Open Challenge to Christians

[mahdisoldier19]

Turin, Do you realize your making no point and simply contradicting your statements as you post more and more?

 

[Turin Turambar]

Why am I contradicting myself? I am just saying that after all this time we have seen everything Islam has to offer to mankind. There is no contradiction in that statement.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I know Islam has been applied there for centuries! That is precisely my point. After all this centuries in Saudi Arabia we are contemplating the final product of Islam.

No, you are looking at Saudi Arabia, after the fall of the Islamic empire, and the degeneration of the country into a third-world country. Any student of hsitory would know that it wasn't always like that. The fallacy you contnue to make is that you assume that the present condition of the Muslim Ummah is how it has always been, and I asked you to look over the thread linked in my previous post.

 

[Turin Turambar]

Ansar Al-'Adl,

We are getting so close! This is closely related to what we are debating in another thread. Surely the rulers of Arabia were in a different position back then when they ruled an Empire and not a relatively small country as they do today. The political weight of the Islamic entity has changed a lot, that is for sure.

But what about the subjects? What about the peasants or the millions who perform menial tasks in the peninsula? Don't you think that for them Islam has been more or less the same in the last 1,400 years? They are entitled to say that they have seen everything that Islam has to offer.

I identify with them, not with the rulers.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

But what about the subjects? What about the peasants or the millions who perform menial tasks in the peninsula?

The citizens of Muslim countries want a return to an Islamic state, for they know that it is only under an Islamic state that they can flourish and prosper.

I identify with them, not with the rulers.

Do you even know any of them? We are the Muslims, and we have already said that we want a return to Islam.

 

[Turin Turambar]

Ansar Al-'Adl,

You say: "The citizens of Muslim countries want a return to an Islamic state, for they know that it is only under an Islamic state that they can flourish and prosper."

My original point is that the citizens of a place like Saudi Arabia ARE living in an Islamic state. It will never become more Islamic than that. If living under Islam is a wonderful thing, they are already enjoying it.

Lets make a thought experiment. The prince who is currently ruling Saudi Arabia declares himself Khalifa tomorrow and all the Muslims in the world recognize him as such. Now suddenly you have a large political entity ruled by a Khalifa and under Sharia. You have the old Islamic state back again! Wonderful! Your wishes have come true!

But wait a minute. How exactly did the life of the peasants and workers in Saudi Arabia change? They were ruled in a totally undemocratic way before....and they are still ruled in a totally undemocratic way. They were subject to Sharia before..and they are still subject to Sharia. What changed for them?

See my point? It is the subjects of Saudi Arabia who can say that they have seen everything that Islam has to offer. For them your Islamic state has nothing to offer. They already live in one.

 

[*Hana*]

Turin:

My original point is that the citizens of a place like Saudi Arabia ARE living in an Islamic state. It will never become more Islamic than that. If living under Islam is a wonderful thing, they are already enjoying it.

Lets make a thought experiment. The prince who is currently ruling Saudi Arabia declares himself Khalifa tomorrow and all the Muslims in the world recognize him as such. Now suddenly you have a large political entity ruled by a Khalifa and under Sharia. You have the old Islamic state back again! Wonderful! Your wishes have come true!

What part of "Saudi is not a truly Islamic state" do you not understand? There is not ONE country in the world living in a 100%, totally Islamic lifestyle. First, they incorporated some man-made laws....this is not Islamic. Second, it is totally against Islamic teachings to have Muslims ruled by someone because they have royal lineage. Third, if you understood Islam at all, you would know that NO ONE appoints themselves as the Caliph. You do not become the Caliph because you are from a "royal" family, have a blood line connecting you to the Prophet Muhammed, pbuh, or any previous Caliphs or because you ask for it.

When they force people to do what Allah, swt, has commanded, this goes against Islam as there is "no compulsion in religion". Forcing women to cover or be punished, is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Islam, not permitting women to drive, (although this is changing), is not from Islam. All you have to do is think....women are permitted to enter battle, but not permitted to drive?? It's not rocket science here, these are man made laws.

The reason there is no compulsion is because you cannot force someone to be righteous or pious or modest or whatever. Allah, swt, tells us how to worship, tells us what to do that is the best for us. Should we opt to not follow what is ordained, it is between us and Allah, swt. For example, I could kidnap you, beat you and torture you, threaten your children, Astagfurillah, until you relented and said the Shahadah. Does it make you a Muslim? Absolutely not. You can do the same to me until I cover, does it make me pious or modest? Nope! (Before anyone jumps on me....I'm not suggesting Saudi resorts to this).

