Muslims VS Muslims

[أحمد]

I thought they would judge themselves and Muslims would have no involvement with non Muslims. Basically a non Muslims deals with a non Muslims. And Muslims deal with Muslims?

How would one deal with an atheist then? Or other religions that don’t have a set of their own rules?

I thought non Muslims would be given the chance to have their own little state. Otherwise it could seem complicated to deal all types of non Muslims which some do not have their own rulings (Atheism etc).

Btw Jews are different and there are different types so even they wouldn’t have one rule. So Islamic state (according to you and have little knowledge on) would put them on same category even though they are different and practice their religion differently.

Allah (swt) knows best

The answer is given in the Quran; as quoted below. Muslims are an Ummah for the whole of humanity; not only restricted to Muslims.

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (3:110)

:wa:

:wa:

 

[Grace Seeker]

Yep it would become one nation, same economy, same miltary, same one ruler

As Muslims live scattered in every country of the globe, how do you propose this happening? I mean even if all Muslims were of one mind and desired the same thing that you espouse would Muslims who live where they are not the majority be expected to move to countries where an Islamic state could be established? Would Muslims try to force countries that were not predominately Muslim to become part of this one nation you speak about? Why do all Muslims have to be part of one nation for the Ummah to be understood as united?

no one should be attacking foreign aid workers, but if any are caught proselytising the decision to deport or execute them lies with ruler

Would you find it fair that the reverse of such a practice become the law in non-Islamic states? Would it be reasonable to deport or execute members of Muslim Aid or the Red Crescent who proselytize non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries?

And what exactly constitutes proselytizing? Should someone who works at a food pantry operated by a London mosque be executed for offering dawah to someone who comes there in search of assistance?

 

[aadil77]

As Muslims live scattered in every country of the globe, how do you propose this happening? I mean even if all Muslims were of one mind and desired the same thing that you espouse would Muslims who live where they are not the majority be expected to move to countries where an Islamic state could be established? Would Muslims try to force countries that were not predominately Muslim to become part of this one nation you speak about? Why do all Muslims have to be part of one nation for the Ummah to be understood as united?

I don't know, all I know is that it worked a hundred years ago and by the will of Allah it can work again

as far as I know muslims have to be part of one nation because in islam theres no such thing as nationalism or boundries between muslim lands, theres only meant to be one nation and one main ruler of the muslims

I doubt a predominately non-muslim nation is meant to be part of the khilafa

Would you find it fair that the reverse of such a practice become the law in non-Islamic states? Would it be reasonable to deport or execute members of Muslim Aid or the Red Crescent who proselytize non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries?

And what exactly constitutes proselytizing? Should someone who works at a food pantry operated by a London mosque be executed for offering dawah to someone who comes there in search of assistance?

I don't think muslims would mind dying for preaching their religion, it would make them martyrs. Besides if you know the law then you should act accordingly.

About your given instance - the decision of such matters is with shariah courts, they will deal with it justly. If a non-muslim is given work at a masjid then the person who gave them that job should have known of the possibility that the worker may at some point give dawah to muslims - so I don't think it would be fair to deport them or execute them. Back in the khilafah shariah courts used to be the most Just, many jews would prefer to get matters settled at islamic courts rather than jewish ones.

 

[Grace Seeker]

About your given instance - the decision of such matters is with shariah courts, they will deal with it justly. If a non-muslim is given work at a masjid then the person who gave them that job should have known of the possibility that the worker may at some point give dawah to muslims - so I don't think it would be fair to deport them or execute them. Back in the khilafah shariah courts used to be the most Just, many jews would prefer to get matters settled at islamic courts rather than jewish ones.

Actually I was asking a different question, more one of the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" variety. Given the principle

if any are caught proselytising the decision to deport or execute them lies with ruler

I'm asking how you would like to see the reverse of sharia law applied in non-Islamic countries. You seem to except the possibility of it being reasonable for the Taliban to execute foreign aid workers for sharing their faith with the people they are helping. But would you consider it equally reasonable and just for a ruler/government to execute a Muslim for sharing his/her faith with someone they might be helping in a non-Islamic culture?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't know, all I know is that it worked a hundred years ago and by the will of Allah it can work again

By the will of Allah, anything is possible. But as far as a 100+ years ago, though there was a khilafa, I'm not sure that it worked even then as you describe. Even then there were Muslims who lived outside of the khilafa. A Muslim was even a member of the US House of Representatives in the 1820s. Is it your opinion that this individual was not a citizen of the United States but instead of this one Islamic nation you speak of and accountable not to his oath that he took to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but rather accountable to the khilafa?

