out his rule with justice, but I will trust no man to interpret what that justice is. For me the concept of theocracy being bad is not about Islam, certainly there have been Christian attempts to have Christian theocracies (and other religions have tried it too); all attempts have turned out bad. Bad not just for unbelievers, but even for believers who were out of favor with the ideas of the rulers. Only in a society where one actually respects the views of those that one differs with can there be true freedom and security for the individual. The rights of the citizen should be above the rights of the government, and that can only happen when the government does not see itself as enforcing God's rule or law.

[Malaikah]

The rights of the citizen should be above the rights of the government, and that can only happen when the government does not see itself as enforcing God's rule or law.

And the rights of the society should be above the rights of the individual...

You post seems to imply that God is incapable of creating a law that humans have the ability of implementing justly... I'm sure you don't mean it that way though?:?

[thirdwatch512]

i oppose 100% to a religious theoracacy..

if it was Christian, i would not mind.. why? Because Christianity and the west share similar values.

but islam.. i just could not do it.

- I am anti death penalty
- anti polygamy
- Pro gay rights
- pro equality of all
- pro music!! lol

to be honest, if America ever became an islamic country, i would commit suicide. and i'm not saying that because i hate islam or hate muslims. i am saying that though because i am a very "westernized" person.. i am a neo liberal. i love seeing gay fashion designers everywhere, and i love drinking wine at every meal, and i love to hit the night clubs. i love swimming without being segregated. 70% of my friends are women.. it would be hard not being able to talk to them! i love that a loving couple, even if un married, can have sex. i love that people don't have to fear the death penalty.

i love indiviudality. which is why i love the west, and i wouldn't leave it if it were for my life :)

[Malaikah]

- Pro gay rights

LOL- yeh Christians are just so pro-gays. :rollseyes

[thirdwatch512]

no, but we don't support the death penalty for it!

[Grace Seeker]

i oppose 100% to a religious theoracacy..

if it was Christian, i would not mind.. why? Because Christianity and the west share similar values.

but islam.. i just could not do it.

- I am anti death penalty
- anti polygamy
- Pro gay rights
- pro equality of all
- pro music!! lol

to be honest, if America ever became an islamic country, i would commit suicide. and i'm not saying that because i hate islam or hate muslims. i am saying that though because i am a very "westernized" person.. i am a neo liberal. i love seeing gay fashion designers everywhere, and i love drinking wine at every meal, and i love to hit the night clubs. i love swimming without being segregated. 70% of my friends are women.. it would be hard not being able to talk to them! i love that a loving couple, even if un married, can have sex. i love that people don't have to fear the death penalty.

i love indiviudality. which is why i love the west, and i wouldn't leave it if it were for my life :)

That might depend on which "western" Christian theocracy you were talking about:

--John Calvin's Geneva theocracy
--Salem, Massachuesset's Puritan theocracy
--New Harmony, Indiana
--the Shakers'
--Jim Jones' temple
--one arising out of the Westboro Baptist Church
or something else.



Malakiah, I guess I don't think that God could create a theocracy that men who still had free will could not corrupt until he comes back to rule personally. Though they might not, history tells me it would be foolish to take such a risk.

[wilberhum]

history tells me it would be foolish to take such a risk

Wisdom gained through knowledge is so much better than blind doctrine.

[Abdul Fattah]

Wisdom gained through knowledge is so much better than blind doctrine.

But allah subhana wa ta'ala is far from blind, and his doctrine is the method of life closest to perfection.

[wilberhum]

But allah subhana wa ta'ala is far from blind, and his doctrine is the method of life closest to perfection.

I guess that is why it lasted so long. :skeleton:

[snakelegs]

does anyone else wonder about the person who voted "Yes, even if the state religion is not my religion"???
i sure do but then, i'm like that.

[wilberhum]

does anyone else wonder about the person who voted "Yes, even if the state religion is not my religion"???
i sure do but then, i'm like that.

I do. We had several exchanges. Reality had nothing to do with her vote.

