Who wants to live in a theocracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wilberhum
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 206
  • Views Views 22K

Who wants to live in a theocracy?

  • Total voters
    0
carpetguy said:
as long as we are free to be muslim without being frowned upon
Click to expand...
Every group, every person is frowned upon by others, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. Those groups and people are just supposed to ignore it and keep moving forward. That's life.

I'd agree with something along the lines of 'As long as we are free to be Muslim without being killed for our belief'.
 
Muezzin said:
Every group, every person is frowned upon by others, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. Those groups and people are just supposed to ignore it and keep moving forward. That's life.

I'd agree with something along the lines of 'As long as we are free to be Muslim without being killed for our belief'.
Click to expand...

yes i agree totally, thats a better way of putting it
 
I would totally love to live in a theocracy, if I could trust that it was really God who was in charge.

However, given that I have very little confidence in even the best of men to always interpret what it is that God's will is, and even less confidence that it will be the best of men who exercise power in any government, I do not want to live in any earthly theocracy where humans are the intepreters of the divine will. I therefore paradoxically think that it a secular govenment which truly grants freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) would be the safest form of a government for those seeking to be free from demonic influences infiltrating the exercise of power in the government.
 
- Qatada - said:

First of all, let's see the rights of non muslims in an Islamic state (which follows the authentic teachings, just take a look:
Rights of Citizens in an Islamic State


Islam protects the rights belonging to the citizens of an Islamic state, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims.
  • The citizens of an Islamic state have absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law, regardless of their religion.

There was a time when one wasn't even allowed to follow another religion apart from their rulers, and if they did - they would be beheaded. Yet God/Allaah sent His servant and final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - a man just like us - who was well known for his honesty and trustworthiness, to free the world from the oppression it faces.



That's what Divine revelation is supposed to do - it's supposed to free mankind from the hardships and oppression they are facing. And free the weak and the oppressed. This is Islaam, and without a doubt without Islaam, mankind is oppressed, since the rulers (i.e. of today) may say that we are 'freeing people from the oppression of religion' - when in reality, all they're doing is forcing people to accept their ideology, and anyone who speaks out - they get locked up.

So is this really freedom, or is it not? If God can send a perfect law to mankind 14 centuries ago which is more advanced than the laws of today, then i'm sure that it is even more perfect and suitable for the future also.
​
Click to expand...



And yet in a supposedly secular state that accepts Islam as its official religion we have a woman being persecuted because she wants her official government ID to indicate that she is Christian and not Muslim: Malaysian Christian Convert Denied Recognition.

I don't see the freedoms you speak of being granted to this woman.​
 
Grace Seeker said:
And yet in a supposedly secular state that accepts Islam as its official religion we have a woman being persecuted because she wants her official government ID to indicate that she is Christian and not Muslim: Malaysian Christian Convert Denied Recognition.

I don't see the freedoms you speak of being granted to this woman.
Click to expand...

That is quite a controversial case in Malaysia about that woman. I think it would be best if a Malaysian answers that. I know someplace we have an old thread about it.

The whole issue seems to have more to do with the legal status of Malaysians than it has to do with Islam. But, I do not know the whole story.
 
Woodrow said:
That is quite a controversial case in Malaysia about that woman. I think it would be best if a Malaysian answers that. I know someplace we have an old thread about it.

The whole issue seems to have more to do with the legal status of Malaysians than it has to do with Islam. But, I do not know the whole story.
Click to expand...

I hope to get some response. I learned about this a few weeks ago from a Christian friend who is from Malaysia. He told me some of his other experiences growing up there before moving to the USA. But I figure there is always more than one side to a story. I have tried 3 times to get the other side to this story on this board and have yet to receive an answer. Maybe there isn't one. Maybe it really is as bad as it looks.

I think the issue it raises is the center of the question posed by this thread: "Who wants to live in a theocracy?" Do people have individual personal rights in a theocracy to believe and practice something different than that of the theocratic ruler? Should they? If the answer is "No" to that question then I think that takes us right back to the height of the Spanish Inquisition. If that was wrong, then the concept of theocratic rule must allow for beliefs (and the actual uninterfered practice of beliefs) outside of those of the ruling clerics' views.
 
I found one of the old threads about Lina Joy. It is over in World Affairs and was closed a few weekd ago. But, it can still be read. It may help a little. Here is a link to it.

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/43399-lina-joy.html

There had been a few other threads about her, but I can not recal the name of them. this has actually been going on for several years.

I could be wrong on this part, but if memory serves me right she originaly did not convert to Christianity and simply left Islam. However, once she found out that she had left Islam she no longer had rights under Sharia Law and she then sought to become a Christian in order to obtain the rights as a Christian.

