How is sharia to be implemented, in Muslim countries?

[azc]

lets be honest the world has no place for idealists..it has always lived with violence. ..thats why the world still has armies.im not nieve enough to think that they would treat you or i any different..although it may be orientalism..you wanna go give it a try?but most of the time, battles are won and lost long before any battlefield is reached.....probably.hope to god you never throw your lot in with the wrong people..and have to answer for someone elses mistakes.

Do you think if Islam is a religion of peace...?

 

[Scimitar]

Lol this is where I get the popcorn out

 

[M.I.A.]

iv seen some of the best people say some of the worst things..

yes, islam is a religion of peace.

..
although some people would not agree..


its a learning experience.

dead men dont lie.

honestly mate..

you go to the wrong place you would have to watch your back, the windows and the corners.

you know i think thats really enough for today. lol.

 

[azc]

iv seen some of the best people say some of the worst things..yes, islam is a religion of peace...although some people would not agree.. its a learning experience.dead men dont lie.honestly mate..you go to the wrong place you would have to watch your back, the windows and the corners.

if a non Muslim reads the posts of bro huzaifa what he will say about Islam....?

 

[M.I.A.]

? i dont know..

they will write whatever they are willing to write..

if they write it accidentally.. that takes a lot of effort on their own part..

i dont know what can be said about his posts.

every comedian needs a straight-man.
..
who is the arrow maker?


(you know i dont know what right i have to post on the matter? i sell cakes and icecream for a living!)

 

[Scimitar]

For the "historical" record, guys, Islam did not spread by the sword.

I have a thread on this somewhere on this forum, where I have quoted non Muslim historians presenting the case for the spread of Islam - they attributed the spread of Islam down to the power of ideas, especially in how acceptable and natural our theology is - also they mentioned trade and commerce, and cementing foreign relations with other nations.

As for the case of Persia - If the Muslims had not stepped in, Rome and Persia would have mutually destroyed each other.

Both nations were already weak beyond repair and engaged in battles which would have seen them both wiped out.

If it wasn't for the Muslims taking Persia at the request of the Persians who were unhappy with their King, the Muslims would have left them alone. But can a Muslim deny help to one who asks for it? NO. And if in helping, an opoportunity presents itself to preach Islam in the process, then that is not conquest - more "re-quest".

This also facilitated the first peace treaty between Ar Rum and the Muslims. King Herod presented a treaty to the Muslims and his Coptic Christians of Egypt which he, King Herod broke, the copts therefore despised their King Herod and kept the treaty anyeay - this facilitated the entry into Egypt for the Muslims and this is how North Africa was educated on Islam.

No conquest. Just opportunity.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Want me to move onto Syria? Iraq? India?

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

I wonder, how many of you have actually studied the spread of Islam properly.

And not just from what is written in the Arab books.

Comparatively, there is a lot more to be learnt.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Sharee`ah is only ever implemented through Jihaad.

If you mean struggle, then yes - not by the sword.

Democracy is Kufr and opposes Islaam. It's a religion on its own.

So the process by which the first Khaliphs were selected was not democratic?

I believe the purest form of democracy is that which the Salaf came up with after the demise of our prophet pbuh.

They had to choose a leader from themselves, the process was up for vote among the learnt. The chose Abu Bakr as Siddique RA and he did not even seek the position of Khaliph - that is a sign of a true leader.

Contrast to today and we find inversions of this Democratic process in play today. TO call it a religion is silly, as democracy does not have any theology to promote or believe in. Nor is it a judicial system, but a system pf election for leadership, and vote.

And Da`wah - even generations of it - will not cause the Kaafir countries to give up their man-made laws and replace it with Sharee`ah. That's not going to happen. The only thing that has ever brought Sharee`ah rule to any land has always only been Jihaad.

والسلام

Define it.

I'd rather claim that Islam came to foreign nations thru opportunity which Allah manifested in the favour of the Muslimeen.

To call it a struggle would be far fetched, in most cases, Islam spread effortlessly and easily, while the Muslims were outnumbered in foreign lands. Allah aided the Muslims.