[- Qatada -]

I guess that is why it lasted so long. :skeleton:

And still does :)

[wilberhum]

And still does :)

Yes, I love Iran too. :skeleton:

[- Qatada -]

Yes, I love Iran too. :skeleton:

And do they run according to the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah? Nope :)

[wilberhum]

And do they run according to the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah? Nope :)

I think closer than any one else.
So where do you think the country is run according to the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah?

[- Qatada -]

I think closer than any one else.

Do you know what Shi'a are? They don't even believe anyone can take the Khilafah (Caliphate) apart from 12 people. So no - that isn't the way of the Sunnah (Prophetic sayings etc.)

So where do you think the country is run according to the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah?

Havn't we discussed this already?


The final Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah (God) wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah [caliphate] Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood," then he kept silent.

[recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273)]


We're under the underlined stage, and all the events before it have occured in our islamic history. Inshaa'Allaah the rest of the prophecy will soon come into effect.


According to the hadith, the prophet (peace be upon him) will be followed by rightly guided caliphs and after those caliphs (Abu Baker, Omar, Uthman and Ali) will come hereditary leadership (the other Caliphs) and after that will come tyrannical rule (today) and after that will come a rightly guided caliphs yet again inshaa'Allaah.

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...mic-state.html

[wilberhum]

Havn't we discussed this already?

Then why no answer?

[- Qatada -]

Then why no answer?

I gave you the answer, try checking again.

[wilberhum]

I gave you the answer, try checking again.

You talk Utopia, I talk reality. Any simpleton can design the "Perfect System".
No genius can make it work. You simply talk fairy tales "Once up a time".

[Abdul Fattah]

You talk Utopia, I talk reality. Any simpleton can design the "Perfect System".
No genius can make it work. You simply talk fairy tales "Once up a time".

I disagree, when we talk about perfection, we do not mean it in an utopic sense (lolipops and rainbows things) instead what we mean by perfect is the best way out of a given situation. Not perfect in the sense that there are no downsides of it, but perfect in the sense that the few downsides outweigh the benefits greatly, and that this balance of benefit vs. downsides outweighs any other possible system.

As for Iran, isn't that run by a Shiite government? Odd that you say it comes closest to an Islamic government by your opinion. Needless to say it does not by mine.

[wilberhum]

when we talk about perfection

You talk about making me the inferior.

Sorry, I'm not buying in.

[Grace Seeker]

I disagree, when we talk about perfection, we do not mean it in an utopic sense (lolipops and rainbows things) instead what we mean by perfect is the best way out of a given situation. Not perfect in the sense that there are no downsides of it, but perfect in the sense that the few downsides outweigh the benefits greatly, and that this balance of benefit vs. downsides outweighs any other possible system.

As for Iran, isn't that run by a Shiite government? Odd that you say it comes closest to an Islamic government by your opinion. Needless to say it does not by mine.

The definition of "perfect" is not a system that has more upsides than downsides. If this is what you mean by perfect, then this is why I don't want to live in a theocracy run by humans. You might think the downsides are insignificant, but if they effect me they are extremely significant to me. I only trust God to be able to make such distinctions, not people.

[Abdul Fattah]

The definition of "perfect" is not a system that has more upsides than downsides. If this is what you mean by perfect, then this is why I don't want to live in a theocracy run by humans. You might think the downsides are insignificant, but if they effect me they are extremely significant to me. I only trust God to be able to make such distinctions, not people.

I wasn't discussing semantics, or trying to change your views on what perfection really means, I was just clarifying what we mean by this.

[Curaezipirid]

Hey! :enough!:

I have to complain because I see I am the only person who voted to want to live in a theocracy even if my own Religion is not the Religion of the state!

:raging: :raging:

It is like this:

if we can not believe in our self first, then how could we even know that Allah exists, in fact, because Allah blesses our Alaqa with existing only because our Alaqa sustains a self in which His will is known, then if we can not believe in our self, we are also not believing in Allah.

