Fight only those who fight you

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

A caliph is elected and have administrative power, but he need to make sure that Sharia law is implemented.

Who is responsible for electing a caliph?
I asked before and I ask again.
Al Qaeda, ISIS and a group of more moderate Muslims have their own caliph and want to take over Afghanistan and Syria.
In an Islamic ideal scenario who is responsible for selecting the caliph?

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

I mentioned in my previous posts that fundamental difference is that “ supreme power” is only Allah not “ the people or their elected representatives.”

Understood but Allah hasn't spoken for more than 1400 years so it is actually Muslims who have to manage and enforce Sharia Law.
Aren't any rules in the Quran and Hadith on how to administer an Islamic State?
I am already very impressed with your (on paper) Islamic organization but we live in the real world here.
How can all that "Supreme Power" from Allah can be used in a real scenario?
There are totally Muslims countries in the world that are not influenced by the west and still they don't use full Sharia.
Why?
Muslims don't trust their own Sharia?
I'm sorry that is hard for me to understand.
On one hand Muslims say Sharia has a solution for everything but no one dares to use it.
It doesn't make sense.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Who is responsible for electing a caliph?
I asked before and I ask again.
Al Qaeda, ISIS and a group of more moderate Muslims have their own caliph and want to take over Afghanistan and Syria.
In an Islamic ideal scenario who is responsible for selecting the caliph?

Please see article below:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/1118...s-is-appointed

How the caliph of the Muslims is appointed - Islam Question & Answer ...

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Understood but Allah hasn't spoken for more than 1400 years so it is actually Muslims who have to manage and enforce Sharia Law.
Aren't any rules in the Quran and Hadith on how to administer an Islamic State?
I am already very impressed with your (on paper) Islamic organization but we live in the real world here.
How can all that "Supreme Power" from Allah can be used in a real scenario?
There are totally Muslims countries in the world that are not influenced by the west and still they don't use full Sharia.
Why?
Muslims don't trust their own Sharia?
I'm sorry that is hard for me to understand.
On one hand Muslims say Sharia has a solution for everything but no one dares to use it.
It doesn't make sense.

Issues of people are still the same as they were 1400 years ago which is justice in the society. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him established an Islamic state in his time and showed how to apply sharia law and provide justice through sharia law in the society. Sharia law is not just related to acts of worship if that’s what you think. It covers all aspects of life including how to govern, punishment system for different crimes, justice system, financial system and every other system one needs to run the state. And as I said before, prophet Muhammad peace be upon him showed how to implement it in his life time. The Four rightly guided people, showed how to implement this law on a bigger scale as Islamic state expanded. After them, for centuries Muslims have successfully used it to run the affairs of the state.

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

Brunei announced a couple of years ago to implement Shariah law. And guess what UN, USA and their western allies consisted that violation of human rights and they forced sanctions on them and forced them to soften their stance which basically means accept democracy as best form of government because rest of the world think Syria law is barbaric.

Wrong, an Islamic State doesn't have to accept democracy in order to comply with basic human rights.
It is actually very simple, just eliminate the cutting of arms, hands and legs and we're all good to go.
As you said Sharia is not only about the justice system but also about economics, politics and everyday chores.
I don't think the UN and USA are making it difficult to Brunei to implement full Sharia aside from those few human rights issues.
So how is Brunei doing otherwise?
Are they ready to show the west they can become the next Norway or Sweden?

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Wrong, an Islamic State doesn't have to accept democracy in order to comply with basic human rights.
It is actually very simple, just eliminate the cutting of arms, hands and legs and we're all good to go.
As you said Sharia is not only about the justice system but also about economics, politics and everyday chores.
I don't think the UN and USA are making it difficult to Brunei to implement full Sharia aside from those few human rights issues.
So how is Brunei doing otherwise?
Are they ready to show the west they can become the next Norway or Sweden?

You live in your own fantasy world where criminals are put in prisons at the name of human rights and are fed from tax payers money. Same people get out and commit same crimes, go back to jail and get out again to rape another innocent person. Perhaps, you can look into Saudi Arabia and see how they have controlled crimes by implementing partial sharia law when it comes to punishing criminals by beheading them and cutting their hands. There is no human right for those who spread corruption in the society and by doing so we set an example for others to think 100 times before even thinking to rape or kill a human being. By killing one person, we can provide safety and peace to millions.
On the contrary in countries which advocate human rights, there is no fear in the hearts of criminals. They knew that they will be out in 2-3 years and they can go back to commit the same crime and even if they get life in prison, they will still get meical care, food, access to exercise facilities etc. And when there is no fear for criminals, they will automatically commit more crimes. USA has the biggest prison system in the entire world ( modern slavery) and see how they are violating human rights and helping to spread corruption in the society. Perhaps you forgot to see the video and links in my previous post. If you did, please watch it again.

