My question is since Muslims are a Minority in the Western World and many other Non M

[truthseeker63]

As Salaam Alaikum my question is since Muslims are a Minority in the Western World and many other Non Muslim Nations should Muslims be calling for Sharia is an Nation State where Non Muslims are the Majority or the Vast Majority ? Traditionally the Western World has been Majority Non Muslim and there are Muslim Majority Nations which do not have Sharia they are Secular my point is I went to meeting at the local Islamic Center where I pray and we had a night where Non Muslims could come and the Speaker who is a Muslim was saying many Non Muslims in America think Muslims are trying to force Sharia on America as the law of the land right now he point out that America is Majority Christian but Abortion is Legal and the Christians that are Anti Abortion or Pro Life must obey the Pro Choice Laws anyway should Muslims obey the Law of a Non Muslim Nation if it is not Haram or Halal or what can anyone explain ? My final question does the history Prophet Muhammad and his Followers living among the Pagan Arabs tell us anything about this topic thank you please reply please look at the link below ?

http://www.defendingreligiousfreedom.com/

[aamirsaab]

This whole topic is moot for several reasons:

1) Sharia as a form of government is not allowed in non-muslim countries (this is an Islamic ruling btw). What we have currently in the UK is merely a form of mediation (that is optional as opposed to mandatory) concentrating primarily on marital/civil relationships akin to the Jewish Beth Din (both of which the UK government has allowed to enter the country)

2) I don't know why there is hoo ha over the fact that some people are asking for sharia to be implemented - last time I checked, freedom of speech applied to everyone right? And it's not likely any government is ever going to implement sharia, certainly not to the extent some want at least, in the west anyway....there's not even a muslim party in office.

3) The few muslims who want Sharia in the west wouldn't actually benefit any more than they are currently doing without it. If you can and are practicing your religion properly, does it matter what legal system you are under? Does it matter if homosexuality isn't a crime? Or the consumption of alchohol isn't a crime? Or fornication isn't a crime? As Muslims, we aren't supposed to indulge in those acts anyway so we are and would be living under the laws of Sharia irrespective of the current laws of the land*. In fact, the only Muslims who would be affected by a change in government to sharia style, would be the ones who are committing crimes as they would end up receiving harsher punishments! So I do heavily question why certain Muslims want sharia so badly in non-Muslim countries...


4) A true and fully implemented Sharia government would basically be the same overall system we currently have in the UK. Banking and financial structure would be very similar; NHS-medical style system; benefit style system for the poor/unemployed etc. The whole infrastructure would basically be the same. So even if all the pieces were in place (A caliphate; the country you want sharia implemented in is considered an Islamic state by said caliphate; said caliphate has come to agreement that said country is applicable for sharia etc etc), why would any country bother replacing their existing infrastructure with another one almost identically the same albeit with Islam's "stamp of approval"? It would be completely unnecessary and pointless (not to mention a complete waste of time AND resources, both of which would be better spent on the citizens or you know charity!) - which is part of the reason Islam's stance is NO SHARIA (as a form of government and legal body for criminal justice) IN NON-MUSLIM LANDS.



* Obviously if something halal in Islam is considered illegal (e.g polygamy or in some cases certain corruptions in the state/economy) in the country you reside in, then you must obey the law of the land (common sense applies). This is not a contradiction or a sin, it's just to ensure justice and peace (both of which are paramount under Islamic principles) in the land. Similarly, anything that is considered forbidden in Islam, but acceptable in the country you reside in, we, as Muslims, must abstain from because it is still a sin to commit the act!

[Vito]

I personally don't see any problem if they want to implement some of the Islamic laws if it could benefit the land. We (America) aren't exactly in tip top shape so...

[Born_Believer]

There is such a tiny minority within the Muslim community that wants Sharia law in the UK or any other Western, non-Muslim nation that it's ridiculous how much media coverage they receive, having said that, they are perfectly within their rights to ask for it, freedom of speech and democracy should allow it, shouldn't they?

