Who wants to live in a theocracy?

[snakelegs]

I dunno, maybe I can explain this. Snakelegs, I have several friends right, who you can say aren't practising Muslims. When just one of them on his own is with me, they won't swear, backbite, listen to music, and of course they'll come pray with me. BHut as soon as another one of his friends comes and makes a rubbish excuse and says he can not pray, then my friend, who is clearly weak in faith, will go off with him and chill put with him rather than come pray etc, and he'll also start doing stuff he wouldn't do infront of me like swear backbite etc.

So if you read Brother ansar's post in light of what some weak minded muslims like my friend for example, it is better that people are forced to pray as then society as a whole will benefit

yes, this is how i understood ansar's post too. i have no problem understanding what he wrote. i have a problem with understanding the concept behind this. like keltoi said, maybe it is the american in me.

 

[north_malaysian]

I'm assuming that only applies to Muslims??? :?

Yes... only for Muslim man.

Because the religious officials are not around some Muslims used these extra 2 hour break to drink alcohol or do adultery.

But in Ramadhan, the religious officials will be so active .... and for Non Muslims it's advisable to bring their ID card as it carries your religious affiliations in it.

It's hard to say who is Muslim or who is not in Malaysia, because millions of Malays have Chinese or Indian or even European look... So the ID card is important.

 

[Abdulwaheed]

WOw!! THats pretty interesting.
I Wish it was in place here in Australia though. The morality police - Defender of justice and human morals

 

[sacred_rose]

i rekon that if a government was to do that alot of protest and wars will begin

 

[wilberhum]

The idea of being forced to pray by any government entity is actually quite frightening to me. I don't care if it's a Christian theocracy or an Islamic one, the thought just makes me cringe. Perhaps it is the American in me. Too many people have died for the freedoms I hold sacred.

I'm in total agreement. The more I read the more I'm sure that basic freedoms are more likely to exists in a seculat society.

 

[Curaezipirid]

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

I would like to live in an Islamic theocracy, but failing that a secular state.

Dude! the thing is that the UK already has been a Christian Country. Before the Houses of Parliament and all that. Remember about King Henry the Eigth and he got ex-communicated but went ahead and married again even though that was inevitable, but he only could by starting the Church of England. The Queen still is the head of the Church of England, and she opens the Houses of Parliament within that function each session. The Law that the House of Commons and House of Lords upholds is meant to be that combination of Common Law and legislature as it accords with Kabalah of Christian Faith. (but they are so sneaky at getting around it all the time) Most Lawyers, when they sit their bar exams, need to know a surprising quantity of what is called Canon Law. That is the rulings made previously by Church of England elders. English Canon Law is a subject of study by Australian Law students.

Its just that they forgot to enforce believing. Truly I believe that any good Islamic Lawyer with a thorough comprehension of Jurisprudence, could whip the pants of any English language Lawyer. (that is if they could stomache the disgust with what might be found)

I would rather live in any country that at least even fakes that God exists over the head of state, rather than a country in which persons are encouraged in atheism overtly.

wasalam

 

[therebbe]

Dude! the thing is that the UK already has been a Christian Country.

It is not run by Christian Law, or is it?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello,
On the issue of 'forced prayer', I would like to quote the following from IslamToday:

In some countries the people are forced to pray (often by mutawwa or religious police). What is the Islamic basis for this? Hoping to get a detailed answer on this, JazakAllah khayr.

Dear questioner:
Al-Salâm `Alaykum wa Rahmah Allah wa Barakâtuh.
We do not know what country you may be speaking about. As for Saudi Arabia, no one is forced to physically enter the mosque and pray. What is enforced is respect for the time of prayer. This means that all places of business are required to close at prayer time.

This is not only a display of respect for the rites of Allah, it also safeguards the rights of the Muslims who wish to pray. If the shops were allowed to stay open, many employers might force their poor workers to stay at their jobs and not pray on time. Since the shops have to close for the prayers, the employers have no reason to prevent their workers from praying.

