most islamic country/place?

[Tony]

Which part of it is a mess? Is it the 200 years of uninterrupted peaceful transfers of power and respect for the voice of the electorate? Is it the religious freedoms enjoyed by all citizens (a direct result of church/state separation)? Is it the fact that decisions from US courts have provided guidance to the world's legal community for a century? Is it the absence of religious conflict within its borders throughout its history?

Where's the mess?

I'll show you a mess. Countries in which the government professes a religious belief. That's a good place to start - you can take it from there.

Like the acclaimed christianity of the USA for example ? The mess referred to is of drug abuse, mass fornication and its allowance and encouragement, religious conflict within and without its borders, who do u think are behind the Israeli persecutions who dou think funds the military there and there weapons such as white phospherous, I think u will find Mcdonalds, coke, disneyland etc etc. And the descisions u are so proud of making in US courts in my veiw are nothing but the dictation and bullying of a richer more powerful and covertly corrupt gvnment that has no right to be laying down the laws of other people. The turning away from religious belief within the state that you refer to is mereley a tactic to subdue people, let them spend their cash on self adulation and then we dont need to think of the [people in the world that could benefit from a beleif that states helping others is the best of thingsn we will keep the money in our hands and stuff the world. I think USA needs a radical change of heart as a whole

 

[zakirs]

For me any country which doesn't allow is to pratice religion to fullest is not acceptable.but i would not wish sharia because as some other bro said , we cannot force our ideas.If there is a absolute majority , i would love to have sharia.For instance i guess sharia doesn't allow people eating pig.many people in my country eat it :|.

but i love my country for allowing me to practice my religion without any hinderances ,for providing holidays for my festivals and also arranging a seperate marriage code for muslims.(i.e India )

 

[Ar-RaYYan]

You appear to have read something in my posts which is not there!

No Thinker the questions i asked was directly as result of your previous post. No more no less

1. How do I know that people aren’t in the process of making hijrah?
I didn’t say or infer that anyone in particular was not making hijrah but as the Muslim migrant population in the UK is increasing it is a reasonable assumption that vast majority are not leaving.

But that doesnt necessarily mean that some muslims are not making hijrah. Even if the muslim migrant population is increasing America and Britain should personally be responsible for it as those muslims tend to come from war zones -Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine

2. Why do you assume that a niqaabi or bearded brother automatically means they are immigrants?
I didn’t make that assumption – why do you assume that because God commanded that Muslims must make hijrah he meant solely those who came from a Muslim country. In fact, the only Muslim on this forum who has declared his intent to make hijrah is Dawuduk who (I believe) is a native British convert and who I applauded many times for his honesty and integrity in that regard. As we have not heard from him for some time I presume he is now somewhere in the Swat valley with his ‘brothers’.

No i didnt make the assumption that God commanded that only muslims from muslim countries should make a hijrah! where in my post did i state that?! in fact that is why i asked what the British should do about those native British reverts.

3. What do you suggest the British government should do about those who are born in the country- force them to go back to the country they were originally from?
No I most certainly do not and have never suggested any such action.

Well i have noticed from many of your posts asking why we (muslims) dont leave the land of the mushrekeen. Since you are asking that question im assuming you might have a solution for this problem of yours

4. More importantly what do you think the govt should do about those native British reverts?
I don’t suggest anything and they don’t suggest anything, on the other hand Islamic teachings does - it suggest ney God commands hijrah.

Frankly if you dont have any suggestions/solutions you shouldnt really moan about it.

5. Coventry road, bham has a large quantity of white British muslims than any other places in Birmingham and even in UK.
So?

Just making sure you got the facts right - we not only talking about muslim immigrants

You appear to have missed my point in raising this issue. The point was how do you reconcile the struggle by some to act out the letter of the text (and I gave examples like not shaking hands) but ignore commands (like hijrah) that you don’t like?

Who said we ignore or dislike commands like hijrah? The vast majority of muslims living in the west or any other non muslims countries would love to live in a muslim country. Making hijrah isnt simple as you would like to think.

 

[Khalil_Allah]

The answer is that, deep down, nobody wants the government telling them how to practice their faith. That's why many Muslims like to live in countries with secular legal systems. They are then free to practice as they wish.

We all have to agree with this. We don't want someone telling us how to practice Islam. We don't want people driving around enforcing practices of the sunnah. How many of you would take a whack for the length of your beard? :raging:

I suspect that the poster is wishing for law that imposes just punishments for crimes like adultery and alcohol consumption, and other parts of the shari'ah. She, like the rest of us, wants this crap out of our society and not tempting all of us who are trying to live by shari'ah.

But you know if Muslims were punished for this stuff in the US and England, there would be a lot of Muslims that would turn against Islam. There would be a lot of ayan hirsi's running around gaining support against Islam because they would be like "what is so wrong about my drinking? what is so wrong about having a boyfriend?" And of course all the non-Muslims would be like "yeah, she's right! Islam is messed up!" like they already do.

