PDA

View Full Version : Perfection of the Islamic state



Abdul Fattah
06-18-2007, 02:05 AM
Since this is a recurring topic in many threads, I thought it might be helpfull to have a separate topic of this.

The starting statements of the thread:

1. The benefits of the Islamic state outweigh the downsides of it.
2. This ratio of benefit vs. downside outweighs the ratio of all alternative states.


I would like to invite people who disagree to disprove those statements. But please only do so seriously. Don't just isolate a serious rule, but look at the totality of all rules. Also don't judge the shariah itself based upon current states who implement shariah in their govenment. A law in which shariah is implemented is not the same as the shariah itself. And I know of no Islamic country that doesn't have un-islamic laws. (then again I don't know the laws of all Islamic countries)
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Uthman
08-07-2008, 03:03 PM
Bump
Reply

aamirsaab
08-07-2008, 04:52 PM
:sl:
Bookmarking.
Reply

Azy
08-07-2008, 05:06 PM
Are we talking theoretically or in actuality?
Are we making any assumptions like everyone actually complying with the law 100% of the time?
How do you quantify the pros and cons?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
aamirsaab
08-07-2008, 05:12 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Are we talking theoretically or in actuality?
I believe steve meant theoretically, since in actuality, the large majority of so called Islamic states aren't Islamic (well, not 100% anyway)

Are we making any assumptions like everyone actually complying with the law 100% of the time?
How do you quantify the pros and cons?
I can give you some examples of pros:
* the Islamic state HAS to protect ALL places of worship and the worshippers
* less tax to pay if you are a non-muslim (1 out of the 4 main taxes in an Islamic state are applicable to non-muslims - I'll go into detail on this later on as I have to consult my book at home)
* non-muslims do not qualify for the hadd punishments (cutting of hands, stoning etc)
Reply

AntiKarateKid
08-07-2008, 06:29 PM
Allahs laws > kuffars laws

even though they detest it and will argue till their throats run raw
Reply

Gator
08-07-2008, 06:59 PM
Since I don't enough to judge an islamic state in its totallity of rules, could you point out the most "Islamic" state that currently exists in your view (and let's not derail the thread on which one, if there is diagreement I'll pick one). That way I'll have a good model to study and respond. Since I live in the US that is the one I know and will use.

Also, so in an Islamic state my life wouldn't really be different than what I live now except I would pay lower taxes? That's the picture that's being painted here.

Thanks.
Reply

aamirsaab
08-07-2008, 07:02 PM
Originally Posted by Gator
Since I don't enough to judge an islamic state in its totallity of rules, could you point out the most "Islamic" state that currently exists in your view (and let's not derail the thread on which one, if there is diagreement I'll pick one). That way I'll have a good model to study and respond. Since I live in the US that is the one I know and will use.
The closest in my opinion is NIgeria but I haven't studied all of the ''islamic'' states that are around currently.

Also, so in an Islamic state my life wouldn't really be different than what I live now except I would pay lower taxes? That's the picture that's being painted here.

Thanks.
Pretty much, yes. You'd also have the added benefit of being considered as protected people as mentioned before. See also my post on this thread regarding dhimmis: --->>
Reply

Azy
08-08-2008, 02:46 PM
Are atheists/agnostics and other non-religious folk allowed to become dhimmi?

If [Tafsir.com] is anything to go by, I'd rather stay as I am, ta.

I think systematic discrimination would pretty much outweigh any other consideration in my view.
Reply

Gator
08-08-2008, 02:58 PM
But that "document" is stating that the christians put those conditions upon themselves. What would have happened if they did not put forward this proposal?
Reply

crayon
08-08-2008, 03:19 PM
I'm just taking a guess (don't know much about islamic law), but perhaps with each people (the christians of as-sham, the coptics of egypt, etc) an agreement is come upon, with a document such as this one. The muslims and non muslims agree to certain conditions, and that is the pact that keeps non muslims safe and protected, as dhimmis. If that is broken, then they are no longer considered dhimmis and can be fought. Again, just a guess, if anyone actually knows please tell us..
Reply

KAding
08-08-2008, 04:02 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Since this is a recurring topic in many threads, I thought it might be helpfull to have a separate topic of this.

The starting statements of the thread:

1. The benefits of the Islamic state outweigh the downsides of it.
2. This ratio of benefit vs. downside outweighs the ratio of all alternative states.


I would like to invite people who disagree to disprove those statements. But please only do so seriously. Don't just isolate a serious rule, but look at the totality of all rules. Also don't judge the shariah itself based upon current states who implement shariah in their govenment. A law in which shariah is implemented is not the same as the shariah itself. And I know of no Islamic country that doesn't have un-islamic laws. (then again I don't know the laws of all Islamic countries)
Interesting! You could write whole books about this, so I think you might be asking too much :).

What rules would this Islamic state follow exactly? We all know there is not just one interpretation of Islam. Islamic interpretations are like noses, everybody has one. How can we know which, if any, of the schools represent the "real" Islam? Clearly you consider countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia to not implement "Islam" properly. But IMHO that is merely your opinion. Both countries have institutions in place which are supposed to make sure no laws get enacted that run contrary to Islamic law.

1. The benefits of the Islamic state outweigh the downsides of it.

This entirely depends on your priorities of course. For example, do you value security over liberty? Do you believe in equality and minority rights? Do you think religion should be a private matter or the responsibility of the state? Do you believe popular will outweighs religious doctrine?

For example, if you political priorities are the following (in no particular order):
1. Individual liberty
2. Equality
3. Religious self-determination and freedom
4. Majority rule

In this case an Islamic state simply cannot satisfy your political needs. It falls short.

Some examples of "Islamic" policies that are in direct violation of these ideals:
  • Women and non-Muslim testimonies in Islamic courts count less then testimonies of Muslim men
  • Rules against apostasy and blasphemy and the unclear status of minorities that are not "people of the book", such as atheists, polytheists, animists, etc..
  • Inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, for example non-Muslims cannot benefit from Zakhat. Islam simply does not consider religions to be equal.
  • The Islamic view on the division of labor between the genders
  • Essentially all Islamic rules that punish "victimless" crimes are in violation of my belief in individual liberty and self-determination. Why can't consenting adults have a relationship? Why can't I eat pork? Why can't I pop a pimple during ramadan? Why can't I call Muhammed a fraud?
  • Religious revelation matters more than popular opinion. Since the state can never implement un-Islamic laws, popular opinion simply doesn't matter. The state has no choice but to follow scholars, which means that an Islamic state will essentially be an oligarchic system, where a small group of religious scholars determine the rules.


Individual liberty is simply not one the core values in an Islamic system. Democratic rule is simply not one the core values in an Islamic system. Islam is all about so called social justice and obedience to Allah's laws. An Islamic state is almost totalitarian since it aims to control nearly all aspects of public and private life. My ethics are by and large based on the harm principle. This is simply completely contrary to Islamic ethics, which are all about submission to Gods law. I believe people have to make their own choices in life, including on religion.

I just can't see how these fundamental drawbacks could possibly outweigh the benefits. The benefit would supposedly be that society reaches some kind of harmonious equilibrium as soon as Islamic law is fully implemented. However, this is itself simply an Islamic belief. I don't see how a system in which one social group and their immutable ideology is so dominant could possibly be completely peaceful and stable. It might work in 100% Muslim countries, but in my opinion that still doesn't make it "right" to punish victimless crimes to such an extend.