If a nation state exists, then it is forcing an identification upon a person. I much rather that identification be of one of the known Religions than of the shaytan, which all other nation states are of.

Even, and especially an Animist Faith has a dignity in accepting the faults in our being, in which we are well enabled to then also sustain faith in Allah. Animist Faiths with muliple god-heads, might be able to impose upon us tolerance of idols and bad Art, but they can not prevent our Faith in Allah. Unlike a secular Nation State which can abuse men in prison to prevent expressions of any belief in Allah. This is happening here in Australia to both black and white skin Aborigines, that men are being imprisoned at alarming rates if police learn of any indigenous belief, and then the men and some woman also, are being sodomised as a torture to prevent faith in Allah.

There is no theocracy which could have done what I know has been done by Australian police.:cry:

[Curaezipirid]

As to the perfect form of Governance: it is when God leads through leading Arch Angels, who lead all the various lesser Angels, who lead Saints, who lead Men, under who the shaytan then even take instruction. If only we have the order of leadership correct we might not be able to even make one act which is not within the Will of Allah.

What is that song about: "Oh when the Saints, Oh when the Saints come marching in, how I want to be in that number, Oh when the Saints come marching in"

Isn't it about a group of Saints entering the Ummah from the outside of Known Islam, though entering the Masonic temples and turning around the direction of Human endeavour through the big money? Even the shaytan are all looking forward with longing to the day, but the shaytan can not comprehend how a Human can read Qur'an, and so shaytan have their own world to exist in which is distinct from that of a believer.

In fact Qur'an is also very powerful for shaytan also, but they find meaning as opposite from how a Human mind will, and by that device are they indulged while also being caused to behave alike to Human beings. Before Islam they were much naughtier. As naughty and naughtier than those who did the worst side of the cultural revolution in China. Yet they still want the will of Allah to lead their nature, but can not take leadership from Angels as Human beings can. So Humans must be to the Shaytan as an Angel is to a man.

[wilberhum]

As to the perfect form of Governance: it is when God leads through leading Arch Angels, who lead all the various lesser Angels, who lead Saints, who lead Men, under who the shaytan then even take instruction. If only we have the order of leadership correct we might not be able to even make one act which is not within the Will of Allah.

Where do I find this place?

[wilberhum]

I have to complain because I see I am the only person who voted to want to live in a theocracy even if my own Religion is not the Religion of the state!

You have to complain because no one agrees with you? :skeleton:

Then you talk of Allah! If the state religion was not Islam, than Allah would be considered a false god. :?

Do you remember me PMing you and asking why you didn't think things like the Inquisition would happen again?

A theocracy makes all non-believers second class citizens, at best.
At worst, they are enemies of the state. :raging:

Why would you conceder that good? :skeleton:

[tears4husain]

:sl: I would love to live in an Islamic state, things would be peaceful and better off. Plus the whole country could pray together.:D

[wilberhum]

:sl: I would love to live in an Islamic state, things would be peaceful and better off. Plus the whole country could pray together.:D

Why do you think that would happen?
Has there ever been a peaceful theocracy?

[tears4husain]

:sl: well, look at Iran what is not peaceful about there? Plus we let america mess up our peace:p

[wilberhum]

:sl: well, look at Iran what is not peaceful about there? Plus we let america mess up our peace:p

What is not peaceful about Iran? Easier would be what is peaceful about Iran.:skeleton:
Wipe a neighbor off the map, finance insurgents/terrorists in every neighboring country. How is that for starters? :-\
Oh yes and again America is the route of all evil. ^o)
Are you 12 or have you just never faced reality?

Well I see you are 24 so I guess 12 is out.

[tears4husain]

:sl: falsehood and a media stereotype and what really hurts is that muslims believe it:D

[wilberhum]

:sl: falsehood and a media stereotype and what really hurts is that muslims believe it:D

Well you have established the evil US.
Now it is the evil media.
Stereotype? Maybe repeated acts. :-\
Blaming every one else is nothing but a cop out!

