Jump to content
Islamic Forum
anthony19832005

Can A Good Muslims Also Be Secularist?

Recommended Posts

Assalamualikum

 

Non-Muslims in the Islamic state enjoyed the same rights as the muslims. Just go look into history. The non-muslims that used to live under the Islamic state used to prefer living under Islamic rule and they even used to fight alongside muslims to defend the Islamic land! I saw this documentary (made by non-muslims) and they were talking about how the christians even joined the army and fought against the other christian states because they preferred living under Islamic law which was just. (it was on SBS or ABC in Australia and i forgot the name)

What people need to understand is that there in NO IslamIC STATE PRESENT IN THE WORLD...NOWHERE...NOT IN AFGHANISTAN, NOT IN SUDAN, NOT IN SOMALIA. So stop thinking that Saudia Arabia is a country ruled by Islam because it is not.

 

As for secularism...if you support it then that means you support nationalism because secularism leads to nationalism....The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "He is not one of us [using large font size is not allowed]who calls for ‘Asabiyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for ‘Asabiyah or who dies for ‘Asabiyah." [Abu Dawood]

 

 

And muslims remember the words of the prophet(saw) --The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "The Prophethood will be among you as long as Allah wills, then he will eliminate it if he so wills. Then a khilafah on the model of Prophethood will prevail so long as Allah wills, then he will eliminate it if he so wills. Then there will be a biting monarchy as long as Allah wills, then he will eliminate it if he so wills. Then there will be an oppressive monarchy as long as Allah wills, then he will eliminate it if he so wills. Then a Khilafah on the way of Prophethood will prevail and he kept silent." [Ahmed]

 

Remember this and stop arguing for secularism because if you support secularism then your opposing the system that Allah has sent.

 

Assalamualikum

Edited by SJ54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Peace

 

As for secularism...if you support it then that means you support nationalism because secularism leads to nationalism....
I do not think that secularism = nationalism, and I do not think that secularism always leads to nationalism.

 

Non-Muslims in the Islamic state enjoyed the same rights as the muslims.

 

In the medinah charter yes. However, current interpretations of the Shariah (according to the 4 madhabs) claim that in an Islamic state, a non-muslim's oath in a court of law is not equal to that of a muslim. Another issue which I remember Livius disaprooving of is the fact that if he was to teach muslims about atheism, and try to make them become Atheists (just explaining, not forcing them in any way), he would be killed in the Islamic state. These are just some of the things which I believe (from past discussions) that people like Livius do not approove of.

 

Neither do i of course but is it true to compare Islam with the other religions?

 

I was speaking of Livius, and what he seems to like/dislike, judging from past discussions. And I think he would really dislike to live under ANY religion's laws, Including Islam.

 

Salaams

Edited by anthony19832005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because they perferred Islamic rule doesn't mean that it was completely just. Also, medieval standards of justice and modern standards of justice are completely different. Freedom and justice is to have an environment unrestricted by your religion. I know for a fact that in Shariah, there are different standards for muslims and non-muslims. It doesn't really matter if you feel that their seperate but equal; delegating such a class system by law is unfair and unjust. The west and many others have fought very hard tho create a society with equal opportunity and an identical standard for everyone. So far no-one has convinced me that shariah wouldn't be an enourmous step backwards. :sl:

 

I firmly believe that man cannot truely implement God's law on earth. The only person with the necessary purity to do so is Jesus himself. Unless you are Jesus, as a human you have to formulate your laws from a moral but mundane standpoint; we are too corrupt to do anymore.

Edited by Russ of Vespuccia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

 

I do not think that secularism = nationalism, and I do not think that secularism always leads to nationalism.

 

assalamualikum

 

Well if you take seperate religion from state then who would your allegiance be with? your religion or your country.

 

Assalamulikum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

Well if you take seperate religion from state then who would your allegiance be with? your religion or your country.

 

My Allegiance would be to Allah(swt) because if I was a secularist (which I am not, actually) I would be so only because I thought it was the best way to create a just and peaceful and prosperous society without giving too much power to corrupt Islamic Scholars who wish to control the masses through religion.

 

Salaams

Edited by anthony19832005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The non-muslims that used to live under the Islamic state used to prefer living under Islamic rule and they even used to fight alongside muslims to defend the Islamic land!
Yes, that is a fact. The differences between then and now, though, are immense. Almost every nation in the world at the time was oppressive in some fashion. In the present day you can choose many nations in which you can practice your religion freely and political office is not determined by what your religion is. That was not the case in the times of which you speak. Today quite the opposite is occurring. Non-Muslims are leaving Muslim lands in droves, heading to the places where political and religious freedom are more prevalent.