Surely you have heard of the town with walls who had a camp of Muslims outside trading, causing controversy and intrigue among the towns inhabitants - their curiosity was halved when they saw how a shirt which was gifted had passed around each Muslim until ending up with the first again, seeing the love among the Muslim brothers, inspired the town folk to go speak to the Muslims about their beliefs and this was their invitation to Islam, and not a sword in sight.

There are many stories like this.

Scimi

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

I don't have too much time at the moment, so I'll only say a few words right now:

1) [MENTION=8252]brother[/MENTION] azc: That is a baseless accusation. I have said exactly what Islaam has to say about the matter. You say that Islaam is a religion of peace. I would ask you to explain that. If you mean Islaam is a religion of Gandhism, of pacifism, then I must tell you that it most certainly is not. Islaam believes 100% in Jihaad; both defensive Jihaad and offensive Jihaad. It's part of the Qur'aan itself. Anyone who thinks that he can deny it in order to make the Kuffaar happy is fooling himself. Let those Kuffaar open up the Qur'aan and read it, and they will tell him, "You're not fooling any of us. You're not even fooling your grandmother. The Qur'aan is filled with verses of Jihaad." Then you move on to the Ahaadeeth, and there are hundreds of Ahaadeeth pertaining to Jihaad and to the virtues of Jihaad, the Mujaahideen, Shahaadah and the Shuhadaa. Even if a person takes history and throws it against the wall, you can prove Jihaad just from the Qur'aan and Sunnah alone. In fact, the 47th Soorah of the Qur'aan, Soorah Muhammad, also has another name: "Soorah al-Qitaal" (The Soorah of Fighting). Did you hear that name before? Perhaps you will say I am presenting a violent image of Islaam by telling you what the name of the Soorah is? And then the very beginning Aayaat of that Soorah, where Allaah Ta`aalaa says, "Fa-Dharbar Riqaab" (Then strike at their necks). Then according to you, brother, the Qur'aan is giving a violent image of Islaam? Is that now a "violent image"? "Strike their necks"? I wish you were able to understand Arabic, brother, so I can show you all of what the Mufassireen have said regarding that Aayah. You'd be surprised.

2) Even a brief study of the Kutub of Fiqh of all four Madhaahib of Islaam will enlighten the reader with regards to Islaam's ruling regarding offensive Jihaad, which is that it is a must, first of all, and that conquering lands for Islaam is the duty of the Muslim ruler of the time, and that if a group among the Ummah do not stand up to undertake that task, the entire Ummah would become sinful. These are not rulings I've invented last week. This is what the A'immah of Islaam have written over 1,000 years ago. The Mashroo`iyyah of Jihaad-ut-Talab has been undisputed among the A'immah of Islaam for 1,400 years.

Was-Salaam.

 

[Scimitar]

Offensive Jihaad - I have a massive problem with that term.

Can you define in clear terms what you mean? (when you have time in sha Allah)

Scimi

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

If you mean struggle, then yes - not by the sword.

There is the world of fairytales, and then there is the real world. The idea that Muslims would ever come to a country like America, for example, and throw out the man-made law and replace it with Sharee`ah law, without fighting, is laughable. No amount of "struggling" would ever - even if they did it for another 1,400 years - cause the American government, and the current president, Donald Trump, to say, "Okay, you win. We appreciate all the struggle you Mozlems have been making, so we're now going to step down and live under Sharee`ah law. We're going to throw out democracy, we're going to throw out all man-made laws and governments, we're going to let you Mozlems appoint a Caliph, and we're going to let you rule America according to the Koran."

That's not going to happen. Whoever wants to can go to sleep at night and dream about that, dream about a world where something like that would happen, but that's not the real world.

No Kaafir country in the world today would ever willingly give up their government and have the country be ruled according to the Sharee`ah instead. Let alone something like that, they don't even want Muslims to live in their countries any more. Let alone implement the Sharee`ah. What a joke.

 

[Scimitar]

There is the world of fairytales, and then there is the real world. The idea that Muslims would ever come to a country like America, for example, and throw out the man-made law and replace it with Sharee`ah law, without fighting, is laughable. No amount of "struggling" would ever - even if they did it for another 1,400 years - cause the American government, and the current president, Donald Trump, to say, "Okay, you win. We appreciate all the struggle you Mozlems have been making, so we're now going to step down and live under Sharee`ah law. We're going to throw out democracy, we're going to throw out all man-made laws and governments, we're going to let you Mozlems appoint a Caliph, and we're let you rule America according to the Koran."