[tears4husain]

:sl: for starters its not a cobb out and what proofs do you have for facts and/or opinions?^o)

[tears4husain]

:sl: Is it because its shia based? Does that play a role in how you feel? America is trying to put us against each other they plant the terrorist and/or insurgents and the ill comments and we feed right in like puppets they are making us fight each other because they cant win with us united.:D

[wilberhum]

:sl: for starters its not a cobb out and what proofs do you have for facts and/or opinions?^o)

As for facts that I use to make an informed decision, The News.
CNN, BBC and al Jazeera for starters, some times India Times and once and a while Tokyo News and the Seattle PI.

As for proof, read my signature.

How much reality do you ignore?

[tears4husain]

:sl: you proved my point the media need I say more^o)

[tears4husain]

:sl: Iran sends foods,finance,clothing, and aid to Iraq, Labonnon, and Palestine. This was also on the news the media I guess you didnt see that or do you not accept reality?^o)

[wilberhum]

:sl: Is it because its shia based? Does that play a role in how you feel? America is trying to put us against each other they plant the terrorist and/or insurgents and the ill comments and we feed right in like puppets they are making us fight each other because they cant win with us united.:D

Because it is Shia based? How many agnostics care what the religious base of anything is? Boy you have no contact with reality do you.
And once again the evil America is the cause of all problems.
Don't have to worry about not being able to "win with you united". You have been fighting and killing each other for 1400 years. I don't think unity is in the near future.

I'm beginning to see why you want to live in a theocracy. You can join the government and blame every one else for your problems.

[wilberhum]

:sl: Iran sends foods,finance,clothing, and aid to Iraq, Labonnon, and Palestine. This was also on the news the media I guess you didnt see that or do you not accept reality?^o)

And guns and bullets and bombs and money.

[tears4husain]

:sl: just notice that you're agnostic so the benefit im looking for in this convo is not possible.:D

[wilberhum]

:sl: just notice that you're agnostic so the benefit im looking for in this convo is not possible.:D

Really quick to notice things aren't you?
And of course there is no benefit communicating with an agnostic.

So you reject the News and reject all opinions different than yours.
You assign responsibility for all problems to others.

No wonder you think a theocracy would be peaceful.

[tears4husain]

:sl: I still dont blame others for my/our problems so dont put that on me I have alot of issues with in the folds of my people^o)

[wilberhum]

:sl: I still dont blame others for my/our problems so dont put that on me I have alot of issues with in the folds of my people^o)

Boy, you can't keep your story straight. You clear that the US and Media was the source of the problems.

falsehood and a media stereotype

America is trying to put us against each other they plant the terrorist and/or insurgents and the ill comments

Why don't you open a new thread. Title it some thing like "Iran is a peaceful place and the US and Media are responsible for everything that is wrong".

Oh well we are way off topic. How about us going back on topic?

[tears4husain]

wait now they play a role but full blame no

[wilberhum]

wait now they play a role but full blame no

Everyone plays a role. No country, no group is all good or all bad.
There are good Americans, there are bad Americans.
There are good Iranians, there are bad Iranians.
There are good Muslims, there are bad Muslims.
There are good Christians, there are bad Christians.
There are good Agnostics, there are great Agnostics. :D

[Grace Seeker]

:sl: well, look at Iran what is not peaceful about there? Plus we let america mess up our peace:p

I have a friend from Iran. I don't know maybe you are from there too and so know more about it than I do. But my friend was born and raised in Iran. Her family is all Muslim. She is too in public. But in private she admits to me that she really isn't anything. She is a biologist is what she is. And can you guess what she is working on? I shouldn't say as I wouldn't want to get her in trouble. But suffice it to say that she lives in Iran,and she loves her country, but there are several things about it that she finds not to be peaceful. These things were there years ago, not just because of the growing conflict between Iran and the USA.

[Pygoscelis]

I think its great that you have a friend from Iran.

I think we should all make an effort to befriend people IN Iran. If the people of the west and the people of Iran can form a bond, the governments of the two nations will not so easily be able to make war with each other. Get the citizenry of both sides to relate to one another and support for any armed conflict would plummet and fast.