 

But if there was a country which follows Sharia 100% and is led by Muslims I can tell you now that country would have far less murders, rape, debt, druggies, and drunk dudes on the street. (In theory anyway)

 

There are certain flaws to that argument. The first is that you say "follows Sharia 100%", but what exactly is Sharia? There are no set rules and different Muslim scholars will tell you that Sharia means different things. Fundamentally Sharia means whatever the ruling Muslim scholars of that nation say it means. It is not defined, it is flexible, and therefore corruptable. In reality Sharia means being ruled by the whims of a small set of Muslim scholars.

 

Even if "perfect" Sharia exists, how long would it last? Even the rightly guided Kalifs could only keep it going for a short period of time. What makes anyone in the current day believe they could do better? Corruption is bound to occur when you put power in the hands of a small group of people for any extended period of time. Where are you going to find this group of Muslims that can institute "just" Sharia today? Where is it even close to being feasible? Please don't take this the wrong way, but the worldwide Muslim community I do not believe is ready, as a whole, to be able to handle such a government even if it did exist. Muslims are much too divided in their own beliefs, too used to corrupt governments and too divided among regional and ethnic backgrounds to even be close to being able to implement what Muslims would consider true Sharia.

 

Correct me if I am wrong Anthony, but I think that is part of the reason that Anthony believes that a secular government is acceptable right now. Fighting for Sharia right now is putting the cart before the horse. Muslims need to become much more united in their beliefs before they should even begin discussing implementing a true Sharia government anywhere.

 

Also, I do not define the merits of a system based on the crime rate. Any oppressive regime could enforce laws to an extent that it reduces crime, but that in no way means it is fair or just or a good system. I will put up with a higher crime rate if it means that me and my family have our freedoms.

 

Anthony, thank you expressing my views for me in my absence. We have discussed this before you understand my thoughts quite well.

Edited by Livius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sharia law derives from Quran and the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him) So no I don't think it relies so much on the opinion of people. The crimes I mentioned in my last post, the ruling on those issues are quite clear.

 

I agree with you. Us Muslims are very divided, at this moment in time we are doing pretty bad if you look at it from a world wide perspective. However in the future that will change, could be soon.

 

I don't really understand what you mean when you refer to sharia as an "oppressive regime". If you lived under sharia law, what kind of problems do you think you would have (I'm just curious) Also, the Muslim people living in places like Britain that complain about not being able to find halal meat, or naked women roaming the streets - in general the public would say to them "If you don't like it, leave the country" Therefore I guess the same could be said to a non muslim living in a country led by sharia law? Us Muslim people have a very different way of thinking. You may be ok with people getting drunk, doing drugs.. killing someone and getting away with it.. raping someone and getting away with it.. is this justice? If someone close to you got murdered, would you settle with them getting sent to jail for a while, coming out and doing it to someone else? There needs to be some kind of law and order. If you are not religious, and you don't have those kinds of morals then I understand. But even people who are not religious shouldn't want people to get away with murder (literally)

 

 

Mehmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

The sharia law derives from Quran and the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him) So no I don't think it relies so much on the opinion of people. The crimes I mentioned in my last post, the ruling on those issues are quite clear.
bro you seem to be contradicting yourself. One one hand, you say that People should not rely so much on madhabs(scholars), but instead they should follow just the Qur'an and Sunnah. On the other hand you say that "the rulings are quite clear" and that Islam Doesn't "reliy so much on the opinion of people"

 

it's either one or the other, it cant be both ways.

 

You may be ok with people getting drunk, doing drugs..

 

Us muslims are also OK with people getting drunk/doing drugs as long as they do it in the privacy of their own home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

Us muslims are also OK with people getting drunk/doing drugs as long as they do it in the privacy of their own home.

Well, Its the duty of the ruler to make it as inaccessible as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

There is no seperation of state and "church"( ok masjid ..lol) in Islam , The Legislation is only for Allah , Legislating laws which contradicts the shareea'h is forbidden and in many cases major kufr which takes the legislator and those who agree with him out of Islam.

 

In any case i would recommend that us muslim stop discussing theoretical aspects of Islam which have no relevance in our daily life and discuss things which can actually improve our relationship with Allah ,purify our hearts and give da'wah to those in need of it.

 

it's either one or the other, it cant be both ways.

