Who wants to live in a theocracy?

[wilberhum]

Curaezipirid
I see that you selected that you would want to live in a theocracy “even if the state religion is not my religion”. I find this quite surprising. Reading some of your posts, you seam to be a very intelligent woman. That leaves me quite perplexed. My only conclusion is that you assume that the government would not make you a second class citizen or offend your moral values. If that is your assumption, I think you have assumed incorrectly. Below are some laws that governments have/do/could impose.
• Carrying any non-state authorized “Holy Book” is illegal.
• Public prayer to anyone other than the “state god” is illegal.
• No structure may be build to any deity other than the “state god” without approval. (Which is never given).
• Only members of the state religion can vote.
• Only members of the state religion can hold public office.
• Only members of the state religion can work/serve in the defense of the country.
• Members of any religion other that the state religion will pay a special tax.
• Making negative statements about the state religion is a crime.
• Making negative statements about state religion’s prophets is punishable under slander laws.
• All non-essential business must be closed during state religion times of worship.
• No non-state religious symbols may be displayed in public.
• It is against the law to tell a member of the state religion about any other religion.
• Citizenship is only available to members of the state religion.
• People not belonging to the state religion must ware a symbol of there non-belief.
• Since all power comes from the state god or the devil, anyone praying to any power that is not the state god is praying to Satan which is punishable by death.
• Stating that a state religious doctrine is false is heresy which is punishable by death.

If these become law, would you still make the same choice?

 

[Keltoi]

Curaezipirid
I see that you selected that you would want to live in a theocracy “even if the state religion is not my religion”. I find this quite surprising. Reading some of your posts, you seam to be a very intelligent woman. That leaves me quite perplexed. My only conclusion is that you assume that the government would not make you a second class citizen or offend your moral values. If that is your assumption, I think you have assumed incorrectly. Below are some laws that governments have/do/could impose.
• Carrying any non-state authorized “Holy Book” is illegal.
• Public prayer to anyone other than the “state god” is illegal.
• No structure may be build to any deity other than the “state god” without approval. (Which is never given).
• Only members of the state religion can vote.
• Only members of the state religion can hold public office.
• Only members of the state religion can work/serve in the defense of the country.
• Members of any religion other that the state religion will pay a special tax.
• Making negative statements about the state religion is a crime.
• Making negative statements about state religion’s prophets is punishable under slander laws.
• All non-essential business must be closed during state religion times of worship.
• No non-state religious symbols may be displayed in public.
• It is against the law to tell a member of the state religion about any other religion.
• Citizenship is only available to members of the state religion.
• People not belonging to the state religion must ware a symbol of there non-belief.
• Since all power comes from the state god or the devil, anyone praying to any power that is not the state god is praying to Satan which is punishable by death.
• Stating that a state religious doctrine is false is heresy which is punishable by death.

If these become law, would you still make the same choice?

These reasons are exactly why I don't trust theocracy. Like communism, it can sound good in theory, but people are imperfect, and human rights will be violated. Perhaps if there was a successful theocratic model to look back on I might look at it differently, but there isn't.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Wilber,
THe vast majority of what you listed does not apply in an Islamic state.

• Carrying any non-state authorized “Holy Book” is illegal.

Not in an Islamic state!

• Public prayer to anyone other than the “state god” is illegal.

Not in an Islamic state!

• No structure may be build to any deity other than the “state god” without approval. (Which is never given).

Not in an Islamic state!

• Only members of the state religion can vote.
• Only members of the state religion can hold public office.

The head of the state is a religious leader as well as a political leader. He is the supreme leader for the Muslims so obviously he must be Muslim. Non-muslims are free to elect their own leaders and representatives.

• Only members of the state religion can work/serve in the defense of the country
• Members of any religion other that the state religion will pay a special tax.

Jizya is paid instead of the Zakat for Muslims as the Non-muslims will be defended by the Muslims; more info here:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=481&section=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions

• Making negative statements about the state religion is a crime.
• Making negative statements about state religion’s prophets is punishable under slander laws.

If you don't like the religion why would you choose to live in that religious state?? Just to create trouble?

• All non-essential business must be closed during state religion times of worship.

I think this was explained earlier in terms of the rights of employees to pray; if this is not infringed then there is no problem here.

• No non-state religious symbols may be displayed in public.

Not in an Islamic state!

• It is against the law to tell a member of the state religion about any other religion.

Not in an Islamic state!

• Citizenship is only available to members of the state religion.

Not in an Islamic state!

• People not belonging to the state religion must ware a symbol of there non-belief.

Not in an Islamic state!

• Since all power comes from the state god or the devil, anyone praying to any power that is not the state god is praying to Satan which is punishable by death.

Not in an Islamic state!

• Stating that a state religious doctrine is false is heresy which is punishable by death.

Not in an Islamic state!

Hi Keltoi,

Perhaps if there was a successful theocratic model to look back on I might look at it differently, but there isn't.

Did you check the links I gave earlier about the Islamic state?

Peace

 

[wilberhum]

The vast majority of what you listed does not apply in an Islamic state.