Second, look into how sanctions work & how those are used to enforce so-called human rights.

Third, you now seem to be of the opinion that force can be used to enforce what you think are the basic human rights? Am I correct to assume that now?

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

So how is Brunei doing otherwise?
Are they ready to show the west they can become the next Norway or Sweden?

You are kidding me, right?
Sweden is ranked #7 world wide when it comes to rapes & Norway in also in top 25 ( probably ranked 24).
https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ics-by-country
You can look up the suicide rate for these countries and wonder why people are committing suicide if they are so happy?

Anyways if you have any question about Islam, we can answer. But there is no need to prove that Democracy is the ultimate solution for world problems.

I live in USA and I know how empty these slogans are. Selection of Donald Trump proves how ethical and morally corrupt these peace makers are.
You are free to believe in anything you think is right. No one here in forcing Islam on you.

Good luck!

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

You are kidding me, right?
Sweden is ranked #7 world wide when it comes to rapes & Norway in also in top 25 ( probably ranked 24).

Sure, and you do know who is responsible for that, don't you?
I guess you're right, that is an important statistic.
I was just blinded with all the other statistics, like income per capita, education, health care, etc.
I tend to forget about the last big immigration wave.
My bad.

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

Please see article below:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/1118...s-is-appointed

Thank you for the link about how to elect a caliph.

I'm not going to deny it, I was a bit stunned with the option #3

By means of force and prevailing over others. When a man becomes caliph by prevailing over the people by the sword, and he establishes his authority and takes full control, then it becomes obligatory to obey him and he becomes the leader of the Muslims.

I guess some people still think this is better than democracy. There are a few groups that are really big fans of this option.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Sure, and you do know who is responsible for that, don't you?
I guess you're right, that is an important statistic.
I was just blinded with all the other statistics, like income per capita, education, health care, etc.
I tend to forget about the last big immigration wave.
My bad.

Apparently you think that having a better worldly life is an indication of being on the right path? And you also seem to believe one should follow the mob mentality ( Democracy)? Correct me again if these are wrong assumptions, because all of your responses leads to these conclusions.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Thank you for the link about how to elect a caliph.

I'm not going to deny it, I was a bit stunned with the option #3

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

By means of force and prevailing over others. When a man becomes caliph by prevailing over the people by the sword, and he establishes his authority and takes full control, then it becomes obligatory to obey him and he becomes the leader of the Muslims.

You did exactly what I thought you would ( take a passage out which fits your narrative and ignore the rest). Let me copy and past the parts of the article and explain:
First let's see what was the question in that article?

How did the Islamic state organize its affairs? How did the government rule in the earliest period?.

Its past tense and clearly asking about how affairs of government were carried out in early Islam. If you want to compare apple to apple, go back and look how Europe was being ruled at that time.
Now lets look at the answer to specific question, how was Caliph appointed?
The article says:

The imam (ruler) or caliph was appointed to lead the Islamic state by one of three methods:

Once again this is the past tense, discussing how early Muslims choose their Caliphs.
According to Islamqa first method was:

He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.
‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) delegated the appointment of the caliph to come after him to a shoora council of six of the senior Sahaabah, who were to elect one of their number. ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf consulted the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, and when he saw that the people were all inclined towards ‘Uthmaan, he swore allegiance to him first, then the rest of the six swore allegiance to him, followed by the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, so he was elected as caliph by the decision makers.
‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when he was elected by most of the decision makers.

Here we see that three out of four Caliphs were selected by Senior companions. Majority of the Muslim scholars today believe this is one of the right ways to select the Caliph.
Let's look what was the second method:

Appointment to the position by the previous caliph, when one caliph passes on the position to a particular person who is to succeed him after he dies. For example, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab became caliph when the position was passed on to him by Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him).

Muslims follow the Sunnah of Prophet (peace be upon him) and four rightly guided Caliphs, so there is nothing wrong in appointing a Caliph by previous Caliph provided both follow Shariah law and strive to unite and protect the Muslims.
This brings us to the third method which shocked you, and I don't blame you for this. You have been brought up in a culture where these things are strange for you. Even many Muslims living in the West would object to this third method.
So below is what you copy and pasted from the third method:

By means of force and prevailing over others. When a man becomes caliph by prevailing over the people by the sword, and he establishes his authority and takes full control, then it becomes obligatory to obey him and he becomes the leader of the Muslims.

You on purpose did not copy and pasted the next part, which I will quote below:

Examples of that include some of the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs, and those who came after them. This method is contrary to sharee’ah, because it is seized by force.

It clearly says that the third method is contrary to Shariah, because power is seized by force. So that the first part to acknowledge.
Second, why and under what conditions it becomes obligatory to obey such leader: Let me quote from the same article:

Because great interests are served by having a ruler who rules the ummah, and because a great deal of mischief may result from chaos and loss of security in the land, the one who seizes authority by means of the sword should be obeyed if he seizes power by force but he rules in accordance with the laws of Allah.