You need to seperate the true teachings if Islam from what has been incorporated by political leaders of today. You don't look at a country and say "This is Islam", you look at the teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith and say, "THIS is Islam".

We can see a lot of good in a country like Saudi that comes closest to an Islamic state, but we can also see where it fails as an Islamic state as well. And why? Because it introduced laws not taught in Islam. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It has some similar charactoristics, (ie: both are fruit, both come from a tree, etc.), but they are not the same thing.

So, before you try to compare a governing body to Islam first look to see if they are following what Islam teaches. Or at the very least, provide verses or authentic hadith that you feel supports your claim and then it can be discussed with more logic and understanding.

Peace,
Hana

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

My original point is that the citizens of a place like Saudi Arabia ARE living in an Islamic state.

No they are not. There is not a single Islamic state in the world today. Saudi Arabia is not an islamic state, it is a Muslim-majority country. How many times do I have to repeat myself?!

It will never become more Islamic than that.

It has and it will.

Lets make a thought experiment. The prince who is currently ruling Saudi Arabia declares himself Khalifa tomorrow

Someone cannot declare themselves a Khalifa! Please educate yourself on the Khilafa system before making such comments. You can't just convert a Monarchy into a new government.

They were ruled in a totally undemocratic way before....and they are still ruled in a totally undemocratic way.

FALSE! The Islamic state is not undemocratic, please educate yourself:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/1994-islamic-state-conceptual-analysis.html

What changed for them?

The reason why your argument is ludicrous is because you conveniently ignore the other non-religious problems that plague third-world countries, such as lack of education, poverty etc. These problems are not specific to Muslim countries.

To illustrate the fallacy of your argument, suppose an opponent of democracy or Christianity (just as you are an opponent of Shari'ah) tries to point out the flaw in these systems by stating: Look at Ecuador, a democratic country that is almost entirely Christian. Look at the poverty, the lack of education, and according to the UN, Ecuador is one of the most corrupt countries in the world (#18 on the list). Don't the people of Ecuador have the right to say that democracy and christianity have brought them nothing? For them a democratic state and the religion of christianity has nothing to offer. They already live in one.

So if you want to continue using Saudi Arabia as an example to judge Islam and Shari'ah, I will continue to use Ecuador as an example to judge Christianity and Democracy!!

 

[Turin Turambar]

Hana_Aku,

This post was actually for Ansar Al-'Adl! I wasn't expecting an answer from you. But I see that you are also getting to like me as I am getting to like you...

My answer to you is the following. Whatever happens in Saudi Arabia happens because hundreds of ulama in the country have decided that it is according to Islamic law. Since the country declares explicitly that it is ruled by the Quran and the Sharia there is no other way for anything to happen there unless it is considered Islamic.

And now you come and you tell all those ulama that they are WRONG! We know that they force women to cover (using very harsh measures) and they have declared it perfectly Islamic. But Hana_Aku says that they are WRONG. That is not real Islam! Hana_Aku says so! She knows more Islam than the ulama of Saudi Arabia, who are heir to centuries of Muslim tradition, speak perfect Arabic and are probably linear descendants of Muhammad.

Would you please go to Saudi Arabia and tell them that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam and that you can teach then a thing or two?

I would love to see their Islamic reaction to your teachings.

 

[HeiGou]

There is not ONE country in the world living in a 100%, totally Islamic lifestyle.

Really? Has there ever been since, say, Muawiya? Have people tried and if so why in your opinion have they failed?

First, they incorporated some man-made laws....this is not Islamic.

Really? Maududi did not think so. He thought that Islam was adaptable to circumstances, and that an Islamic government could "legislate" in a legitimate manner. Why do you think he was wrong?

Second, it is totally against Islamic teachings to have Muslims ruled by someone because they have royal lineage. Third, if you understood Islam at all, you would know that NO ONE appoints themselves as the Caliph. You do not become the Caliph because you are from a "royal" family, have a blood line connecting you to the Prophet Muhammed, pbuh, or any previous Caliphs or because you ask for it.