Fatwâ Department Research Committee of IslamToday chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
​

The idea of being forced to pray by any government entity is actually quite frightening to me. I don't care if it's a Christian theocracy or an Islamic one, the thought just makes me cringe. Perhaps it is the American in me. Too many people have died for the freedoms I hold sacred.

You're not Muslim!! Why are you speaking about forced prayer with reference to YOURSELF?! Non-muslims are not forced to perform any religious observances in an Islamic state; they can do what they want. Muslims on the other hand would gladly have their freedom to sin restricted in exchange for protection of their right to offer prayer on time. It doesn't make sense for you to object to the Islamic state on the grounds of something that is only applicable to Muslims. If you were a Muslim then that would be different, but you're not.

hi ansar,
i've read your post. i understand what you are saying. what i don't understand is the mindset that would like the government to keep them from sinning

First of all, the government cannot prevent sin, it doesn't have that level of omniscience or control. What the government does do is ensure the preservation of the rights of its citizens and protect society in terms of both security and morality.

Secondly, the Muslim community is a team. Just as I would want my teammates in anything to help me if I slip, to point out my weaknesses so I can work on them, to support me and work alongside me towards the final goal, the same is true for Islam. In teamwork, people need encouragement and coaching. They rely on those with more experience to advise them so they can avoid major problems. Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself. If you see someone heading for danger, like walking towards the edge of a cliff, you try to warn them and prevent them from doing so. The community all works together helping eachother come closer to God and no one wants to be the weak link. That is the mindset that you don't understand.

- and the concept that people's relationship to god is so weak

There are some people with a very weak relationship to God. There are others with such a strong relationship with God that nothing will break it. The Prophet's companions would have their bodies torn apart without even a scratch on their relationship with God. Muslims want to improve their relationship with God.

that they might be dragged into sin because the guy who owns the coffee shop doesn't close his shop to pray

That is not the case. What happens with the coffee shop open, as mentioned at the start of the post, is the potential for infirngement of the religious rights of employees, aside from the disrespect it shows for prayer to God.

How could someone be negatively affected by it? Suppose a Muslim is with his friends and the time comes to pray. He is planning on going but he is going to miss out on his friends' party so they pressure him to stay. At first it is just one prayer, and gradually one becomes weaker and more vulnerable to such opportunities to sin until they begin to miss prayers regularly and their relationship with God is in a wreck.

or how this is a threat to the society.

The broken link in the chain is a threat to the strength of the whole chain. The performance of a team is threatened by the poor performance of even one team member. If you have ever worked on projects in which you need to collaborate your efforts with other team members you know the importance of teamwork and how the whole team can be dragged down by one team member. The Qur'an says:
49:10 The believers are but a single brotherhood.

but this is exactly why i do not ever want to live in any kind of theocracy.

You make the same mistake as Keltoi. What has this to do with you? This is an issue affecting Muslims that is not in any way applicable to Non-muslims. What I don't understand is how this is "exactly" why you don't want to live in a religious state. How could this possibly be a reason when it doesn't affect you?

I'm in total agreement. The more I read the more I'm sure that basic freedoms are more likely to exists in a seculat society.

Which 'basic' freedoms? Don't forget that individual freedoms are always balanced with the rights of the society.

Peace.

 

[wilberhum]

Which 'basic' freedoms?

I would guess those basic freedoms that people who voted for a secular state want.

 

[Keltoi]

Ansar, the fact that I'm not a Muslim doesn't mean I can't comment on a debate about theocracy.

 

[therebbe]

they can do what they want.

In an Islamic State can non-Muslims drink Alcohol, or break other moral laws that may be suitable for them, but not for you?

Which 'basic' freedoms? Don't forget that individual freedoms are always balanced with the rights of the society.