[Independent]

There is such a tiny minority within the Muslim community that wants Sharia law in the UK or any other Western, non-Muslim nation that it's ridiculous how much media coverage they receive, having said that, they are perfectly within their rights to ask for it, freedom of speech and democracy should allow it, shouldn't they?

And in actual fact they have been permitted to ask for it, so the principle of free speech has been upheld here. Naturally it's not a popular suggestion and they get a bad press for it - but that's hardly surprising given that they are, as you say, a tiny minority.

Unfortunately from a public awareness issue some of them also like to give the impression that this is what all Muslims want, in all countries. Individual Muslims are making big claims on behalf of Islam in general. It's very hard for a non-Muslim audience to discriminate between the different views. (Which are enormously varied on this website, as well as in society.)

[aamirsaab]

There is such a tiny minority within the Muslim community that wants Sharia law in the UK or any other Western, non-Muslim nation that it's ridiculous how much media coverage they receive, having said that, they are perfectly within their rights to ask for it, freedom of speech and democracy should allow it, shouldn't they?

Indeed they are allowed to ask for it. I just question their motives, because as I said in my post prior, they (and pretty much any other Muslim) wouldn't benefit from it any more than they are doing so now without Sharia as a form of Government/legal body. The only real difference such a change would make is harsher punishments for Muslim criminals (as the hudd punishments are not applicable for non-Muslim criminals) - the rest would essentially remain the same with minor differences (which are topics in and of themselves), so what exactly would be the point?! It's like, sure you can ask for it, but why exactly? If you are a Muslim, you should be adhering to the Sharia anyway...

Sociologically speaking, I could put these calls for Sharia in the West, all down to hot air, ranting and raving (there's always one group of people talking a lot of crap and making very little sense!). That and the fact that they really don't know jack about their own religion...I wouldn't even call it dogmatism, just sheer ignorance really. Which'd be heartbreaking if it wasn't so embarrassing.

[~Zaria~]

This whole topic is moot for several reasons:

1) Sharia as a form of government is not allowed in non-muslim countries (this is an Islamic ruling btw). What we have currently in the UK is merely a form of mediation (that is optional as opposed to mandatory) concentrating primarily on marital/civil relationships akin to the Jewish Beth Din (both of which the UK government has allowed to enter the country)

2) I don't know why there is hoo ha over the fact that some people are asking for sharia to be implemented - last time I checked, freedom of speech applied to everyone right? And it's not likely any government is ever going to implement sharia (to the extent some want at least) in the west anyway....(there's not even a muslim party in office...)

3) The few muslims who want Sharia in the west wouldn't actually benefit any more than they are currently doing without it. If you can and are practicing your religion properly, does it matter what legal system you are under? Does it matter if homosexuality isn't a crime? Or the consumption of alchohol isn't a crime? Or fornication isn't a crime? As Muslims, we aren't supposed to indulge in those acts anyway so we are and would be living under the laws of Sharia irrespective of the current laws of the land*. In fact, the only Muslims who would be affected by a change in government to sharia style, would be the ones who are committing crimes as they would end up receiving harsher punishments! So I do heavily question why certain Muslims want sharia so badly in non-Muslim countries...


4) A true and fully implemented Sharia government would basically be the same overall system we currently have in the UK. Banking and financial structure would be very similar; NHS-medical style system; benefit style system for the poor/unemployed etc. The whole infrastructure would basically be the same - so even if all the pieces were in place (A caliphate; the country you want sharia implemented in is considered an Islamic state by said caliphate; said caliphate has come to agreement that said country is applicable for sharia etc etc), why would any country bother replacing their existing infrastructure with another one almost identically the same albeit with Islam's "stamp of approval"? It would be completely unnecessary and pointless (not to mention a complete waste of time AND resources, both of which would be better spent on the citizens or you know charity!) - which is part of the reason Islam's stance is NO SHARIA (as a form of government and legal body for criminal justice) IN NON-MUSLIM LANDS.