That's not going to happen. Whoever wants to can go to sleep at night and dream about that, dream about a world where something like that would happen, but that's not the real world.

No Kaafir country in the world today would ever willingly give up their government and have the country be ruled according to the Sharee`ah instead. Let alone something like that, they don't even want Muslims to live in their countries any more. Let alone implement the Sharee`ah. What a joke.[/COLOR]

Ya know bro Huzaifah, to assume we could or would is hubris in itself.

We are guests in these foreign nations, not bloody conquest hungry fanatics.

We are advised to live according to the laws of the lands we inhabit, unless they make our practice of Islam impossible - in which case we are advised to do what? Not Jihad with sword - NOOOOO - we are advised to migrate to places where we can practice our religion safely.

You know this, maaaan. What's with this "jihad offensive raa raa" bro?

I wonder sometimes at the narratives Muslims often present on the web without actually getting into any specific details. For the record, I was not mentioning any "fairy tales" in any of my examples. I gave you just three very different examples for you to see, a sword was not a part of three great nations receiving Islam - North Africa, when Herod broke the treaty - the Christian Copts kept that treaty anyway because they were an honourable people unlike King Herod. The town which allowed the Muslims in and give dawah, the town with walls was none other than Jerusalem and this story is from their records. Their version. There's more as well. The reason for Persia falling to Muslims - defensive, going to the aid of the Persians who were fearful that their tyrant King would destroy thier nation thru war with the Greco-Romans. Opportunity in defense of another people, facilitated an easy win for Islam. To call it conquest is sooo out of context, it's just wrong. Muslims were not barbarians. This rhetoric has to stop.

Scimi

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Short excerpt from some books of Fiqh on the issue:

النوع الأول: جهاد طلب وابتداء

وهو أن تطلب الكفار في عقر دارهم ودعوتهم إلى الإسلام وقتالهم إذا لم يقبلوا الخضوع لحكم الإسلام.
حكمه: حكم هذا النوع فرض على مجموع المسلمين.

"The first type: Jihaad of Talab (seeking) and Ibtidaa (commencement):

It is that you seek the Kuffaar "fee `Uqri Daarihim" (literally, in the bellies of their homes). You give them the Da`wah to Islaam, and you fight them if they refuse to submit to the Law of Islaam (i.e. to Sharee`ah rule).

Its ruling: This type of Jihaad is Fardh (obligatory) upon the community of the Muslims."

Now, when you go further, it is explained that it is the duty of a Khaleefah to appoint an army who will do this kind of Jihaad-ut-Talab at least once or twice a year, and if this army of Mujaahideen undertake this task, then the duty falls off the rest of the Muslim Ummah. So, they go to a certain Kaafir land, and they call them to one of three things: 1) they accept Islaam, or 2) they keep their religions and they live under Sharee`ah rule while paying Jizyah, or 3) they fight.

So let's say they went to America, for example. Would America accept Islaam? No. Would America opt for option two, i.e. surrender and have the Muslims rule the land according to the Sharee`ah? No, they would not. So that leaves only the last option.

The fight.

The fighting will always be there, whether people like it or not. It's part of this Dunyaa. It's inevitable. There has always been fighting. There always will be. In our times, there is even more fighting and killing than there was in the previous times. It's something that will not simply go away just because a few people dislike it. No amount of dislike will ever change realities.

Was-Salaam.

 

[Scimitar]

Short excerpt from some books of Fiqh on the issue:

النوع الأول: جهاد طلب وابتداء

وهو أن تطلب الكفار في عقر دارهم ودعوتهم إلى الإسلام وقتالهم إذا لم يقبلوا الخضوع لحكم الإسلام.
حكمه: حكم هذا النوع فرض على مجموع المسلمين.

"The first type: Jihaad of Talab (seeking) and Ibtidaa (commencement):

It is that you seek the Kuffaar "fee `Uqri Daarihim" (literally, in the bellies of their homes). You give them the Da`wah to Islaam, and you fight them if they refuse to submit to the Law of Islaam (i.e. to Sharee`ah rule).

