142 replies to this topic

[StopS]

What we see is that there is no such thing as a definition for Shariah which is accepted by everyone.

With my little joke I also showed that there is no set and agreed upon definition of what an Islamic state is. All these terms are subject to interpretation and changing circumstances.

Just like concepts of morality and sin, we adapt them to a common set of 3 or 4 easily defined processes and anything after that is open.

Any system of human co-existence, whether religious or political, has always had pros and cons. And just like everybody has a different understanding of socialism or communism, the same is true for religion based systems such as Shariah. So blowing the trumpet of any one particular system is futile and bound to fail.

[SaracenSoldier]

What we see is that there is no such thing as a definition for Shariah which is accepted by everyone.

With my little joke I also showed that there is no set and agreed upon definition of what an Islamic state is. All these terms are subject to interpretation and changing circumstances.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[StopS]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Hahaha, and you have?

Well then, define the Islamic state and Shariah which every Muslim (all 1.5 bn) will agree with. You can't, why not face the truth?

You, a layman, said you have no idea what you are talking about and I have quoted scholars saying the opposite of each other. And YOU, you of all people, knows what you are talking about and can provide what nobody else can?

[andalusi]

Hahaha, and you have?

Well then, define the Islamic state and Shariah which every Muslim (all 1.5 bn) will agree with. You can't, why not face the truth?

islamic state is based on quran and hadith, and there most be islamic elections, among muslims who is most suitable to lead the country.

[StopS]

islamic state is based on quran and hadith, and there most be Islamic elections, among muslims who is most suitable to lead the country.

I'm done with you. Your last post on this topic here too also shows there is no rational and intelligent discussion possible with you. I really tried, but it is futile.

[andalusi]

I'm done with you. Your last post on this topic here too also shows there is no rational and intelligent discussion possible with you. I really tried, but it is futile.

i also really tried with you, but it is futile.

you can believe or not believe, i believe what i want to believe,

[danieldemol]

4. The 'Jiziyaa' (Non-muslim tax) is lower than the 'Zakat' (Muslim tax).

The Jizyaa, a tax for non-muslim citizens of the state, is lower than the Muslim tax - Zakat (Obligatory upon all muslims).

If this was really as great as it sounds, and if Muslims were really prepared to live by this, we could give it a test run in the west before we even implement shariah.

So lets have a Muslim only vote: How many Muslims vote for a higher tax rate on Muslims than non-Muslims to be implemented in the west immediately to give Muslims an opportunity to live up to even one of the ridiculous standards they claim they will uphold if shariah be implemented.

Please indicate that you are Muslim and whether you vote for or against below.

[Saracen21stC]

If this was really as great as it sounds, and if Muslims were really prepared to live by this, we could give it a test run in the west before we even implement shariah.

This is a part of Shariah. So saying we will only follow a part by ignoring others will be bad for Muslim. It's a whole package. You will have to give a test run of the whole package.

So lets have a Muslim only vote: How many Muslims vote for a higher tax rate on Muslims than non-Muslims to be implemented in the west immediately to give Muslims an opportunity to live up to even one of the ridiculous standards they claim they will uphold if shariah be implemented.

Care to explain this underlined part? Why are they Ridiculous? What criteria you use in deciding them as ridiculous or not ridiculous?

Please indicate that you are Muslim and whether you vote for or against below.

I vote hundred percent for if you apply Sharia in every aspect of life in the West for all.

[danieldemol]

This is a part of Shariah. So saying we will only follow a part by ignoring others will be bad for Muslim. It's a whole package. You will have to give a test run of the whole package.

Think about it like this though. Given the massive opposition to the imposition of shariah in the west. It's implementation would be an elephant of a task. The way to eat an elephant is one spoonful at a time. Thus if you implemented one step of the shariah you would be one step closer to the ultimate goal. Why are you opposed to being one step closer to your own aim?

Care to explain this underlined part? Why are they Ridiculous? What criteria you use in deciding them as ridiculous or not ridiculous?

They are ridiculous because in the context of a pluralistic society such as Australia where I live (one part of the west), to introduce a law which discriminates against a person on the basis of their faith is just driving in the thin end of the wedge that it is okay to treat people at a disadvantage on the basis of their religion. I wouldn't want that for a Muslim and I wouldn't want it for myself either.