2. This ratio of benefit vs. downside outweighs the ratio of all alternative states.

I assume you mean that it outweighs the ratio of all other systems of government? It might be better than some. But if you judge it by the principles I have set out, which are all about individual self-determination and liberty, than it just falls short.
Reply

KAding
08-08-2008, 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I believe steve meant theoretically, since in actuality, the large majority of so called Islamic states aren't Islamic (well, not 100% anyway)

I can give you some examples of pros:
* the Islamic state HAS to protect ALL places of worship and the worshippers
Well, keep in mind the Steve's question is essentially comparative. Liberal democracies also protect ALL places of worship and the worshippers. In fact, it is much clearer about this. Within Islamic circles there is still debate on whether churches can be repaired for example. So that is indeed a pro, but no more 'pro' than liberal democratic systems.

* less tax to pay if you are a non-muslim (1 out of the 4 main taxes in an Islamic state are applicable to non-muslims - I'll go into detail on this later on as I have to consult my book at home)
Yet, at the same time non-Muslims cannot benefit from Zakhat, which is essentially the social security system in Islamic countries. It's like not giving Muslims unemployment benefits because they are Muslims. It's fundamental discriminatory.

* non-muslims do not qualify for the hadd punishments (cutting of hands, stoning etc)
Which again is discrimination. Positive discrimination for non-Muslims, but negative for Muslims. Why are people judged based on the social group they belong too? Why aren't they judged as individuals? I strongly disagree with the idea of the state or justice system discriminating based on the group you were born in.
Reply

aamirsaab
08-08-2008, 04:23 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by KAding
Well, keep in mind the Steve's question is essentially comparative.
Well, I'll let steve clarify it then.


...Within Islamic circles there is still debate on whether churches can be repaired for example. So that is indeed a pro, but no more 'pro' than liberal democratic systems.
From what I have read, churches would be allowed to be repaired under an Islamic state - considering it is the DUTY of the Islamic state to help the dhimmis an' all.


Yet, at the same time non-Muslims cannot benefit from Zakhat, which is essentially the social security system in Islamic countries. It's like not giving Muslims unemployment benefits because they are Muslims. It's fundamental discriminatory.
They would benefit under the jizya tax, which is the social security system. Zakhat is to do with charity.


Which again is discrimination. Positive discrimination for non-Muslims, but negative for Muslims. Why are people judged based on the social group they belong too? Why aren't they judged as individuals? I strongly disagree with the idea of the state or justice system discriminating based on the group you were born in.
They'd still be punished under those laws (of the land) - they'd just not receive the hadd punishment. Reason being is that it is a greater sin for a muslim since those crimes go against Islam (the very thing they follow).



You mentioned some other things that I'd like to address:


Women and non-Muslim testimonies in Islamic courts count less then testimonies of Muslim men
Not too sure on this. I'll have to consult my book.

Rules against apostasy and blasphemy and the unclear status of minorities that are not "people of the book", such as atheists, polytheists, animists, etc..
Apostacy has been dealt wih before. It's for treason not for simply changing religion. Athiess, polythiests etc would be treated as dhimmis.

Inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, for example non-Muslims cannot benefit from Zakhat. Islam simply does not consider religions to be equal.
Zakhat is a form of charity - it would go to muslims, yes. Hence the reason non-muslims don't pay it. Whilst non-muslims can pay for charity, it is not an obligation to as is zakhat for muslims.

The Islamic view on the division of labor between the genders
...What division of labour?

Essentially all Islamic rules that punish "victimless" crimes are in violation of my belief in individual liberty and self-determination. Why can't consenting adults have a relationship?
Leads to break downs in society unless they are married. (though, in every society that adultery is not a crime, polygamy seemingly is...which is a greater BS than any thing you or anyone I've conversed with has pointed out from sharia law so far)
Why can't I eat pork?
There's a thread on this matter explaining why this is so.
Why can't I pop a pimple during ramadan?
Never heard of that one before - probably due to it breaking your fast or something.
Why can't I call Muhammed a fraud?
Blasphemey ruling.

Apart from that first one the rest are not arrestable offences.

Religious revelation matters more than popular opinion. Since the state can never implement un-Islamic laws, popular opinion simply doesn't matter.
If we look back into the history and specifically how certain rulings came to be (e.g abolishment of alcohol) we see it went through stages. I see no reason not to apply this style in a modern setting such as today. In other words, public opinion does have some power but no more than say in the UK's democractic system (which is actually a hybrid between democracy and dictatorship)

The state has no choice but to follow scholars, which means that an Islamic state will essentially be an oligarchic system, where a small group of religious scholars determine the rules.
These scholars (who form the caliphate) are not brain dead - certain characterisics are required (namely, common sense, good knowledge of Islam and Sharia etc). It's not like how the politicians are of today; promise to remove debt and then build 100 super casinos.


Someone mentioned earlier the tafsir. I am no scholar so cannot provide any explanation towards that link. Sorry.
Reply

Amadeus85
08-08-2008, 04:30 PM
[QUOTE=aamirsaab;985818]
The closest in my opinion is NIgeria but I haven't studied all of the ''islamic'' states that are around currently.
You mean northern Nigeria. A pure example of perfection. Country leading in all world rankings,one of the best places to live. not to mention how great they treat their religious minorities.
:blind:

Pretty much, yes. You'd also have the added benefit of being considered as protected people as mentioned before. See also my post on this thread regarding dhimmis: ]
If it is so great so why it is so bad?
In history we had example of Islamic State, Ottoman Empire, and we know how it ended.
Reply

aamirsaab
08-08-2008, 04:46 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85

You mean northern Nigeria. A pure example of perfection. Country leading in all world rankings,one of the best places to live. not to mention how great they treat their religious minorities.
:blind:
Like I said, I haven't studied all of the Islamic states. I know only a little about Nigeria but it's more than I know of than say kazakhistan or Egypt.


If it is so great so why it is so bad?
In history we had example of Islamic State, Ottoman Empire, and we know how it ended.
Human corruption. Basically, after the second caliphate it all went downhill from there: leaders of the countries decided to change the rulings here and there. Today, we have only pseudo islamic states (since most of them only practice like half of the sharia and mix it with common western law). If you want an example of True Islamic state you'd have to look towards the Prophet [saw] rule and the immediate caliphate that followed it.
Reply

KAding
08-08-2008, 05:03 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Human corruption. Basically, after the second caliphate it all went downhill from there: leaders of the countries decided to change the rulings here and there. Today, we have only pseudo islamic states (since most of them only practice like half of the sharia and mix it with common western law). If you want an example of True Islamic state you'd have to look towards the Prophet [saw] rule and the immediate caliphate that followed it.
It's an interesting issue. Apparently, to really reap the benefits of Islamic rule you need full implementation of Sharia law. So what is stopping Muslim countries from doing this? Especially those that strive to be an Islamic state. Apparently "human corruption" stands in the way of it. But "human corruption" will never go away as long as we are, well, mere humans!

How feasible is Islamic rule if apparently no state, except during Muhammed time has actually managed to implement it properly? Is it even a realistic option if it requires humans to transcend their apparent natural state of being.
Reply

aamirsaab
08-08-2008, 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
...How feasible is Islamic rule if apparently no state, except during Muhammed time has actually managed to implement it properly? Is it even a realistic option if it requires humans to transcend their apparent natural state of being.
It is fairly feasible - we aren't even talking about much big changes really (to existing ''islamic states'' anyway). But first and foremost, a caliphate is required. Since there is no caliphate in current existence, there is noone to keep everyone in check. Think of the caliphate as really well learned scholars (who as a result are just and fair).

