     Runta | Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 12:31 pm
I believe that to be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist... etc. You have to follow your religion.
Christians should follow the Bible. Muslims follow
the Qur'aan. If you don't do Muslim things you are not a Muslim (pray, fast, follow Qur'aan). If you don't follow the Bible you are not a Christian. Somalia isn't really a Muslim nation because they don't follow Qur'aan... individuals do, but not the nation as a whole. So America is not a Christian nation because the nation as a whole doesn't follow the Bible. It doesn't matter if some of the founders were Christian... it certainly isn't very Christian today if you look at the Bible. America is a secular place with a
little fake Christianity here and there. Anything goes here... that's not true Christianity that's just evil people claiming to be Christian... like many Somalis CLAIM to be Muslim and do very evil things. In all you getting... get understanding. |
| asad | Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 01:01 pm
"So America is not a Christian nation because the nation as a whole doesn't follow the Bible. It doesn't matter if some of the founders were Christian..."
Runta, the truth is that not all the so called founding fathers of this country were christians themselves. Some of them were freemasons. you can be still a muslim, christian or buddhist if you don't practice the religion. saudi arabia is not a muslim country nor the vatican is a christian country. a country is not a muslim country or a christian country. |
| Runta | Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 02:28 pm
I know that... I hated it when people blame a country for their wrongs and say... oh it's because of their religion. They say, It's so bad here in the West because they are Christian. No it's so bad in the West is because people are evil and sinners no matter what "religion" they say they are. |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, September 05, 2000 - 10:39 pm
Runta
Also, keep in mind America is suppose to be secular. It is not suppsoe to be a Christian Country. It is suppose to be a place where no one has religion thrust upon them.
Another thing that might be hard for you to comprehend as a Muslim is that Christianity is not a way of life like Islam is. Much in daily life is not pro-scribed anywhere in the Bible. Hence there is no Christian version of Sharia (our one experiment with that, the inquisition........ well, it came up short).
Asad
Good points. |
| anonymous. | Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 04:47 am
"Christianity is not a way of life like Islam is"
Excuse me. If you mean christianity is not a way of life because its adherents changed its course I can agree with that. But originally christianity was a way of life. The way of prophets and a way to salvation and mercy. May be you are proving here your bitterness that islam differs christianity in many ways today but that is your only feeling nobody shares that with you here.
"Much in daily life is not pro-scribed anywhere in the Bible."
I am not sure that is true either. What are you basing on your claims of these?. Does christianity tell people to avoid lies,cheating,killing etc since you have a christian background and might know more than I do?. |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 05:35 am
Anonymous
Of course Christianity proscribes certain prohibitions - like the 10 commmandments. And if you look around you'll find other little odds and ends that can be incorporated into daily life. But Islam, through the Qur'an and the Hadith, delineate who you may marry, who you may not (try finding that in the Bible), what is permissable behavior, what is not, and what the punishments for trransgressors should be. In other words, you can be a Christian and conclude that praying once a week and not going to Church is OK, and you won't find anywhere in the Bible where it says otherwise. There's a lot of examples like this.
Take this one step further. The Bible is littered with contradictions. No intelligent person can argue that this is not the case. That's because the Bible is really a collection of eye witness and second hand accounts. That is generally agreed upon. It is much older that the Qur'an and has been subject to much translation. And there are translations of tranlations. Therefore, any sentient observer can tell you that you must read the Bible in its entirety to take away the message that is contained therein. Some people like to use individual quotes to justify certain things (this is really popular with the religious right). But the fact is I could justify just about anything using the Bible. And some people do. So the bible (and the religion which springs from it) is less a series of dos and dont's than a broad message subject to much interpretation.
Now, before you go off on the notion that this proves Islam is right and Christianity is not, consider this. You have nimrods in the Islamic community who justify blowing themsleves up and killing innocent woman and children using the Qur'an to justify the act.
Islam is certainly more of a way of life than Christianity is or is inteded to be. BTW I was raised in the Christian church, I am not a Christian myself, and I do not harbor bitterness towards any of the followers of the God of Abraham.
You are assuming my critic of Islam means I believe it is wrong or evil - this is a false assumption. I am deeply sympathetic to and in agreement with many of the concepts and assertions in the Qur'an. |
| Runta | Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 06:58 am
Actually America isn't meant to be a "secular"
country. If you look a lot of our country was based originally as a country on the ten commandments. Prayer was common in schools... which obviously didn't cater to Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Abraham Lincoln declared days of fasting and prayer as a nation. A few men were deist or agnostic... but most people in America at least CLAIMED Christianity. In fact, there hardly weren't any Muslims or another religion to try to push for "secularism". The Bible was accepted as THE Book. Bible verses and
biblical figures are etched into the wall of the Supreme Court building.
