IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: Why are most of the Muslims.......

Author

Message

Maryga

Senior Member

Joined: 10 July 2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 143

Posted: 13 February 2006 at 2:55am

What is the alternative you suggest David C? Ignore Allah's laws only because man did not implement it correctly? Islam has also seen a golden era during the time of Hazrat Umar, do we ignore all those successes and prevail upon what went wrong?

IP Logged

DavidC

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 September 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2211

Posted: 13 February 2006 at 5:42am

I think laws should be enacted only when there is objective damage to
human life or property. Restrictions and corrections should be minimal.

If God is the only one offended, punishment should be left entirely to God.
We all offend God and sin several times a day. To pick and choose which
sins should suffer earthly consequences always ends up as "your sin is
worse than my sin" and forces judges to the blasphemous condition of
having to speak amd act in the name of God.

Believers of course will obey God's laws willingly.

I am unfamiliar with Hazrat Umar. Please start a new thread; it sounds like a
good topic.

Edited by DavidC

David C.

IP Logged

AhmadJoyia

Senior Member

Joined: 20 March 2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161

Posted: 13 February 2006 at 1:26pm

Originally posted by DavidC

I think laws should be enacted only when there is objective damage to
human life or property. Restrictions and corrections should be minimal.

ok, that is understandable to certain extent.

Originally posted by DavidC

If God is the only one offended, punishment should be left entirely to God.
We all offend God and sin several times a day.

This part may refer to "no compulsion of faith" in Islam.

Originally posted by DavidC

To pick and choose which sins should suffer earthly consequences always ends up as "your sin is worse than my sin" and forces judges to the blasphemous condition of having to speak amd act in the name of God.

Brother, there are some differences here between Christianity and Islam where the former (most of them) looks at the bipolar view of society (State vs church) whereas the later considers it as one whole nonseperable entity. Quran provides legal discourses on civil/criminal matters (those that usually offend a society) more than its religious matters. Just for example, one may find very detailed instructions on "inheritance law" in Quran but won't find much on as how to offer his 5 times a day obligatory prayer. Clearly, the matters of faith/intention are not bound under any human law except what has been kept for them after their death by the God alone. Therefore, it is not prudent to apply the same principle everywhere.

Originally posted by DavidC

Believers of course will obey God's laws willingly.

Obedience to God is not only in matter of faith but practically, must reflect through their dealings with other humans as well. Here the famous concept of "rights of God" VS "rights of humans" in Islam may also be recalled where God ,though may forgive His rights over a human, but shall never forgive the rights of one human over the other untill that human himself may not forgive the individual. It is for this purpose of securing the rights of humans among each other that Quran provides for the best legal protection. Therefore, in Islam, faith is not just a personal matter, but a responsibility towards other humans in his day to day routine, for which laws are made available to the people through Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet Mohammad.

The question of how to deal with non-Muslim living in Muslim dominated society, equitably and justly, are also part of this. If anyone needs to discuss them, certainly it would be a good thread to look at.

Edited by AhmadJoyia

IP Logged

Maryga

Senior Member

Joined: 10 July 2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 143

Posted: 13 February 2006 at 2:49pm

If God is the only one offended, punishment should be left entirely to God.

David, punishments exist in every system and thank God for them. Imagine a society where all punishments are left to God. I go to the shopping centre late in the evening when most of the crowds are gone yet, I come back disgusted with the sights I see. Perhaps people would walk about without the little clothes they put on these days.

Laws only for damage to human life & property! what about morality? I would'nt want to see an Ummah where like in some homes the father does not know if the child he is providing for is really his!

IP Logged

liberty

Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 08 February 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 45

Posted: 13 February 2006 at 4:51pm

Originally posted by DavidC

I think laws should be enacted only when there is objective damage to human life or property. Restrictions and corrections should be minimal.

Yes. Yes. Government should intrude upon our lives as little as necessary. They should stay out of our personal lives and decisions. Many people in the West that agree with this are uneasy with Islam since religion and politics seemed linked.

Are muslims happy living the democratic states or are they working towards making them Islamic states?