Did I say they did?

Not in an Islamic state!

Da! Since she is a Muslim, a state religion that is not her religion would not be a Islamic state.
So your entire post has nothing to do with my question.

But maybe you could tell us which law/situation never existed in a country that had/has a state religion?

 

[aamirsaab]

As long as the laws are fair and enforced properly, I don't mind where I live.

 

[wilberhum]

As long as the laws are fair and enforced properly, I don't mind where I live.

Where are "the laws are fair and enforced properly"?

 

[aamirsaab]

Where are "the laws are fair and enforced properly"?

UK at the minute (although, some would disagree and are entitled to. Additionally, I personally think some laws should be changed but that's not really required on this thread). Not sure about the US seeing as I don't actually live there.

 

[Curaezipirid]

Curaezipirid
I see that you selected that you would want to live in a theocracy “even if the state religion is not my religion”. I find this quite surprising. Reading some of your posts, you seam to be a very intelligent woman. That leaves me quite perplexed. My only conclusion is that you assume that the government would not make you a second class citizen or offend your moral values. If that is your assumption, I think you have assumed incorrectly. Below are some laws that governments have/do/could impose.
• Carrying any non-state authorized “Holy Book” is illegal.
• Public prayer to anyone other than the “state god” is illegal.
• No structure may be build to any deity other than the “state god” without approval. (Which is never given).
• Only members of the state religion can vote.
• Only members of the state religion can hold public office.
• Only members of the state religion can work/serve in the defense of the country.
• Members of any religion other that the state religion will pay a special tax.
• Making negative statements about the state religion is a crime.
• Making negative statements about state religion’s prophets is punishable under slander laws.
• All non-essential business must be closed during state religion times of worship.
• No non-state religious symbols may be displayed in public.
• It is against the law to tell a member of the state religion about any other religion.
• Citizenship is only available to members of the state religion.
• People not belonging to the state religion must ware a symbol of there non-belief.
• Since all power comes from the state god or the devil, anyone praying to any power that is not the state god is praying to Satan which is punishable by death.
• Stating that a state religious doctrine is false is heresy which is punishable by death.

If these become law, would you still make the same choice?

I have a base line belief that to answer such a questions posed with an "If" is wrong. I shall try to explain why. But first provide some other commentary. The truth is that I have no information about an Religious state that is ALREADY IN EXISTANCE in which I would not prefer to be living than in any secular state also already in existance.

I believe that to SPECULATE upon 'what if' a Religious state established particular conditions, is black magic. It is using imagination actively to cause a situation to seem faulted only because there is imagined a possiblity of it becoming faulted in the future. The science of kabbalah provides that we must understand that if we account ourself against an imagined specualtion of the potential future, rather than the past as it has already been realised, then we are at fault in causing that such a future becomes actualised.

For example: if European Crusaders actualised accounting money against believing that Islam in State Governance was wrong and that Religion should be kept seperate from politics; then Muslims can actually account that such a projection upon Islam caused the predominance of a specific sect in Governance of Saudi Arabia.

Even by a Judaic accounting method money can not be held against any fault which is not already within the arena of an already physically experienced hardship. The is no point in speculating about what could possibly manifest as wrong with any thing that is not already in existance because such speculation (even if money is not being accounted within the speculation) is factually causal to such a phenomena coming into existance.

I will even prefer a state governed by Religions that I am not in Faith in such as Buddhism or Hinduism. There is also no point speculation as to whether any minor fanatic type Religious belief system could Govern any country in a way that could make me not want to live there: simply because so far such things have not come into existance, therefore why would we worry or base our behaviour in worry that such could occur. If only we all believe that such things will never occur, then they will never occur.

But neither can any person imagine that reality in Allah is not already existance and cause this reality Muslims share to un-become. Reality I know is the Governance by persons committed to a knowable and definable belief system is better than Governance by persons who try to establish that people can change what is good to believe in by whim.

wasalam

 

[therebbe]

I have a base line belief that to answer such a questions posed with an "If" is wrong. I shall try to explain why. But first provide some other commentary. The truth is that I have no information about an Religious state that is ALREADY IN EXISTANCE in which I would not prefer to be living than in any secular state also already in existance.

This line is often repeated, yet the countries that closely mimic religious states governed by a "Holy Book" are countries which no person as a minority would want to live in currently.

I will even prefer a state governed by Religions that I am not in Faith in such as Buddhism or Hinduism.

Please elaborate further... you would rather live in a Polythiestic society instead of a secular one that allows you to choose and worship freely?

 

[wilberhum]

Curaezipirid
I understand your problem with answering “If” questions. But, I do believe that each and every one of my “If” statements did or do exist where there is/was a state religion. Therefore they are not just “If” statements that have no bearing on reality. So such things have come into existence. It is interesting that you picked Hinduism and Buddhism as examples of where you would live. Looking, I can not find an example of a country that incorporates those religious beliefs into there government. Maybe that is why they don’t sound so bad. But being a Muslim in Spain in 1478 could have been a death sentence.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Wilber,

So your entire post has nothing to do with my question.