* Obviously if something halal in Islam is considered illegal in the country you reside in, then you must obey the law of the land. This is not a contradiction or a sin, it's just to ensure justice and peace (both of which are paramount under Islamic principles) in the land. Similarly, anything that is considered forbidden in Islam, but acceptable in the country you reside in, we, as Muslims, must abstain from because it is still a sin to commit the act!

brother,


I think most muslims can accept that when living in a non-muslim country, it is encumbent upon us to obey the laws of the land (so long as we are not violating the commands of Allah (subhanawataála) upon us).

Having said this, I think that as muslims, we should have a burning desire within our hearts to have the law of Allah Taa'la govern us (even if it does not appear to be possible for years to come).

A few years ago, a local prominent muslim agency was involved in calling upon muslims in my country, to vote in the national elections.
SubhanAllah, this worried me to such a point, that I decided to write to them.
In shaa Allah, from this letter, you will be able to understand another aspect to this:

Assalaamu-alaikum,

I refer to ***** email, calling on the community to vote in the up-coming local elections.


I fully understand the importance of the local elections....the need to elect competent representatives, and to improve service delivery. However, although the intentions behind these elections may be noble, we have to remember that before being 'South African', we are in fact firstly, and more importantly 'Muslim'.

And therefore, I find it difficult to understand, how a leading muslim authority such as *****, has found itself promoting these elections. As we are aware, there is NO political party in this country at present, that follows practices based on Quraan and Sunnah - the law of Allah (subhanawataála), and the life of our beloved prophet (sallalahu alaihi wasalam).



How many islamically unlawful/ haraam legislations have been passed by these same political fronts thus far? Too many to list all: taking into account our current laws on abortion, gay 'rights', riba...to name just a few. A vote for such laws, that fly in the face of the supreme law of Allah (subhanawataála)....is that not a form of shirk??


I refer to a lecture by Sheik Imran Nazer Hossein: 'Islam and the Political Order':


"The new model of a state has to submit to the UN Charter and articles 24 and 25 in the charter states that supreme authority in the world, in all matters pertaining to international peace and security resides with the security council of the United Nations – Not Allah.
That’s shirk.
The new model of a state says that the supreme law is the international law; the supreme law is the law that comes out of parliament, not Allah’s law.
That’s shirk.
And the new model of a state says that Allah can make it haram, but we can make it halaal. That also is shirk.


Allah says in Surat-ul Tauba: ‘They took their priests and rabbis as lords and Gods besides Allah. And they did the same with the son of Mary. But they had not been ordered but to worship one God. There’s no God but Him... ” So a man came to the prophet, and said, ‘O messenger of Allah, the Christians don’t worship their priests, and the Jews don’t worship their rabbis. How could Allah say that?'
To which the prophet replied and said, ‘Did they not make halaal, that which Allah made haram?’ That’s shirk.
E.g. By declaring that it is haram for an Israelite to lend money on interest to another Israelite, but money can be lent on interest to those who are not Israelite.

By making halaal, what Allah had made haram, you have committed shirk.
And when the people allow them to do that, and follow them, then that is their shirk.

And so we ask the question: If they made halaal what Allah had made haram, and that is shirk….then if parliament does the same thing, will that not be shirk?
If the government of the United States of America, makes halaal what Allah made haram, is that not shirk?

And if you accept it by pledging your allegiance to the US constitution, whether you know, or you don’t know, is it not shirk?

When you go and vote in elections for a party, which has agreed to make halaal what Allah has made haram, are you not becoming part of that shirk?

And so now we are introduced to modern, political secularisation, and the conception of a state which has emerged to replace the khilafat state... with a universal shirk of the modern age." (end quote)



Indeed the prophet (SAW) said that shirk will be so difficult to recognise, 'as it would be difficult to recognise a black ant, on a black stone, on a dark night.'