Its ruling: This type of Jihaad is Fardh (obligatory) upon the community of the Muslims."

Now, when you go further, it is explained that it is the duty of a Khaleefah to appoint an army who will do this kind of Jihaad-ut-Talab at least once or twice a year, and if this army of Mujaahideen undertake this task, then the duty falls off the rest of the Muslim Ummah. So, they go to a certain Kaafir land, and they call them to one of three things: 1) they accept Islaam, or 2) they keep their religions and they live under Sharee`ah rule while paying Jizyah, or 3) they fight.

So let's say they went to America, for example. Would America accept Islaam? No. Would America opt for option two, i.e. surrender and have the Muslims rule the land according to the Sharee`ah? No, they would not. So that leaves only the last option.

The fight.

The fighting will always be there, whether people like it or not. It's part of this Dunyaa. It's inevitable. There has always been fighting. There always will be. In our times, there is even more fighting and killing than there was in the previous times. It's something that will not simply go away just because a few people dislike it. No amount of dislike will ever change realities.

Was-Salaam.

Was-salaam

Blood, listen to me - We'd need a bloody miracle coz America got weps you can't imagine.

We don't live in those times bro. lol.

We can't apply that kinda old world fatigue to modern day lol.

What you have posted also directly contradicts the well known understanding that Muslims in foreign lands are guests who live by the laws of inhabited lands - unless those lands make the practice of Islam impossible, in which case the Muslim is advised to move to a land where he may practice his religion safely
.

I'm not sure your case is convincing me. It's just reminding me of ISIS.

Also, I can't imagine myself going to my neighbours house with a sword in my hand and a big smile on my face saying "can I teach you about Islam?", show me a video of how that is done, I'd like a tutorial lol. (sarcasm)

Scimi

 

[M.I.A.]

as he said...

strike at the necks..


civil conversations are all the rage.


and also probably where the least armour is o_0

unfortunately.. irl i am not much of a conversationist.. mind just goes blank.


i believe...scientologists call it auditing.


the last samurai i aint.

 

[Serinity]

Idk, but I think we need to explain Shariah in a fool-proof way. I.e.

Explain, explain deeper, and explain that too.

But how can we establish Shariah when we just sit around? America wont just go and say "here, we will live under Shariah". So how?

Islam is a religion of Justice. And peace. But we have to define, what shari' meaning does "peace" and "justice" have?? Justice aint static afaik, nor is peace.

By peace i dont mean completely pacifist-like.

Tho id like a world ruled completely by Shariah.

For everyone to be at peace with Shariah. That isnt realistic, or is it? Shariah should respond to the fitrah, it did with me. People prob just aint in touch with it.

Astaghfirullah

Allahu alam

 

[M.I.A.]

astaghfirullah

astaghfirullah

edit..
break out the tin foil hats... im quitting while im behind.

(part of me thinks everyone knows deep down, in one form or other, in one understanding or other.. because the world turns for all of us.. just like it always has..its not what you know that counts, its what you do with it.)

 

[anatolian]

The only thing that has ever brought Sharee`ah rule to any land has always only been Jihaad.

والسلام

Salam. Not all. If you mean "struggle" with jihad as in the original sense of word yes but if you mean "fight" no. Majority of Turkic people accepted Islam and implemented Shariah themselves long after the Umayyad and Abbasid conquests. Also we have the story of the Islamization of Malaysia and Indonesia. These are examples for that people can accept Islam and implement Shariah themselves.

 

[Scimitar]

Also, in the next town down from where I live - we have a shariah court. In London England.

Yeah.

It's for births, deaths and marriage related issues and advice.

Traditionally, even in the time of the Prophet pbuh, when Jews were found guilty of crimes, they wanted to be judged by shariah law - but the Prophet pbuh ruled according to their own Mosaic Law of Judaism... this proves to me that each law system is for its people.

For Muslims, it's shariah.

You can't have shariah for the Americans because that is not a Muslim nation - it's just a nation with Muslims in it. The Muslims of America can lobby for a shariah court for their own very Muslim related issues, though. Just like we did here in England. UK.

Gosh.

I keep thinking of examples - but I'm gonna stop.

Scimi