Living the shari'ah can't just be a top-down government-enforced sort of thing. Our Ummah is sick, and if I'm not mistaken, it will only get sicker and sicker until the end times. Isn't there something about how there will be times when even the name of Allah will be just a memory from grandparents?

Just do your part to live the shari'ah and teach it and be an example to your kids so that your lineage is not among those which lose the sweetness of righteousness. Teach them to be disgusted by the alcoholism and adultery and all of those things that are forbidden (but not by those who do these things!!!). You don't need a government or Medina-like society to do this.

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

In fact, the only Muslim on this forum who has declared his intent to make hijrah is Dawuduk who (I believe) is a native British convert and who I applauded many times for his honesty and integrity in that regard.

Muslims on this forum?! That's a silly presumption to make that she meant only Muslims on this forum. the Muslims on this forum make up a tiny proportion of us as a whole.

As we have not heard from him for some time I presume he is now somewhere in the Swat valley with his ‘brothers’.

cool

Gaza?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/...FtYXNkcmVzc2Nv

put words being used in a smart way with the general public being so naive and you'll get things blown out of proportion and have the world making mountains out of molehills, as has been done here.

Do half these things even matter if they haven’t been presented in the context they have been? I think not! What a pathetic attempt at undermining Palestinian resistance.

Israel controls Gaza..anything that goes in and out of it is under her rule...including the media--->do the math, it isnt that hard.

 

[O2K]

Which part of it is a mess? Is it the 200 years of uninterrupted peaceful transfers of power and respect for the voice of the electorate? Is it the religious freedoms enjoyed by all citizens (a direct result of church/state separation)? Is it the fact that decisions from US courts have provided guidance to the world's legal community for a century? Is it the absence of religious conflict within its borders throughout its history?

Where's the mess?

I'll show you a mess. Countries in which the government professes a religious belief. That's a good place to start - you can take it from there.

200 years of peaceful transfer? are you talking about internal peace? as in no rebellions? no military intervention internally? you post is full of generalizations and vaguaties. please explain.

 

[Ansariyah]

These get as Islamic as it gets without a Khalifah:

Mauritania
Indonasia
Birmingham

 

[Foxhole]

200 years of peaceful transfer? are you talking about internal peace?

yes

as in no rebellions?

yes

no military intervention internally?

yes

 

[O2K]

yes



yes



yes

Well. As far as a transfer of peaceful power, that typically has more to do with the people than it does the system. A nation could have tyrant after tyrant with a peaceful transfer. When the transfer of power goes wrong, it has little to do with the system itself and has more to do with the people.

There have been many, many, many rebellions in US history, along with internal military interventsions (see battle of blair mountain, citrus wars). America's number one problem is labor. The labor system is amazing skewed. Not to mention the wealth disparity. The Gini Efficient in America has risen a whole 10% in 40 years. That is a ridiculous number. To say that the system in America is a success is false as one could say that the system started to change in 1913, and then really made an impact after WW2. The American system as we know it really has only been in place for a few decades, not 2 centuries. the 19th century US system is not the same as the 20th century and 21st century US system.

 

[Foxhole]

Well. As far as a transfer of peaceful power, that typically has more to do with the people than it does the system. A nation could have tyrant after tyrant with a peaceful transfer. When the transfer of power goes wrong, it has little to do with the system itself and has more to do with the people.

I suppose it could. In bizarro universe. (A dictator passing leadership to his son is obviously not a "transfer of power".)

Can you give me one example of a transfer of power in a non-democratic system in which violence was not used?

There have been many, many, many rebellions in US history, along with internal military interventsions (see battle of blair mountain, citrus wars). America's number one problem is labor. The labor system is amazing skewed. Not to mention the wealth disparity. The Gini Efficient in America has risen a whole 10% in 40 years. That is a ridiculous number. To say that the system in America is a success is false as one could say that the system started to change in 1913, and then really made an impact after WW2. The American system as we know it really has only been in place for a few decades, not 2 centuries. the 19th century US system is not the same as the 20th century and 21st century US system.

When I meant insurrections and intervention, I meant groups seeking to take governing power through violence, something that is the norm in non-democratic countries (since that's the only way to assume power.)

Of course there has been occasional violence from labor disputes, social strife, etc. But the system is and always has been respected as the only means of assuming governing power.

 

[Muslimlearner]

Gaza?!

Do you belive there is a punishment on the dunia?

Gaza,Irak,Iran........

 

[Lost&Found]

put words being used in a smart way with the general public being so naive and you'll get things blown out of proportion and have the world making mountains out of molehills, as has been done here.

Do half these things even matter if they haven’t been presented in the context they have been? I think not! What a pathetic attempt at undermining Palestinian resistance.

Israel controls Gaza..anything that goes in and out of it is under her rule...including the media--->do the math, it isnt that hard.

What points in the article don't you agree with?

 

[O2K]

I suppose it could. In bizarro universe. (A dictator passing leadership to his son is obviously not a "transfer of power".)

Can you give me one example of a transfer of power in a non-democratic system in which violence was not used?