 

[Karl]

@ Grace seeker.I suppose the maxim "might makes it right" applies here. If Islam rules the world shariah law would be in place everywhere. If the atheists rule the world a constant fluxing politically correct law with no real logical basis will be in place. If the Christians rule the world Christian law would be put in place. If the Jews rule the world, Jewish law would be in place. If the Hindus rule the world no law would be in place because order would be impossible with such a complicated religion. Thugees would like murder legalized while the Jains would want everyone to wear a mask so they did not kill a bug by accidently breathing one in.
But these one world orders will never happen, didn't ever happen in the past so what are the odds of it happening in the future? So being paranoid about Islam or whatever religion or political force is not worth it. No one knows whom God is backing at any given time. Empires rise and fall.
Humility and tolrance is the key, try to live the best you can without the delusions of granduer, except for me LOL.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Karl, that is just my point. I don't believe we have to live by the principle of "might makes right", nor even should we try. I believe that majority governments should, as a moral imperative, rule in such a way as to respect the rights of the minorities whom they govern. Anything less than that means that there will always be war as those not in power seek to gain power so that they can have their way, at least until they lose power as well. This is why I said that I am not afraid of Muslims uniting, if (and after reading the views of some I guess that is a bigger IF than I originally thought), if it thinks along the lines of leaders like Anwar El Sadat or Abdullah II bin al-Hussein. On the other hand, if the unified Islamic thought is similar to that of the Taliban, then I would definitely see that as something to rightly be feared, for they do not practice what I understand to be the genuine teachings of Islam, but a perversion of it that they seek to force on all others as well.

However, what I now understand aadil to be talking about is not the idea of their being no more fighting amoung Muslims and the reading a consensus state of mind being reached within the Ummah, but a political entity such as the khalifa being re-established. Whether that is something to be feared or not would depend largely on the means by which they were to form and hold power. The Hizbut Tahrir movement officially seems to try to walk a very fine line of being pro-Islamic reunification without espousing violence. But I'm not convinced that all of those who flock to it care to actually make, and certainly don't practice, that distinction.

 

[Karl]

Karl, that is just my point. I don't believe we have to live by the principle of "might makes right", nor even should we try. I believe that majority governments should, as a moral imperative, rule in such a way as to respect the rights of the minorities whom they govern. Anything less than that means that there will always be war as those not in power seek to gain power so that they can have their way, at least until they lose power as well. This is why I said that I am not afraid of Muslims uniting, if (and after reading the views of some I guess that is a bigger IF than I originally thought), if it thinks along the lines of leaders like Anwar El Sadat or Abdullah II bin al-Hussein. On the other hand, if the unified Islamic thought is similar to that of the Taliban, then I would definitely see that as something to rightly be feared, for they do not practice what I understand to be the genuine teachings of Islam, but a perversion of it that they seek to force on all others as well.

However, what I now understand aadil to be talking about is not the idea of their being no more fighting amoung Muslims and the reading a consensus state of mind being reached within the Ummah, but a political entity such as the khalifa being re-established. Whether that is something to be feared or not would depend largely on the means by which they were to form and hold power. The Hizbut Tahrir movement officially seems to try to walk a very fine line of being pro-Islamic reunification without espousing violence. But I'm not convinced that all of those who flock to it care to actually make, and certainly don't practice, that distinction.

"Might makes right" is a universal maxim not just a political one eg the stars hold the planets on their courses as they have the might and power and the lion eats the impala etc.
But as a rule things get ugly when people get in large numbers as they are a preditory animal at the top of the food chain and they can turn on each other like wild dogs. That is the problem with humanism and all that touchy feely righteous stuff, humans are the most malevolent life form on the planet.
Minorities rights are usually crushed by the majority as the law favours the masses.
Sadat was seen as a traitor to Islam for selling out to the Zionist Isrealis and machine gunned by his own soldier.
I think the main reason for the focus and paranoia of Islam is because the great world powers have such powerful nuclear arsenals that they are too scared to have world war three in fear of total obliteration. They are not safe in their ivory towers anymore and they are not prepared to live underground yet. So Islam makes for a scapegoat for them to play war with these little skirmishes and stubborn insurgents. And war makes the money go round.
Btw the Taliban can't be as bad as you think, they do have a growing support in Afghanistan, I think they are severe but fair and that works in that land.

 

[Salahudeen]

Even as a non-Muslim I find it sad to see Muslims (or any other group of people) fighting with each other. But why should non-Muslims be worried about Muslims being united? You seem to imply we have something to fear from a united Ummah.

Well it's easier to attack a lone sheep and steal his precious belongings and dominate/control him, as opposed to a sheep who's in a herd.

 

[Vigno]

Well it's easier to attack a lone sheep and steal his precious belongings and dominate/control him, as opposed to a sheep who's in a herd.

Good point.

I think the time all muslims will make an effort to wipe a tear off another muslim, that's maybe the time we ll start being one Ummah. But for now, they are mostly careless about one another. I placed a thread before about love for country more than Islam. Muslims these days fall in this category coz they would support someone from their country but not someone from their religion.

