"Most Islamic" Nation

  • Thread starter Thread starter bartdanr
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 69
  • Views Views 11K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peace, aamirsaab :wave:

aamirsaab said:
1) It's the fault of muslims because the one's who are in charge of the countries are not following Islam properly.
One needs only to look at the teachings of Islam as a whole - they all aim to keep justice and order in a society.

2) Sharia (or Islamic law) is so similar to any other form of law out here (examples: theives, murderers and rapists are all categorised as criminals in all law systems) - the only real difference is in maximum punishments which the BNP and its ilk (or anyone who took extreme pleasure in Saddam being HANGED) seem to have a problem with (rather ironic don't ya think!)

3) There is no such thing as a blueprint for a perfect society; perfect societies do not exist and have not existed. Sharia does not aim for perfection, rather it aims for justice and order amongst society.
In that regard, it is holistically the perfect blueprint.

4) Sharia is not supposed to be dogmatic - it should be thought of as a spine; there is room for some flexibility but not too much, else it'd snap and not too little, else it would be too restrictive. It is a balancing act and that is one of the main reasons why a CALIPHATE is needed (they're essentially moderators for Islamic law but this is too brief a summary of what they actually do)

5) Most if not all muslim countries currently practice a pseudo-Islamic law. It is a hybrid of sharia and whatever else is common to them - because of this, it is prone to many silly laws or interpretations. Again, with a caliphate, this problem would be minimised.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your post.

This might be a little tangental (well, maybe not), but by what process do you think the Caliphate could be re-established?

Daniel
 
its hard to find a perfect Islamic country
each country might be better than the other in something, but worse in something else
 
bartdanr said:
Peace, aamirsaab :wave:



Thanks for your post.

This might be a little tangental (well, maybe not), but by what process do you think the Caliphate could be re-established?

Daniel
Click to expand...
:sl:
I think there would be too many disputes inside it. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are key Islamic countries, but they would all end up in disputes with the system. Iran are Shia, so they wouldn't really accept a Sunni Caliphate. Saudi and Pakistan wouldn't get along either, and at least one of them would reject the system as heretical. Turkey is strongly secularist, so that might also cause problems.
:w:
 
bartdanr said:
This might be a little tangental (well, maybe not), but by what process do you think the Caliphate could be re-established?

Daniel
Click to expand...

The Caliphate won't be established until the people are ready for it. The leader represents its' people and is chosen from among them. If the people are good then the chosen one is best among them (like the Prophet and the companions were), and if the people are corrupt and evil then the chosen one is worst among them (like zadari, bush, etc). So the very first and foremost thing that needs to happen before any process can take place is the re-education of the masses about their religion and returning to fundamentals and basics of it. This will in return raise religiously oriented and devoted people not the immoral, corrupt, secular, westenr imitators. When you have the public as educated as the imaams then the whole public themselves will demand a Caliphate. Caliphate is chosen based on his character, islamic knowledge and most suitable for position. No one claims he wants to be the leader, it is a position one is nominated for by others and whoever majority find more fit is given pledge of allegiance to. But we don't find anything of that sort today. No caliphate is coming except the Madi, he's the last one that will come after this era for tyrannical rulers come to it's end, which inshallah is not too far off.
 
north_malaysian said:
How about Brunei Darussalam? It's more Islamic than Malaysia, more conservative than Malaysia and less controversial than Malaysia.
Click to expand...

The Sultan of Brunei is a zalim and probably a queer.

I remember when he spent some $500,000 to get Michael Jackson to sing at his birthday party.

He's no better than the Saudi scum..
 
Saadet said:
The Sultan of Brunei is a zalim and probably a queer.
I remember when he spent some $500,000 to get Michael Jackson to sing at his birthday party.

He's no better than the Saudi scum..
Click to expand...

what right have you got in assuming he is a queer and spreading it?

I think Afghanistan under the taliban is an islamic nation and if we are talking shariah only and not foreign policy then saudi arabia
 
bartdanr said:
Peace, aamirsaab :wave:



Thanks for your post.

This might be a little tangental (well, maybe not), but by what process do you think the Caliphate could be re-established?

Daniel
Click to expand...

Howdy.

Fishman and Islamirama have really said it all in regards to caliphate. Only thing I could is that if a caliphate is made, it should be made up of the best sheiks and scholars we have today (shabir ally would definately be my personal choice) but it really would be difficult to create a caliphate. Especially given the sunni/shi divide and various other ones. And like Islamirama pointed out, first thing is first: we, as muslims, have to perfect our religion. Only after this can we start thinking about implimenting a caliphate because that is the actual root of the problem.

p.s; I say this to myself more than anyone else, so don't take this is preaching :p
 
amani said:
what right have you got in assuming he is a queer and spreading it?

I think Afghanistan under the taliban is an islamic nation and if we are talking shariah only and not foreign policy then saudi arabia
Click to expand...

Hello??? Paying Michael Jackson to hold a personal concert for him?
 
amani said:
I think Afghanistan under the taliban is an islamic nation and if we are talking shariah only and not foreign policy then saudi arabia
Click to expand...
Do you think the climax of Afghanistan's Taliban rule was its destroying the Bamiyan statues?
 
Saadet said:
Hello??? Paying Michael Jackson to hold a personal concert for him?
Click to expand...

that makes him queer?

K.Venugopal.... it was a very important part of their rule but i dont think they have finished ruling afghanistan....
 
If we are talking lack of local corruption and bribery than the United Sates or Canada could be the most Islamic nation! Sound crazy? How many of you have been to India, or UAE or Saudi Arabia and had to deal with the insane amount of bureaucratic corruption and bribery and even the smallest level (police, mail service).

Imam Zaid Shakir (I think) lectured about this. It was quite interesting. He talked about people focusing on where they live now and to try to not romanticize "the old country."
In many ways I agree with him that the United States is perfect for Islam, and that it may just end up being the new and exciting place for Islam in the next century.
 
From an archaeological point of view this it was a horrible thing, to destroy those statues.
This, to me, is the militant actions of a few local tribal leaders in a very isolated area. Most Muslims I have spoken with about this agree that Islam allows one to explore history, to explore the past of others people. No dangers exist in letting people know that another religion exists or existed.
 
AvarAllahNoor said:
No, can you tell me please. :)
Click to expand...

There were some western organizations that wanted to spend millions of dollars on restoring the statues. The Taliban requested that money be donated to Afghan civilians who were dieing of starvation and what not. The western organizations didn't care one bit about suffering of the humans and wanted only to waste the money on a statue. The statue had stayed there without Talibans or anyone else destroying it. But when it became a western issue of "saving" the statue over the human lives, the owners of the land decided to do what they thought was best for their nation.

DCseeker71 said:
From an archaeological point of view this it was a horrible thing, to destroy those statues.
This, to me, is the militant actions of a few local tribal leaders in a very isolated area.
Click to expand...

From an humanitarian point of view, that was the best thing to do in the world. Please educate yourself before you go on about archeology and "militant tribal leaders" and other western media parroting.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top