Even I know that traditionally people have asserted the Caliph must come from the Quraysh and have cited hadith to that effect. If it is true (and I think it is) that it is against Islamic teachings to have someone in power just because they are Royal, is it forbidden to have someone in power even if they are Royal? No one appoints themselves Caliph, but they can get a committee of a few of their friends and supporters to nominate them can't they?

When they force people to do what Allah, swt, has commanded, this goes against Islam as there is "no compulsion in religion". Forcing women to cover or be punished, is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Islam, not permitting women to drive, (although this is changing), is not from Islam. All you have to do is think....women are permitted to enter battle, but not permitted to drive?? It's not rocket science here, these are man made laws.

Wow. You think you cannot enforce Islamic law at all? It is all complusion? Even for theft? Rape? Murder?

Were women permitted to enter battle? They were on the battle field but may I ask what the evidence is that they fought?

The reason there is no compulsion is because you cannot force someone to be righteous or pious or modest or whatever.

I don't know. I expect that flogging the immodestly dressed does make people more modest. Are your opinions on this subject widely shared by other Muslims?

You need to seperate the true teachings if Islam from what has been incorporated by political leaders of today. You don't look at a country and say "This is Islam", you look at the teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith and say, "THIS is Islam".

Except my opinion of what is in the Quran counts for nothing as I am not a Muslim. If I became a Muslim my opinion of what is in the Quran would count for little because I was only one Muslim. Muhammed said his community would never agree on error - so the collective opoinion of the Muslims is infalible isn't it? At least if that hadith is true. Obviously governments tend to reflect the community more than most individuals do.

My question would be - if Islam is so hard no one has ever got it right since the Rashidun, do you think you can see why a non-Muslim might conclude it is not practical?

 

[Turin Turambar]

Ansar Al-'Adl,

Good post! I will focus on the last part. You say that I am being unfair because I want to use Saudi Arabia as an example of Islam and Sharia and that would be equivalent of using Ecuador as an example of Christianity and democracy.

But there is a problem. You are taking one of the WORST examples of my side and comparing it to the BEST you can offer.

Ecuador is not my example. The United States is my example. This is the product of Christianity and democracy that I want to sell as a model, so to speak. I would like the whole world to look one day like the USA: peaceful, prosperous, happy and Christian.

So, if Saudi Arabia is not your model, what is your model? But one caveat. It has to be a country that EXISTS TODAY. It is not valid to say "my model is the wonderful Islamic state that existed 1,000 years ago" because how life really was there is impossible to verify and your account of it will be biased.

Give me an example I can see in my TV. I am a modern kind of guy.

 

[waji]

Asalam u Alikum
well turin first of all some of the questions comes in my mind
From where r u ???
Have u been to Saudi Arabia and America (or just ur assumtions)
u said America is peaceful, prosprous, happy and Christian
there u said Christian it means it is not for muslims fine
i say for other Muslim Countries and Saudi Arabia that There people are much peacefull, prosperous, happy and Following there relegion in best manner
but u can only see that if u have been to any Muslim Countries

well i don't know what kind of Things ur TV shows
Walikum as Salam and Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

But there is a problem. You are taking one of the WORST examples of my side and comparing it to the BEST you can offer.

Saudi Arabia is not my best example. The Islamic State under the rule of Umar ibn Al-Khattab is.

The United States is my example. This is the product of Christianity

The United States cannot be considered a product of Christianity, at any rate, since they have already gone through their seperation of Church and State. It is a secular country.

It has to be a country that EXISTS TODAY.

Why?? I am forced to choose an example after your colonial powers have finished their rampage and left the Muslim countries destroyed, poor, down-trodden and oppressed?!

It is not valid to say "my model is the wonderful Islamic state that existed 1,000 years ago" because how life really was there is impossible to verify and your account of it will be biased.

No it is not impossible to verify for educated historians, both Muslim and Non-Muslim.

Give me an example I can see in my TV.

LOL! You just admitted that your source of information is the TV! I strongly suggest that you conduct proper research beyond the stereotypes and biases conveyed through the TV.

EDIT: My comments on some of your post to Hanu_Aku:

And now you come and you tell all those ulama that they are WRONG!

