[shadha]

Revert: Sorry to eb so blunt but your flippant attitude shows your ignorance on the matter. If you truly knew what Sacred Law was you would know that thats not what is being applied in so called Muslim lands.
Do you not think that as a Muslim it would be better for you and your family to have Shariah applied in instances such as Marriage or (Allah forbid) Divorce?

No. I don't, because then the issue arises on whose version of the Shariah should be applied. I am in complete agreement of separation of Church and State. If a couple wants to insert religious rulings into their lifestyle, then they should create a contract between themselves that could be upheld in the court of law. Many of the rulings in Islam [marriage, divorce, custody/child-support & inheritance for examples] are easily upheld in the court of law if prior written agreements are made. The only big issue that is not accepted by state law is polygyny. Sorry but I don't think the entire law system should be turned upside in order to permit polygyny.

I'm not going to get into a debate about this with you because already we have two totally different stances, you are in favor of Church & State while as I am not, so all we will be doing is running about in circles.


shadha-

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Variable

Would you agree though that democracy would be a good way to see if the majority of Muslims actually wanted?

No. I discussed this on my blog before.

The Ballot or the Bullet: Islamists and Democracy | Global Intifada

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by shadha

Revert: Sorry to eb so blunt but your flippant attitude shows your ignorance on the matter. If you truly knew what Sacred Law was you would know that thats not what is being applied in so called Muslim lands.
Do you not think that as a Muslim it would be better for you and your family to have Shariah applied in instances such as Marriage or (Allah forbid) Divorce?

No. I don't, because then the issue arises on whose version of the Shariah should be applied. I am in complete agreement of separation of Church and State. If a couple wants to insert religious rulings into their lifestyle, then they should create a contract between themselves that could be upheld in the court of law. Many of the rulings in Islam [marriage, divorce, custody/child-support & inheritance for examples] are easily upheld in the court of law if prior written agreements are made. The only big issue that is not accepted by state law is polygyny. Sorry but I don't think the entire law system should be turned upside in order to permit polygyny.

I'm not going to get into a debate about this with you because already we have two totally different stances, you are in favor of Church & State while as I am not, so all we will be doing is running about in circles.


shadha-

So you basically think you know know more than Allah (subhana wa ta'ala)?

When Iblis denied a command of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), He referred to him as a kaffir.

[MuslimZ]

context... apply directly to your interpretation
context... apply directly to your interpretation
context... apply directly to your interpretation
context... apply directly to your interpretation

[shadha]

jinnzaman: So you basically think you know know more than Allah (subhana wa ta'ala)?
When Iblis denied a command of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), He referred to him as a kaffir.

That was cute.

Just because I prefer living in a country that has separation of Church and State does not mean I am denying Allah, swt of anything. If in fact I was, then why would Allah, swt, permit us to live in a non-Muslim land?


shadha-

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by shadha

jinnzaman: So you basically think you know know more than Allah (subhana wa ta'ala)?
When Iblis denied a command of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), He referred to him as a kaffir.

That was cute.

Just because I prefer living in a country that has separation of Church and State does not mean I am denying Allah, swt of anything. If in fact I was, then why would Allah, swt, permit us to live in a non-Muslim land?


shadha-

So if the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) was alive today, or the Mahdi, and they had an Islamic state, you would perform hegira out of it because it wasn't secular? How is that not kufr?

There's a difference between living in a non-Muslim territory temporarily given the condition that there is no Islamic state in the Ummah today, and the theoretical acceptance of secularism as a system of governance when a valid Islamic alternative is present.

(I believe thats checkmate.)

[ChotooMotoo]

The difference in a secular state is that you have the choice. You can CHOOSE to follow your religion or not, you're not forced. If you collow something freely, and apply it freely in your life, imagine the reward verses someone who only follows it becuase they are forced. That's the reward of living in a secular state. Of course the downside is that there are more temptations, and more chances to falter than in a place where religion is enforced.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

The difference in a secular state is that you have the choice. You can CHOOSE to follow your religion or not, you're not forced. If you collow something freely, and apply it freely in your life, imagine the reward verses someone who only follows it becuase they are forced. That's the reward of living in a secular state. Of course the downside is that there are more temptations, and more chances to falter than in a place where religion is enforced.

Thats not the question. The question is whether you would choose to live in an Islamic state with the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) or the Mahdi or not.

The choice is not between following a hukm or not, but between remaining a Muslim or becoming an apostate.

[Pushpa]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Couldn't the same be said of democracy? Muslims don't want democracy, so why should they be forced to democratize just like Wester states don't want Islamic states and shouldn't be forced to Islamicize?

Yes indeed.

[Revert]

Originally Posted by roberto

A weak response

Of course it was.

Originally Posted by roberto

More PC type clap-trap. Why don't you asked yourself if this represents equality and if not why should it be that way

Again clarify, as I ahve no idea what you just typed.

Originally Posted by shadha

No. I don't, because then the issue arises on whose version of the Shariah should be applied. I am in complete agreement of separation of Church and State. If a couple wants to insert religious rulings into their lifestyle, then they should create a contract between themselves that could be upheld in the court of law. Many of the rulings in Islam [marriage, divorce, custody/child-support & inheritance for examples] are easily upheld in the court of law if prior written agreements are made. The only big issue that is not accepted by state law is polygyny. Sorry but I don't think the entire law system should be turned upside in order to permit polygyny.

There is only one version of Shariah, so I don't understand what you mean when you said "which version"

If you want to live in seperation fo church and state then thats fine, however if you live to see the Mehdhi, would you still feel that way?

Originally Posted by shadha

I'm not going to get into a debate about this with you because already we have two totally different stances, you are in favor of Church & State while as I am not, so all we will be doing is running about in circles

Actually I am not in favour of church and state at all. i am in favour of Justice according to Allah(swt).

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Thats not the question. The question is whether you would choose to live in an Islamic state with the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) or the Mahdi or not.

The choice is not between following a hukm or not, but between remaining a Muslim or becoming an apostate.

And basically you have decided that anyone who wants to live in a secular land in an apostate?

[Revert]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

And basically you have decided that anyone who wants to live in a secular land in an apostate?

He did ask if the Prophet(saws) or Mahdi were alive, would you still want to liv ein a secualr land...he didn't mean now.

[Salika]

Sharia is the separation of church and state. It is not a theocracy. Sharia law is a legal system in its own right with its own codifications, principles, precedents, etc.

During various Islamic empires actually, the muftis were independant bodies and fought to keep it that way. They did not politics meddling into their rulings nor did they want to have anything to do with the government. It was all basically independant like arbitration systems today. You go to a mufti, you don't like the fatwa? Find another one, yep, independent they were... Only later did the two mix and it was only due to necessity and that's where the qadi (judicial) courts came in.

It's too bad that today, with the advent of the Western nation-state and the three-branch system, this whole concept of independant jurists has been effectively thrown out the window and is doing an injustice to the Islamic legal system. (note, I'm not blaming Western nation-states or the three-branch system, just simply pointing out that it may not be the best thing for all systems).

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Revert

There is only one version of Shariah, so I don't understand what you mean when you said "which version"

There are many interpretations of Sharia... and it's manifested differently in different places. Iran has its version, the Taliban had its own (and it looks like it will again).

I don't think you can separate it from people's interpretations, and there are a lot of those. So when you get Muslims that seem discontent with Sharia, it's likely that they are more wary about a particular group's interpretation of it.

Originally Posted by Salika

Sharia is the separation of church and state. It is not a theocracy.

That'd be the first time I've ever heard that.