A basic freedom may be the freedom to worship freely. Now if a Muslim decides to convert from Islam in an Islamic country, is the punishment not death? I think that may be seen as a basic violation to some members on this board ansar, no matter what type of analogy you use.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi therebbe

In an Islamic State can non-Muslims drink Alcohol, or break other moral laws that may be suitable for them, but not for you?

Yes. To quote Shaykh Monqiz As-Saqqar (PhD from Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah):

The Islamic rule was a pioneer in protecting the rights of the people of dhimma. This is reflected in the maintenance of their rituals and churches. The shari'a law provides for the following: "The second issue: The rights due to them by us, namely to maintain their residence in our countries except the Arab Peninsula namely Hijaz and Yemen; to secure their lives and property and not to impair their churches, wine and pigs so long as they do not display the same."[ Canonical Laws 176]


Al-Tahawi accounts for Muslims' consensus on the freedom of the people of dhimma to eat pork and drink wine or the like which is permitted by their religion. He says:

"They unanimously agreed that the Imam, ruler, may not prevent the people of dhimma from drinking wine, eating pork or residing in the houses which they took by consent where such people are in a non-Islamic country (in countries where they form a majority)"[Ikhtilâf Al-Fuqâhâ, 233]
​

Taken from:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=481&section=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions

A basic freedom may be the freedom to worship freely. Now if a Muslim decides to convert from Islam in an Islamic country, is the punishment not death? I think that may be seen as a basic violation to some members on this board ansar, no matter what type of analogy you use.

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_d...ection=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions#28
I have explained here why this would be percieved as a 'basic violation' as you mentioned.

Helo Keltoi,

Ansar, the fact that I'm not a Muslim doesn't mean I can't comment on a debate about theocracy.

Those are your words not mine. I'm puzzled as to how you could have come off with such an absurd notion after reading my post despite the emphasis:

The idea of being forced to pray by any government entity is actually quite frightening to me. I don't care if it's a Christian theocracy or an Islamic one, the thought just makes me cringe. Perhaps it is the American in me. Too many people have died for the freedoms I hold sacred.

Why are you speaking about forced prayer with reference to YOURSELF?! Non-muslims are not forced to perform any religious observances in an Islamic state; they can do what they want.

Look at what I highlighted in your comment.

Regards

 

[*love4isl@m*]

i would love to live in an islamic state.

true peace true rights true safety.

:salaam:

Absolutely correct!!! MAsha'allah i totally agree with u...
True Say, Wallahi if i had an option of living in an islamic state or
Uk i would definately say Islamic State as every1 surrounding u
will strengthen ur belief by sharing and gaining more islaimc Knowledge...
*Also i wanna live and Leave the world In Islamic Country INSHA'ALLAH!*
Insha'allah i will move sometime 2 an arab islamic State with my family!!!

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

InshAllah =))

 

[therebbe]

Ansar, the link you gave me says: "1. Islam has never compelled anyone to accept the religion. Anyone who becomes a Muslim does so purely through objective study of the religion." But, if you are born into Islam, then what are the circumstances. You may believe they were 'meant' to be a Muslim, but in reality, they did not join Islam through choice, so should they not have the option to leave?

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

They must decide on their own what path they want to chose. Some may be born Muslim, but its up to them to decide. They must follow it willfully without force. I think when they get to a certain age. I'm not sure, so wait for Ansar I guess =)

 

[Keltoi]

Ansar, My apologies, I misunderstood your statement. That being said, my comment wasn't directed towards forced prayer for Muslims, I was speaking more in general terms about the idea of theocracy. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi therebbe,

But, if you are born into Islam, then what are the circumstances. You may believe they were 'meant' to be a Muslim, but in reality, they did not join Islam through choice, so should they not have the option to leave?