Secondly, it will require education on Sharia. I myself know quite a bit (thanks to a really good book on sharia law) but a caliphate is not made up of one pakistani who spends his spare time on an Islamic forum ;).
Reply

Gator
08-09-2008, 02:11 AM
Which leads me to ask, if the first caliphate was as close as you can get to Islamic perfection and it was destroyed by human corruption, what makes you think this "state" would "fairly feasbile" now.
Reply

aamirsaab
08-09-2008, 09:42 AM
Originally Posted by Gator
Which leads me to ask, if the first caliphate was as close as you can get to Islamic perfection and it was destroyed by human corruption, what makes you think this "state" would "fairly feasbile" now.
It is more of a hope and a wish. I do believe it can occur - just need enough muslims with the right knowlede and willing to actually study the sharia properly and then bam we've got ourselves a caliphate.

Anywho, I think we've derailed this thread long enough. Let's get back to answering the questions laid out in steve's first post.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-13-2008, 06:48 PM
Hi everyone, I'm glad to see this thread got some attention.
Rather then just replying to each post individually and quoting every sentence, I'm just going to post some paragraphs which I hope answers most of it, and then answer to some specific quotes.

* First of all as many have already pointed out, the debate has some practical problems, that's also the reason I didn't go into to much detail in the opening post. There is no method by which we can actually "weigh off" one system against another. The matter is way to complex and the effects of a government system to widespread over various aspects of life and community. Instead what I was hoping for this thread, is that by discussing this, those that oppose sharia, could at least give it the benefit of the doubt.

* Secondly to clarify, I didn't mean that Shariah is utopic, but rather that when comparing it to other systems, practically speaking it's as good as it gets. Also I don't think shariah would work for a country with a majority of non-muslims. And neither do I think it should be enforced in such a country.

* As for examples, I already mentioned that I don't consider any of the current states as a true shariah, since they always mix shariah with man-made, imperfect rules. If we must have an example to compare, take the Islamic caliphate starting from Muhammed (peace be upon him) and ending four caliphs after him. So we have a time period with 5 caliphs. After that, the civil war started between shia and sunni, and I argue that there exists no government system that could have survive that any better then shariah did. However many un-islamic rules started then. Perhaps the only weakness was that this system was not suitable to govern such a large region back then with so little means of communication and transport. However, in those extreme situations, only a militarian dictator could maintain better stability. But I argue that there the downsides of absolutism and tyranny obviously outweigh the benefits. On a side note -in case you're wondering- a caliph is not a dictator since under Islamic law he is not allowed to implement laws based on his personal preference, but needs Islamic source.

* Since I take it most opponents of Shariah will be in favor of democracy; I'll compare between those two. Some of the major difference between shariah and democracy:
Stability, static vs dynamic
A democracy is dynamic whereas shariah is static. A democracy is built to be changeable, whereas shariah is build to be maintained. However this doesn't mean that shariah is rigid. The static laws have built in dynamics. For example the rule on pork, is static and dynamic at the same time. It is forbidden unless it is necessary to survive. Of course there should be some room for man made rules. But these should be strictly practical and conventional like deciding whether you drive on the right or the left side of the road. And even if new situations occur, that require new laws there's room for new fatwa's. However all these other rules which touch individual freedom, should be motivated Islamicly. So prohibiting woman to drive should be motivated by hadeeth (which so far I haven't seen). A democracy on the other hand, allows for almost everything to be changed, including the democratic principles themselves. It has already been mentioned to, corruption is a huge problem for any governmental system, including both shariah and democracy. It is inevitable to occur. However, the huge difference is that in shariah, corruption can only occur by breaking the rules, whereas in a democracy there is also room for those with power to push legalization of certain types of corruption. This is also known as the democracy paradox, which asks: "What if a democratic election favors an undemocratic party?"
Justification of laws, and measuring pro and con.
In a democracy, the most common ideology for justifying laws is to maximize individual freedom. In other words, an individual's freedom should only end there where the freedom of another begins. Any additional limitations are frowned upon. In Shariah the justification is simply that we believe it is divine, but obviously that will mean little to an atheist. However in looking at the rules, we can recognize an underlying justification. Rather then maximizing personal freedom, Islamic rules appear to be aimed at maximizing wellbeing, not only individual wellbeing but also the wellbeing of the community. To give a concrete example. In the West a prohibition on alcohol is unthinkable. Nobody questions whether or not alcohol causes many problems to individuals and the community. Everybody realizes the health, social and communal ramifications. However despite of that most people would refuse to give up on alcohol, simply because somebody else can't handle it. Their individual freedom is more important then the wellbeing of the community. Of course the ironic part of this is that even the alcoholics and binge drinkers who cause the problems argue with this logic and place the blame in someone else. Personal I feel that asking people to give up certain individual freedoms for the wellbeing of others should be acceptable, but I suspect many proponents of democracy would disagree.

Equal treatment
Under Islamic law, we find that rather then treating everybody the same, the aim is to balance the treatment. We find that where a certain group, gender, religion is benefited it one rule, it is limited in another. Personally I find this much better rather then treating everybody the same. If you treat different people the same, due to their intrinsic difference, they will not be treated in the same way. For example, taxing a rich man and a poor man by the same method. Of course nowadays democracy has bypassed this particular example by maxing taxes proportional rather then fixed. But nevertheless I find this a good illustration on how treating equal ≠ equal treatment. Another example of this principle would be an employer expecting the same physical labor from a female employee as from a male.

* Some reply to quotes:
Are atheists/agnostics and other non-religious folk allowed to become dhimmi?
Yes, I believe even apostates given that they are non-combatant.

What rules would this Islamic state follow exactly? We all know there is not just one interpretation of Islam. Islamic interpretations are like noses, everybody has one. How can we know which, if any, of the schools represent the "real" Islam? Clearly you consider countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia to not implement "Islam" properly. But IMHO that is merely your opinion. Both countries have institutions in place which are supposed to make sure no laws get enacted that run contrary to Islamic law.
Yet at the same time, both countries have laws that are un-Islamic. the problem is that the current Islamic states have a history and have been built down and up again, and after each war, starting from the civil war between sunni and shia but including also interruptions like during the time of colonizations. It is not simply a matter of opinions, every current state that claims to be Islamic seems to have laws that cannot be motivated Islamicly. Of course I grant that I don't know the laws of every country, nor do I know every hadeeth; this is just a general idea that I get looking at many rules and laws from current countries.

For example, if you political priorities are the following (in no particular order):
1. Individual liberty
2. Equality
3. Religious self-determination and freedom
4. Majority rule
1. Common wellbeing
2. Equality (balance rather then absolute)
3. Religious freedom
4. Individual liberty

*Women and non-Muslim testimonies in Islamic courts count less then testimonies of Muslim men
this is outbalanced by other rules, for example non-muslims receive a much less severe punishment for crimes.

* Rules against apostasy and blasphemy and the unclear status of minorities that are not "people of the book", such as atheists, polytheists, animists, etc..
* Inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, for example non-Muslims cannot benefit from Zakhat. Islam simply does not consider religions to be equal.
I don't consider the rule about apostasy correct. I have discussed this in depth in the apostasy thread. In short, all the hadeeth that prove this ruling are referring to cases where there was apostasy and treason to the state at the same time and there exist other hadeeth of people who apostated without treason and weren't punished.