IP Logged

DavidC

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 September 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2211

Posted: 13 February 2006 at 7:15pm

Maryga - trhank you for your response, but please reread my post. There
is a considerable gray area and yes, some issues of morality impact life
and property. And many do not.

AhmadJoyia - Islam is fully capable of deconstructing obedience to
church and state. Evidence al-Ghazzali's beautiful deconstructions of the
nature of God. What can be more inseperable than God? The refusal to
logically deconstruct church and state is simply an avoidance of the
question.

The integration of church and state in Islam seems, to me, based on the
relationship of God to each individual soul. Within this relationship the
church and state are viewed as inseperable. All aspects of one's life must
certainly be oriented towards God

When one considers the relationship of man to his fellow man - politics -
I do not think the same inseperability applies. We have a God that loves
variety and has created each one of us differently, so each of us has a
slightly different relationship with God. We are all slaves of God, but we
have different tasks. The needs of a field slave are different from that of
a scribe slave, and each can - indeed must - have different politics if they
are to maintain an authentic relationship with God.

David C.

IP Logged

AhmadJoyia

Senior Member

Joined: 20 March 2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161

Posted: 14 February 2006 at 9:10am

Bro, I think, your formula might work as long as these so called different task oriented "slaves" don't cross intereact with each other. However, the moment they come across each other, and that is a matter of fact, only that which emphasizes common rules of politics (i.e. Islam) can keep them "humans" on earth.

I think, this discussion of "church VS State" can also be viewed as "athism VS theism". For this kindly refer to my on going discussion with bro Tim at http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=555& PN=1&TPN=4

IP Logged

Charles Wehner

Starter
Starter

Joined: 13 February 2006
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2

Posted: 14 February 2006 at 9:52am

Originally posted by Angela

Originally posted by Begbie

Originally posted by ak_m_f

A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack.

Wow, I did not know this. Can you provide a link to some articles where this was stated ?

Originally posted by ak_m_f

The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.

Really ?!!! Again, I would be most interested in finding out more on this. Do you have any further information on the perpetrator ?

Timothy McVeigh who was executed for the Oklahoma City Bombing was a neo-Nazi who was trying to start the revolution foretold in the Turner Diaries. He was a combat engineer attached to the Marines and studied his bomb making at Fort Leavenworth. I do remember when the bomb first when off on that day, they assumed that it was done by the same people who bombed the World Trade Center. It was only after a patrolman pulled McVeigh over and noticed "something" was out of place that the investigation shifted from international terrorism to domestic terrorism.

All of this information is available online and by a number of credible sources.

This is absolutely correct. Whilst PRETENDING to damp-down tension, the Masonic governments of Britain and America are actually heightening it. They want it to look like a religious war, when it is really OIL CRUSADES.

In mid-February 2006, that wonderful Mayor of London (England) Ken Livingstone met up with Muslim leaders in order to promote inter-religious harmony. He stated CLEARLY that the riots in France, and the publication of anti-Muslim caricatures were GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Freemasons have taken over the Wikipedia. I put advice about curing a disease there - it was promptly erased, and a WAR broke out against me. All that I had said was that the skin pigmentation in Addison's disease can be used as a marker - if it goes, then so has the disease.

However, the devil is the God of Freemasonry. "Brothers" force each other to worship the devil, because it frightens them and keeps them docile. Then they spread lies.

So Wikipedia has now re-published the controversial images from Jyllands-Posten, and SEALED the page to "prevent vandalism".

A Wiki is a public-domain area where ANYBODY is entitled to edit the work. The Masonic gang look upon legitimate editing as "vandalism", and provoking violence as "encouraging freedom of speech".

Masons - who worship the devil - are OBLIGED to be FIENDISH.

So Wikipedia has become an unreliable source of information. It does play down the crimes of Masons like Pike or Nixon, but will not allow independent outsiders to express a view.

It has become a vehicle for sly disinformation.