Madhabs are tools to interpret the legal texts . The best and relied upon way to study fiqh is through one of the four madhabs. But Madhabs which are codified and in existence today do not have solutions for many problems which are relevant to our age , place (minorities in non-muslim countries is something recent in muslim history). So there is a need for ijtihad to solve our problems . Ijtihad can be done only by those qualified and those are scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony. Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. What I was trying to say is that the rulings aren't so much dependant on the "opinions" of scholars. I am sure you have read the Quran, doesn't that give us most of the laws that are in sharia? Do you need a scholar to explain to you the rulings on someone who is commits adultery? Livius was making it sound as if sharia derives from peoples own opinions (In some cases this might be true, some "rulers" try change laws, but this is WRONG)

 

You say we are ok with people drinking and doing drugs as long as they are doing it in their own privacy? I don't think so bro. Think about it, look into some hadiths.

 

Mehmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say we are ok with people drinking and doing drugs as long as they are doing it in their own privacy? I don't think so bro. Think about it, look into some hadiths.

To my knowledge, under Sharia law non-muslims are goverened by the laws of their own specific communities.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selam

 

As long as I can live my Islamic lifestyle without anyone bothering me or me bothering anyone else I'm fine. I don't care what other people do in their own homes.

 

Sharia is something to be applied on an individual level, not a national one (just ask yourself why it contains no plans whatsoever for an economic/infrastructure system). If you try to do that it's pretty much fascism and an impossible attempt at thought control.

 

Anyone who has even studied an minute's worth of economics or finance should realize this "Sharia" state concept is a scam.

 

The problem with secularism is that the state has a tendency to suppress religious rights. The problem with fundamentalism is that it suppresses all rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many people in the West have fought for centuries to remove the political power of the christian church, because it is recongised that a legal/political system where anyone who disagrees is called 'heretic' and can be put to death (and i think this is case for all abrahamic religions) is not a system that is just, and certainly not one that can evolve and adapt. Many moslems beleive that their system is perfect, just as many christians still do, and use their holy books to 'prove' it - because naturally the books claim that power, written as they were for religious hierarchical control.

 

many in the west *want* to be able to take drugs, they *want* women to have the freedom to wear what they want, and they do not want a group to take power and remove those freedoms, indeed many want those freedoms to be strengthened, and they get very jittery when they hear groups talking about taking over and imposing Laws based upon ancient religious edicts that would remove such freedoms. The West is certianly not perfect, and there are within it elements that want to 'turn the clock back' away from individual liberty and democracy (even the little progressa chieved so far), and i'm not just talking about moslems either, the talibanesque behaviour and beleifs of george bush is a strong example of this, interfering in scientific, social, intellectual and religious freedoms.

 

some moslems here have argued that shariah law prevents rape etc, but current legal systems also exist to prevent such behaviour (and is often broken by moslems themselves BTW, as right-wing nationalists often point out), such behaviour is not prevented by more or stricter laws, it is prevented by a decent education system and raising of awareness of such issues within society. It is individuals who make the choices they make, and the way forward is to empower individuals and remove the social/character flaws that lead to such behaviour. This is the path that individualism and social justice takes here in the west, and countries that have fully adopted such measures (the best examples being scandinavia) then such behaviour is reduced, whilst still maintaining individual freedoms.

 

as someone pointed out, there has been a HUGE outflowing of people from moslem countries to the West, and although it is perhaps for a variety of reasons, many of them come because they like the religious freedoms of the West, whereas for instance being a shia on saudi arabia can be a recipe for social exclusion. In america recently there was elected a moslem congressman, how many would expect such (reversed) freedom within a moslem country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say we are ok with people drinking and doing drugs as long as they are doing it in their own privacy? I don't think so bro. Think about it, look into some hadiths.

Yes, I am referring to stories from the 1st generation of muslims, when caliph Umar(not sure tho) was walking outside at night with some other muslims and he passed by a house and the noise attracted him. He looked through the window and he saw muslims getting drunk from alcohol, yet he decided that as long as they're doing it in the privacy of their own home, the state can't punish them.

 

Salaams

Edited by anthony19832005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In america recently there was elected a moslem congressman

Only until recently? It seems to me that America is so lagging behind compared to some Muslim countries.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE how the idea of a secular government came about. It was after thousands of years of people killing themselves over religion.

 

Look at Rome or Greece! Did they have religion? Yes. But it wasn't the idea we have today where your faith goes into a God to take care of you and to give you the rules, it was in the personally beliefs of the person.

 

If religion in government works, then shouldn't the governments that have "a little Islam" in them should be doing better than the entirely secular governments?

 

We can throw out reasons that it doesn't work, but there are so many examples that as far as saying "should it be in government" shouldn't even be asked.