I don't think the Saudi scholars are wrong, and in fact, the website I quote from the most, http://www.IslamToday.com , is run by prominent scholars in Saudi. The problems in Saudi Arabia have little to do with their religious interpretations, but with the social and political problems that one naturally finds in thirld-world countries. From your discussion with Hanu-Aku it seems like the only points of criticism being raised against Saudi scholars, is women driving and covering themselves. With regards to the former, the Saudi scholars NEVER said it was haraam (forbidden) for women to drive, please read this revealing article:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost.php?p=121617&postcount=10
From this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/general-chat/8051-why-arent-women-allowed-drive-certain-countries.html

Concerning the latter, you write:

We know that they force women to cover (using very harsh measures)

Yet you conveniently neglect to mention what these "very harsh measures" are! Every civilized nation in the world, including western democratic countries, force their citizens to adhere to a certain dress code in public. If you appear imporperly dressed, in most countries it is a criminal offence. Every society has defined limits as to what constitutes modest dress. The problem with western nations is that this limit is based on the subjective views of the public, which has lead to the degeneration of moral values in society. Islam, on the other hand, has defined very clearly the limits that both men and women must adhere to in public.

Peace

 

[*Hana*]

Hana_Aku,

This post was actually for Ansar Al-'Adl! I wasn't expecting an answer from you. But I see that you are also getting to like me as I am getting to like you...

My answer to you is the following. Whatever happens in Saudi Arabia happens because hundreds of ulama in the country have decided that it is according to Islamic law. Since the country declares explicitly that it is ruled by the Quran and the Sharia there is no other way for anything to happen there unless it is considered Islamic.

And now you come and you tell all those ulama that they are WRONG! We know that they force women to cover (using very harsh measures) and they have declared it perfectly Islamic. But Hana_Aku says that they are WRONG. That is not real Islam! Hana_Aku says so! She knows more Islam than the ulama of Saudi Arabia, who are heir to centuries of Muslim tradition, speak perfect Arabic and are probably linear descendants of Muhammad.

Would you please go to Saudi Arabia and tell them that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam and that you can teach then a thing or two?

I would love to see their Islamic reaction to your teachings.

It is not Hana_Aku that says so, it's Allah, swt, that says so. Post anything you want to prove your claims. I don't particularly care what man says, I care about what Allah, swt, has said. And, as a matter of fact, I would have no problem telling them what they are doing is non-islamic, as many do today. There are many, many women in Saudi that love to wear the Burka, the problem is that being FORCED is wrong and that is exactly what protesters argue. Many men living in Saudi will tell you the same thing. The law of women not being permitted to drive is now changing in Saudi....why? Because they know the law is not fair and unislamic. They may have the best intentions when implementing man-made laws, but that doesn't change the fact it is not based on Islamic teachings.

So, you are misinformed, there are many, many, many that will tell you the exact same thing I have told you. Look for yourself and bring proof that these laws are based on the teachings of Islam. I can certainly show you exactly where it is not, but I'm not making the claims...you are....so it's a simple solution and your responsibility....bring your proof.

And, yes, you're right I jumped in to your conversation with brother Ansar who is far more knowledgeable than myself, Mashallah, so I will apologize for that, but I tend to get a little verbal when people constantly try to say everything Saudi does represents the true teachings of Islam even when it is clearly explained it is not, over and over again.

So, yeah, if you think they are going to listen to some white, Canadian, revert when they don't listen to thousands of others who have tried to correct this problem, and you buy my ticket :giggling: , I have absolutely NO problem confronting anyone to tell them they are wrong.

Do you agree with everything your government does and is it operating based on the laws of Christianity? If so, based on your logic women should still not have the right to vote, should still be considered as not having a soul, should not be permitted to own property, should have to marry their rapist, should be covered in church or have their head shaved, should not speak in church and only learn from their husbands (hopefully he's not a drunkard), etc. These things are all in your bible and therefore, justified. The difference is, the things you claim to be taught in Islam, you won't find in the Qur'an....why? because it is NOT taught. So, tell me, why does your Christian country, (as you say it is), not follow the teachings of your bible? You are quick to critisize what man incorporated in Islam while dismissing what is truly taught, yet you don't follow what was taught in your Bible and incorporate and accept man-made laws. Are you just as willing and confident to go to your President and tell him he is wrong? You can provide the proof to your Christian president to tell him he is not running the country based on Christian teachings, just as I can provide the proof from the Qur'an to the Saudi government that these man-made laws are unislamic.

Peace,
Hana

 

[*Hana*]

Really? Has there ever been since, say, Muawiya? Have people tried and if so why in your opinion have they failed?

