To US with Love

[Amadeus85]

So it seems that those who fought with christianity under tha blanket of seperating church and state were really enemies of strong and christian Europe. And if we agree that Europe was influenced overwhemngly by christianity, and Europe cant exist without christianity, we can say that people like Wolter, Robespierre, Lenin, Zapatero were decadentist enemies of our continent.

 

[Woodrow]

So it seems that those who fought with christianity under tha blanket of seperating church and state were really enemies of strong and christian Europe. And if we agree that Europe was influenced overwhemngly by christianity, and Europe cant exist without christianity, we can say that people like Wolter, Robespierre, Lenin, Zapatero were decadentist enemies of our continent.

Depends on which side of the street you stand, a communist, Atheist, etc could just as validly say Christianity was the enemy of people like Wolter, Robespierre, Lenin, and Zapatero

Secularism is an enemy of most if not all religions, but a secular state is one of the few types of government that allow for freedom of choice in religion. Which may be a good thing if you do not agree to the dominate religion.

 

[Dawud_uk]

all and woodrow especially,

abasiniyya by your definition would have not been secular, but it allowed muslims to practice their faith.

saddams iraq had laws based upon some parts of islam, but i dont think any muslim would argue his country wasnt secular.

therefore i think we have a problem here with the use of secular terminology confusing our arguments.

instead of using the term secular we should instead say, there are nations of which we can have convenant of security as they allow the practice of all the fard duties and the avoidance of the haram.

and there are those nations which we cannot.

as such although britain by your definition is not secular, it did however until recently fulfil the criteria of a nation which we muslims could live in a position of being under the covenant of security. probably the same position with america as well, used to be allowed to live there and now not.

but if a nation is bad we dont call for kufr to change it, in islam if the situation changes and we are not able to change that place then we leave and go live where we can practice our deen, there is no excuse for calling for matters of kufr as the lesser of the two evils in such a circumstance.

 

[Woodrow]

all and woodrow especially,

abasiniyya by your definition would have not been secular, but it allowed muslims to practice their faith.

saddams iraq had laws based upon some parts of islam, but i dont think any muslim would argue his country wasnt secular.

therefore i think we have a problem here with the use of secular terminology confusing our arguments.

instead of using the term secular we should instead say, there are nations of which we can have convenant of security as they allow the practice of all the fard duties and the avoidance of the haram.

and there are those nations which we cannot.

as such although britain by your definition is not secular, it did however until recently fulfil the criteria of a nation which we muslims could live in a position of being under the covenant of security. probably the same position with america as well, used to be allowed to live there and now not.

but if a nation is bad we dont call for kufr to change it, in islam if the situation changes and we are not able to change that place then we leave and go live where we can practice our deen, there is no excuse for calling for matters of kufr as the lesser of the two evils in such a circumstance.

Worded like that I have no problem agreeing with you.

We were defining things on different concepts.

I believe you said it best in this paragraph.

instead of using the term secular we should instead say, there are nations of which we can have convenant of security as they allow the practice of all the fard duties and the avoidance of the haram.