Three very powerful reason are given:

1. To have one ruler (Caliphate) for entire Ummah. This units the Muslims. One of the reason why Muslims we today are suffering are lack of one authority. There are roughly 50 Muslim majority countries and many of them don't support each other because power has been distributed. Everyone looks at the benefit of their own country and not the benefit of Ummah at large. The Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs are good examples - even though they came to power by force but they helped to expand the Muslim empire and still enforced the Shariah law.
   
2. Second reason is to eliminate chaos and to establish security in the land. The main objective of the Caliph is to implement Shariah and to unite/protect the Muslims. If the one who seizes power by force is capable to do so then obeying him is better than fights against each other. History tells us that it only resulted in chaos and killing of other Muslims. That's exactly what the non-Muslims want. And that's the reason, majority of the scholars consider protests non-Islamic way to create chaos in the country. In modern day, one can look at Libya, Egypt and Iraq. The protests against rulers have created more chaos in the society and these countries are now in the worse state than a decade ago. I understand you may not agree with this. Some Muslims influenced by Western ways also don't agree with what I said. But we are not to follow our own desires and whims. We are supposed to follow Sharia law and that puts greater emphasis on the unity and security of the Muslims.
   
3. Most importantly, the ruler shall rule in accordance to shariah law. If someone takes power by force by is implementing shariah law it is better than an elected leader who does not implement shariah law.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

I guess some people still think this is better than democracy. There are a few groups that are really big fans of this option.

Yes you are right that this option is not the opinion of all Muslims. There is difference of opinion and this difference was from the time of companions, some of them actually fought against those who took power by force. But I personally agree with the 3rd opinion because it is based on lessons learned through history. The Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs did seize power by force but they also helped Muslim to expand Islam. The golden Era of Muslims was during the 'Abbasid period. So we can see the good they brought in to the Ummah.

Is it possible to seize power by force in today's Muslim world? The answer is no, because Muslims don't have one Caliphate.

Should Muslims of today obey a ruler who may come into power by force? Yes only if the ruler is practicing Muslim and implements sharia.
Is Democracy better than the ways Muslim elect Caliph? The key difference is not how you select the ruler, it is who legislates the law and who is the Supreme power. If supreme power is "Allah" and "sharia Law" is enforced then it does not matter how one selects the ruler. On the other hand if people legislate the moral laws then we have a huge issue. I guess you will only understand this if you have some moral values and you see how those are compromised by legislation through people's power. Legalization of same sex marriage would be a good example. Do you believe it should be legalized?

Look at how far the whole LGBTQ+ABCDEFG movement has come. Incest is not that far behind. Soon it’ll be beastiality and who knows what else. 2 year olds are capable of identifying as whatever gender they want (or non gender), but a 20 year old will go to jail for having relations with a 17 year old because the 17 year old is too young to know any better. God bless democracy.

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

Apparently you think that having a better worldly life is an indication of being on the right path? And you also seem to believe one should follow the mob mentality ( Democracy)? Correct me again if these are wrong assumptions, because all of your responses leads to these conclusions.

A better worldly life?
How can we know if our worldly life is going to be better than whatever is after death.
We don't know that and we don't even think about that.
Jews for example don't even prepare for the afterlife. They enjoy themselves while on earth, they follow their religious mandates and they help each other trying to spend a life as productive and full of happymess while on earth.
Christians are not obsessed with the afterlife either. We try to be happy, productive, helpful with other human beings, etc.
So as a rule of thumb, "we do not obsessed with the afterlife. Get it?

Now you seem to equate "a mob mentality" with democracy.
Now that is just ridiculous especially coming from someone who follows "written in stones rules" that are to be follow as they are no matter the natural evolution of things, the natural evolution of cultures, etc. That is "MOB MENTALITY", my friend.
Democracy allows for changes, innovations, use of our brains and at the end it looks for agreements.
Democracy means exchanges of ideas, improvement, social harmony, discussions and an aim to make things better.
Nothing in democracy can be equated to "mob mentality", democracy is the man made antidote to the "mob mentality" you talk about.
Democracy aims at finding the best results, explain them and let the people make informed decisions.

@Eddy
You did not answer if you believe same sex marriage should be legalized?

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

A better worldly life?
How can we know if our worldly life is going to be better than whatever is after death.
We don't know that and we don't even think about that.
Jews for example don't even prepare for the afterlife. They enjoy themselves while on earth, they follow their religious mandates and they help each other trying to spend a life as productive and full of happymess while on earth.
Christians are not obsessed with the afterlife either. We try to be happy, productive, helpful with other human beings, etc.
So as a rule of thumb, "we do not obsessed with the afterlife. Get it?