I know my memory probably has some flaws in it it, but that is roughly what I remember. I am quite certain that originaly she did not want to convert to Christianity, but wanted to retain Islamic rights under Sharia and not be Muslim.

Like I said this story goes back for several years, the Christian twist seems to be a recent innovation in her case.
 
From some of the article about the Lina Joy case in Malaysia:
"It is not about one person, it is about challenging the Islamic system in Malaysia," said Muslim Youth Movement President Yusri Mohammad, who set up a coalition of 80 Islamic groups to oppose Joy's case.

"By doing this openly, she is encouraging others to do the same. It may open the floodgates to other Muslims because once it is a precedent, it becomes an option."
Click to expand...

Indeed it is about challenging the Islamic system, both in Malaysia and the very idea that one can have an Islmaic system of government to rule non-Muslims. Espcially when one considers what the application of Muhammad's (Pbuh) statement:
the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did say, in the above historical context, "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him" (Bukhari, Abu Dawud) but how exactly do we understand this statement and does it conflict with the principles of freedom? The Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself clarified this statement in another hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim where he mentioned that the one who was to be fought against was the one who "abandons his religion and the Muslim community".
Click to expand...

The following is a commentary on the above ideas expressed by Muhammad:
Islam is not just a set of beliefs, it is a complete system of life which includes a Muslim's allegiance to the Islamic state. Thus, a rejection against that would be akin to treason.
Click to expand...

This is why I cannot support a theocracy unless it is God himself who is the ruler. I will trust God to carry out his rule with justice, but I will trust no man to interpret what that justice is. For me the concept of theocracy being bad is not about Islam, certainly there have been Christian attempts to have Christian theocracies (and other religions have tried it too); all attempts have turned out bad. Bad not just for unbelievers, but even for believers who were out of favor with the ideas of the rulers. Only in a society where one actually respects the views of those that one differs with can there be true freedom and security for the individual. The rights of the citizen should be above the rights of the government, and that can only happen when the government does not see itself as enforcing God's rule or law.
 
Last edited:
Grace Seeker said:
The rights of the citizen should be above the rights of the government, and that can only happen when the government does not see itself as enforcing God's rule or law.
Click to expand...

And the rights of the society should be above the rights of the individual...

You post seems to imply that God is incapable of creating a law that humans have the ability of implementing justly... I'm sure you don't mean it that way though?:?
 
i oppose 100% to a religious theoracacy..

if it was Christian, i would not mind.. why? Because Christianity and the west share similar values.

but islam.. i just could not do it.

- I am anti death penalty
- anti polygamy
- Pro gay rights
- pro equality of all
- pro music!! lol

to be honest, if America ever became an islamic country, i would commit suicide. and i'm not saying that because i hate islam or hate muslims. i am saying that though because i am a very "westernized" person.. i am a neo liberal. i love seeing gay fashion designers everywhere, and i love drinking wine at every meal, and i love to hit the night clubs. i love swimming without being segregated. 70% of my friends are women.. it would be hard not being able to talk to them! i love that a loving couple, even if un married, can have sex. i love that people don't have to fear the death penalty.

i love indiviudality. which is why i love the west, and i wouldn't leave it if it were for my life :)
 
thirdwatch512 said:
i oppose 100% to a religious theoracacy..

if it was Christian, i would not mind.. why? Because Christianity and the west share similar values.

but islam.. i just could not do it.

- I am anti death penalty
- anti polygamy
- Pro gay rights
- pro equality of all
- pro music!! lol

to be honest, if America ever became an islamic country, i would commit suicide. and i'm not saying that because i hate islam or hate muslims. i am saying that though because i am a very "westernized" person.. i am a neo liberal. i love seeing gay fashion designers everywhere, and i love drinking wine at every meal, and i love to hit the night clubs. i love swimming without being segregated. 70% of my friends are women.. it would be hard not being able to talk to them! i love that a loving couple, even if un married, can have sex. i love that people don't have to fear the death penalty.

i love indiviudality. which is why i love the west, and i wouldn't leave it if it were for my life :)
Click to expand...

That might depend on which "western" Christian theocracy you were talking about:

--John Calvin's Geneva theocracy
--Salem, Massachuesset's Puritan theocracy
--New Harmony, Indiana
--the Shakers'
--Jim Jones' temple
--one arising out of the Westboro Baptist Church
or something else.



Malakiah, I guess I don't think that God could create a theocracy that men who still had free will could not corrupt until he comes back to rule personally. Though they might not, history tells me it would be foolish to take such a risk.
 
does anyone else wonder about the person who voted "Yes, even if the state religion is not my religion"???
i sure do but then, i'm like that.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top