As much as I would have loved to place my vote, and have a say in these elections, I have to realize that I unfortunately do not live in an islamic state, and that the law of my ALLAH comes before the law of any man-made political system. Perhaps one day, in shaa Allah, if an Islamic party, upholding our Quraan and Sunnah, should grace our political arena, I will re-consider. But for now, I will not be voting in these elections.

And I would hope, that an islamic body such as ***** would also realise the implications, before calling on the ummah to vote in such an election.

JazakumAllah khair for the time spent to read this.

I never did receive a reply to this email. Allah knows best if it was even read.

I am aware that many muslims may not feel in the same way, and will continue to be instrumental in placing into power those very people who neglect, and even mock at the law that our Rabb has commanded us to follow.

For myself and others, the only law that we could ever support, and will continue to make duaa for, is Shariah law.

[aamirsaab]

[snip]

I am aware that many muslims may not feel in the same way, and will continue to be instrumental in placing into power those very people who neglect, and even mock at the law that our Rabb has commanded us to follow.

For myself and others, the only law that we could ever support, and will continue to make duaa for, is Shariah law.

Thank you for the information sister.

What you are talking about is tangenial to the original topic. And whilst I agree with most of what you say, there are differences of opinions when it comes to the topic of voting in non-muslim lands. I don't have the inclination nor time to get involved in such a discussion but rest assured I fully understand your point and perspective.

[introspective]

Unfortunately, there isn't a definitive ijma' (إجماع) on how to implement Sharia in a modern day context.

[Born_Believer]

I'd just like to clarify my point further. I believe the Sharia should be implemented because it is the perfect law, Allah's law, there are no contradictions and it is true justice. If I had it my way, Sharia in Britain would work and it would in fact be advantageous to the population, Muslim or non-Muslim. The problem is that Sharia has not been implemented in Muslim states around the world so how can we expect to have it here in a country where 95% or more of the population is non-Muslim?

[introspective]

If I had it my way, Sharia in Britain would work and it would in fact be advantageous to the population, Muslim or non-Muslim. The problem is that Sharia has not been implemented in Muslim states around the world so how can we expect to have it here in a country where 95% or more of the population is non-Muslim?

One step at a time brother. Enacting change starts with reforming oneself, which is the hardest struggle.

Don't worry, our ascendancy to the upper echelons of society will happen when the time comes, but we have to do our part.

[Karl]

These Muslims wanting Sharia law in non Muslim countries are just trying to be important, they know it is futile. They are just making a noise for the sake of their ego. The first rule in politics is to keep the mob happy. You have to at least "educate" (brainwash) the mob to believe in your policies or bribe them into supporting you. So Sharia will only work if a large majority are devout Muslims within a nation.

[Ahmad H]

4:59 O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

I don't believe this verse is so one-dimensional in meaning as to only talk about Muslim authority and that the Qur'an never spoke to non-Muslims ruling over Muslims. We are to follow authority unless we are asked to do something against the Islamic Shari'a. Unless some of you see laws of the Western nations which directly coerce you into doing something un-Islamic, there is nothing wrong with following the law of that land.

In secular law, everyone of every religion is free to do as they please. The Sharia differs in criminal justice and in some other areas like marriage. But in these countries you can get an Islamic marriage certificate along with the country's marriage certificate as well, if I'm not mistaken. As for punishments in Sharia, they are meant for Muslims only, since the punishment are meant to rectify a wrong that a Muslim did in this life rather than suffer it in the Hereafter. That doesn't apply to Kafirs. So from what I can see, there is no law implemented which interferes with the Islamic rule of justice, unless you wanted to argue that Muslims should have a separate criminal justice based upon Sharia law. In that case, the law would be applicable to Muslims only, and not to anyone else. So there is no real interference except for the implementation of such laws which are inconvenient to a Western nation, to say the least.