* The Islamic view on the division of labor between the genders
There is no rule that the state should oversee the division of labors in the households. A true Islamic state should not attempt to govern every single aspect of life. In the case of division of labor, what you have is actually a division of responsibilities. The husband is responsible for the income and the wife for the household. However if a couple decides that they will share the work (both work and both tend to the family) then there is no problem with this. Technically speaking they can even switch completely. But regardless, this is a private matter between couples, not an affair of the state.

* Essentially all Islamic rules that punish "victimless" crimes are in violation of my belief in individual liberty and self-determination. Why can't consenting adults have a relationship? Why can't I eat pork? Why can't I pop a pimple during ramadan? Why can't I call Muhammed a fraud?
I wouldn't know why you wouldn't be able to pop a pimple during ramadan, a dhimmi would be even allowed to eat I think. As for all your others, they are not truly "victemless". Calling Muhammed (peace be upon him) a fraud is slander. you would still be allowed to voice opinions, but required to do so in a diplomatic manner. Eating pork victims the whole community. trough you animal diseases can then be spread to humans that would not spread under any other methods (exampel, burdflu). Secondly, for you to eat it, is should be sold in the country, meaning that because you want to eat it, the whole country now has to read the ingredients and watch out on every product they buy. Consenting non muslims cannot be punished for fornication. since that rule applies to muslims. this is another example of where dhimmis receive less punishment. Besides then that I should point out that this isn't victemless either. Promiscuity helps the spread of STD, creates many social problems like fatherless childs, heartbreak and jealousy.

Religious revelation matters more than popular opinion. Since the state can never implement un-Islamic laws, popular opinion simply doesn't matter. The state has no choice but to follow scholars, which means that an Islamic state will essentially be an oligarchic system, where a small group of religious scholars determine the rules.
They don't "decide" the rules, they "deduct" them from religious source. Beside, I don't think to highly of popular opinions. If history teaches us anything, I 'd say it teaches us that mankind does not know what is best for him and the community. And even if they do know, we need to consider selfish voters. I argue that the very idea of letting majorities rule is inhumane!
Reply

energy_22
08-14-2008, 03:32 AM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah

1. The benefits of the Islamic state outweigh the downsides of it.
2. This ratio of benefit vs. downside outweighs the ratio of all alternative states.


Muslims have had 1,400 years to create an Islamic state. Instead they go to the West for a better life.

The West absorbs good ideas from around the world.

If i were an Martian I would conclude the Western states are superior to any theoretical Islamic state.

-
Reply

aamirsaab
08-14-2008, 09:36 AM
Originally Posted by energy_22
Muslims have had 1,400 years to create an Islamic state. Instead they go to the West for a better life.
Ignorant statements - check
Lack of basic knowledge on sharia - double check.

If i were an Martian I would conclude the Western states are superior to any theoretical Islamic state.

-
Read all of my posts regarding sharia law and the Islamic state (about 20 in total spread out in several threads - 4 or so of them are on this particular one). Then come back and say to me: ''If i were an Martian I would conclude the Western states are superior to any theoretical Islamic state''.

In any case; you didn't actually answer any of steve's points, meaning you don't know much about sharia law. Solution to this problem is rather simple: READ.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-14-2008, 10:21 AM
Originally Posted by energy_22
Muslims have had 1,400 years to create an Islamic state. Instead they go to the West for a better life.
-
That's a rather simple minded reply, no offense.
1. They did have an Islamic state for many centuries that ran quite well.
2. Although there were internal problems due to different divisions and so on, the major contributor to the end of that state was attacks from the west!
3. Many muslims come to the west because the current states aren't truly Islamic, so the argument is neither here nor there.

The West absorbs good ideas from around the world.
No it doesn't; it systematically rejects many good ideas and it stubbornly holds to many bad ideas.

If i were an Martian I would conclude the Western states are superior to any theoretical Islamic state.
If I were a Martian I would conclude that the Islamic caliphate that isn't theoretical but really existed in the past is superior to the western states.
Apparently though, neither of us are Martians, so neither of us can really tell.
Reply

Muezzin
08-14-2008, 12:04 PM
Originally Posted by energy_22
Muslims have had 1,400 years to create an Islamic state. Instead they go to the West for a better life.

The West absorbs good ideas from around the world.

If i were an Martian I would conclude the Western states are superior to any theoretical Islamic state.

-
If I were a Martian, I'd conclude that Earth is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't like to live there.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-14-2008, 12:43 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
That's a rather simple minded reply, no offense..
i'd like to add some offence to the comment !!!

muslims dont move to the west because the Shariah stopped working, they either move to the west because its not implemented properly OR because they want to fulfil their desires , ie earn more etc
Reply

Gator
08-14-2008, 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi everyone, I'm glad to see this thread got some attention....
I'll give you my reason, why I believe democracy is favorable. What we are talking about is the governmental framework on a society. If the society is messed up (corruption) then whatever system you put on it will not last. Shariah or Democracy doesn't work if the societal cohesion isn't there.

The only reason why I like democracy is the fact that you can change the system, basically for the wellbeing of the community because everyone has a vote. I don't know about the shariah leadership, but I get the feeling its a little more autocratic or oligarchcal (please correct me if I am wrong, I'd love to hear). [edit: OK looked it up, I believe under a perfect caliph the leader would be elected, exactly who has sufferage was unclear. The oligarchical/autocratic is when human corruption filters in, which leads to the above point].

The thing I disagree with is the statement that democracy is to "is to maximize individual freedom". Democracy is the vehicle through which allows society balances the well being of the community with the rights of the individual. Shariah & Democracy have forms that balance this tension of duty to the community versus individual freedom. We are only disagreeing on the degree to which each is emphasized, possibly.

I believe We also disagree on severity of impacts of some of the stuff you talked about and the ability of Shariah to curb the exact same problems you site. I don't think we should go into these as they would derail the thread.

Thanks.
Reply

Azy
08-14-2008, 04:43 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
That's a rather simple minded reply, no offense.
Forgive me, but so is that.
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
1. They did have an Islamic state for many centuries that ran quite well.
We can't really know what the lives of the average citizen were like from an independent perspective.
The early caliphs presided over the Ridda Wars and military conquest of the middle east. Only 30 years passed between the Prophet's death and the Fitna which caused the division in the ummah.
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
2. Although there were internal problems due to different divisions and so on, the major contributor to the end of that state was attacks from the west!
It's hardly fair to say the "west" in the form of the Byzantine Empire and others are equivalent to the "west" of 21st century Europe to which these muslims are emigrating.
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
3. Many muslims come to the west because the current states aren't truly Islamic, so the argument is neither here nor there.
The current states aren't truly Islamic, so the preferable option is one that is not Islamic at all (and if many here are to be believed, hostile to Islam)?
We all know that people come to the West, not for the sake of spiritual purity, but for an easier life.

Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
No it doesn't; it systematically rejects many good ideas and it stubbornly holds to many bad ideas.
When it comes down to people making decisions, yes there is conservatism, but it isn't fair to say "No it doesn't absorb good ideas". The system allows good ideas to be implemented, a caliphate does not.
Reply

جوري
08-14-2008, 04:52 PM
Originally Posted by energy_22
Muslims have had 1,400 years to create an Islamic state. Instead they go to the West for a better life.