I thought you said, you were an agnostic? Now you claim to be a Christian? Look at the life of Christian priests and nuns and tell me that they are not obsessed with afterlife?
Jews on the other hand are all about this worldly life, Torah is surprisingly silent on what happens after death. No one knows exactly why the Torah doesn't discuss the afterlife. Instead, the Torah focuses on "Olam Ha Ze," which means "this world." And we see why Jews are heavily focused only on this world. Quran also tells us that Jews claim that they are the chosen one and if they go to hell that will be just for few days. With that mentality, who will work for an aternal life in hereafter?

Islam is the only religion which teaches to be moderate and balanced in all aspects of life, whether it is religion, worship, relationships, ideas, or daily activities. Principled moderation is one of the defining characteristics of good character in Islam. Not sure from where you assumed that we are obsessed with afterlife.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Now you seem to equate "a mob mentality" with democracy.
Now that is just ridiculous especially coming from someone who follows "written in stones rules" that are to be follow as they are no matter the natural evolution of things, the natural evolution of cultures, etc. That is "MOB MENTALITY", my friend.
Democracy allows for changes, innovations, use of our brains and at the end it looks for agreements.
Democracy means exchanges of ideas, improvement, social harmony, discussions and an aim to make things better.
Nothing in democracy can be equated to "mob mentality", democracy is the man made antidote to the "mob mentality" you talk about.
Democracy aims at finding the best results, explain them and let the people make informed decisions.

lol " mob mentality" sound negative, is not it. Sorry for using that word, I probably should use a more civilized (politically correct) world - A word often used by social psychologists which is " herd mentality." Many people and animals tend to do what others around them are doing. This usually is because those who join the group in the behavior figure that if several others are doing something, it must be worthwhile, or they would not be doing it. For example, people figure that a crowded restaurant must be serving good food, or it would not be as busy. In most cases, this thought process comes naturally or subconsciously, which is one reason why animals take part in herd behavior. Perhaps that is the reason you want to stay as a Christian or agnostic or even an theist but definitely not a Muslim because that is considered as negative in Western Culture. I can understand, why you are such a champion of democracy. Its the "herd mentality." This makes me wonder, why are you even asking these questions. Are you even genuinely looking into Islam as way of life or just came here to put doubts in the minds of others?

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

@Eddy
You did not answer if you believe same sex marriage should be legalized?

That seems to be a random question which I'm not ready to answer because I haven't given it enough thought.

Quite disappointing I guess.
What is it? You had prepared a full fledge lesson on morality if I had answered yes?

By the way on the election of the caliph thing.

I didn't pick on option #3 to criticize Islam, I picked on option #3 because now I understand where the bad guys get the idea that forcing themselves into power is a legitimate and accepted way of doing things according to Islamic scriptures.
I also noticed that at the end and after they are in power they still have to rule following the rules set by Allah.
That's very nice and all but who is going to raise their voice to the new ruler when he has a sword on his hand and is not shy on using it when he is disturbed?

I'm just saying, doesn't look like a 21st century way of doing things.

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

I thought you said, you were an agnostic? Now you claim to be a Christian?

I'm officially a Christian who seriously doubts the existence of God, so you do the math. Christian/Agnostic?

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

Islam is the only religion which teaches to be moderate and balanced in all aspects of life,

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you feeling better.

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

Many people and animals tend to do what others around them are doing.

The members of a herd just follow whoever is in front without asking any questions.
Seculars, democrats, liberals on the other hand are always busy making sure the next step leads to a better future.
The members of the herd only see the back of the one in front of them.
See the difference?
We lead the way so you can one day enjoy a better world.
You keep criticizing those who feed you.

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

This makes me wonder, why are you even asking these questions. Are you even genuinely looking into Islam as way of life or just came here to put doubts in the minds of others?

No I'm not, did I ever said I want to join Islam?
I ask questions just to satisfy my curiosity.
Christianity and Islam have a lot of holes in their scriptures and I want to make sure I'm getting the facts right.
Does that bother you?
I'm not here to promote my way of seeing things, I just want to make sure I understand the way you see things.
Too complicated for you?

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

I'm officially a Christian who seriously doubts the existence of God

And no sign comes to them from the signs of their Lord except that they are from it turning away.(46:36)
We shall show them Our signs in the universe and within themselves,until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth.But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is ,over all things,a witness?(53:41)

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

Is it possible to seize power by force in today's Muslim world? The answer is no, because Muslims don't have one Caliphate.

Sometimes I read this kind of stuff and think, wait a minute, is he saying what I think he is saying?
Didn't we have a group of Muslims take over parts of Syria and Iraq by force and claimed to be an Islamic State and had their own Caliph as the leader.
How is that different from option #3
They followed the rules from the text you provided, didn't they?
As a Muslim what would you say they did wrong and what did disqualified them as authentic Muslims?