You're right, it doesn't. But since a couple of them pertained to an Islamic state, I thought it was worth pointing out which did and which didn't. Sorry for the confusion.

Peace

 

[Hijrah]

Hi Wilber,
THe vast majority of what you listed does not apply in an Islamic state.
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
The head of the state is a religious leader as well as a political leader. He is the supreme leader for the Muslims so obviously he must be Muslim. Non-muslims are free to elect their own leaders and representatives.
Jizya is paid instead of the Zakat for Muslims as the Non-muslims will be defended by the Muslims; more info here:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=481&section=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions
If you don't like the religion why would you choose to live in that religious state?? Just to create trouble?
I think this was explained earlier in terms of the rights of employees to pray; if this is not infringed then there is no problem here.
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!
Not in an Islamic state!

Hi Keltoi,
Did you check the links I gave earlier about the Islamic state?

Peace

Ansar, I have a few questions regarding what you have stated. Isn't it true that if a Muslim doesn't pray, it is punishable by death.

And also, concerning other religiois groups having their own courts, wouldn't there be transgression of the Islamic Law concerning many things!

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I have a few questions regarding what you have stated.

Okay; but both your questions are not related to anything I've stated.

Isn't it true that if a Muslim doesn't pray, it is punishable by death.

You may be thinking of something more along the lines of apostasy, in which case you should check the link I provided earlier.

And also, concerning other religiois groups having their own courts, wouldn't there be transgression of the Islamic Law concerning many things!

I never saw the issue of courts mentioned in this thread before. At any rate, it works like secular states. Family matters can be done through religious groups but criminal matters need to be dealt with by the state.

 

[Hijrah]

Okay; but both your questions are not related to anything I've stated.

You may be thinking of something more along the lines of apostasy, in which case you should check the link I provided earlier.
I never saw the issue of courts mentioned in this thread before. At any rate, it works like secular states. Family matters can be done through religious groups but criminal matters need to be dealt with by the state.

but in a previous post, you said concerning criminal matter, the Imaam or the ruler can not prevent the kaafirs in an Islamic state from drinking alcohol or eating pork.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

but in a previous post, you said concerning criminal matter, the Imaam or the ruler can not prevent the kaafirs in an Islamic state from drinking alcohol or eating pork.

Those aren't criminal matters for non-muslims. Criminal matters would be theft, murder, etc. Those crimes against other people.

 

[Curaezipirid]

Curaezipirid
I understand your problem with answering “If” questions. But, I do believe that each and every one of my “If” statements did or do exist where there is/was a state religion. Therefore they are not just “If” statements that have no bearing on reality. So such things have come into existence. It is interesting that you picked Hinduism and Buddhism as examples of where you would live. Looking, I can not find an example of a country that incorporates those religious beliefs into there government. Maybe that is why they don’t sound so bad. But being a Muslim in Spain in 1478 could have been a death sentence.

I should note that my saying I would live under Hinduism or Buddhism is a matter of that I would rather than live in a secular country: in that if we can be certain in the belief system which legislators subscribe to then there is a greater presence of democratic opportunity regardless of the means by which the government came to power. Obviously my preference is to live in a Muslim state. But I am also in favour of that occuring through ordinary processes. For example if Sentors gradually convert and more who are known to actualise Islamic accountibility become elected etc. This is factually possible in a Nation State like Australia once Muslims and Aborigines have reconciled the establised Indigenous belief with Islam.

(You gotta wonder if the Queen would still want to have her head on our coins when that happens? -I say "when" only knowing that movements are already afoot among organised crime in Australia to align with Islam, of all the daft ironies!-but at that most of those whom are sustaining Islamic belief are hiding the fact of, often for immediate safety; so would the Queen even know? -she'll probably only suspect that too many heroin users were liking the Afgan flavour which is not too far from the truth in fact.)

Critically the way in which the state deals with crime, and what the state defines as crime, is the essential fact in which we need bear this dialogue.

Good point about Spain; and could I point out that well before it amounted to murder in many countries Muslims have placed back a Christian hat upon their heads. Yet once Qur'an is comprehended Christianity has a markedly different flavour; and it could exist that a Christian State is aligned with Muslim method of accounting for crime.

wasalam

 

[Pygoscelis]

To me the question "Would you like to live in a theocracy" is no different from "Would you like to live in a repressive dictatorship".

Keep in mind that any theocracy is going to have high priests who interpret the religious creed and tell you all how to live your lives. Not only will nonbelievers in the state religion be ostracized but so will those who DO believe the state religion but just not in the "proper way" (ie, the way the guy in charge decides things must be).

 

[Bittersteel]

I’m seeing a lot of slamming of secular governments.

I don't have problem with secularism(as long its not like in Turkey) but with liberalism.

 

[manaal]

Yes, but only if the state religion is my religion..... and they do not practice extremism.

 

[ranma1/2]

i would love to live in an islamic state.

true peace true rights true safety.

true rights? as soon as you have a theocracy you lose rights, especially if you are not of that religion.