Who wants to live in a theocracy?

[Woodrow]

I assume what Woodrow was talking about is a true Islamic state, which for a Muslim, would be the best situation for him. I doubt Woodrow believes Iran fits that criteria.

Thank you Keltoi. That is correct.

 

[north_malaysian]

Hmmmmm..... if it's a theocratic Islamic or Christian or whtever religion country ... I'll abide to the rules .... and as long I've have happiness, peaceful and prosperity with my life, job, religious practices and family ... I would live in the country....

But if I cant find happiness, peaceful and prosperity with my life, job, religious practices and family because the government is so harsh or interrupt alot in my life. I'll leave...

 

[KAding]

If the UK became a 'Christian country' I would except their right to do that, and simply leave.

Reponse from the hypothetical cleric in charge of migration affairs:
"Unfortunately we may not be allowed to let you leave. You have after all committed apostacy/treason and might need to be hanged.

Sorry."

:uuh: :heated:

 

[KAding]

Well then I got good news for you:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur'an
2:256)

So if there were a truly Islamic state that respected all rules including this one, then you'd have no problem with it right?

I'm glad you think there is religious freedom under Islamic law steve, but unfortunately too many Muslims with knowledge appear to disagree with you. In a true Islamic state no Muslim can leave his faith. And what is the status of atheists and polytheists who are not 'people of the book'? AFAIK we are not even allowed to be dhimmi's.

I agree compared to Christianity Islam is probably tolerant of non-Muslims, but the rule of "no compulsion in religion" has to be put in a context, since there are many caveats in the Qu'ran nuancing it.

 

[Woodrow]

I'm glad you think there is religious freedom under Islamic law steve, but unfortunately too many Muslims with knowledge appear to disagree with you. In a true Islamic state no Muslim can leave his faith. And what is the status of atheists and polytheists who are not 'people of the book'? AFAIK we are not even allowed to be dhimmi's.

I agree compared to Christianity Islam is probably tolerant of non-Muslims, but the rule of "no compulsion in religion" has to be put in a context, since there are many caveats in the Qu'ran nuancing it.

The one fact that is being over looked. If a nation were to be a true Islamic theocracy the nation would have to be 100% Muslim. If just one citisen is not Muslim, it would not function as a true Islamic theocracy. so there would be no problem with infringing on the rights of another person's beliefs, as they would not be living there anyhow.

So if in today's world a true Islamic theocracy is not possible, the next best choice would be a secular state. This is in regards to Muslims. The Answer would be different for those of other faiths.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I have always been appalled at the thought of living in a theocracy.

To me it only makes sense that if you don’t belong to the state religion; you are at a serious disadvantage. I have no desire to be disadvantaged and have no desire to disadvantage my friends and neighbors. So, “no theocracy for me”.t[/B]

what disadvantage will an islamic state cause you? I fail to understand :?

 

[Malaikah]

Please elaborate on true rights... what kind of 'rights' would you have? The ones your religion dictates?

Of course, what other rights would we want?:?

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Please elaborate on true rights... what kind of 'rights' would you have? The ones your religion dictates?

well to state every islamic law would take extremely long, so how bout you post one islamic law which you find oppressive or unfair and we'll talk about it

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings wilberhum,

On many occasions I have seen people state how wonderful it is for the unbeliever under there system, but that conclusion seams to be only reached by the believers. From what I have read the unbelievers tell a different story.

See the testimony of western historians from Ansar's post here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/476083-post47.html

There are quite a few threads on the topic, where you will find statements such as: "It protected Jews from Christians and Eastern Christians from Roman Catholics. In Muslim Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Caliphs, Christians and Jews enjoyed a freedom of religion that they did not allow each other or anyone else."
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-islam/19033-religious-freedom-eyes-shari-ah.html

Also see:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/21855-treatment-jews-islam-habib-siddiqui-al-jazeerah-peace-information-center.html

There surly are documented cases where the government that people lived under was so suppressive that they preferred to be an unbeliever in a theocracy. That is hardly an inspiration to me.

Islam has set the gold standard for religious tolerance in the past, and one can find many, many quotes from non-Muslims that attest to this.

That surly gives support to my conclusion that a theocracy is only good for the believers in the state religion.

I think this conclusion is flawed, not only from the theoretical perspective in which Islam grants many freedoms to non-muslims living under its rule, but also from real examples documented in history where non-Muslims actually preferred to live in such states!