Off the top of my head- from Abu Bakr RA to Umar RA. Also off the top of my head the transition from the Shang Dynasty to the Chou Dynasty if I remember correctly went by relatively smoothly.

[Quote}

When I meant insurrections and intervention, I meant groups seeking to take governing power through violence, something that is the norm in non-democratic countries (since that's the only way to assume power.)

Of course there has been occasional violence from labor disputes, social strife, etc. But the system is and always has been respected as the only means of assuming governing power. [/QUOTE]


What do you call lobbying? Corporations? The Military Industrial Complex? America is not a democracy, it is a Corporate Oligarchy. The argument of a democracy is a farce considering there is no democratic (by definition) country in the world. While it has been relatively peaceful, one could say that is due to the control of the government over the population. In theory, a free population would lead to chaos. Like I said before, the system that is in place today, is not the same in the 19th century.

 

[GuestFellow]

Where's the mess?

I'll show you a mess. Countries in which the government professes a religious belief. That's a good place to start - you can take it from there.

Some of the mess has been created due to interference of other countries. Not all countries are perfect. Every country internally has different problems of their own.

I wonder if people who critique other countries really care to see that country rise to stability or just want to be given an opportunity to appear superior.

 

[Ar-RaYYan]

No thanks. It's not going to happen. "Muslims" are dating white men/women at my work place. Some "muslim" girls are having sex with multiple men. There are muslims drinking alcohol after work. I see Asians blasting out music in their cars in Preston. It's a secular country and in my opinion it always will be. Secularism is growing at a much faster rate than any religion.

and anomic society within secularism is growing even faster. As people increasingly will feel sense of isolation, loss of identity and confusion they will turn to religion which they feel will provide sense of purpose

 

[O2K]

and anomic society within secularism is growing even faster. As people increasingly will feel sense of isolation, loss of identity and confusion they will turn to religion which they feel will provide sense of purpose

this is very brief yet could be very accurate for History repeats itself

 

[GuestFellow]

and anomic society within secularism is growing even faster. As people increasingly will feel sense of isolation, loss of identity and confusion they will turn to religion which they feel will provide sense of purpose

Yes that does appear to be the case. In the UK there are many teenagers who are depressed and this secular lifestyle to some extent has what caused these teenagers to be upset and unmotivated. Working at Birmingham Children Hospital, I spoke to some paediatrics/doctors and they told me some patients as young as eight and seven were suffering from depression or are at a significant risk. Every year teenagers have committed suicide. There are cases of child abuse, where parents cannot even look after their own children.

This is what I call a mess, and this secular lifestyle to some extent does not provide structure to these people's lives. Yes there are other factors that has contributed to this mess, but in the UK...a developed country and a very wealthy country, why are we even in this mess?

Why hasn't secularism solved all of our problems?

 

[Foxhole]

What do you call lobbying?

You're suggesting that people not have the right to petition the government?

Corporations?

You're suggesting that people not have the right to form collective private business enterprises?

The Military Industrial Complex?

You're suggesting that the military not spend money in the private sector?

America is not a democracy, it is a Corporate Oligarchy.

I guess. Care to speculate on why the Oligarchs chose to evict Bush and bring in Barack?

The argument of a democracy is a farce considering there is no democratic (by definition) country in the world.

I'm guessing that your definition of democracy is something that is not possible, right?

While it has been relatively peaceful, one could say that is due to the control of the government over the population.

True. Or one could say, with equal accuracy, "rabbit have antlers."

In theory, a free population would lead to chaos.

That's a good one, Fearless Leader. I sure hope the Oligarchs put you in office some day.


Seriously, dude. You have to lay off the Chomsky.

So, after all that criticism of democracy, I assume you can tell us of a system of choosing and maintaining a government that's better.

 

[Foxhole]

and anomic society within secularism is growing even faster. As people increasingly will feel sense of isolation, loss of identity and confusion they will turn to religion which they feel will provide sense of purpose

Fortunately, they're free to do that in societies with secular legal systems. And, best of all, they get to explore and choose the religion of their choice! Maybe that's not a good thing ...

 

[O2K]

You're suggesting that people not have the right to petition the government?

haha lobbying is far from "petitioning" the government. I don't think i need to go into the details of the danger of lobbying. I'm sure you already know that. If you don't, it shouldn't be so hard to looking into article 22 if I'm not mistaken of the Federalist Papers.

You're suggesting that people not have the right to form collective private business enterprises?

Not if it means dictating the laws of the people

You're suggesting that the military not spend money in the private sector?

I'm suggesting military not turn into a business. Dwight D Eisenhower right now is rolling over in his grave

I guess. Care to speculate on why the Oligarchs chose to evict Bush and bring in Barack?

now tell me, what has Obama done that is much different than Bush? I guess instead of the military sector he gave power to Wall Street and Financial services.

I'm guessing that your definition of democracy is something that is not possible, right?

de⋅moc⋅ra⋅cy  /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-mok-ruh-see] –noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them

Not quite what we have here

You have to lay off the Chomsky.

Personally I'm not a big fan of Chomsky, but I'd rather digest some Noam than good ole' everyday news.