We did choose Islam though we were born into it. I think KAding raised the same issue in this very thread earlier. To avoid going off on a detailed tangent here, I would just refer you to the first half of pt. 2 and the entirety of pt. 3 in my article; it explains what all this means in practice as well. I'm wondering though - many jews are born as such and did not 'choose' their religion either. Should they not have the option to leave? Are Jews perfectly comfortable with allowing their brethren to abandon their faith?

Hello Keltoi,

Ansar, My apologies, I misunderstood your statement. That being said, my comment wasn't directed towards forced prayer for Muslims, I was speaking more in general terms about the idea of theocracy. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Not a problem. Thanks for the clarification.

Peace!

 

[Curaezipirid]

It is not run by Christian Law, or is it?

It tries to portray that the fundamental basis of the English people ever having taken any semblence of belief in need to obey Law was not of Christian origin.

That is, many modern European, and Euro-Centric Nation States have a legislative justice system that has its origins 100% within the Law as it is Governed by Royalty and Priests whom had professed Faith in Christianity and so followed Torah. In England there has been no Revolution to overthrow that basic faith.

We can argue until we are blue in the face that they were not really believers or that they were not truly adhereing to Torah; but that will never relieve leaders of the fact that they are professed in belief, and that the structures of Governance are established as Religious.

When we try to deny this fact we inadvertently deny the worth of common people whom might never have accepted the like of King Arthur on the throne if he had not converted to Christian Faith in One God.

(by the way I had a history teacher at high school who wrote a PhD thesis in Scottish history as recorded in poetry; and it is her express belief that there is documentary evidence that the line of Windor is within the ancestral heritage of the historic figure whom King Arthur is believed to have been. Cousins of the direct line of descent.)

If we fail to hold the leadership of Governance of Nation States to these fundamental facts then we fail ourselves in the same way as if we were to fail to hold Islamic leaders accountible to what they profess.

There is no leadership without accountiblity because if we fail to believe that followers hold leaders to account then we fail to believe that followers are themselves accountible, so no follower could have any complaint against any leader whom they are not taking responsiblity for holding to account.

That the Governance of Nations like Britain and Australian and the USA is by persons whom profess Christian belief causes all citizens have a means of knowing what method by which to hold their leaders to account. So we are not in a secular state. The Queen can say that she will not hold Australian Governments accountible to the Church but she is named head of state and owner of all non-privately owned land in Australia, and she is also head of the Church of England. (While the Church of England in Australia has a bad track record in child protection it is no wonder that she tries to establish that she has no actually realisable authority here - even though her representative here sacked a Labour Government. There is a sound Law abiding argument that Australia is still a colony and an argument exists within the Aboriginal community about what is the Law under which Sovereign rights were or were not ceded. That legal argument is in connection with the Queen's head upon coins, and that fact of whether holding Her personally, therefore, accountible for need to use money, is an act of cedeing Sovereign rights to land.)

I believe it is essential that we not fail to recognise the beneficience to all concerned of living within a legal system which has any historical connection to recognised Religious Law, upholding Faith in One God.

wasalam

wasalam

 

[Curaezipirid]

Assalamalaikum,

Another issue in connection with all this is the simple fact that the State need never actualise physical enforcement of Religious practise to be a non-secular State.

For example a person living in a Muslim country can not be forced to believe. Belief is that fundamental choice of will in Allah. If a person living in a Muslim country choose to ignore the wealth of Religious comprehension available to them, and then choose to face the world with no reality; why they will then be thus accounted. The point is, no body can force any other person's Spirit into acceptance of Allah. We can only notice that in specific situations if a person has been disabled from accessing the means of sustaining belief; it could be more compassionate to end their life since the consequences for their own existance otherwise could be worse.

So even in that extreme of Law in which a death penalty exists (as in the USA) for failing to sustain belief in the Law of Allah: there is still Freedom.

(The Law about a death penalty is that it needs be enacted with compassion and within a evidence that the continuing life is not able to access the means to sustain belief in Allah, and therefore is not able to access the means to sustain belief in Holy Law.)

wasalam