Sad really, but we need to make an effort to change that and not just stand and watch or take part in this loss.
And Allah knows best.

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

The answer is given in the Quran; as quoted below. Muslims are an Ummah for the whole of humanity; not only restricted to Muslims.



:wa:

So when EDL came near my road shouting their heads off how "shariah law" would affect them. Basically there are some truth to that. When non Muslims say we intend to enforce a particular belief on them, there are some truth in that too. When they say we are trying to take over the world, again there is some truth to that?

So why do we respond to them that Shariah law would not affect them but only us when in actual fact it does affect them.

And you haven't answered my questions. Christian law is for Christians?

where does an atheist came into this. Would we force a particular religious law on them? And what about those Christians or Jews that want to live in secular state?

The Quran also says there is no compulsion in Islam. Forcing them to live in certain way, does not live up to that statement.

Christians should be able to deal with each other unless their crimes crossover to us. They would govern each other. And Atheist would do the same. That is how I understood it.

So when we say shariah law doesn't no way affect them, is actually false. Because not all Christians follow the same laws but under Islamic state or "ummah" we would force them to follow that law.

Why do muslims say we are not trying to take over the world and we are not trying to force belief or law on them? When according to you, we are. :hmm:

Their paranoia is somewhat justified?

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

And if Muslims were to live under one set of Islamic law then how would all four school of thought would be sorted out?

And before anyone jumps on me and say there is little differences. The differences are there especially in enforcing punishments and family law. Just a thought...

 

[أحمد]

So when EDL came near my road shouting their heads off how "shariah law" would affect them. Basically there are some truth to that. When non Muslims say we intend to enforce a particular belief on them, there are some truth in that too. When they say we are trying to take over the world, again there is some truth to that?

So why do we respond to them that Shariah law would not affect them but only us when in actual fact it does affect them.

And you haven't answered my questions. Christian law is for Christians?

where does an atheist came into this. Would we force a particular religious law on them? And what about those Christians or Jews that want to live in secular state?

The Quran also says there is no compulsion in Islam. Forcing them to live in certain way, does not live up to that statement.

Christians should be able to deal with each other unless their crimes crossover to us. They would govern each other. And Atheist would do the same. That is how I understood it.

So when we say shariah law doesn't no way affect them, is actually false. Because not all Christians follow the same laws but under Islamic state or "ummah" we would force them to follow that law.

Why do muslims say we are not trying to take over the world and we are not trying to force belief or law on them? When according to you, we are. :hmm:

Their paranoia is somewhat justified?

There's a difference between "taking over the world" and "implementing laws in a state run by your government"; don't jump to taking over the world and attribute it to "according to" anyone, especially if its nothing in comparison to the point being discussed in the referenced post.

Before discussing this matter any further; kindly show me where I said anything about "trying to take over the world".

:wa:

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

There's a difference between "taking over the world" and "implementing laws in a state run by your government"; don't jump to taking over the world and attribute it to "according to" anyone, especially if its nothing in comparison to the point being discussed in the referenced post.

Before discussing this matter any further; kindly show me where I said anything about "trying to take over the world".

:wa:

Why are you so angry? I am not going to write back if you continue to write back in that manner. Frankly I don't want to sin and it is Ramadan.

Humanity refers to the whole world. Or do you think a particular country is humanity huh?

And you haven't answered my other questions.

 

[أحمد]

Why you so angry? I am not going to write back if you continue to write back in that manner. Frankly I don't want to sin and it is Ramadan.

Humanity refers to the whole world. Or do you think a particular country is humanity huh?

And you haven't answered my other questions.

I'm not angry; I merely suggested you don't make any false accusations. You'll find the answers in earlier posts, I have no objection whether or not you chose to continue this discussion. If you wish to continue; try to do so without the need to deviate anything said in my posts. I was talking on the topic of law in Islamic State, NOT about "trying to take over the world".

:wa:

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

I'm not angry; I merely suggested you don't make any false accusations. You'll find the answers in earlier posts, I have no objection whether or not you chose to continue this discussion. If you wish to continue; try to do so without the need to deviate anything said in my posts. I was talking on the topic of law in Islamic State, NOT about "trying to take over the world".

:wa:

Okay then. How would an Islamic state deal with an atheist then or Christian who believe in secular law rather than Christian law (who don't even see this as part of their religion)? Are we going to force them to follow a religious law? Are we going to ban them from drinking alcohol or are we going to let them create their own state? Or are you talking about those who choose to live amongst us or those who that are in the same country but are separate from us? Like Christians and atheist in Egypt? What would happen to them if they don't believe in religious law?

My comment on taking over the world is suggesting where the paranoia of some non Muslims came from.