 

Europe or "The West" got sick of religion invading everything we do 500 years ago, and look at where we are.

 

The Islamic world had thier own rienassance 500 years before Europe at a poing when the rulers let people just be people and didn't tell them that religion was everything.

 

Look at it historically. No where in the world has enforcing religious rules ever benefited a country or people in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Selam

 

As long as I can live my Islamic lifestyle without anyone bothering me or me bothering anyone else I'm fine. I don't care what other people do in their own homes.

 

Sharia is something to be applied on an individual level, not a national one (just ask yourself why it contains no plans whatsoever for an economic/infrastructure system). If you try to do that it's pretty much fascism and an impossible attempt at thought control.

 

Anyone who has even studied an minute's worth of economics or finance should realize this "Sharia" state concept is a scam.

 

The problem with secularism is that the state has a tendency to suppress religious rights. The problem with fundamentalism is that it suppresses all rights.

 

 

......

 

 

If my country were ever to come under the rule of any Islamic leader, I would fight them like a rabid dog... but I think I would fight you with much less enthusiasm Attilla. You too Anthony. You two are enough to restore a man's faith in the possible harmony of the West and Islam. Not completely, but you're doing good.

 

The rest of you. Work on it. :sl:

 

Seriously, you cats should be scholars. Why should your amazingly reasonable views be confined to rinky-dink forums while the crackpot Abu-hamza "Allah wants us to blow stuff up and do some Kafir shootin" types get all the air time. Get yourselves an Imam suit and a podium and start un-brainwashing some of these Jihadi nutcases. For all our sakes.

 

 

 

 

And there is no way that implementing sharia law over a country with any non-muslim population will go over well. It's akin to forcing muslims to live by strict Catholic doctrine. It will cause tension and eventually violence. My suggestion? Implement sharia law over yourself and yourself only. Alllah doesn't want you to drink? Don't drink. You can still come to the club and play darts with me while I drink. You can even preach to me about Islam if you want, just can it if I ask you to. You all say that Islam is against coercing people to become Muslim... so open your eyes and see that Sharia law is just coercion on a national level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be ok with people getting drunk, doing drugs.. killing someone and getting away with it.. raping someone and getting away with it.. is this justice?
I don't recall anyone ever arguing for legalized murder or rape. Is there a place in particular that you are thinking of that has legalized rape? What point am I missing that you are trying to make here?

 

The sharia law derives from Quran and the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him) So no I don't think it relies so much on the opinion of people. The crimes I mentioned in my last post, the ruling on those issues are quite clear.

 

Then why has Sharia been implemented in so many different ways if it is clear? If it is clear then please answer me a few questions:

 

What is the tax rate for non-Muslims compared to Muslims?

 

When are non-Muslims allowed to be armed? When are Muslims allowed to be armed?

 

How easy is it for a Masjid to be built? How easy is it for a Synagogue or Church to be built? A Hindu temple?

 

What are the rules concerning Buddhists putting up a statue in public?

 

Can a Muslim be killed by the state for converting to Christianity?

 

Can a Christian be killed by the state for converting to Islam?

 

Can non-Muslims be ruled in any fashion by non-Muslims? In what circumstances could a Hindu be elected leader of a Muslim city?

 

How is the Kalif selected? Who selects the people that select the Kalif?

 

Can Christian churches display the cross in public?

 

Can a Muslim man marry a Christian woman? Can a Christian man marry a Muslim woman?

 

What is the testimony of a Muslim compared to the testimony of a Hindu?

 

Can Muslims own Christian slaves? Can Christians own Muslim slaves?

 

Answer me these questions. Tell me what the scholars say. Show me where in history these "just" laws have been put into practice.

 

Can you explain to me how such a system is more just than the secular ones that exist today?

 

It seems to me that America is so lagging behind compared to some Muslim countries.
What examples do you have Yasnov? Which countries is America lagging behind?

 

Also, the Muslim people living in places like Britain that complain about not being able to find halal meat, or naked women roaming the streets - in general the public would say to them "If you don't like it, leave the country" Therefore I guess the same could be said to a non muslim living in a country led by sharia law?

 

I could see your point if the nation you lived in made you eat non-halal meat or punished you for not dressing skimpily. They do not, though. If Muslims cannot find halal meat then they have the resources to get it. If they do not like women who are scantily clad they may avert their eyes. There are no laws in my country that keep a Muslim from publically following his faith. There are no laws limitting people who want to convert to Islam. There are no laws limitting who Muslims can attempt to convert to their religion.