Charles Douglas Wehner

IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Islam for non-Muslims
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Islam for non-Muslims

Topic: Why are most of the Muslims.......
	<< Prev Page of 10 Next >>

Author	Message
Maryga Senior Member Joined: 10 July 2005 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 143	Posted: 13 February 2006 at 2:55am
	What is the alternative you suggest David C? Ignore Allah's laws only because man did not implement it correctly? Islam has also seen a golden era during the time of Hazrat Umar, do we ignore all those successes and prevail upon what went wrong?
	IP Logged

DavidC Senior Member Joined: 20 September 2001 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2211	Posted: 13 February 2006 at 5:42am
	I think laws should be enacted only when there is objective damage to human life or property. Restrictions and corrections should be minimal. If God is the only one offended, punishment should be left entirely to God. We all offend God and sin several times a day. To pick and choose which sins should suffer earthly consequences always ends up as "your sin is worse than my sin" and forces judges to the blasphemous condition of having to speak amd act in the name of God. Believers of course will obey God's laws willingly. I am unfamiliar with Hazrat Umar. Please start a new thread; it sounds like a good topic. Edited by DavidC
	David C.
	IP Logged

AhmadJoyia Senior Member Joined: 20 March 2005 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 1161	Posted: 13 February 2006 at 1:26pm
	*Originally posted by DavidC* I think laws should be enacted only when there is objective damage to human life or property. Restrictions and corrections should be minimal. ok, that is understandable to certain extent. *Originally posted by DavidC* If God is the only one offended, punishment should be left entirely to God. We all offend God and sin several times a day. This part may refer to "no compulsion of faith" in Islam. *Originally posted by DavidC* To pick and choose which sins should suffer earthly consequences always ends up as "your sin is worse than my sin" and forces judges to the blasphemous condition of having to speak amd act in the name of God. Brother, there are some differences here between Christianity and Islam where the former (most of them) looks at the bipolar view of society (State vs church) whereas the later considers it as one whole nonseperable entity. Quran provides legal discourses on civil/criminal matters (those that usually offend a society) more than its religious matters. Just for example, one may find very detailed instructions on "inheritance law" in Quran but won't find much on as how to offer his 5 times a day obligatory prayer. Clearly, the matters of faith/intention are not bound under any human law except what has been kept for them after their death by the God alone. Therefore, it is not prudent to apply the same principle everywhere. *Originally posted by DavidC* Believers of course will obey God's laws willingly. Obedience to God is not only in matter of faith but practically, must reflect through their dealings with other humans as well. Here the famous concept of "rights of God" VS "rights of humans" in Islam may also be recalled where God ,though may forgive His rights over a human, but shall never forgive the rights of one human over the other untill that human himself may not forgive the individual. It is for this purpose of securing the rights of humans among each other that Quran provides for the best legal protection. Therefore, in Islam, faith is not just a personal matter, but a responsibility towards other humans in his day to day routine, for which laws are made available to the people through Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet Mohammad. The question of how to deal with non-Muslim living in Muslim dominated society, equitably and justly, are also part of this. If anyone needs to discuss them, certainly it would be a good thread to look at. Edited by AhmadJoyia
	IP Logged

Maryga Senior Member Joined: 10 July 2005 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 143	Posted: 13 February 2006 at 2:49pm
	If God is the only one offended, punishment should be left entirely to God. David, punishments exist in every system and thank God for them. Imagine a society where all punishments are left to God. I go to the shopping centre late in the evening when most of the crowds are gone yet, I come back disgusted with the sights I see. Perhaps people would walk about without the little clothes they put on these days. Laws only for damage to human life & property! what about morality? I would'nt want to see an Ummah where like in some homes the father does not know if the child he is providing for is really his!
	IP Logged

liberty Groupie Joined: 08 February 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 45	Posted: 13 February 2006 at 4:51pm
	*Originally posted by DavidC* I think laws should be enacted only when there is objective damage to human life or property. Restrictions and corrections should be minimal. Yes. Yes. Government should intrude upon our lives as little as necessary. They should stay out of our personal lives and decisions. Many people in the West that agree with this are uneasy with Islam since religion and politics seemed linked. Are muslims happy living the democratic states or are they working towards making them Islamic states?
	IP Logged

