FOR NON-MUSLIMS: What policy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fishman
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 44
  • Views Views 5K

Which policy do you want


  • Total voters
    0
:sl:
Atheism is a religion. Athiests have no proof that there is no God. They reject God through at least as much faith as Believers.
:w:

You can have faith, without 'proof', in many things... that doesn't mean they are all religions!
 
Posted by Fishman
They are/were based on religious laws. whether they follow the true Islamic laws is a different matter.

Okay, will U like to live under a theocratic state?
 
to those muslims who would like to live under shar'iah -
altho the shariah may be a perfect system - you do realize that it would be interpreted and carried out by human beings, whose interests are often less than holy?
 
to those muslims who would like to live under shar'iah -
altho the shariah may be a perfect system - you do realize that it would be interpreted and carried out by human beings, whose interests are often less than holy?
:sl:
There will be no true Islamic state until the Madhi comes. His interests will be completely holy, and after the events that accompany the coming of the Mahdi take place, nobody would dare take power for themselves instead of for the sake of Allaah (swt).
:w:
 
I picked “Secular Light” but really what I want is “Secular Heavy”.
I want total separation of church and state.
The poll I took “Who wants to live in a Theocracy”, no non-Muslim wanted a theocracy.
I want equality. I don’t want special privileges given out because of one’s religion and I don’t want laws that give any special/different privileges to any group.
 
:sl:
There will be no true Islamic state until the Madhi comes. His interests will be completely holy, and after the events that accompany the coming of the Mahdi take place, nobody would dare take power for themselves instead of for the sake of Allaah (swt).
:w:
are you saying that no muslim state should attempt to define itself as "islamic republic of", etc? so when muslims are saying how much they would love to live under shari'ah, they mean when the mahdi comes? do you think a muslim state should attempt it in the meanwhile, or wait for the mahdi?
i was thinking of the blasphemy laws for example. it is a simple matter for a corrupt person to claim that somebody said something blasphemous about the prophet, for example, pay a couple of witnesses, and get the person packed off to rot in prision for revenge or other less than pure motives.
 
do you think a muslim state should attempt it in the meanwhile, or wait for the mahdi?
:sl:
Oh yes, an attempt to make such a state should certainly be made. It would definitely fail somehow, but Allaah (swt) doesn't help those who don't try to help themselves.
:w:
 
:sl:
There will be no true Islamic state until the Madhi comes. His interests will be completely holy, and after the events that accompany the coming of the Mahdi take place, nobody would dare take power for themselves instead of for the sake of Allaah (swt).
:w:

do you find the concept of death for blasphemy and death for deliberately neglecting your prayers acceptable?
 
Malaysia - light theocracy?

You're making the Islamists laughing... But I think that ... yeah ... why not calling Malaysia a 'light-theocracy' country.:okay:

If you read the history... Malaysia was INTENDED to be a Secular country... just look at our flag (you can see which country WAS our inspiration).

Islamisation started in 1980s....
 
Malaysia - light theocracy?

You're making the Islamists laughing... But I think that ... yeah ... why not calling Malaysia a 'light-theocracy' country.:okay:

If you read the history... Malaysia was INTENDED to be a Secular country... just look at our flag (you can see which country WAS our inspiration).

Islamisation started in 1980s....
:sl:
I know malaysia was intended to be a secular country, and about the US flag thing. But the good thing is that Malaysia has been Islamised without a war, through the choice of the people. I view Malaysia as one of the best Muslim countries in the world. It implements Islamic rules and laws (but unfortunately not all of them), without turning into Taliban-like extremism. It is also a country of the people, where the rich and the poor are relatively close together in wealth, as opposed to some of the gulf states (UAE in particular), which are comprised by a tiny upper class of rich capitalist oilmen, and a huge underclass of poor construction workers.
:w:
 
:sl:

I don't see Canada; which should be. Canada has the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in constitution. Hence, every muslim is protected by that, free to practise it's belief, religion, and conscience without being discriminated or baised. Also, Equality Rights as well. Now that's a system that should be world wide! Which is better than Britain, USA no offense.

:w:
 
:sl:
I know malaysia was intended to be a secular country

That's one of a condition the British gave in order to set us free without spilling any blood.

and about the US flag thing.

Luckily the government didnt change our flag, which might be inspired by Japanese flag when they started 'Looking East Policy' in 1980s.

But the good thing is that Malaysia has been Islamised without a war, through the choice of the people. I view Malaysia as one of the best Muslim countries in the world. It implements Islamic rules and laws (but unfortunately not all of them), without turning into Taliban-like extremism.

I could agree with this point.

..as opposed to some of the gulf states (UAE in particular), which are comprised by a tiny upper class of rich capitalist oilmen, and a huge underclass of poor construction workers.

Actually, Malaysia IS GOING TO BE like that, many of us treat the 3 millions immigrants like dirts....:cry:

Anti-immigrant statements exist everywhere.. in the media, comic books, etc.
 
I don't believe religious minorities should be tolerated to exist in any country.
If it is a christian country then you should be christian, be quiet, or leave.
If it is a muslim country then you should be muslim, be quiet, or leave.

Then you would not have the problems associated with multi-religious societies. Britain for example could state that if you immigrate to Britain, only christian faith will be tolerated. Saudi could say only Islam will be tolerated (they kind of already say that though).
 
I don't believe religious minorities should be tolerated to exist in any country.
If it is a christian country then you should be christian, be quiet, or leave.
If it is a muslim country then you should be muslim, be quiet, or leave.

Then you would not have the problems associated with multi-religious societies. Britain for example could state that if you immigrate to Britain, only christian faith will be tolerated. Saudi could say only Islam will be tolerated (they kind of already say that though).
Question: were you drunk when you wrote this?
 
i would prefer a secular government, with no religion in it at all, and where religion doesn't influence decision.

although i am a devout christian, i disagree with imposing morals on everyone, christian or non chrisitan. i am a christian, and yes, i should follow the Bible and the rules.. but i shouldn't impose it on everyone else. people should be able to live their lives how they want, and not be told what to do because of religion. now if they choose to be told what to do because of their religion, then they can do what their religion says.. but don't make everyone else do so!
 
No, I had a few, but I wasn't even close to drunk.
Okay. It just seemed a bit... well, extreme. Needless to say, I disagree with that post. Tolerance in all its forms is a great boon to society.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top