[Saracen21stC]

Think about it like this though. Given the massive opposition to the imposition of shariah in the west. It's implementation would be an elephant of a task. The way to eat an elephant is one spoonful at a time. Thus if you implemented one step of the shariah you would be one step closer to the ultimate goal. Why are you opposed to being one step closer to your own aim?

As it has been stated earlier here that Sharia is a whole package. Applying only a part is not such a good news for Muslims. Anyway, It's Fard (Obligatory) for every Muslim to pay Zakat. So, even after paying equal tax in the West, a Muslim will have to pay Zakat as well. In each and every secular country they will have to pay that additional Zakat amount too based on the religious teaching.

They are ridiculous because in the context of a pluralistic society such as Australia where I live (one part of the west), to introduce a law which discriminates against a person on the basis of their faith is just driving in the thin end of the wedge that it is okay to treat people at a disadvantage on the basis of their religion. I wouldn't want that for a Muslim and I wouldn't want it for myself either.

This looks like a classical rant on Shariah. If any discussion is to take place, It must be constructive. So, next time if there is some involvement of Qur'an, Hadith and other Islamic sources in the posts, we can probably start a good discussion.

[danieldemol]

This looks like a classical rant on Shariah. If any discussion is to take place, It must be constructive. So, next time if there is some involvement of Qur'an, Hadith and other Islamic sources in the posts, we can start a good discussion.

That un-nessesarily cuts out a lot of perfectly valid opinions as I see it. But lets stick to the three sources you mentioned just as a consideration for you.

WE CAN EXPECT THIS IslamIC STATE WHEN JESUS CHRIST COMES BACK, AND WE WAIT FOR HIS RETURN TO THE EARTH.


Prophet Muhammed announced Jesus second coming to the earth to rule with Sharia laws

Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: By Him in Whose hand is my life, the son of Mary(jesus) (may peace be upon him) will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses kill swine and abolish Jizya... (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 92).

According to my understanding of the original poster (OP), the following are consistent with the opinion he is setting forth;

1. An imposition of the full shariah package will result in the establishment of a shariah state.
2. This shariah state will not come into existence until the coming of His holiness Jesus
3. When His holiness Jesus comes he will abolish Jizya.

According to my understanding of your statements we cannot have the imposition of a part of shariah without the imposition of the whole shariah. Thus assuming your beliefs to be in agreement with those of the original poster (since it is my views you are expressing disagreement with and not his), it would be unlawful according to the rules of Islam (as you see them) to impose any part of the shariah prior to the coming of Jesus (this part comes from adding your beliefs to the OP's beliefs).

Therefore since it is against the laws of Islam to impose shariah until Jesus (peace be upon Him) abolishes Jizya it is therefore not permissible to impose Jizya according to two of the three sources you mentioned, namely; Islamic sources (yourself and the OP), and Hadith.

Kind regards

[andalusi]

Therefore since it is against the laws of Islam to impose shariah until Jesus (peace be upon Him) abolishes Jizya it is therefore not permissible to impose Jizya according to two of the three sources you mentioned, namely; Islamic sources (yourself and the OP), and Hadith.

not true, it is not against islam to impose shariah before jesus. it would be like preparation for his second coming , so he can rule this big islamic state, with book of God quran.


WHy should he abolish Jizya, beacuse , when someone is offering him, pay jiyza and stay as christian or jew or become muslim, he jesus shall abolish this Jyza, beacuse, he shall not accept christianity from anyone on this earth, beacuse he is not founder of Christianity. and nobody shall use his name for promoting christianity, Jesus relgion was islam.

The Religion of Jesus and Moses is Islam - Ahmad Deedat


amazing debate, you all most see this, quran or bible, wich is true word of God, total knock out by this muslim Deedat i think that christian can get nightmares after this debate.