Peace .

 

[glo]

I am curious what those people who are shouting so loudly that they would never want to live in a 'Christian country' (!) actually mean by that??? :?
What do you think a 'Christian country' would be like?

I am asking, because historically most of the laws in most Western secular countries are based on Christian values - because at the time when the countries were formed, ground laws determined and constitutions written, the people in authority and in government were very clearly Christian. (That's my view, anyway)

So in my mind a 'Christian state' would not be all that different from our present 'secular state'.

What are Muslims so afraid of?

peace.

 

[IceQueen~]

I dunno glo-what are americans so afraid of?

 

[Malaikah]

I am curious what those people who are shouting so loudly that they would never want to live in a 'Christian country' (!) actually mean by that??? :?
What do you think a 'Christian country' would be like?

I am asking, because historically most of the laws in most Western secular countries are based on Christian values - because at the time when the countries were formed, ground laws determined and constitutions written, the people in authority and in government were very clearly Christian. (That's my view, anyway)

So in my mind a 'Christian state' would not be all that different from our present 'secular state'.

What are Muslims so afraid of?

peace.

This is what i thought also, but one member, i think it was KAding, mentioned that non-chrsitains would be killed in a christian state? :X

 

[Muhammad]

Hello glo,

I am curious what those people who are shouting so loudly that they would never want to live in a 'Christian country' (!) actually mean by that??? :?

I think the term 'a Christian country' has been used due to people living in the west and hence its relevance to their country, so I don't think they mean that it is the only rule under which they wouldn't want to live. In actual fact, Christianity is perhaps the closest religion to Islam in the sense that we share many Prophets and historical incidents, so maybe it would make sense to wish to live under a Christian rule if it was the only alternative to, for example, living under the rule of polytheists. There is also an incident in the life of our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in which the Muslims supported the victory of the Romans over the Persians due to this similarity in our faiths.

If there was a choice for Muslims to live in a truly Islamic country, then undoubtedly that is what they would prefer. If that is not possible, then we would have to find a place where we are allowed to practise Islam:

So given that the Muslim countries vary, as do the kaafir countries, and given that the Muslim cannot go to a Muslim state and settle there because of visa and strict settlement laws etc, and that a Muslim may not be able to practice his religion in some Muslim countries, when he may be able to do so in whole or at least in part in some kaafir countries – for all these reasons it is impossible to issue a general ruling that will cover all countries and all individuals. Rather we should say that each Muslim has his own unique set of circumstances and his own ruling that applies to him, and each person is accountable for himself. If he is able to practise his religion in the Muslim country in which he lives more than he can in a kaafir country, then it is not permissible for him to settle in a kaafir country. But if it is the other way round, then it is permissible for him to settle in a kaafir country, subject to the condition that he is confident that he can resist the desires and temptations to be found there by taking the precautionary measures prescribed in sharee’ah.

From: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=13363&ln=eng&txt=hijrah

Peace.

 

[KAding]

This is what i thought also, but one member, i think it was KAding, mentioned that non-chrsitains would be killed in a christian state? :X

In my comment against Fishman you mean? It's was actually a bit of a cheap attack on Islam and apostacy, but I suspect it is also applicable to Christianity.

I can imagine some Christian denominations being very intolerant of apostacy for example and non-Christians. I mean, if history is anything to judge a Christian controlled state will not be gentle on non-Christians, wouldn't you agree? On the other hand, Christianity does not have anything like the Sharia, so Christian law is much less clearly defined. I suspect that in Christianity a theocracy would mean rule by clerics, while in Islam it means implementation of Islamic law.

 

[IceQueen~]

ahh beautiful Islamic law... the peace and bliss...:wub: masha allah

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Jizya in Islam
Non-Muslims in the Islamic Society
A Unique Tolerance
Islam and Non-Muslim Communities
Fairness in Dealing with Non-Muslims
Does Islam Tolerate Other Beliefs?

It is incorrect to call the Islamic state a theocracy to be constrasted with theocracy. The Islamic state is khilâfa, a democratic system:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/1994-islamic-state-conceptual-analysis.html

I'm glad you think there is religious freedom under Islamic law steve, but unfortunately too many Muslims with knowledge appear to disagree with you.

