Who wants to live in a theocracy?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

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

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings wilberhum,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this demonstrates at least some kind of equality!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Keltoi]

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

 

[wilberhum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wilberhum]

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

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

 

[Muezzin]

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

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

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

Enlighten me.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

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

 

[wilberhum]

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

Please show me where.

 

[KAding]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

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

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace.

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

 

[therebbe]

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

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

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

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

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

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

Peace

 

[therebbe]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi therebbe,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

Peace.

 

[KAding]

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

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

 

[nishom]

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

 

[Abdul Fattah]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KAding]

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

An interesting read. Thank you steve.

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

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

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

 

[Abdul Fattah]

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