DavidC Senior Member Joined: 20 September 2001 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2211	Posted: 13 February 2006 at 7:15pm
	Maryga - trhank you for your response, but please reread my post. There is a considerable gray area and yes, some issues of morality impact life and property. And many do not. AhmadJoyia - Islam is fully capable of deconstructing obedience to church and state. Evidence al-Ghazzali's beautiful deconstructions of the nature of God. What can be more inseperable than God? The refusal to logically deconstruct church and state is simply an avoidance of the question. The integration of church and state in Islam seems, to me, based on the relationship of God to each individual soul. Within this relationship the church and state are viewed as inseperable. All aspects of one's life must certainly be oriented towards God When one considers the relationship of man to his fellow man - politics - I do not think the same inseperability applies. We have a God that loves variety and has created each one of us differently, so each of us has a slightly different relationship with God. We are all slaves of God, but we have different tasks. The needs of a field slave are different from that of a scribe slave, and each can - indeed must - have different politics if they are to maintain an authentic relationship with God.
	David C.
	IP Logged

AhmadJoyia Senior Member Joined: 20 March 2005 Location: Pakistan Online Status: Offline Posts: 1161	Posted: 14 February 2006 at 9:10am
	Bro, I think, your formula might work as long as these so called different task oriented "slaves" don't cross intereact with each other. However, the moment they come across each other, and that is a matter of fact, only that which emphasizes common rules of politics (i.e. Islam) can keep them "humans" on earth. I think, this discussion of "church VS State" can also be viewed as "athism VS theism". For this kindly refer to my on going discussion with bro Tim at http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=555& PN=1&TPN=4
	IP Logged

Charles Wehner Starter Joined: 13 February 2006 Location: Germany Online Status: Offline Posts: 2	Posted: 14 February 2006 at 9:52am
	*Originally posted by Angela* *Originally posted by Begbie* *Originally posted by ak_m_f* A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. Wow, I did not know this. Can you provide a link to some articles where this was stated ? *Originally posted by ak_m_f* The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces. Really ?!!! Again, I would be most interested in finding out more on this. Do you have any further information on the perpetrator ? Timothy McVeigh who was executed for the Oklahoma City Bombing was a neo-Nazi who was trying to start the revolution foretold in the Turner Diaries. He was a combat engineer attached to the Marines and studied his bomb making at Fort Leavenworth. I do remember when the bomb first when off on that day, they assumed that it was done by the same people who bombed the World Trade Center. It was only after a patrolman pulled McVeigh over and noticed "something" was out of place that the investigation shifted from international terrorism to domestic terrorism. All of this information is available online and by a number of credible sources. This is absolutely correct. Whilst PRETENDING to damp-down tension, the Masonic governments of Britain and America are actually heightening it. They want it to look like a religious war, when it is really OIL CRUSADES. In mid-February 2006, that wonderful Mayor of London (England) Ken Livingstone met up with Muslim leaders in order to promote inter-religious harmony. He stated CLEARLY that the riots in France, and the publication of anti-Muslim caricatures were GOVERNMENT POLICY. Freemasons have taken over the Wikipedia. I put advice about curing a disease there - it was promptly erased, and a WAR broke out against me. All that I had said was that the skin pigmentation in Addison's disease can be used as a marker - if it goes, then so has the disease. However, the devil is the God of Freemasonry. "Brothers" force each other to worship the devil, because it frightens them and keeps them docile. Then they spread lies. So Wikipedia has now re-published the controversial images from Jyllands-Posten, and SEALED the page to "prevent vandalism". A Wiki is a public-domain area where ANYBODY is entitled to edit the work. The Masonic gang look upon legitimate editing as "vandalism", and provoking violence as "encouraging freedom of speech". Masons - who worship the devil - are OBLIGED to be FIENDISH. So Wikipedia has become an unreliable source of information. It does play down the crimes of Masons like Pike or Nixon, but will not allow independent outsiders to express a view. It has become a vehicle for sly disinformation. Charles Douglas Wehner
	Charles Douglas Wehner
	IP Logged