The West absorbs good ideas from around the world.

If i were an Martian I would conclude the Western states are superior to any theoretical Islamic state.

-
I wonder from where these atheists escape?

The last of the Islamic states was dissolved around early twentieth century... surely even in your trailer, they must have taught you something of the umayyads, abbasids, fatmids and ottomans to name a few?
or has the PCP pushed you into early dementia..




sobhan Allah
Reply

Uthman
08-14-2008, 05:33 PM
Hi Azy,

Originally Posted by Azy
The system allows good ideas to be implemented, a caliphate does not.
(emphasis mine)

What makes you say that?
Reply

Aurora
08-15-2008, 12:22 AM
Am I right in thinking that an Islamic state would only follow one of the four Madhabs? If so, how is the Madhab to follow decided?

There are many things in Sharia law that I don't particularly like. One of the main things that trouble me is the impossibility of religious freedom, since all four Madhabs agree that apostates (who don't repent within three days of their act of major Kufr) are to be given the death penalty.
Reply

energy_22
08-15-2008, 03:37 AM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
...muslims dont move to the west because the Shariah stopped working, they either move to the west because its not implemented properly OR ......

According to Muslims, living in an Islamic state would be wonderful.

If it is so wonderful then why has it been so hard to make one!
Reply

energy_22
08-15-2008, 03:43 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I wonder from which covered cistern do these atheists escape?
The third one on the left. :D



Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
The last of the Islamic states was dissolved around early twentieth century... ....and ottomans to name a few?
Please ask the peole of Saudi Arabia, the keeper of the 2 holiest mosques in Islam, why they revolted from Islamic Ottoman rule.

Perhaps it wasn't Islamic rule?
Reply

جوري
08-15-2008, 03:49 AM
Originally Posted by energy_22
The third one on the left. :D
I'll wait until sunday, see if they broom you back and close the lid!


Please ask the peole of Saudi Arabia, the keeper of the 2 holiest mosques in Islam, why they revolted from Islamic Ottoman rule.

Perhaps it wasn't Islamic rule?
How was lawrence of Arabia? I missed it!
Reply

aamirsaab
08-15-2008, 08:13 AM
Originally Posted by Aurora
Am I right in thinking that an Islamic state would only follow one of the four Madhabs? If so, how is the Madhab to follow decided?
Madhabs is too big of a topic to discuss here. We do have a thread dedicated to that though. It can be found: here.

There are many things in Sharia law that I don't particularly like. One of the main things that trouble me is the impossibility of religious freedom, since all four Madhabs agree that apostates (who don't repent within three days of their act of major Kufr) are to be given the death penalty.
1) Check all of my posts regarding sharia law for some pretty good information (there's about 20), At minimum you will learn something.
2) The apostacy ruling is for traitors - not for simply converting to another religion.

Originally Posted by energy_22
According to Muslims, living in an Islamic state would be wonderful.

If it is so wonderful then why has it been so hard to make one!
It comes down to the rulers not actually following Islam properly (Saudi arabia has a king - real islamic(!)). Corruption via human greed is the main reason. Ironically, being that greedy is actually AGAINST Islamic teachings but oh well; it's tradition to have a palace out of pure Gold!
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-15-2008, 09:26 AM
Originally Posted by energy_22
If it is so wonderful then why has it been so hard to make one!
since when are wonderful things easy to make?

everything wonderful from art to cars planes etc take so much dedication and effort. It needs direction and guidance, consultation to be maintained and so much more.

its not easy to make a state of justice, there exists no such state today! But with much struggle striving and perseverance it could be achieved again. but no.. it WONT be easy
Reply

Uthman
08-15-2008, 02:54 PM
Hi Aurora,
Originally Posted by Aurora
There are many things in Sharia law that I don't particularly like. One of the main things that trouble me is the impossibility of religious freedom, since all four Madhabs agree that apostates (who don't repent within three days of their act of major Kufr) are to be given the death penalty.
Unfortunately, you have oversimplified the matter and what have you have stated is only a half-truth. That isn't your fault, you obviously been misinformed. For the correct understanding of Islam and apostasy, I recommend this thread.

Regards
Reply

Aurora
08-15-2008, 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
Hi Aurora,
Unfortunately, you have oversimplified the matter and what have you have stated is only a half-truth. That isn't your fault, you obviously been misinformed. For the correct understanding of Islam and apostasy, I recommend this thread.

Regards
Declaring that you have become an apostate (never mind collaborating with the enemies of the state) will get you the death penalty if you don't repent within a fixed time period in an Islamic state. This is the view held by the majority of scholars, and the one held by all four Madhabs. Are you denying this?
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12406/apostate
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/79067
http://www.islamonline.net/English/c...1c.shtml##top5
Reply

Azy
08-15-2008, 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
Hi Azy, ...What makes you say that?
I suppose this is an odd position for some people because they might not consider anything unislamic to be good (in terms of laws and guidance).

What I mean to say is that a caliphate is restricted to implementing rules based on Sharia. If there happened to be a policy which resulted in a greater overall good for the people but was considered to be in opposition to Sharia, it could not be implemented irrespective of how much benefit it might bring.

But you know, I can't see many muslims and non-muslims agreeing on the benefits of unislamic laws.

Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
since when are wonderful things easy to make?
I think his point is reasonably valid even if it sounded a bit flippant.

Yes planes and cars and other such wonderful things take so much dedication and effort and time, but it only took the Wrights 4 years to develop powered flight and now we have people living in orbit continuously.

How do you intend to change things? Are there any plans in place which are actually being taken seriously? Perhaps King Abdullah would be happy to give up the lamborghinis and gold plated toilet seats.

You've had the basic rules for 14 centuries and an example in the early caliphates. I honestly think it would have happened by now if it was going to.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
08-15-2008, 04:22 PM
Originally Posted by Azy

How do you intend to change things? Are there any plans in place which are actually being taken seriously? Perhaps King Abdullah would be happy to give up the lamborghinis and gold plated toilet seats.
lol as if, the corruption is in place, until its removed things arent likely to get better.

You've had the basic rules for 14 centuries and an example in the early caliphates. I honestly think it would have happened by now if it was going to.
agreed

i just dont think its going to happen either :(

but that doesnt mean it doesnt or hasnt ever worked.


the rule isnt to be judged by the people who fail to implement them
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-15-2008, 05:09 PM
Hi Azy,
I must say I'm somewhat surprised to see you pick in on that post I made towards that guy that didn't bother to read the topic. I would have expected that you would have replied to my other main post instead.
Reply

Uthman
08-15-2008, 07:10 PM
Originally Posted by Aurora
Declaring that you have become an apostate (never mind collaborating with the enemies of the state) will get you the death penalty if you don't repent within a fixed time period in an Islamic state. This is the view held by the majority of scholars, and the one held by all four Madhabs. Are you denying this?
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12406/apostate
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/79067
http://www.islamonline.net/English/c...1c.shtml##top5
Islamqa is not regarded as a reputable source on Islam by many Muslims.

You said that declaring that you have become an apostate will get you the death penalty if you don't repent within a fixed time period in an Islamic state. Can you quote the part from the islamonline link that backs this up?
Reply

Keltoi
08-15-2008, 07:19 PM
I believe the impediment to an Islamic state would be separating culture from religion. I've heard many Muslims say that many of the laws in supposed "Islamic states" these days are a result of culture and not Islamic law. There would also be the usual issue of conservative vs. liberal understandings of the law. I realize that ideally there would be a concrete set of laws that cannot be infuenced by personal politics, but that was also the belief about the U.S. Constitution. However, personal politics and changing societies lead to different understandings of law.