[Grace Seeker]

I think its great that you have a friend from Iran.

I think we should all make an effort to befriend people IN Iran. If the people of the west and the people of Iran can form a bond, the governments of the two nations will not so easily be able to make war with each other. Get the citizenry of both sides to relate to one another and support for any armed conflict would plummet and fast.

I have made it a part of my own personal life ethic to cultivate friendships around the world. In addition to having family native to 6 countries, and living in 5 countries on three continents, I also have other good friends scattered slightly wider than that. I don't know that this makes me personally diverse, but I do hope it makes me more sensitive so that I seek to understand issues from just my potentially narrow point of view.

[smile]

an islamic state is nice but if all religions just kept to themselves then other people would not know about islam so secular is better

[mariam.]

I vote in " Other ".

actually .. I live in an Islamic country, but at the same time it's not theocracy.

I don't know why when you said theocracy the first thing I imagine is Afghanistan .. Taliban and this evil deeds that happened in the name of Islam.

my hope is to see an Islamic goverment .. that can apply the true teachings of Islam , that day I can vote in " Yes, but only if the state religion is my religion."

peace.

[wilberhum]

I vote in " Other ".

actually .. I live in an Islamic country, but at the same time it's not theocracy.

I don't know why when you said theocracy the first thing I imagine is Afghanistan .. Taliban and this evil deeds that happened in the name of Islam.

my hope is to see an Islamic goverment .. that can apply the true teachings of Islam , that day I can vote in " Yes, but only if the state religion is my religion."

peace.

Could you describe the "Other" kind of government you would want to live in?

[Intisar]

Salaam!

Good question, although I really don't know where I stand on this issue. On one hand, it will make a tremendously better Muslim, and on the other, I may not agree with the ideas they put forth. I really don't know what I'd choose to be honest.

W/Salaam

[Keltoi]

Salaam!

Good question, although I really don't know where I stand on this issue. On one hand, it will make a tremendously better Muslim, and on the other, I may not agree with the ideas they put forth. I really don't know what I'd choose to be honest.

W/Salaam

Shows wisdom. One can visualize the kind of theocracy which would be "perfect" in its intent and implementation, but when it comes to human beings one is never sure what exactly they are going to get.

[Intisar]

Shows wisdom. One can visualize the kind of theocracy which would be "perfect" in its intent and implementation, but when it comes to human beings one is never sure what exactly they are going to get.

Yes, I guess I am just scared of the consequences it will bring.

[mariam.]

Could you describe the "Other" kind of government you would want to live in?

goverment which respect the personality of every one.

[wilberhum]

goverment which respect the personality of every one.

Isn't that a primary purpose of a Secular Government?
Could you be more specific than just stating an attribute you would like to see?

[mariam.]

Isn't that a primary purpose of a Secular Government?

yes it's, but if you LOOK deeply to this society you can find that it's lost the most important thing .... do you know what it's?

it's WORTH .. I don't mean money or luxury.
I mean Manners .. the Inherent manners.

you can't throw away your manners in the name of liberty and democracy.

briefly, goverment which respect the personality of the human whose respect his humanity.

peace.

[wilberhum]

yes it's, but if you LOOK deeply to this society you can find that it's lost the most important thing .... do you know what it's?

it's WORTH .. I don't mean money or luxury.
I mean Manners .. the Inherent manners.

you can't throw away your manners in the name of liberty and democracy.

briefly, goverment which respect the personality of the human whose respect his humanity.

peace.

Answer avoidance? :-[
Well I want to live in Utopia.
Never mind. :rollseyes

[BiH]

My answer isn't sure. They are often described as ''primative'', though this is asked rhetorically as it is opinionated. Instead of being primative we could just say everyone else is ahead of their time, the disadvantage of living in a theocracy is some people find the laws unfair according to their faith. Also there are many misinterperations when it comes down to any religion so people will find that they would have to live in a specific theocratic state that can make their needs meet ends, other wise it will be labelled as ''unjust''.