There is a lot that can be said about this. But the bottom-line is that if no Muslim is forced to do anything un-Islamic or not allowed to follow certain Islamic practices, then there is not really much to complain about then. But if something un-Islamic is issued, then we can speak up against that and disregard that law of the land which we would be forced to follow.

As for Imams and anyone who is of Islamic authority, they are obeyed without question, unless they implement something against the Sharia themselves. But that is usually not the case, so as Muslims we don't worry about that. Does anyone disagree with what I said? I wanted to share my views on this.

[islamica]

* Obviously if something halal in Islam is considered illegal in the country you reside in, then you must obey the law of the land. This is not a contradiction or a sin, it's just to ensure justice and peace (both of which are paramount under Islamic principles) in the land.

So does that mean then we should stop wearing hijab in France?


Or in UK with this new law coming,

In Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
• They promote Sharia law.
• They believe in Jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So should we do as they say and become kuffar?

[aamirsaab]

So does that mean then we should stop wearing hijab in France?

The hijab ban in France (or any other country espousing freedoms) is a stupid, unjust and hypocritical law. I'd highly encourage people to lobby against it (and any other similar kind of unjust law that sepcifically targets a certain group of people) in a civilized manner.

Until then, you kind of have to obey the laws unless you want a fine or prison sentence...both of which mean more trouble for you! No point in playing martyr ("I'm going to wear hijab, I don't care if they fine me!!!!") if it won't change a thing. What will create change is civilized and rational discourse; voting for a fairer (less retarded) governing party and playing by the rules of the system. Yes it's not ideal, but that's what the system is - if you don't like it, change it! You want to change the system? You need to understand the rules, otherwise you will never see or make change. Utilise you freedom of speech; your god-given intelligence; and play by the system's rules so you can make true change.

Or in UK with this new law coming,

In Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
• They promote Sharia law.
• They believe in Jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So should we do as they say and become kuffar?

See above.

Please don't twist my words and/or nit pick on minutia - a little common sense on your part is all that is needed to understand any of my posts

[Tyrion]

You have to at least "educate" (brainwash) the mob to believe in your policies or bribe them into supporting you. So Sharia will only work if a large majority are devout Muslims within

So that they can brainwash the mob to believe in their policies? I'm not gonna weigh in with my thoughts on implementing some people's version of shariah, but it seems strange how you worded that.

[Karl]

So that they can brainwash the mob to believe in their policies? I'm not gonna weigh in with my thoughts on implementing some people's version of shariah, but it seems strange how you worded that.

OK conditioning if you like. Zionists own most of the Western media so they have free reign in "educating" conditioning the masses to be pro Israel and modern pseudo Jewish and anti Islam. The media always makes a big fuss of Islam and panders and fawns over apostate Muslims that want to criticize their religion.

If you can't have Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia the centre of Islam and all the other Muslim nations, how can you do it in Europe? The vast majority of Europeans are not Muslims.

[chuckla]

Napoleon wanted to implement Sharia law for the whole world. I have never met a Muslim who wanted or advocated Sharia law in America. Most Muslims I have met are shy about their religion to outsiders, unless you show a genuine interest that you want to learn about Islam. Most Westerners are very ignorant about Islam, The holy Quran, and about Muhammad! Listen to right wing radio talk shows! They slam Islam horribly, without knowing the first thing about it. If you live in a country you are subject to it's laws. As far as the Prophet Muhammad and his followers living among the Pagan Arabs, they were greatly persecuted until they fled to Yathrib (Medina). There Muhammad and his followers carried on a 13 year war against the Pagans. Although illiterate and without military training, Muhammad was a natural military tactician. Time and time again he defeated the Pagans even though greatly outnumbered most of the time. From what I have read about Sharia Law it is based entirely on the Holy Quran. I have never read anything in the Quran that contradicts the basic principles outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Pro choice means you can be 'Pro life', it's your choice.