The problem with any theocracy is that people aren't perfect and cannot be trusted to adhere to the spirit of any religious faith. That leads me to believe that any successful theocracy would be better served if it was made up of voluntary citizens and not unwilling ones.
Reply

Aurora
08-15-2008, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
Islamqa is not regarded as a reputable source on Islam by many Muslims.

You said that declaring that you have become an apostate will get you the death penalty if you don't repent within a fixed time period in an Islamic state. Can you quote the part from the islamonline link that backs this up?
From Islamonline:
That is why the Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.
4. The majority of scholars are of the opinion that apostates should be asked to repent and return to Islam before punishment is inflicted upon them. Moreover, Ibn Taymiyah, in his book, As-Sarim Al-Maslul `ala Shatim Ar-Rasul,, wrote, "The Prophet's Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) were unanimous that the apostate be asked to repent and return to Islam before punishment is inflicted upon him."

Some jurists say that an apostate should be given a 3 day respite to repent; some say it is less than this, some say it is more, and some others say he is to be asked for this for as long as he lives. Some scholars, however, made exception of the hypocrite (zendiq), who pretends to be a Muslim never actually was. According to certain scholars, repentance cannot be accepted from hypocrites. This applies also to those who insult the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
Reply

aamirsaab
08-16-2008, 12:16 PM
Originally Posted by Aurora
From Islamonline:
Both of those quotes refer to apostates who CAUSE TROUBLE in the state - the repentance time is to give them a chance of mercy (i.e person X apostates from Islam then starts fighting against the state - he has Z amount of days to repent, else he's legible for a punishment).

One needs only to look back into the history of the Prophet [pbuh] to see that out of many, many apostates (during the infancy of Islam), only 8 were given the execution punishment.
Reply

Aurora
08-16-2008, 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Both of those quotes refer to apostates who CAUSE TROUBLE in the state - the repentance time is to give them a chance of mercy (i.e person X apostates from Islam then starts fighting against the state - he has Z amount of days to repent, else he's legible for a punishment).

One needs only to look back into the history of the Prophet [pbuh] to see that out of many, many apostates (during the infancy of Islam), only 8 were given the execution punishment.
It isn't just those that cause trouble and fight against the state, and you should be aware of this. The scholars are unanimous on apostates of any kind that don't repent being punished.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/c...ticle01c.shtml
For example, Ibn `Abbas quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as having said, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him."

A similar wording of the hadith was reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah and Mu`awiyah ibn Haidah with a sound chain of transmission. Also, Ibn Mas`ud reported the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as having said, "The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community."

Another version of this hadith was reported by `Uthman, "The blood of a Muslim is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three, a person that turned apostate after (embracing) Islam or committed adultery after having married, or killed a person without just cause."

The eminent scholar Ibn Rajab said, "Punishing a person by death for committing any of these sins is agreed upon among Muslims."

`Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) punished some people who apostatized from Islam and claimed that he was a god by putting them to fire after having reprimanded them and asked them to return to Islam but to no avail. He put them to fire saying these following lines of poetry:

When I saw the matter so flagrant,

I kindled fire and summoned for Qanbar"

Qanbar was the servant of Imam `Ali.

Ibn `Abbas did not agree with `Ali about burning the apostates, quoting, as evidence for his opinion, the Prophet's hadith, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (of fire)." According to Ibn `Abbas, the apostates should have been killed by a means other than burning. Thus, Ibn `Abbas was not against killing the apostates in principle, but against killing them by fire.

Abu Musa and Mu`adh also punished a Jew by death, as he had embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu`adh said about that: "It is the verdict of Allah and His Messenger."

`Abdur-Raziq also reported, "Ibn Mas`ud held in custody some Iraqi people who had apostatized from Islam, and then wrote to Caliph `Umar asking him what to do with them. `Umar wrote him back, saying, 'Ask them to return to the true religion (of Islam) and the Testimony of Faith. If they are to accept this, set them free, and if they are to reject it, then kill them.' When Ibn Mas`ud did so, some of the apostates repented and some refused, and thus, he set free the repentant and killed those who renounced Islam after being believers."

It is also reported on the authority of Abu `Umar Ash-Shaybani that when Al-Mustawrad Al-`Ajli converted to Christianity after having embraced Islam, `Utbah ibn Farqad sent him to `Ali, who asked him to return to Islam, but he refused, and thus `Ali killed him.
Actually those that do fight against the state don't get an opportunity to repent.
In this respect, Ibn Taymiyah differentiated between two kinds of apostasy, an apostasy which does not cause harm to the Muslim society and an apostasy in which apostates wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land. The repentance of the apostates in the first kind is accepted; while in the second kind, it is not if it occurs after the apostates have fallen into the power of the Muslim authority.
Reply

aamirsaab
08-16-2008, 04:36 PM
*sigh* sorry steve, I promise this is my last off-topic post.
Originally Posted by Aurora
It isn't just those that cause trouble and fight against the state, and you should be aware of this. The scholars are unanimous on apostates of any kind that don't repent being punished.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/c...ticle01c.shtml
I shall highlight the points of importance:

Originally Posted by from link above
....Also, Ibn Mas`ud reported the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as having said, "The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community
i.e. go against the state.

The rest of the hadith are time specific - it requires a lot of historical knowledge to properly interpret them (which I don't have!)


Actually those that do fight against the state don't get an opportunity to repent.

In this respect, Ibn Taymiyah differentiated between two kinds of apostasy, an apostasy which does not cause harm to the Muslim society and an apostasy in which apostates wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land. The repentance of the apostates in the first kind is accepted; while in the second kind, it is not if it occurs after the apostates have fallen into the power of the Muslim authority
Meaning if you repent within that time (i.e before the authorities get you), then it will be accepted by the state.
Reply

Aurora
08-16-2008, 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
i.e. go against the state.

The rest of the hadith are time specific - it requires a lot of historical knowledge to properly interpret them (which I don't have!)
Well the scholars do have this knowledge, and all four Madhabs are in agreement that apostates are to get the death penalty if they don't repent after being asked. This is a fact that you cannot deny. Please read that link I provided from Islamonline, or ask a scholar. You are not in a position to call saheeh hadiths of Muhammed and his companions time specific or any such thing.

Meaning if you repent within that time (i.e before the authorities get you), then it will be accepted by the state.
This is different to apostasy without fighting against the state, to which you would normally get three days after the authorities catch you to repent before the death penalty is received.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
"Apostasy is of two types: ordinary apostasy and extreme apostasy, for which execution is prescribed. In both cases there is evidence that it is essential to execute the apostate, but the evidence indicating that the sentence of death may be waived if the person repents does not apply to both types of apostasy. Rather the evidence indicates that that is allowed only in the first case – i.e., ordinary apostasy – as will be clear to anyone who studies the evidence that speaks about accepting the repentance of the apostate. In the second type – i.e., extreme apostasy – the obligation to put the apostate to death still stands, and there is no text or scholarly consensus to indicate that the death sentence may be waived. The two cases are quite different and there is no comparison between them. It does not say in the Qur’aan or Sunnah, or according to scholarly consensus, that everyone who apostatizes in word or deed may be spared the death sentence if he repents after he is a captured and tried. Rather the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and scholarly consensus, differentiate between the different kinds of apostates."
Reply

aamirsaab
08-16-2008, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by Aurora
Well the scholars do have this knowledge, and all four Madhabs are in agreement that apostates are to get the death penalty if they don't repent after being asked. This is a fact that you cannot deny.
I didn't deny this in the first place - I was giving you an explanation.