That's not true; see the above links for an in-depth analysis from Muslim scholars and classical jurists and exegetes.

and believes in Allah

So none of it applies to a non-muslim.

Quite an absurd conclusion! The verse states:
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

This is not a difficult passage to understand!! It says that there is no compulsion in religion because the truth is evident and stands out from falsehood. Therefore, whoever follows the truth - which is to believe in God and reject evil - has saved himself and 'grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold'. So it is clearly entirely about non-muslims. It is saying that non-muslims cannot be compelled to accept the truth. If they do accept the truth and believe in God and reject evil, that is to their own benefit. As the Qur'an says in another verse:

18:29 And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve."

And elsewhere:

10:99 If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?

The question is, though, whether what you call a "truly Islamic state" in that sense could operate in practice.

The question has already been answered as Muslims have a historical precedent that has lasted for centuries. See the first link I provided in this post which provides details from the age of the khilâfa.

Peace

 

[wilberhum]

I have been going over what as been said and would like to make some comments.

A post said:
Islam, for example, permits Religious liberty; there is no compulsion in religion...
But this is not what we see when we look at countries that have Islam as the state religion.
So if there were a truly Islamic state that respected all rules including this one, then you'd have no problem with it right?
Wrong. Do you think there is one and only problem for the non-believers? Well all you need is “a truly Islamic state” to test it. Where is that state?

Only one person picked other, but he posted:
As long I've have happiness, peaceful and prosperity with my life, job, religious practices and family ... I would live in the country....
And of course this place would have to be Utopia and we all know Utopia only exists in a book.

Mazed asked “what disadvantage will an Islamic state cause you? I fail to understand”.
Well I think you fail to understand because you never tried to look at it from the outside. The restrictions on the non-believer are many, even in your conception of “The Perfect State”. Now look at the reality that exists in countries that clam a state religion.

Of course a Mod comes in and provides links where Muslims tell you how good it is for a non-Muslim. I was asked to check out Testimony of Western Historians. I did and guess what I saw. The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the Umayyad rule. Give great notice to the note that they “enjoyed a degree”. So it wasn’t all bad was it. But that gives me no comfort since it clearly indicates that they did not receive any kind of equality. He says “Islam has set the gold standard for religious tolerance in the past”. There are even more links where they tell you how wonderful it was. Again we come across an operative word “was”. I don’t care how it “was”, I care how it is. I look at countries that currently have a state religion and I don’t see them as a wonderful place for a non-believer. So unless we are discussing history, I conceder all those statements irrelevant. Of course he conceders my conclusions flawed but gives no current examples to support his conclusion.

No one has chose to live in where the state religion is not there religion. So I’m not alone in my conclusion that a country that has a state religion is not a good place for the non-believer. People go on an on about how wonderful it was. They go on and on about how wonderful it would be “IF”. Since there is no country called “IF” and we don’t live in the past,
I would only chose to live under a secular government.

 

[Muezzin]

I voted for 'Other'. I want to live in the kingdom of Jammy Dodgers, ruled by the benevolent frog-monarch, King Kermit.

I love hypotheses.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

What is the context of that? From "Truth stands" onwards it rather implies acceptance of Judeo-Christians, but that wouldn't do me a lot of good!

The "let there be no cumpulsion" aplies to every human being, be he atheist, agnostic, budhist, christian, jew and so on. If you force a religion upon someone, then you force that person to sin (you force him into hypocricy). Since the sinner does not act out of free will then he cannot be taken acountable, whereas the one who forces him is responsible for turning someone to sin. Also note that a lot of rules from the shariah do not aply to
non-muslim living in a muslim country.

Subject to the above, no. The question is, though, whether what you call a "truly Islamic state" in that sense could operate in practice. I'm afraid the Taliban have rather demonstrated that that is unlikely.

Yes good point, lately it seems such a thing is very hard to obtain, there has been spread way to much hate inbetween difrent religions and groups, and perhaps more importantly, a large number of people have either lost some essential wisdoms of our beautifull religion or seem to have convieniently ignored some parts for their own purposes. War is an ugly thing and religion is quickly used as scapegoat. However, should you look in history prior to the colonisations by the west, or even more so if you loko at history prior to the crusades; you will find examples of Islamic goverments were non-muslims lived freely.

 

[therebbe]

Of course, what other rights would we want?

The right to speak your mind. A right that you choose to use here a lot.