Ali ibn Abi Talib: the fourth and last of the Khulafā' ar-Rāshidūn (rightly guided caliphs). This is when the truly Islamic state began it's decline...after Talib. My opinion as to why it declined is that man became more interested in power, money, etc., than following the teachings of Islam.

Really? Maududi did not think so. He thought that Islam was adaptable to circumstances, and that an Islamic government could "legislate" in a legitimate manner. Why do you think he was wrong?

My understanding of Maududi is that he wanted to return to the totally Islamic way of life based on the true teachings of Islam and tried desperately to do that in Pakistan. "...Consistent with this objective, he wrote profusely to explain the different aspects of the Islamic way of life, especially the socio-political aspects. This concern for the implementation of the Islamic way of life led Maududi to criticise and oppose the policies pursued by the successive governments of Pakistan and to blame those in power for failing to transform Pakistan into a truly Islamic state."

That being said, my knowledge of him is very limited and I will have to research more to be able to answer appropriately. However, Islam is adaptable in that, it was given to all man kind. I can adapt an Islamic way of life here in the west as they do in the east. If he said incorporating or changing the laws of Shariah was ok, then I would absolutely disagree. Islam is all encompassing there is no need to change anything. However, we have many respectable scholars, (not all claiming to be scholars are respected), that must interpret the law for obvious reasons. ie: There was no internet then so what is the ruling of free mixing? Those types of things. (I realize this is a very simplistic example, but it's only for understanding). So, to just change the law to where it only benefits man...no, it's not acceptable.

Even I know that traditionally people have asserted the Caliph must come from the Quraysh and have cited hadith to that effect. If it is true (and I think it is) that it is against Islamic teachings to have someone in power just because they are Royal, is it forbidden to have someone in power even if they are Royal? No one appoints themselves Caliph, but they can get a committee of a few of their friends and supporters to nominate them can't they?

The Caliph does not have to come from any particular area or lineage, etc., etc. Someone that is elected as Caliph that HAPPENS to be royal would be permitted....why not? He is not being elected BECAUSE he is of royalty. If someone is asking to be the Caliph, through campaigning or asking friends, etc., no, this is not permitted and someone requesting it should not be elected. The chosen Caliph should not be someone craving power...that is the reasoning.

Wow. You think you cannot enforce Islamic law at all? It is all complusion? Even for theft? Rape? Murder?

I am not talking about the laws already established with clear punishments. Those are the laws, period. There is no law saying a woman must cover or be beaten, no law saying you must pray or you will be beaten, etc. Those laws are between the Muslim and Allah, swt, and any punishment or reward that comes from them will come from Allah, swt, on the day of judgement. You cannot force someone to be pious or embrace Islam. These things come from the heart....not the mouth. I can say whatever I want to make you happy, but unless I believe it in my heart it means nothing. Saying the Shahadah for example, must be felt in the heart and said with the lips.

Were women permitted to enter battle? They were on the battle field but may I ask what the evidence is that they fought?

Yes, they were and you can read one example here: Umm 'Umara: The Prophet's Shield at Uhud

I expect that flogging the immodestly dressed does make people more modest. Are your opinions on this subject widely shared by other Muslims?

As I said, you can force someone to do almost anything....they doesn't mean they believe it. That is the difference with compulsion. Just because you force someone to do something doesn't mean they believe it. Those that choose to dress modestly do so because they feel they are following what is ordained by Allah, swt, and do it as a form of worship. You can't force someone to feel that way. So making someone dress modestly doesn't change what they feel inside. You can't make someone modest, you can only force them to LOOK modest.

If I became a Muslim my opinion of what is in the Quran would count for little because I was only one Muslim. Muhammed said his community would never agree on error - so the collective opoinion of the Muslims is infalible isn't it?

As a Muslim, you can't just take the words and make them mean whatever you want, that's true. And, you're right in that there are differing opinions by scholars in some areas, however, these areas are not with regards to major issues. Where there are differences in opinion, as a Muslim, we decide for ourselves which scholar we feel is correct. Intention counts for much in Islam. If our intent was to do the best to please Allah, swt, there is no fault. As just humans, we are not perfect so we can make errors, Allah, swt, is not unaware of this.

My question would be - if Islam is so hard no one has ever got it right since the Rashidun, do you think you can see why a non-Muslim might conclude it is not practical?

Islam is not at all hard. What is difficult and unpractical about it?

