[oFoShOuKnO]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

By Islamic state, I mean a hegemonic force.

Its not whether we're ready but whether we need it or not. The conditions we find ourselves in demand it.

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Pakistan has its problems, no doubt about it. Very poor leadership heavily influenced by Western hegemonic interest, and an impoverished, largely illiterate population. But on the other hand it is one of the most powerful countries in the world. Not a superpower by any means, but I think it has the potential for playing a much more pivotal role, both in the Muslim world, and the world as a whole.

Guys,

I don't trust half the Muslims I know with a Potato Gun, let alone with tax collection for the ummah. I agree with Jinnz, that the state of Muslims in the world is pathetic, but I am not sure if the solution is an Islamic state, I believe it is first internal reform. It is horrific to see that in any armed conflict, Muslims get screwed, literally and figuratively. The guilty parties of this include just as much the greed and jingoism of Arab monarchs, as it does the nefarious intentions of some people in the West.

[m_ali_qazi]

Originally Posted by oFoShOuKnO

the state of Muslims in the world is pathetic

i disagree with that

kosovo just got their independence, bosnia is independent, turkey is doing great and malaysia is doing better than great

seems to me like ummah is doing pretty good

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by TrentReznor858

the hell are you talking about I was not mocking Islam at all?? What do your pipe dreams about owning the world have to do with establishing a community?

The establishment of the Khilafah isn't a pipe dream, its a communal obligation.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

- I'm against muslims attacking the western way of life(keep in mind that the west also struggles with hyperliberation). And i'm against that because I dont like the fact that the west is destroying the muslim civilization. I dont wanna do to them what I dont want them doing to me. I wanna defend me but I dont wanna destroy them.

I'm with you on this one, and I'm grateful for your fair-minded approach to dealing with others (I'm assuming you don't just mean Western, but all non-Muslim societies).

- "Islamic hegemony" to me sounds like an insidious plan to recruit all muslims of the world to sacrifice themselves to defend the muslims that are in direct conflict with the west-i.e arabs, pakistan, afghanistan, iran, some africans. So why should nations that are helped by the west - turks, balkans etc, and nations that have no direct conflict with the west - malaysia etc, sacrifice their interests for the sake of those nations who hardly care about them. And why should these nations sacrifice their interests for nations that have sold out their own people and nations that cant even unite among themselves.

This one however I'm not with you so much on - on the basis of how the West is helping those other countries. What if it's through sinister backroom dealings that are actually causing harm to their people or others in the long run?

Even then, I think the point that Jinz is trying to make is that the unifying power of Islam should be made paramount, put well above other more individual prorities. The argument is that together, Muslims as a whole would be safer from things like Gujarat.

- the uncle system is eventually gonna go, but now there are real american muslims that are coming on the scene. People like Jeffrey Lang, Dr. Umar, Michael Wolfe...white americans...REAL americans. They reserve the right to be western, and they reserve the right not to compromise their westerness for the sake of the hegemony of arab/paki/afghan/iran muslims.

I think I can see a point that you're making in there, that some Muslims might be risking their own culture if they contributed to some kind of enormous, hegemonic Muslim superstate. But I also how you might set people off at the same time - (any time you use the words "real" "white" "americans" in the same sentence)

[sumiyia]

i think maybe he was referring to WASPs?

[m_ali_qazi]

Originally Posted by Variable

But I also how you might set people off at the same time - (any time you use the words "real" "white" "americans" in the same sentence)

thats just a personal belief, whites are the real americans, largely based on the way minorities are treated here, but also because the core of America is western european

[nooni]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

You're telling me if there was an Islamic state that spanned from Morocco to Malaysia, had the majority of the world's oil supplies and a strong military, that people would screw around with Muslims?

The rape and genocide that we are witnessing would not be possible if it wasn't for the vacuum of power within the Muslim world.

The Ottoman Empire sent forces throughout the world whenever Muslims were being oppressed. They sent forces to Algeria, Egypt, East Africa, Arabia, Gujerat, and even as far off as Indonesia to combat colonialism.

Although some scholars blv its necessary for a united muslim world, the truth to the matter is, its highly unlikely. the problem does not even lie with western societies, but within muslim mentalities instead. the notion that all govts in muslim countries will unite is unrealistic. im more inclined to blv that a small percentage of the citizens are willing to unite, but the majority are not.