 

Under Sharia non-Muslims are only able to practice their religion in private, and face death for attempting to preach their religion to Muslims. I find your analogy flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
open your eyes and see that Sharia law is just coercion on a national level.

Coercion is one distinctive characteristics of laws.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coercion is one distinctive characteristics of laws.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

 

 

Exactly. So Sharia law in itself, when applied to a population which is not 100% muslim, is un-Islamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. So Sharia law in itself, when applied to a population which is not 100% muslim, is un-Islamic.

There was no, there is no, and perhaps there will never be in history a society with 100% Muslim population, or 100% Christian population, or 100% atheists. So, I don't get bout the un-Islamic parts.

 

That's what an American democracy all about.

 

In the United States, democracy is the condition in which the nation's leaders are chosen by a majority of the citizens.

you are not allowed to post links yetrepublicandictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/rd_d.shtml

 

In the United States, democracy refers to a system of government which derives its power from the consent of the majority and governs according to the will of the majority.

you are not allowed to post links yethistorycentral(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Civics/D.html

 

Democracy: majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=democracy"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=democracy[/url]

 

What examples do you have Yasnov? Which countries is America lagging behind?

Gnuneo said that there was a moslem congressman elected in America today ..and this is the year 2007.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I firmly believe that man cannot truely implement God's law on earth. The only person with the necessary purity to do so is Jesus himself. Unless you are Jesus, as a human you have to formulate your laws from a moral but mundane standpoint; we are too corrupt to do anymore.

 

Peace Russ,

Why would you believe that the ONLY person with the necessary purity to implement God's law on earth is Jesus (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him)? He's a prophet, like all other prophets, revered and respected of course by Muslims. What are your thoughts on other prophets? Are they lesser? Why would Jesus take precedence in your eyes over the final Prophet that was sent for mankind? All people are too corrupt to create their own laws for all others to abide by. God is the creator of people, the world and laws. Only He has that authority and only HE has the divinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what exactly is Sharia? There are no set rules and different Muslim scholars will tell you that Sharia means different things. Fundamentally Sharia means whatever the ruling Muslim scholars of that nation say it means. It is not defined, it is flexible, and therefore corruptable. In reality Sharia means being ruled by the whims of a small set of Muslim scholars.

 

Shariah may mean different things in the eyes of the people, however, it is most certainly defined. There is flexibility to accommodate for the differences amongst people and offer them ease. If everything were black and white, there would be more hardship for people. Because people are very different, there is room for difference. However, bearing that in mind, Islamic matters where there is difference of opinion, are minor matters. There will never be differences in opinion in areas of the basic belief, for example in that God is One and partners are not to be associated with Him. Matters where you find differences of opinion would be in issues such as where to place your hands in prayer (on your chest or closer to your navel). The four major schools of thought differ on such matters but agree on all major matters.

 

In the Qur'an and the Hadith, many things are spelled out very clearly, however because people have chosen not to agree with them, they deem them controversial issues and say they are not clear. The way I see it, is if Allah the Almighty said it in the Qur'an and /or the Prophet Peace and Blessings Be upon him said it in an authentic hadith, then there are no ifs ands or buts about it. What causes differences is the lack of desire to follow the commandments in the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH. What you will see on forums oftentimes is opinions of the people, not what the texts say.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what exactly is Sharia? There are no set rules and different Muslim scholars will tell you that Sharia means different things. Fundamentally Sharia means whatever the ruling Muslim scholars of that nation say it means. It is not defined, it is flexible, and therefore corruptable. In reality Sharia means being ruled by the whims of a small set of Muslim scholars.

 

Shariah may mean different things in the eyes of the people, however, it is most certainly defined. There is flexibility to accommodate for the differences amongst people and offer them ease. If everything were black and white, there would be more hardship for people. Because people are very different, there is room for difference. However, bearing that in mind, Islamic matters where there is difference of opinion, are minor matters. There will never be differences in opinion in areas of the basic belief, for example in that God is One and partners are not to be associated with Him. Matters where you find differences of opinion would be in issues such as where to place your hands in prayer (on your chest or closer to your navel). The four major schools of thought differ on such matters but agree on all major matters.

 

In the Qur'an and the Hadith, many things are spelled out very clearly, however because people have chosen not to agree with them, they deem them controversial issues and say they are not clear. The way I see it, is if Allah the Almighty said it in the Qur'an and /or the Prophet Peace and Blessings Be upon him said it in an authentic hadith, then there are no ifs ands or buts about it. What causes differences is the lack of desire to follow the commandments in the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH. What you will see on forums oftentimes is opinions of the people, not what the texts say.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×