Hana

 

[Turin Turambar]

Ansar Al-'Adl

In Saudi Arabia there are only Islamic courts that work according to the rulings of Islamic scholars. If you want to see exactly what that means you can check

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/report.html

"Donato Lama, a Filipino employee of an airline company in Riyadh, told Amnesty International that he was arrested for preaching Christianity because a photograph showed him participating in a secret Roman Catholic service in Riyadh. He was tortured into signing a confession and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and 70 lashes. The lashes were administered in a single session a month before his release in May 1997. In 1999 he described the flogging to Amnesty International representatives. He was clearly still distressed by the experience.

"I was brought to the whipping area. They tied me to a post. My hands were handcuffed and they also shackled my legs. I was wearing a T-shirt and jogging pants... The whip was one and a half metres long... with a heavy lead piece attached to the tip. It was terrible. Some fell on my thighs and my back. I would fall when the whip reached my feet but the prison guard would raise me up to continue the whipping. It was terrible. I was amazed to find myself still alive after the 70th lash was given. It lasted about 15 minutes... my back was bleeding. I cried."


This is certified by Amnesty International, the same people who have condemned Guantanamo, something that surely you agreed with.

As you can see my problems with Islamic law go much further than worrying about the freedom of women to dress as they like.

And in case Hana_Aku checks this message, are you sure you still want to go to Saudi Arabia and tell the ulama that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam?

 

[*Hana*]

And in case Hana_Aku checks this message, are you sure you still want to go to Saudi Arabia and tell the ulama that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam?

I just happened to be walking by when I read your message. :rollseyes Of course I would. It's not like I would be the first to tell them that.

Hana

 

[mahdisoldier19]

Again, what turin seems to be confusing is the religion with peoples actions. Tell me where it says those who are preaching christianity in an Islamic state should suffer tell me where point me some place hadith, Quran anywhere! You seem to love giving approaches that OH! look these people are doing this and they belong to an Islamic State. First of all why do you confuse the people with Islam. Second, currently i have found no TRUE islamic state.

 

[i_m_tipu]

i wonder how the kings(LION) looks like without Beard

 

[HeiGou]

Ali ibn Abi Talib: the fourth and last of the Khulafā' ar-Rāshidūn (rightly guided caliphs). This is when the truly Islamic state began it's decline...after Talib. My opinion as to why it declined is that man became more interested in power, money, etc., than following the teachings of Islam.

So since Muawiya there has not been a proper Islamic state anywhere in the world? That is a long time ago. Do you accept that people have tried to re-create an Islamic state in that time?

My understanding of Maududi is that he wanted to return to the totally Islamic way of life based on the true teachings of Islam and tried desperately to do that in Pakistan. "...Consistent with this objective, he wrote profusely to explain the different aspects of the Islamic way of life, especially the socio-political aspects. This concern for the implementation of the Islamic way of life led Maududi to criticise and oppose the policies pursued by the successive governments of Pakistan and to blame those in power for failing to transform Pakistan into a truly Islamic state."

That being said, my knowledge of him is very limited and I will have to research more to be able to answer appropriately. However, Islam is adaptable in that, it was given to all man kind. I can adapt an Islamic way of life here in the west as they do in the east. If he said incorporating or changing the laws of Shariah was ok, then I would absolutely disagree. Islam is all encompassing there is no need to change anything. However, we have many respectable scholars, (not all claiming to be scholars are respected), that must interpret the law for obvious reasons. ie: There was no internet then so what is the ruling of free mixing? Those types of things. (I realize this is a very simplistic example, but it's only for understanding). So, to just change the law to where it only benefits man...no, it's not acceptable.

Maududi devoted his life to trying to create a proper Islamic state in the whole world, not just Pakistan. And he opposed those in power in Pakistan a lot of the time (but not always). He did not say that legislation can over rule the Quran, but that there are changing circumstances and evolving needs which have to be met in a proper Islamic manner - so that legislation can be used to supplement, but not replace, Islamic law.

The Caliph does not have to come from any particular area or lineage, etc., etc.

Well traditionally there has been this argument over the Quraysh, but I agree modern Muslims tend to reject that.

Someone that is elected as Caliph that HAPPENS to be royal would be permitted....why not? He is not being elected BECAUSE he is of royalty.

Well surely you can see where this is going. If he can be elected, and it happens that his father is in power at the time, he may well be elected. Certainly his chances are better than most!