I think many muslims, including myself are fearful that if there was "unity", all muslim countries would have to subject to Saudi Arabian laws and culture becuase that is where the kaaba resides and the start of islam. and quite honestly, (without getting into wahabism etc) i would hate to see saudi law overrule.

i really dont think there is a problem with having different muslim countries. there were different muslim tribes within the Prophet's (SAWS) time which he did not crumble for the sake of unity. He (SAWS) of all people understood the importance of differences in culture etc but at the same time taught these different tribes how to stand up for one another when the time was needed. And i think this is what the muslim world needs. somehow make govts realize that they need to stand up for each other but can still hold true to their own culture and practices.

each muslim country seems to have its own issues its dealing with that has to be dealt with differently. i guess my question is, what do you think is the best way to unite muslims/ muslim countries? what seems to be your plan that might work?

[Variable]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

thats just a personal belief, whites are the real americans, largely based on the way minorities are treated here, but also because the core of America is western european

Well, to me you're American if you're an American citizen. Same in Canada.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by nooni

Although some scholars blv its necessary for a united muslim world, the truth to the matter is, its highly unlikely. the problem does not even lie with western societies, but within muslim mentalities instead. the notion that all govts in muslim countries will unite is unrealistic. im more inclined to blv that a small percentage of the citizens are willing to unite, but the majority are not.

Some scholars? There's ijmaa that there needs to be khilafah.

We aren't talking about the governments of Muslim countries uniting, we're talking about all Muslims living under the same government. The current regimes are just Western puppets; they're supported for the direct purpose of causing disunity and chaos.

I think many muslims, including myself are fearful that if there was "unity", all muslim countries would have to subject to Saudi Arabian laws and culture becuase that is where the kaaba resides and the start of islam. and quite honestly, (without getting into wahabism etc) i would hate to see saudi law overrule.

Well, this is a separate issue. Saudi Arabia's jurisprudence isn't representative of the entire Ummah. But I'm curious which laws in particular you object to. If you're talking about women not driving, thats one thing. If you're talking about the Hadd punishments, then thats something else. If you have a problem living under the Shari'ah, then the problem isn't Islamic government, the problem is your aqeedah. If you reject the Hadd punishments in their entirety, then a person's aqeedah, to be honest, whack.

i really dont think there is a problem with having different muslim countries. there were different muslim tribes within the Prophet's (SAWS) time which he did not crumble for the sake of unity. He (SAWS) of all people understood the importance of differences in culture etc but at the same time taught these different tribes how to stand up for one another when the time was needed. And i think this is what the muslim world needs. somehow make govts realize that they need to stand up for each other but can still hold true to their own culture and practices.

Right, the tribes existed, but he still established one government and whenever there was any dissension, the community fought against them. This was the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Companions (radhi allahu anhum).

The Khalifah Rashidun gave their lives for the preservation of the Islamic state.

each muslim country seems to have its own issues its dealing with that has to be dealt with differently. i guess my question is, what do you think is the best way to unite muslims/ muslim countries? what seems to be your plan that might work?

These countries were constructed by colonizers in order to prevent the formation of an Islamic hegemony which would be economically developed and politically active.

[amal512]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Ummm, he's my right hand captive that I got for winning a flame war against the apostates.

Hellooooo. Get with the program!

u threw me off on the flaming part..hahaha.. as long as there isn't anything flaming.. i'm good..

[m_ali_qazi]

Originally Posted by amal512

u threw me off on the flaming part..hahaha.. as long as there isn't anything flaming.. i'm good..

dont ask dont tell, especially with this guy, rumor has it he marries stuffed animals

and even now he has fling going on with this guy named jamroll

[nooni]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Well, this is a separate issue. Saudi Arabia's jurisprudence isn't representative of the entire Ummah. But I'm curious which laws in particular you object to. If you're talking about women not driving, thats one thing. If you're talking about the Hadd punishments, then thats something else. If you have a problem living under the Shari'ah, then the problem isn't Islamic government, the problem is your aqeedah which is, to be honest, whack.
.

i dont have a problem with shariah. my only question was what is your plan to make a united muslim world? as in step by step process. how is it possible that the current govt of muslim countries who overrule pretty much everything are going to be overthrown and ruled by one interpretation of shariah? maybe im not understanding your POV but how do you see shariah/khalifah overruling if the muslim govt today dont imply it?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by nooni

i dont have a problem with shariah. my only question was what is your plan to make a united muslim world? as in step by step process. how is it possible that the current govt of muslim countries who overrule pretty much everything are going to be overthrown and ruled by one interpretation of shariah? maybe im not understanding your POV but how do you see shariah/khalifah overruling if the muslim govt today dont imply it?

I think those are two separate issues. First, you have to develop a consensus that the proper form of government is the Khalifah and the proper legal system is the Shari'ah. The issue regarding the establishment of such systems is secondary.

[Rambo]

muslim women have been attacked in lot of places in this world, Kashmir, Gujarat, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Kosovo, and possibly other places.