You are not in a position to call saheeh hadiths of Muhammed and his companions time specific or any such thing.
And you are not in a position to make that statement. By this, I mean: Do you know the context of those hadith? No and neither do I - the difference between us two is that I err on the side of caution, whereas you seemingly like to make an assumption.

This is different to apostasy without fighting against the state, to which you would normally get three days after the authorities catch you to repent before the death penalty is received.
Your copy and paste job contradicts your previous backing. I'm not going to discuss this topic anymore with you until you have read Ansar's post on the thread dealing with apostacy, which was previously given by Osman. It is located here

edit: the linked thread has been locked - if you still have questions, post it here.
p.s; sorry steve...again.
Reply

Aurora
08-16-2008, 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I didn't deny this in the first place - I was giving you an explanation.
Well I'm glad that you're not in denial at least.

And you are not in a position to make that statement. By this, I mean: Do you know the context of those hadith? No and neither do I - the difference between us two is that I err on the side of caution, whereas you seemingly like to make an assumption.
Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and many other scholars cite those hadiths as evidence for putting apostates to death. If anyone, it is them that you should accuse of making an assumption.
Sheikh `Attiyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

"It is not right to deny the punishment of apostasy claiming that it has not been reported in the Qur'an, because it has been recorded in the mutawatir (Hadith which has been reported by at least four of the Companions in different times and places in a way that make a person sure that such Hadith is not fabricated) and the non-mutawatir Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him). Hudud (Islamic punishment specified for certain crimes) may, of course, be based on the non-mutawatir Sunnah."
Source


Your copy and paste job contradicts your previous backing. I'm not going to discuss this topic anymore with you until you have read Ansar's post on the thread dealing with apostacy, which was previously given by Osman. It is located here
I read his post earlier, and I'm not quite sure what his position on apostates that don't fight against the state is. I think he agrees that if they don't repent then they should get the death penalty, although he stays away from saying it explicitly.
Reply

aamirsaab
08-16-2008, 06:12 PM
Originally Posted by Aurora
....
Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and many other scholars cite those hadiths as evidence for putting apostates to death. If anyone, it is them that you should accuse of making an assumption.
Again, I'll highlight the crux of the statement:
It is not right to deny the punishment of apostasy claiming that it has not been reported in the Qur'an, because it has been recorded in the mutawatir
He's referring to the ruling on apostacy - he is not talking about the context of the hadith you gave. When he gives examples of the hadith illustrating the apostacy ruling being carried out, he's giving backing to the killing of apostates i.e showing the cases where it happened in history.

Source
In fact, the source you gave actually gives you the reason as to why the apostacy ruling came about which in turn sheds some light on the context of those ahadith you presented eariler.
Reply

Aurora
08-16-2008, 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Again, I'll highlight the crux of the statement:

He's referring to the ruling on apostacy - he is not talking about the context of the hadith you gave. When he gives examples of the hadith illustrating the apostacy ruling being carried out, he's giving backing to the killing of apostates i.e showing the cases where it happened in history.

Source
In fact, the source you gave actually gives you the reason as to why the apostacy ruling came about which in turn sheds some light on the context of those ahadith you presented eariler.
I think I understand what you're saying now, and I am aware of the justifications given for the killing of apostates. That isn't something that I wish to argue with.

I suppose we can at least agree that complete religious freedom and free speech isn't possible in a Sharia governed state, which was my initial criticism.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-17-2008, 04:17 PM
Hi
Originally Posted by Aurora
Well the scholars do have this knowledge, and all four Madhabs are in agreement that apostates are to get the death penalty if they don't repent after being asked. This is a fact that you cannot deny. Please read that link I provided from Islamonline, or ask a scholar. You are not in a position to call saheeh hadiths of Muhammed and his companions time specific or any such thing.
1. A rule shouldn't be accepted just because someone with authority says so, there are actually different scholars who are against this rule so it is not unanimous. People sometimes think that if the four madhebs agree, that there is consensus, but that is wrong. There are more scholars then just those of the four madhebs who follow by the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him). Scholars are humans, they make mistakes, every single one of the scholars from the four madhebs said to ignore their rulings when something in the sunnah contradicts them. You shouldn't accept rulings based on authority, but instead based on the strength of their arguments.
2. Every proof presented by scholars are hadeeth discussing a person who committed BOTH apostasy and treason.
3. There are other hadeeths of people committing apostasy, telling it to the prophet (peace be upon him) and not being persecuted.

So, if punishment is only for apostasy combined with treason, that's a whole different case, and your argument fails.
Reply

energy_22
08-18-2008, 02:49 AM
Originally Posted by energy_22
According to Muslims, living in an Islamic state would be wonderful.

If it is so wonderful then why has it been so hard to make one!


The answer is here:


Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
A rule shouldn't be accepted just because someone with authority says so.. there are different scholars who are against this rule so it is not unanimous.

People sometimes think that if the four madhebs agree, that there is consensus, but that is wrong. There are more scholars than just those of the four madhebs who follow the sunnah of the prophet

Scholars are humans, they make mistakes, every single one of the scholars from the four madhebs said to ignore their rulings when something in the sunnah contradicts them.
.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-18-2008, 08:49 AM
Originally Posted by energy_22
The answer is here:
.
Will you stop trolling already? I already answered your question two pages ago.
Either come up with a counter or with some new arguments, or let it be.
Reply

Azy
08-18-2008, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi Azy,
I must say I'm somewhat surprised to see you pick in on that post I made towards that guy that didn't bother to read the topic. I would have expected that you would have replied to my other main post instead.
Hi Steve, I still love you :(

I get a bit wound up when someone uses 'the West' as a blanket term.

On to your main post...
First off you assume that everyone will hold up Democracy as the default/best opposition to Shariah rule. I think since we're deciding which is the best method of government out of all those available we should at least consider the others rather than picking one and comparing it's flaws with your preferred candidate.

I would put forward Republic as a better alternative than Democracy, similar in many ways to Sharia.

Your points on stability and justification of laws do not apply to the republic and it is easy enough for it to adapt to the point on equality.
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Eating pork victims the whole community. trough you animal diseases can then be spread to humans that would not spread under any other methods (exampel, burdflu). Secondly, for you to eat it, is should be sold in the country, meaning that because you want to eat it, the whole country now has to read the ingredients and watch out on every product they buy. Consenting non muslims cannot be punished for fornication. since that rule applies to muslims. this is another example of where dhimmis receive less punishment. Besides then that I should point out that this isn't victemless either. Promiscuity helps the spread of STD, creates many social problems like fatherless childs, heartbreak and jealousy.
Your argument against pork makes no sense. Keeping pigs does not cause disease to spread any more than keeping any other animal (example, birdflu) so that's not a reason not to keep them, unless you're arguing for vegetarianism. I would imagine buying pork in a muslim country (if it happened) would be like finding a halal butcher in the UK. If a few people start eating pork that doesn't mean all food manufacturers in a muslim country are going to start including it, that would be commercial suicide... if my neighbour started eating arsenic I wouldn't rush to the cupboard and check my food just in case people had started using it in all food.