If someone is asking to be the Caliph, through campaigning or asking friends, etc., no, this is not permitted and someone requesting it should not be elected. The chosen Caliph should not be someone craving power...that is the reasoning.

I did not say campaigning. But someone can ask his family and friends to form a committee and that committee can then elect him can't it? The people of Medina were going to split the community and elect their own leader. But Abu Bakr and Umar persuaded them not to and they formed a committee to elect a leader for all Muslims, didn't they?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 19:

Narrated 'Aisha:

(the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle died while Abu Bakr was at a place called As-Sunah (Al-'Aliya) 'Umar stood up and said, "By Allah! Allah's Apostle is not dead!" 'Umar (later on) said, "By Allah! Nothing occurred to my mind except that." He said, "Verily! Allah will resurrect him and he will cut the hands and legs of some men." Then Abu Bakr came and uncovered the face of Allah's Apostle, kissed him and said, "Let my mother and father be sacrificed for you, (O Allah's Apostle), you are good in life and in death. By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, Allah will never make you taste death twice." Then he went out and said, "O oath-taker! Don't be hasty." When Abu Bakr spoke, 'Umar sat down. Abu Bakr praised and glorified Allah and said, No doubt! Whoever worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die." Then he recited Allah's Statement.:-- "(O Muhammad) Verily you will die, and they also will die." (39.30) He also recited:--

"Muhammad is no more than an Apostle; and indeed many Apostles have passed away, before him, If he dies Or is killed, will you then Turn back on your heels? And he who turns back On his heels, not the least Harm will he do to Allah And Allah will give reward to those Who are grateful." (3.144)

The people wept loudly, and the Ansar were assembled with Sad bin 'Ubada in the shed of Bani Saida. They said (to the emigrants). "There should be one 'Amir from us and one from you." Then Abu Bakr, Umar bin Al-Khattab and Abu 'baida bin Al-Jarrah went to them. 'Umar wanted to speak but Abu Bakr stopped him. 'Umar later on used to say, "By Allah, I intended only to say something that appealed to me and I was afraid that Abu Bakr would not speak so well. Then Abu Bakr spoke and his speech was very eloquent. He said in his statement, "We are the rulers and you (Ansars) are the ministers (i.e. advisers)," Hubab bin Al-Mundhir said, "No, by Allah we won't accept this. But there must be a ruler from us and a ruler from you." Abu Bakr said, "No, we will be the rulers and you will be the ministers, for they (i.e. Quarish) are the best family amongst the 'Arabs and of best origin. So you should elect either 'Umar or Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah as your ruler." 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No but we elect you, for you are our chief and the best amongst us and the most beloved of all of us to Allah's Apostle." So 'Umar took Abu Bakr's hand and gave the pledge of allegiance and the people too gave the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Someone said, "You have killed Sad bin Ubada." 'Umar said, "Allah has killed him." 'Aisha said (in another narration), ("When the Prophet was on his death-bed) he looked up and said thrice, (Amongst) the Highest Companion (See Qur'an 4.69)' Aisha said, Allah benefited the people by their two speeches. 'Umar frightened the people some of whom were hypocrites whom Allah caused to abandon Islam because of 'Umar's speech. Then Abu Bakr led the people to True Guidance and acquainted them with the right path they were to follow so that they went out reciting:-- "Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed many Apostles have passed away before him.." (3.144)​

Now that all worked out at the time, but there has been a decline in the standard of leadership ever since. So if this procedure was applied in the modern period it would be a bit much to expect people to behave in the same dignified way that they did back then - and even then Ali and the Shia disputed the Caliphate.

As I said, you can force someone to do almost anything....they doesn't mean they believe it. That is the difference with compulsion. Just because you force someone to do something doesn't mean they believe it.

Although traditionally Muslims have said their children will believe.

As a Muslim, you can't just take the words and make them mean whatever you want, that's true. And, you're right in that there are differing opinions by scholars in some areas, however, these areas are not with regards to major issues. Where there are differences in opinion, as a Muslim, we decide for ourselves which scholar we feel is correct.

It is not the differences between scholars that matter. It is the areas where they agree. If the scholars are agreed on an issue, is it then closed to any other opinion?

Islam is not at all hard. What is difficult and unpractical about it?

Not Islam per se, but Islamic government. In 1400 years, despite all the trying, no one has managed, not even once, to create an Islamic society? It is obviously very hard to do. And maybe not very practical.