So America has BECOME a secular nation from pressure from feminist, atheist, gays, different religions, etc. to become SECULAR. As a result of being secular there is nothing in public life to give Americans the fear of God. If society is secular... there is no reason to not have nudity, or cursing, or many nasty things. It would be better if America was a Christian nation than a secular nation... since true Christianity is against immodesty, cursing, violence, etc. |
| asad | Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 06:58 am
anonymous and mad mac,
christianity of today (as we know it) is not as the religion (the bath) Jesus preached. in fact, when Jesus was alive and teaching the religion, the name chrisianity didn't exist. so, neither the name nor the practice is what Jesus brought. what Jesus and moses taught was islam; thus, similar to what mohamad taught. the only difference is that what these men of God taught and preached is found in the teaching of islam. so, the religion moses, Jesus and mohamad taught is one and you can say---the religion was and still is a way of life, unless people change it. but thank God that this way of life is completed in the Qura'n and it can't be corrupted, no matter how the jews, the christians and some muslims interpret into their
lives. |
| asad | Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 07:20 am
Runta,
what mad mac is saying is that the religion (the christianity as it is practiced now by it's followers) is not a way of life. i agree with him. if these people had the teachings of Jesus and they practiced what jesus preached, then it would not be called "christianity" and it would have been a way of life. |
| asad | Wednesday, September 06, 2000 - 01:57 pm
made a mistake. i said "when Jesus was alive". i should have said when Jesus was in this world. he is alive. he didn't die. |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 10:51 pm
Asad
First of all Jesus lived some 2,000 years ago. He's definately what you and I would define as dead. Perhaps his spirit lives on, just as perhaps yours will live on. But his body is long gone.
I agree Christianity today is not what Jesus preached. Jesus preached a modified version of Judaism, albeit with far more TOLERANCE and KINDNESS (and yes, I definately believe turn the other cheek was part of his doctrine) than was applied to Jewish law of the time. In my opinion Jesus would not support Sharia as applied today. I noticed that in the Qur'an there's no mention of Mary Magdelene (at least I could not find one) - yet she is a central figure in Jesus' teachings metioned in several different Gospels. I would like to remind you that the Gospels were written by different people at different times. Thus, references which appear more than once as eyewitness accounts are likely to have more veracity than otherwise. When the people wanted to stone her in accordance with Jewish Law he uttered his famous quote "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." |
| asad | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 05:36 am
"First of all Jesus lived some 2,000 years ago. He's definately what you and I would define as dead."
you can define it that way if you want to, but
the fact is that the Qur'an says he did not die. can somebody be dead if they did not kill him or if he did not die? we muslims believe that he will taste death when he comes back to the earth
as you and i will taste it. then his body will buried.
"Perhaps his spirit lives on, just as perhaps yours will live on. But his body is long gone."
the Qur'an says. no one killed jesus. his body
and his spirit was lifted up. he did not die.
"In my opinion Jesus would not support Sharia as applied today."
and your opinion is wrong. jesus will not change Allah's law (what is in the Qur'an).
"I noticed that in the Qur'an there's no mention of Mary Magdelene (at least I could not find one) - yet she is a central figure in Jesus' teachings metioned in several different Gospels."
what does mary gadelene has to with islam?
" I would like to remind you that the Gospels were written by different people at different times. Thus, references which appear more than once as eyewitness accounts are likely to have more veracity than otherwise."
if what is in the Qur'an and Bible is the same, that is fine, but if there is differences between the bible and qur'an, we muslims take the Qur'an over any other book. you have to understand one thing. muslims rely on the Qur'an, not the bible. even if the bible didn't have contradictions, still muslims would rely on the Qur'an. |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 05:53 am
Asad
But you never answered my question. Are there any references to Mary Magdalene in the Qur'an??? Or was this aspect of Jesus' life and teaching left out? I mean, the Qur'an doesn't go into Jesus' life in that much detail, since he lived about 33 years, you can be sure it left plenty out. But I would like to know if they reference her (perhaps under a different name??) and what the teaching is. |
| asad | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 06:04 am
"But you never answered my question. Are there any references to Mary Magdalene in the Qur'an???"
i said to you "what does mary gadelene has to with islam?" is there a guy by the name of paul in the Qur'an? is he not the central figure in the christian beleif?
"Or was this aspect of Jesus' life and teaching left out? I mean, the Qur'an doesn't go into Jesus' life in that much detail, since he lived about 33 years, you can be sure it left plenty out."
the Qur'an is clear about what jesus was and was not. where he is now and where he will do in the future when he comes back. is the Qur'an go into other prophets of Allah? i do not think so.
"But I would like to know if they reference her (perhaps under a different name??) and what the teaching is."
again, "what does mary gadelene has to with islam?" |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 06:14 am
OK, I think you're saying the name in the Qur'an is Mary Gadelene. I'll look it up. You could have just come right out and said that. And while you're at it you could also have laid out what the point is of her reference. You're suppose to be the expert here. |
| asad | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 07:31 am
"OK, I think you're saying the name in the Qur'an is Mary Gadelene. I'll look it up. You could have just come right out and said that. And while you're at it you could also have laid out what the point is of her reference. "
i said no such thing. get your facts straight, mad mac.
"You're suppose to be the expert here"
you said it; i didn't say i was an expert of anything. :-) |
| Simba | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 10:25 am
Okay people who is Mary Magdalene and what are the ten commandments. Can someone please tell me? |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 11:11 am
Asad
The why, every time I mention Mary Magdelene you refer to her as Mary Gadelene??? I can't get a straight answer from you so how can I get your facts straight?
Simba
The ten commandments were supposedly given to Moses after he led the Israelites out of Egypt. God provided them to Moses as basic commandments like though shoult not kill.
Mary Magdelene was a prostitute whom Jesus discovered as a mob was about to stone her. As the crowd prepared to stone her Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Since no one qualified she wasn't stoned and became a follower (almost a 13th disciple) to Jesus. She was at his crucifiction. This is the Christian version. I can't give you the Moslem version because Asad won't tell me. |
| asad | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 12:24 pm
"Asad The why, every time I mention Mary Magdelene you refer to her as Mary Gadelene??? I can't get a straight answer from you so how can I get your facts straight?"
lol. the answer you do not want to see is that mary magdelene or mary gadelene has nothing to do with islam.
"She was at his crucifiction. This is the Christian version. I can't give you the Moslem version because Asad won't tell me"
first, we muslims do not believe that jesus was crucified. second, i have been telling you that there is no muslim version. you said there is. i asked you to tell me what does she has to with islam. you keep saying i should tell you about her. you said she is the central belief in christianity. that may well be, but she has nothing to do with islam. the same thing for paul who is the founder of chrisitnity. he also has nothing to do with islam. |
| asad | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 12:28 pm
you even lied. you said i said the name Mary Gadelene is in the Qura'n. i never told you that her name is in the Qur'an. i told you this: "i said no such thing. get your facts straight, mad mac. |
| formerguest. | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 12:47 pm
It is not the first time MAD says something that is not found in islam. May be he likes the support of islam in his cause. these guys would go to any measure to say what they like.
He was told in another forums that the Quran tells that JESUS was saved. He wasn't crucified. Nor was he killed. There is no point in mentioning a lady or something else. What was important about the account was told. Besides, NO CRUCIFICTION means NO CHRISTIAN DOGMA OF TRINITY.
<4:157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.";- But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 10:30 pm
Whoa!!!!! Now you guys are twisting everything I said around. I asked you about Mary Magdalene and you responded with Mary Gadalene. Since the Qur'an often uses different names for the same person of course I thought you were giving me the Qur'anic version of the same person. Then I asked you what the Qur'an said about her, because I could not find a reference.
Formerguest
I would like to mention to you that the only non-religious document known to mention Jesus is a Roman document reporting his crucifiction.
The two quotes you give do not indicate what happened to his earthly body. I interpret this to mean they could not kill his spirit. God doesn't take bodies up to heaven. When was the last time you saw a body ascend???? |
| asad | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 04:53 am
"Whoa!!!!! Now you guys are twisting everything I said around."
mad mac, pointing figures at us would not help you. when you say we are twisting everything, you are talking about yourself.
"I asked you about Mary Magdalene and you responded with Mary Gadalene."
i told you that mary magdelene or mary gadelene has nothing to do with islam.
"Since the Qur'an often uses different names for the same person of course I thought you were giving me the Qur'anic version of the same person."
this is not the first time you thought wrong about islam, mad mac.
"Then I asked you what the Qur'an said about her, because I could not find a reference."
you could not find her or any referece of her, because she is not the central figure in islam. maybe she is with christinity. don't mix with the two and do not confuse yourself. |
| MAD MAC | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 08:02 am
Asad
That I mixed those up was your fault. All you had to do was respond with "Mary Magdalene is not referenced in the Qur'an." That would have been simple and clear. Instead you said "What does Mary Gadalene have to do with Islam." You see the differrence in these approaches. You asnwered a question by changing the name and responding with a question. This causes confusion. Once you changed the name you gave the impression that there was some sort of reference to her somewhere and that the name was Islamic (gadelene). Don't pretend I was trying to twist anything. All I did was ask a simple question - I did not get a simple answer. |
| asad | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 10:06 am
"Once you changed the name you gave the impression that there was some sort of reference to her somewhere and that the name was Islamic (gadelene)."
no, your whole case is this: since this lady (whatever her correct name maybe) is a central figure in Jesus' teachings in the bible, she should also be in the Qura'n. then, i asked what does she have to with islam?
"Don't pretend I was trying to twist anything. All I did was ask a simple question - I did not get a simple answer"
i do not care if you twist or not. i was just pointing out that she has nothing with the Qur'an. "what does mary magadelene/gadelene has to with islam?" is there a guy by the name of paul in the Qur'an? is he not the central figure in the christian belief? why is he not in the Qur'an? |
| MAD MAC | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 11:49 pm
It was just confusing. I just wanted to know if she was referenced, that's all. This leads to my next question, what does Islam, in the aggregate, say about forgiveness. I am not talking about Allahs forgiveness towards humans but of humans towards human. I have often heard the quote that Islam does not preach turn the other cheeck. You can summarise here, you don't have to quote every reference in the Qur'an and the Hadith - I trust you. |
| asad | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 12:19 am
"This leads to my next question, what does Islam, in the aggregate, say about forgiveness. I am not talking about Allahs forgiveness towards humans but of humans towards human. I have often heard the quote that Islam does not preach turn the other cheeck"
islam says that you can take revenge (an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth), but it is better that you over look or forgive the wrong doings that another person did to you. in fact, the person who has forgiveness towards his fellow human being, Allah will return the favor and forgive his sins, but it is not a sin to practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 02:21 am
Thanks for the answer. That seems pretty clear. Basically a philosophy I'd have to agree with.
NOW FOR THE BREAKING STORY - YOU WERE CORRECT - SORT OF.
Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice stipulates that if a Deserter derserts IN WARTIME and in APPREHENDED (does not turn himself in) he MAY (not must) receive the death penalty. This penalty was null and void when the supreme court outlawed the death penalty - as I told you. But it was reinstated when the death penalty was reinstated. HOWEVER, the last person to be executed for wartime desertion was????? You guessed it, Private Eddie Slovak in 1945. So while the penalty remains on the books, in point of fact no one has even received life imprisonment for the offense. There are now 12 individuals on death row at Fort Leavenworth. All of them are on death row for the crime of murder in furtherance of other crimes. In fact, no one has been executed in the military penal system since 1957. So, while you were de jure correct, de facto you are not.
that having been said, it does not change the central thesis that I have an inherent right in changing my system of beliefs and announcing such. Whether Allah considers this "desertion" or not is again between Allah and me - it's no one elses business. Religion is not the purview of government or the population. It rests with the individual. |
| asad | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 09:43 am
"that having been said, it does not change the central thesis that I have an inherent right in changing my system of beliefs and announcing such. Whether Allah considers this "desertion" or not is again between Allah and me - it's no one elses business."
the authority does not think so, just as the united states military authority does not think it is only your business. yes, you have your rights, but it is a foolish of you to announce desertion. it is like committing a suicide. it is like a deserter in the military derserting while he knows he will be killed. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 10:22 am
Asad
Back to square one. First of all, in this day and age, the Deserter knows he will not be killed. I thought we established that already. Because the law is on the books doesn't mean it will or even could be enforced. The reason no one has been executed since the death of Slovak is because of the outcry of public opinion against executing someone for something less than murder - the same thing happened with the Rosenbergs. It won't happen again. But you're comparing apples and oranges anyway.
Let me put it this way. If everyone maintains this attitude - that transitioning faiths amounts to desertion and treason - then no one could convert to Islam except upon pain of death. Now if that were true, how would you feel? You say "The Authority". I assume you are speaking on behalf of Allah and quoting from the Qur'an. But if someone wants to challenge that how does he? I mean, if I want to challenge a law in America I go to court to get the law dismissed or I appeal to my legislature to get the law appealed. How do you appeal to Allah to change the Qur'an???? Of course you can't. If I change my beliefs all I end up with is a bunch of guys quoting from a book - I never had any influence over any of the circumstances, other than my beliefs. For that matter, if I wanted to just express my opinion as I am doing here on the internet with you in Saudi Arabia I would be at risk for execution for prostelyzation. Does that seem reasonable to you? I can do what I'm told and believe what I'm told or die. What the hell is that??? It's backwards, that's what it is. Now fortunately there are very few countries that really implement Sharia in this sort of uncompromising way. Do you know what's going to happen when the oil runs out in Saudi Arabia?? It will regress a few centuries cause it will have no money and no resources (it ain't doing much investment now). The Americans who work there make BIG BUCKS because without big bucks they wouldn't go there. Like I said before, freedom of speech that says you really can't say what you want is no freedom at all - this is esspecially true in two areas, religion and politics. These are hands off areas. I have the right to believe what I want and state my beliefs - that goes for politics and that goes for religion. That's what makes America great. You get to do the same thing. It's also why countries with narrow interpretations of the Qur'an (Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan) suck. God I hope that doesn't happen to Somalia.
On a side note you reminded me of a time when I was in Saudi (and I really was careful there not to offend - I almost never talked with the natives and then it was to say "hot day out, huh?" I only dared talk with the military guys - not that they were very friendly). Some Matawa dork was made because someone I was with took a picture of a market, apparently a woman (covered from head to foot) was somewhere in the background. He freaked out and tried to hit first my friend (a female officer) and then me when I intervened. It wasn't until I reminded him that I had a firearm and he did not that he backed off. Then, and here's the funny part, a bunch of Syrian soldiers came over and started really pushing him around because they didn't like him either. I mean, I understand respecting peoples sensitivities, but those guys are sensitive about everything.
While I'm rolling here - I'm doing your Tolstoy imitation - tell me something. What is an Islamic government. I've heard more Somalis talk about it but I honestly don't know what system of government that is. And no one seems to be able to tell me. Is it a monarchy? A theocracy? A Democracy? I've never seen any mention in the Qur'an how law making bodies are suppose to be formed - I'm not saying it's not there I've just never seen it. Recently here in the General Page someone asked should Somalia have a democratic or Islamic government. Up until that point I thought you could have a democratic government with the court system using the Qur'an as its guidline for implementing the law of the land. So I'm just lost on this one. |
| asad | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 10:48 am
"It won't happen again."
mad macm, you are again lying. ;-)
"If everyone maintains this attitude - that transitioning faiths amounts to desertion and treason - then no one could convert to Islam except upon pain of death."
many people who convert to islam know before hand the law of apostates, but they are still converting to islam. if the united states military maintains this attitude of killing a deserter, then no one could join the military except upon pain of death.
"I assume you are speaking on behalf of Allah and quoting from the Qur'an. But if someone wants to challenge that how does he? I mean, if I want to challenge a law in America I go to court to get the law dismissed or I appeal to my legislature to get the law appealed. How do you appeal to Allah to change the Qur'an???? I mean, if I want to challenge a law in America I go to court to get the law dismissed or I appeal to my legislature to get the law appealed."
there is no authority of the Qur'an (an islamic sstate) in america. how can you dismiss a law and appeal it if it is not being enforced on anyone, mad mac? ;-) what if i challenge the law in america that says i can only marry one woman. what if i go to court to get that law to dismiss? what if i want to bring two wives of mine to america and claim both of them dependent on me (tax return)? would i succeed or would i fail? whose business is that a person marries two women and why would america banish him and put him in jail? |
| MAD MAC | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 09:48 pm
Well, personally I believe that the existing laws banning polygamy are vulnerable to change right now. My scenerio breaks out as such. An individual is fleeing violence in, let's say Afghanistan. He already has two wives. Now the current law requires him to divorce one. That's not fair. Furthermore, what if a guy in the States wants to have more than one wife and the woman agree to it. Why can't they? So I'm on your side on this one. A man should be able to have more than one wife. For that matter a woman should be able to have more than one husband. The key is that all parties have to agree. Polygamy, where all parties have not agreed, should be a crime. It's essentially violating a contract.
I guess I didn't explain my apostate thing very well. What if Christians adopt this practice, and Jews and Bhudists and Hindus and so forth. Pretty soon no one can become anything because if they leave their existing religion they'll be killed. The law of apostates is a violation of freedom of expression which takes precedence over the Qur'an or any other religious document. As long as states enforce this law they will always be looked upon as inferior by the west. It is this kind of crap (beheading woman who display public nudity, stoning adulterers, etc) that give Islam a bad name.
You never did answer the most important question, the one on Islamic government. |
| asad | Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 05:59 am
"Now the current law requires him to divorce one."
if the current law requires him to divorce one , then the law of polygamy in this country is a violation of freedom of expression. as long as the united states is enforcing this law, they will always be looked at the violotars of freedom of expression. it is kind of a crap banishing and putting a man in jail in this country if he marries two women, right?
"You never did answer the most important question, the one on Islamic government."
what about an islamic government? we do not have one now. i thought i answered--"there is no authority of the Qur'an (an islamic state) in america. how can you dismiss a law and appeal it if it is not being enforced on anyone, mad mac? ;-)". you did not answer my earlier question relating to this. if you think punishing a person who marries two women is not coercion, then what makes you think punishing an apostate is coercion? if punishing a polygamist is not coercion, then punishing an apostate is not coercion, right, mad mac? |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 09:36 am
Asad
Did you just read my last post????? I agreed with you, punishing a man who has married two women (providing both women provided their consent) is not coercion, but it is a violation of his basic rights. Didn't you read the part where I just explained all of that. It was the last post. Scroll back up and read it.
Now, what is an Islamic government?? How is it formed?? How are it's leaders elected? Is it a parliementary form of government (council of elders)? Or maybe a Monarchy. I mean, I honestly have no idea. I couldn't find any reference in the Qur'an on the formation of governments. But I concede, on this subject you are the expert. Can you enlighten me please. I can't tell you how often people post "Should Somalia have a democracy or an Islamic government?" I didn't know they were diametrically oppossed. |
| asad | Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 05:55 pm
"I agreed with you, punishing a man who has married two women (providing both women provided their consent) is not coercion, but it is a violation of his basic rights."
what the united states of america does is a violation of human rights. i agree. you say it is not coercion, but if punishing a polygamist is not coercion, then punishing an apostate is not coercion, right, mad mac?
"Now, what is an Islamic government?? How is it formed?? How are it's leaders elected? Is it a parliementry form of government (council of elders)?"
yes, it is like parliamentary form of government which knowledgeable elders are elected(mashuura or council).
"I mean, I honestly have no idea. I couldn't find any reference in the Qur'an on the formation of governments. "
i'll post a link where you can read it later on next week. the link is on my other computer which right now i have no access it.
"I can't tell you how often people post "Should Somalia have a democracy or an Islamic government?""
a country can call itself an islam government, but it can not be an islamic government just as a person can call himself a muslim, but he might not practice the prayers. |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 12:30 am
Is there a reference in the qur'n or the Hadith? Or is this more of a tradition that grew up with the expansion of Islam? Can you cite some Qur'anic versus I could go to? I'm kind of curious about the whole thing. |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 12:33 am
Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot to address your comment. If you sart from the assumption that all laws are designed as coercion, that is, to modify some behavior, then you are correct. I think that is a broad interpretation but I don't think it's worth debating. I'll accept your argument that laws prohibiting polygamy are coercion and unfairly biased against Muslims. I think you are correct here. I think the US law should be modified. I also think the law of apostates is primitive and backward and should be abolished in all states which wish to be thought of as civilized. |
| asad | Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 03:47 pm
"Is there a reference in the qur'n or the Hadith? Or is this more of a tradition that grew up with the expansion of Islam? Can you cite some Qur'anic versus I could go to? I'm kind of curious about
the whole thing."
when i go back home later on this week, i'll give you all the references from the Qur'an and hadith. it is on the link i was talking about. there are many verses in the Qur'an that talk about Allah people obeying His rule.
"I'll accept your argument that laws prohibiting polygamy are coercion and unfairly biased against Muslims. I think you are correct here. I think the US law should be modified. "
i don't think the american people will modify and change this law. they do not think the law is primitive, just as muslim do not think the islamic law is primative. |
| anonymous | Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 05:58 pm
(So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah revealed to you)--QURAN--Al-Maidah 49.
Khilafah is one of the most important issues in Islam, many
versus in Quran and many Hadiths of the Prophet ordered Muslims
to establish such a system. Ruling by Islam is the most frequent
issue discussed in Quran after the belief and creed. Therefore,
Khilafah was discussed by many Muslim scholars, the following are
the definition of some of them to Khilafah.
1: A representation, of the one
who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at
protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.
2: Succession of the Prophethood
aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia).
3: it as: A total leadership for all the Muslims aimed at
implementing the Shariah of Islam and carrying the Message
of Islam to the world.
In summary, Khilafah is the political system in Islam. It
is responsible for implementing the Islamic system (be it social,
economic, educational, foreign policy,...) and maintaining its
implementation. It is also responsible for spreading the message
of Islam to the world. Khilafah is the Islamic state which the
Prophet (pbuh) sought to create and worked for in Mecca, for a
period of thirteen years, until he (pbuh) established it Medina.
The evidence for the duty of establishing the Khilafah is
confirmed in the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), the
consensus of the Sahabah and Shariah principle. The consensus of the Sahabah means that the Sahabah
unanimously accept a certain issue as being a divine rule as they
understood it from the Prophet (pbuh). The Sahabah consensus as
such is considered a third source of the divine rules (after
Quran and Sunnah).
All the companions (Sahabah) agreed throughout their lives
upon the obligation of appointing a Khalif. Although at times
they differed about the person to be appointed, they never
disagreed that a Khalif should be appointed. So what happened in
Saqifat Bani Sa'ida after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) is an
evidence that appointing a Khalif is obligatory. There was a
discussion about who should be the Khalif but they all agreed
their should be a Khalif. This example will be discussed in more
details in a different message when I discuss the way to appoint
the Khalifah.
Evidence From the Shariah Principle
The establishment of our religion (deen) and the
implementation of the divine law in every aspect of life is an
obligation (Fard) proven through authentic and conclusive
evidences. However, the establishment of the deen and implementation of the
divine law cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who
possesses the authority to do so. Accordingly, the fulfilment of
the duties to implement the divine law and to establish the deen
cannot be accomplished unless there exists the ruler. In this
context the Shariah principle states:
"That which is Necessary to accomplish a duty (Wajib) is itself
a duty (Wajib).
Therefore, according to this divine principle the presence
of a Khalif is compulsory.
Due to the absence of the authority of Islam via the
abolishment of the Khilafah, rules of Islam continue to be
incomplete and mutilated. However, with the knot of Islamic
ruling intact, the rest of the knots of Islam would be preserved.
Conversely, with the undoing (abolishment) of the knot of the
Islamic ruling structure, the knots of Islam would be
thereby abolished.
The claim that the Islamic form of government is not
explicitly defined in Islam is not justified by any daleel. It
is true that the details of the Khilafah structure are not given
in the Quran. But the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) explained the
Khilafah structure with great details.
In the Quran Allah (SWT) established that his laws have to
be used in the process of ruling. Through the Sunnah of his
Prophet (pbuh), Allah showed how the ruling is to be organized.
Besides the Khilafah, there are many issues outlined in the Quran
in a general form, and the Sunnah defined their details. The
prayer is an outstanding example. In the Quran, Allah (SWT)
orders us to pray. But how to pray, when to pray, and how many
times to pray were explained in the Sunnah.
In the same manner, Allah (SWT) in the Quran ordered the
Muslims to employ His (SWT) rules in the ruling system. The
Prophet (pbuh) explained the details of the ruling system, the
form of government, the duties of the Khalifah, the duties of the
people towards the Khalifah, the functions of the State, the
structure of the administration, and all related matters.
Allah (swt) has determined the form of government in Islam
to be the Khilafah system. It is the only system for ruling the
Islamic state.
The State system is built upon eight pillars:
1. The Khalif.
2. The delegated assistants.
3. The executive assistants.
4. The Amir of Jihad.
5. The Judges.
6. The governors of the provinces (Wilayat).
7. An administrative system.
8. The consultative assembly (majlis ash-shura).
1. Khilafah is the political system in Islam. It is
responsible for implementing the Islamic system (be it
social, economic, educational, foreign policy,...) and
maintaining its implementation. It is also responsible for
spreading the message of Islam to the world. Khilafah is
the Islamic state which the Prophet (pbuh) sought to create
and worked for in Mecca, for a period of thirteen years,
until he (pbuh) established it Medina.
2. The establishment of Khilafah is an Islamic duty. There is
a consensus between Muslim scholars about this issue as
Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer. I quoted several scholars
from different schools of thoughts in Islam (Sunnah, Shia,
Mu3tazilah,...), they all say it is Fard. Establishing the
Khilafah is Fard Kifayah (collective duty) upon Muslims,
however all of them are in sin if they do not fulfil this
duty.
3. The evidence for the duty of establishing the Khilafah is
confirmed in the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh),
the consensus of the Sahabah and Shariah principle. I
quoted many Ayahs and Hadiths which proves this.
Thus, the state is a necessity for the application of the
laws of Islam and it is the legitimate way specified by Allah
(SWT) to apply Islam and to carry it to the rest of the
mankind,
(due to the fact that Islam is a universal deen -way of life).
Numerous verses and Hadiths dealing with the rule indicate that
the state is the responsible body for the implementation of
these
laws. If that is true then would you imagine that Allah is
asking
us to implement Islam without a state.
Allah (SWT) says in the translation of Quran:
a. 5:48
"So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed,
and
follow not their desires away from the truth."
b. 4:105
"Lo, we reveal to you the scripture with the truth, that
you
may judge between mankind by that which Allah shows you."
c. 4:49
"So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed,
and
follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce
you
from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you."
d. 5:44
"Whoso judges not by that which Allah has revealed, such
are
disbelievers (Kafir)."
e. 5:45
"Whoso judges not by that which Allah has revealed, such
are
the wrongdoers (Dhallem)."
f. 5:47
"Whoso judges not by that which Allah has revealed, such
are
the evil livers (Fasiq)."
g. 4:65
"But no, by the Lord, they will not believe (in truth)
until
they make you judge of what is in dispute between them, And
find
in their souls No resistance against Thy decisions, but accept
Them with the fullest conviction."
Hadiths:
a: Imam Muslim narrated from Abu Hazim who said: "I was
with
Abu Hurairah for five years and I heard him narrate from the
Prophet (pbuh) that he said: The Prophets used to rule Ban
Israel. Whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him,
but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be
Khalifs and they will number many. They asked: what then do you
order us? He said: Fulfil allegiance to them one after the
other.
Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what he
entrusted them with."
This Hadith is a clear statement of the fact that the form
of government in Islam, after the Prophet (pbuh) is the
Khilafah.
This understanding is supported by numerous other Hadith that
indicate the only system of government in Islam is the
Khilafah.
b: Imam Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin Omar who said:
"One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of
allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to
the days of ignorance (Jahilyah).
Thus the Prophet (SWA) made it compulsory that every
Muslim
should have a pledge of allegiance (baya) on his or her neck.
The
pledge of allegiance is not given to anyone except the Khalif.
c: Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As who said the
Prophet (SWA) said:
"He who swears allegiance to a Khalif should give him the
pledge
of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i.e, submit to him
both outwardly as will as inwardly). He should obey him to the
best of his capacity. If another man comes forward (as a
claimant
to Khilafah) disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should
behead the latter".
The Hadiths inform us that those who run the affairs of
Muslims are Khalifs (some times Amir). Therefore, this is a
command to establish or appoint them. The Hadiths also include
the prohibition upon Muslims separating themselves from the
authority, and consequently, an obligation upon Muslims to
establish an authority, i.e, ruling. Furthermore the Prophet
ordered the Muslims to obey the Khalifs and to fight those who
dispute their authority as Khalifs, which in turn means a
command
to appoint a Khalif and to protect his Khilafah by fighting who
dispute his authority.
Many other Hadiths regulated the relationship between the
Ummah and the Khalif (or amir), when should they obey him and
when they should not. He also explained when he should be
changed
even by force.
Many more such verses show that it is obligatory to
implement Islam. Many other Hadiths show the same thing.
Many other verses asks the Muslims to have a certain
economic system, and a certain social system and...
The question now is what is the difference between these
verses and the one which says:
"Establish worship."? [24:56]
How can you say that Muslims are free to practice their
religion in a secular state by only practising the worship and
not practising any other thing.
This means asking the Muslims to believe in part of their
religion and disbelieve in the other part. This was described
in
another verse in Qur'an. In the translation of the verse [2:85]
Allah says:
"Then is it only a part of the Book That you believe in,
And
do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those Among
you who believe like this But disgrace in this life? And on the
Day of Judgement They shall be consigned To the most grievous
penalty. For God is not unmindful Of what you do."
More evidences can be found in the full series of articles.
4. The claim that the Islamic form of government is not
explicitly defined in Islam is not justified by any daleel.
It is true that the details of the Khilafah structure are
not given in the Quran. But the Sunnah of the Prophet
(pbuh) explained the Khilafah structure with great details.
5. The ruling system in Islam is based on four principles:
a. The supremacy is to the Sharia and not to the Ummah.
b. The authority is to the Ummah
c. Appointing one Khalif is an obligation on all Muslims.
d. The Khalif has power to adopt the divine law.
6. The State system is built upon eight pillars:
a. The Khalif.
b. The delegated assistants.
c. The executive assistants.
d. The Amir of Jihad.
e. The Judges.
f. The governors of the provinces (Wilayat).
g. An administrative system.
h. The consultative assembly (majlis ash-shura).
7. There are four opinions among Muslim scholars regarding the
issue of choosing the Khalif.
a. By selection (bay'ah).
b. By nomination.
c. By force.
d. By divine text.
It was shown that the bay'ah is only legitimate method to
appoint the Khalifah because Khilafah is a contract of
consent and selection. So the consent of the person who is
given the bay'ah to hold the Khilafah and the consent of
those who give the bay'ah are essential.
Thereupon, it is clear that nobody becomes a Khalif unless
the Ummah appoints him in this post, and he cannot have the
authority of Khilafah unless he is contracted to it.
This method of appointing the Khalifah (bay'ah) is proven
by the Quran, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Sahabah.
8. The detailed study of the bay'ah of the first four Khulafah
gives us the outline for a method to choose the Khalifah in
our contemporary times. First of all no one can become
Khalifah without the bay'ah (pledge) of the people. This
bay'ah is valid if it is taken without any force. The
matter of bay'ah proceeds after debate to establish
suitable candidates, then one of them is elected as a
Khalifah, then the bay'ah is taken for him from the people.
9. The issue of who are the Muslims who appoint the Khalifah
was examined. It was shown that the divine rule is to
establish the Khalifah by any gathering whose appointment
of the Khalifah achieves the consent of the Muslims by any
indication that proves this consent, wether this indication
is the pledge of the majority of the influential people,
the majority of the representative Muslims, the silent
acceptance of the Muslims regarding the group that give the
pledge, their harry to show obedience as a result of the
pledge or by any similar means, as long as they were
provided with the full facility to freely express their
opinions.
10. The actions occurring this century in elections, such as
secret ballots, polling boxes and counting votes and the
like, all these are styles to perform the selection by
consent. Therefore, these styles and means are not part of
what the divine laws are sought for. And they are treated
as matters which the general text has permitted, and there
is no special evidence to forbid them, so they are mubah.
So Muslims have the right to select these or other styles.
Any style which leads to enabling the Muslims to carry out
the Fard of appointing the Khalifah by consent and
selection, Muslims are allowed to use, unless there is a
divine evidence which prohibits it.
11. From the above we can choose the following manner in our
contemporary time in appointing the Khalifah.
a. The Muslims members of the Majlis ash-Shura (who are the
representative of the Ummah and are elected themselves by
the Ummah) check and determine the number of the candidates
to stand for election for the post of the Khalifah, these
names are subsequently announced and the Muslims are asked
to elect one person from this list of candidates.
b. The results of the election is to be announced and the
person who has attained the majority of the votes is to be
announced to the Muslims.
c. The Muslims must hasten to give the bay'ah to the candidate
-who has attained the majority of the votes- as the
Khalifah to follow the Quran and the Sunnah of the
Messenger of Allah (pbuh).
d. Once the bay'ah has been accomplished, the name of the
candidate who has become the Khalifah together with a
statement that he is qualified with all the agreement
conditions necessary for holding the office of Khalifah is
announced to the people so that the news of his appointment
reaches the whole of the Ummah.
12. The above mentioned manner to appoint the Khalifah can be
applied if there is Khilafah. But if the there is no
Khalifah at all , as is the case in our present time, then
every country in the Islamic world is eligible to elect a
Khalifah and thereby establish a Khilafah on condition that
the country fulfils four criteria:
a. The authority in that country must be self determined
depending on Muslims only, not on any disbeliever state
or disbeliever influence.
b. The security of Muslims in that country must be through
the security of Islam and not the security of Kufr, i.e.
the protection of the country internally and externally
must be in the name of Islam from the Muslims power in
its capacity as a purely Islamic power.
c. The country must commence immediate implementation of
Islam completely, comprehensively and radically and also
engage in delivering the Islamic call.
d. The elected Khalifah should fulfil the conditions of the
Khilafah contract, even if he is lacking the preferable
conditions, because what matters is the contract
conditions.
Therefore, if that country has fulfilled these four
conditions, then the Khilafah has been established by the bay'ah of
that country alone and it was convened with it alone as well, even
if this country does not represent the majority of the
influential people who represent the Islamic Ummah. |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 03:28 am
Anonymous
Mahadsannid. That was a lot of good information there. I need to absorb it all. I'm sure I'll have a few questions. It would appear that this explains why a lot of Muslims were so angry when Ataturk abolished the Caliphate in Turkey. |