Causing heartbreak and jealousy are not crimes and are not exclusive to promiscuity, fatherless children and STDs are more to do with acting responsibly rather than promiscuity itself.
Reply

Gator
08-18-2008, 05:20 PM
Abdul,
As I stated in a previous post the problem is the difference between society and the government framework that governs it.

For example, promiscuity would still exist in a Caliphate as it does in a democracy, dictatorship, etc.

Just because you have laws, doesn't mean everyones going to follow them. Its how it deals with the people when they do fail.

Thanks,
Erik
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-18-2008, 08:12 PM
Hi Azy
Originally Posted by Azy
Hi Steve, I still love you :(
I get a bit wound up when someone uses 'the West' as a blanket term.
Fair enough, it was a bit narrow minded of me. I didn't give much thought to it, I was just looking to get rid of the troll :)

First off you assume that everyone will hold up Democracy as the default/best opposition to Shariah rule. I think since we're deciding which is the best method of government out of all those available we should at least consider the others rather than picking one and comparing it's flaws with your preferred candidate. I would put forward Republic as a better alternative than Democracy, similar in many ways to Sharia.
Yeah I kind of assumed that most non-muslims here would think out of all the systems democracy is the best. I just figured that If anyone had another system they want to compare they'd bring it up. As for a republic, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I take it your referring to the classical term of republican, and not the republicans from American politics; since those seem to have little to do with the genuine meaning of that word nowadays, if ever.

Your points on stability and justification of laws do not apply to the republic and it is easy enough for it to adapt to the point on equality.
True I have to grant a classical republic is better in those terms. However I wonder how practical this is. Can you really represent every minority in a governmental system? I see two practical problems:

1. Obviously you cannot appoint representatives by elections, because minorities would be outnumbered. So the the government would just have to play it fair and grant a voice in the senate to any minority that comes forward and ask for it? Like a person could say, hey I'm autistic, autistic people aren't represented yet, so I demand a position. Or hey I just founded a new religion and I have two followers, we demand our voice in the senate as minority.
2. How do you make decisions? If you want to protect minorities, then you must make sure they cannot be outvoted, so only unanimous decisions go trough? I think that would make it practically impossible to govern. A single minority could take the government hostage by rejecting any law, perhaps even with the intent of making the government fall.

Your argument against pork makes no sense. Keeping pigs does not cause disease to spread any more than keeping any other animal (example, birdflu)
Actually thats not true, keeping pigs does increase the risk.
Allow me to explain. Consider how a virus works. Many viruses, specifically retroviruses are packed in a coat, and on it is a receptor that allows it to enter in our cells by a lock-key mechanism. The virus enters the cells, imposes as if it were DNA and replicates itself by abusing the cell's mechanisms. The new replicas then exit the cells and go and infect other cells. However as they exit the cell, they take a part of the membrane with them as a new coat to travel intercellular.
(I know, the "coat" sounds silly, but that's actually the official name they gave it. Just look here).
Now the cells are full of receptors on it's membrane, so as a newly replicated virus takes part of the membrane, it also takes a receptor with it. This receptor then works as a key on the receptor of another cell and opens the cell so the virus can enter. So there's this vicious cycle where the cells are constantly supplying the necessary keys to enter the next cell.
Now the thing is, different species have different receptors, that is why we are immune to many animal diseases, the viruses simply can't enter our cells. However we do have a common receptor with pigs, so we can get pig-diseases. But it doesn't end there. Most creatures have more then just one receptor. So when a newly duplicated virus exist and exits the cell, it either takes type x or type y of that specie. Pigs next to having a common receptor with humans, also have a common receptor with birds. So let's say the birds-pig receptor is called y and the pig-human is called x. As a bird comes into contact with a pig, the pig gets infected with a birdflu in a coat with receptor y, the flu enters the cell and replicates. Now it exits again and takes receptor x with it as it exits. And there you go, we now have a birdflu that people are no longer immune to. You remember the pandemic in Asia a while ago? They actually traced back the origin of the human trait back to a pig farmer who was the first to acquire it. They tested his pigs and they had the bird flu to. On the side of his pig stalls he had planted fruit trees to make an extra buck. And the fruit trees had bats in it who ate the fruit and dropped parts on the floor into pig stalls. The pigs ate the leftover fruit and got infected from the bats. They did a documentary on Nat. Geo. about it. Some birds in turn might have some other receptors in common with yet another animal, and get infected by it. The birds then pass it on to pigs and eventually to humans. So pigs are like the gateway to every disease of the animal kingdom. By eating pig one doesn't only place his own health in hazard by eating an animal with bad cholesterol and which has exceptionally large numbers of parasites, at the same time one also jeopardizes the whole community by risking to introduce new animal viruses into this community.

so that's not a reason not to keep them, unless you're arguing for vegetarianism. I would imagine buying pork in a muslim country (if it happened) would be like finding a halal butcher in the UK. If a few people start eating pork that doesn't mean all food manufacturers in a muslim country are going to start including it, that would be commercial suicide... if my neighbor started eating arsenic I wouldn't rush to the cupboard and check my food just in case people had started using it in all food.
I think you are unaware of how many products actually have pig processed in it. If you want to find out, just print out a list of all the different EXXX numbers that you find on different products and look up what they mean on the internet. The most common is E471. And manufacturers don't put that in just because their neighbors do it, nor to piss Muslims off. They use it simply because waste meat of pig is very cheap! They probably assume that due to the encryptic E-numbers nobody is any wiser, or perhaps that nobody cares. Although I must add in your favor, that lately I'm noticing some changes in the industries. And more and more companies like kraft for example who used to use E471 are now switching over to alternative ingredients like sojachtine instead. Be that as it may, I would much prefer to live in a country where these products are simply not allowed so that I don't have to constantly worry about what I'm eating. I'm not saying that it's that big of a problem to read every label on every food product you buy, but what if you eat out? Do you go ask the chef what ingredients they use? Here in Belgium they even put E471 in industrial flour, so I can't even eat any bread or cakes pizza's or what you have. So yeah allowing pork does have a big impact on Muslims, adding the problems of health care which I just explained in depth to that; I don't see why a country with a majority of Muslims should allow it just for the sake of some who just love the taste.

Causing heartbreak and jealousy are not crimes and are not exclusive to promiscuity, fatherless children and STDs are more to do with acting responsibly rather than promiscuity itself.
True, although you must grant me that you will find either one a lot more in cultures where promiscuity is accepted.

Hi Gator
Abdul,As I stated in a previous post the problem is the difference between society and the government framework that governs it. For example, promiscuity would still exist in a Caliphate as it does in a democracy, dictatorship, etc. Just because you have laws, doesn't mean everyones going to follow them. Its how it deals with the people when they do fail.
Yes of course, I never meant to imply that they would simply vanish. My point is merely that they would be less common when they are not allowed.
Reply

aamirsaab
08-23-2008, 06:33 PM
:sl:
Just as a bit of ground information; a sharia state is one that is a purelu thiestic one. So whilst we may consider that the lack of freedom of religion or speech (as we've covered so far) exists in such a state, we should keep in mind that as a purely thiestic state (Islamic teachings metaphorically ooze out of every teaching and law within a sharia state), the Islamic sharia state has a considerable amount of benefits - many of which would accomodate the people of the west.
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2015, 11:28 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-21-2013, 08:31 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-27-2006, 03:04 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-24-2006, 04:52 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!