THE QUR'AN OR THE BIBLE: WHICH IS GOD'S WORD? (DEBATE) Ahmed Deedat VS Doctor Anis Shorrosh

[Saracen21stC]

@ danieldemol
^ No. There is no way andalusi was saying that whole Shariah can not be applied now. Jesus Christ (PBUH) will unite the Muslims and the Christians and defeat the tyrants of other religions. All the citizens there will be the Muslims. As a result, there will be no necessity to charge Jizya. Undoubtedly Zakat will be charged from them.

[danieldemol]

not true, it is not against Islam to impose shariah before jesus.

I agree that it is not against Islam to impose shariah before Jesus.

I should have made it clearer that what I was saying was that if your "interpretation" of Islam is to be regarded as being Islam, and the dogmas asserted by yourself and the OP were to be added together in an internally consistent manner, they would result in the illogical assertion that Islam prevents the Shariah from being implemented prior to the coming of Jesus - by which time implementing Jizya would be irrelevant anyway.

As regards the rest of what you posted, it is off topic.

Edited by danieldemol, 22 June 2012 - 01:29 PM.

[SaracenSoldier]

Think about it like this though. Given the massive opposition to the imposition of shariah in the west. It's implementation would be an elephant of a task. The way to eat an elephant is one spoonful at a time. Thus if you implemented one step of the shariah you would be one step closer to the ultimate goal. Why are you opposed to being one step closer to your own aim?

A Muslims aim today is not to implement Shariah in the West. It is to implement it in the Muslim world.

[danieldemol]

Thanks for clarifying Saracen,

The strange thing is though wouldn't that mean it would make more sense for Andalusi to have made the OP in an internal Muslim dialogue (as opposed to a Muslim-Western dialogue)?

After all, if you can't even convince Muslims that shariah is so relevant that they apply it in Muslim countries, then what is the point in even beginning to sell it to us when your own people won't buy it.

[StopS]

Thanks for clarifying Saracen,

The strange thing is though wouldn't that mean it would make more sense for Andalusi to have made the OP in an internal Muslim dialogue (as opposed to a Muslim-Western dialogue)?

After all, if you can't even convince Muslims that shariah is so relevant that they apply it in Muslim countries, then what is the point in even beginning to sell it to us when your own people won't buy it.

Excellent observation.

My main objection the entire concept is that nobody is able to define Shariah. You always get the same "based on Koran and Sunnah", but nobody has ever defined what of the Koran and what of the Sunnah. This means people are saying "Shariah" and everybody treats it like a placeholder and inserts whatever they want.
Scholars or self appointed scholars or commentators simply voice their opinion and will never be able to substantiate or source it. As it stands, nobody really knows what ruling applies to whom and where. A family dispute will be treated and resolved differently, depending on personal observation and region.

[SaracenSoldier]

Thanks for clarifying Saracen,

The strange thing is though wouldn't that mean it would make more sense for Andalusi to have made the OP in an internal Muslim dialogue (as opposed to a Muslim-Western dialogue)?

After all, if you can't even convince Muslims that shariah is so relevant that they apply it in Muslim countries, then what is the point in even beginning to sell it to us when your own people won't buy it.

Well, we are required to call people to Islam and to show them the message. One way of doing that is by clarifying some issues about Islam such as Shariah. So brother andalusi's purpose of this thread wasn't to try to get non-Muslim nations to implement it but just for non-Muslims' clarification and to show them what Shariah is.

[danieldemol]

...Jesus Christ (PBUH) will unite the Muslims and the Christians and defeat the tyrants of other religions. All the citizens there will be the Muslims...

So what happens if His holiness Jesus comes, and there are people who do not wish to follow His religion but are not opposed to Him as they are living in pluralistic society?

[SaracenSoldier]

So what happens if His holiness Jesus comes, and there are people who do not wish to follow His religion but are not opposed to Him as they are living in pluralistic society?

What is a pluralistic society?

Anyway, the coming back of Jesus(peace be upon him) is one of the MAJOR signs of the Day of Judgement. He will descend at or near the eastern white minaret in Damascus. Anyway, after that he will be in conflict with the anti-Christ and then Gog and Magog, etc. After these are finished he will conquer the whole world. He will give no one a choice other than to follow him. The Day of Judgement will occur after he passes away. Only Allah knows how long after.. could be a few years, could be centuries, etc only Allah knows.

More details here: