LAW, MOHAWK, GAMADID: COME OUT ON ISLAM

[dhuusa_deer]

Ureeyso,

Whose history are you reading from. The stuff you write above are historically anachronistic if not outright false. Both Islamic history and kafir history disagrees with you. For example, you say:

"all the Islamic empires used Islam as political system and that was the reason why they managed 2 manipulate, and expand their lands..."

Here both your OWN Islamic history (Hadiths and historical documents) and world history disagree with you. Muslim empires expanded and gained new lands the same way every other empire before it and after it did: conquest and colonisation. You DO know your own "prophet" was involved in no less then 24 wars. By the time he passed away, ALL of the arabian peninsula was under Islam. Gained mainly through battles. It is in your hadiths!

Of course, the arabs he 'peacefully converted' only months after his death violently revolted to get rid of the evil scourge of Islam foisted on them. Only to be violently quelled by the first caliphate Abu Bakr.

Then there was the bloody killing of half of the 'rightly guided' by other muslim. From then on, it was nothing but conquests and colonisations.

In one of the greatest acts of genocide in human history, muslim armies killed between 50-80 million hindus. Entire valley, the Hind-Kush -- which means Hindu Slaughter, was named after this episode of bloody conquest.

And the height of Islamic preeminence was while Islam was actively conquering more new lands. With resulting consequence of infusion of new knowledge, wealth, land, populations to tax into ever expanding Islamic Empire.

Why do you think Islam's strength vis-a-vis other world powers sharply declined when there was NO MORE land to conquer. That should tell you something Ureeyso. The further you get from 7th century, the weaker Islam became. Islam did not produce a functioning political system, it was only sucessful for no reason other then living off of other ppl's ideas and wealth.

You say:

"Perceptibly that was one of the rationales why the golden era of Islamic empires ended which tolerated western countries 2 catch up."

Wrong again. The West surpassed the muslims BECAUSE and ONLY because they freed themselves from superstitious and backward believes. Which ushered a new age of rational thinking and liberal attitude towards religion.

It all started with the Protestants and their publishing of the Bible so common man can UNDERSTAND what his faith actually said and not depend on priests who had self interests to preserve. Something YET to happen in the muslim world. The europeans fought wars like the 30 Year War to settle which direction their faith will take. Of course it was bumpy ride, there were intermitten periods of barbarity (the imprisonment of Galileo for suggesting the earth orbited the sun) but as time progressed they gradually distanced themselves from acritical thinking and accepting for truth childish fairy tales and accepted sound reasoning and science as the BEST way to make decision. And the NEVER looked back and WILL always be ahead of muslims until muslims go through their age of reasoning and enlightenment!

[gurey25]

[quote]In one of the greatest acts of genocide in human history, muslim armies killed between 50-80 million hindus. Entire valley, the Hind-Kush -- which means Hindu Slaughter, was named after this episode of bloody conquest[/quote]
did you get this from your friend daniel pipes
, if yes i would love to correct him.
this will seriously embaress him.
heres a hint do some research before you copy shit like that.

[quote]It all started with the Protestants and their publishing of the Bible so common man can UNDERSTAND what his faith actually said and not depend on priests who had self interests to preserve[/quote]

the bible was in print since gutenburg started the first printing press in1350,
at least 150 years before Martin Luther.
and the renaisance started in Catholic Italy, and bore fruit in catholic germany and catholic france.

[The Law26]

[quote="QansaGabeyle"]Mohawk and the Law are definately secular or moderate or whatever other name you have for people like but why do you think Gamadid is a secular?[/quote]

Qansa

Since you pidgeoholed me, is it fair to say that you are still a pagan guy, who only wants to be ruled by his tribal brethen? When you will you visit Afweeyne's grave in Nigeria? Stick to your clan politics.

[Af_libaax]

Galol

Old man You have been lately anxious Why religion is suddenly mixing public governance and political arena , don't You know the world is an arena of moral conflict , NOW you disappointing the real world You vanish are becoming more Evangelical , I though You were smarter , You should check carefully your almighty Dollar says IN GOD WE TRUST in public as a public currency and No leader in politics goes to office even if he/she elected without sworn the holy Bible , regardless of their Social designs Secularism , democracy are all greed power interests. Than what the heck in the world are You so Panic if the Muslims sworn the Quran and take their oath OR you afraid drinking in public under shari'a is 40 lashes .

[The Law26]

[quote="Galol"]I think at minimum, and judging from your contributions, you are secular, ie you do believe Islam should NOT be used as a poltical system to run a modern State.

Do you agree that Isalm is or should be a personal matter and has no role in public political life?[/quote]

Galol

I'm opposed to certain strands of theocracy that exist in some “Muslims countries” today. But first, let me make it clear that Sovereign nations should be able to rule, as they like fit as long as they are democratic. I'm opposed to human rights violations. "Theocracy" applied according to the genuine Islamic State does not mean people will have less rights. However, those theocracies are a form of government wide open for abuse as history has shown. Japan, Australia & France, are way better, in respecting Human Rights, than any single Arab or Muslim state. This is not to say that Islam is a backward religion. I don't think any monotheistic religion is. YES, I do think that lots of people are! Why? None of the so-called Muslim countries have constitutions that fulfill the minimal shariah requirements to represent an authentic Islamic State. They all are nationalist concepts adopted from their colonial masters, secular international law, compromise Islamic economic law, etc. Can we call them an Islamic state?

Galol, I thought u knew that secularism is a compromise of which Allah (SWT) mentioned in the Quraan:

'Obey not the deniers".

From an intellectual position:I think though secularism is more appropriate than the theocratic strands (I mentioned above) that exist today, however, secularism does not provide all the answers. It empowers humans to determine their own affairs. But this 'empowerment of man' intrinsically entices the most ruthless power-hungry of men and diabolical to gain power over others. That is why these elites who 'lord' over the rest of mankind under the pretext of democracy. These elites are greedy and seek more and more power, leading to empires. Empires like the Greek, Roman, European colonial, and now the American empire, all that have reigned over the earth in corruption and exploitation.

Today, we have wittnessed secularism give birth to capitalism (globalization). Now, Capitalism became the diabolical twin of democracy. While secularists sing the high ideals of democracy, they are silent of the debasing inevitability of capitalism, (globalization). While a nation may espouse democracy, people are subjugated to debasing lows under capitalism: prostitution is legalized, human trafficking is rampant; morality and decency succumb to the moral and ethical relativism of commerce under the authority of democracy. Wealth continues to concentrate around the elites of every society while the masses suffer under corruption. Man is too weak, too imperfect, and ignorant to have both authority to rule AND sovereignty to legislate what is right and wrong. Today, under the New World Order constructed by America, the world is sensing this to be so true.

What is my ideal state?

Let us be frank and state the obvious that since the colonial forces of yesteryear concocted the current nation states of the Muslim world- drawing lines in the sand here and there, dividing people who have for centuries been united, stirring divisions and enmities contrary to Islam in order to reinforce that lines- the Muslim elites failed to visualize. Out of the lack of their own vision and understanding, they perceived no other option but to capitulate to the demands, urgings, and enticements of the imperial powers that hold sway. As if the nations of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Kuwait or Qatar, or Bahrain or Jordan are not open to an alternative circumstance as the circumstances created by the empires which gave them their nationhood.

Galol that is why asking compromise such as the Muslim people is dishonest and a total fallacy. We are a people who have suffered NOT from intrinsic ideological conflicts between a religious doctrine and a secular doctrine, as was the context of Judeo Christian Western civilization. Infact the Third World and in partilcular, the Muslim world suffered from occupation, colonialism imposed through brutal military force, and the unresolved and unsolved post colonial exploitation imposed by the forces of Western civilization. Coupled with the internal ideological problems of the Muslim civilization, which have lingered since pre-colonization, (such as the proverbial 'closed door of ijtihad', and the intellectual dependency on Ullemmas) are all procedural rather than ideologically fundamental, that is why we need Ijtihad. Secularism and democratic capitalism is not the necessary solution for the Muslim world. It is a well known fact that it is through American military force that secularism and capitalism arrive from the oppressive regimes that have been supported by the U.s for decades. Thus, secularism, capitalism and globalization are born as a compromise with the oppressive regimes of today, NOT from the ideological foundation of Islam.

The nature of the authentic Islamic state is the caliphate. However, the Islamic society established upon Divine Law (Ahkam Shari`) cannot function by today's standards of governance and administration without the involvement of scientists, engineers, and experts who assist in shaping regulations, administrative law, and assist the legal scholars interpretation of rulings (`ijtihad) necessary to address our current circumstances and realities.

My view above contrasts with the sorry-state that certain Muslim groups are calling for -- and I mean those who would impose an intellectual and religious autocracy on society like the Taliban or Saudi regime, in stark contrast to the marvels of the Abbasid Caliphate in Cordoba have imposed. There is a wonderful recent book on their magnificent reign called "The Ornament of the World”. Let me quote; “The Cordoban Caliphate was a shining example of what a society can be: tolerant, inquisitive, intellectual and religious. At a time when the Christian world was mired in the dark ages, and nothing was being written in Latin other than narrow religious texts, with no toleration, Cordoba was a wonder: Christian and Jewish scholars and philosophers flocked to the caliphate to learn Arabic, the only language in which non-religious learning was flourishing. The great works of Aristotle and the Greeks and Romans (plays, poetry, philosophy) were translated into Arabic and available to all. (In Christendom, Aristotle was only permitted in an edited version consistent with Catholic theology.) Poetry was highly valued, and the rulers sponsored national poetry contests about love and life. The government also encouraged cross-religious dialogue: public debates would often be held in the main squares, in which Islamic, Jewish and Christian scholars debated points of scripture and theology.” Contrary to today’s Muslims, they were smart and learned Muslims.

What are the criteria determining an Islamic State?

First, what constitutes an Islamic state?

Today, we all know there is no truly Islamic state or even one that proffers sharia in total, I would say most Muslim states are secular to a greater or lesser extent. The west may be easy pickings in this debate, but Muslim states are not removed from the discussion. Discussions about Islamic states essentially become circular due to the fact that an assumption is often made by at least one party that countries with majority Muslim populations are Islamic. The terms "Muslim country" and "Islamic country" are seen as interchangeable. Of course, they are not, as there are no Islamic countries with a genuine and true sharia. There exist some states with some degree of secular humanism and/or totalitarianism with a thin veneer of Islam over the whole package.

Let us see this Passage from the Quraan on Khaliifat

"Allah had promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then who so is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious."
(Surah Al-Nur, Verse 55)

Only under a Khalif can the Islamic state be established. Who exactly would be a khalifah would be based on who is eligible and those who are voting for him. That is to say, in Madinah, those people of power, authority, respect (ahlil hall wal aqd) within the society selected the khalifah from a set of candidates. Back then it meant the most prominent sahaba who were scholars, military commanders, tribal chiefs, and people of honor from amongst the Prophet pbuh. Also, it should be known that the Prophet Mohamed pbuh highly encouraged representative leadership chosen by the people. He pbuh said in a tradition (hadith), if there are three among you on a journey, select an 'amir'-leader. He pbuh encouraged selection of a leader even among 3 people and that leader would have certain legal authority passed to him. A brilliant democracy.

Having said that, the restoration of the Caliphate is very far off. Generations probably. In this day and age, I don’t think that there is anyone alive who could become the Caliph. The conditions just don’t seem right. I personally believe that there will come a time when we will be able to rise above our petty differences and all accept a leader who may not be exactly the same as us. Right now however that isn’t even close and neither is there such a critical mass of believers who desire the Caliphate for it to happen.Most of the leaders of the Muslim world are dictators, they’re tyrants and that’s all they are. And you know the next stage after the time of the rule of the tyrants is the return of the Caliphate. Now it took us 1400 years to get this far, so it might be a while yet, but you never know. If Allah SWT wills the return of the Caliphate nothing can stop it. So, I might think its centuries away yet, but I really have no knowledge and am guessing. We just don’t know. I personally am not too interested in this topic as it seems so far off and not a practical matter to me, but its still there.

Anyway, the word Caliph is just a title given to the position of authority and political power. In the absence of a Caliph, how should an Islamic country ideally be governed, according to Sharia? Who and from what quarters of the Muslim populous would this mass of people arise from? Would it be from among those who call the Shias? If so, from what sub-sect? Would it be from among those who call themselves Sunnis? Again, if so from what sub-sect? Would this movement simply be comprised of all the adherents to an existing sect in Islam? If so, how can it be defined as a re-establishment of Khilafat, as opposed to a sect re-affirming itself as a sect? Whose interpretations? In short, this IS the reality today that plagues such a 'Khaliifat Movement and in the near future.

In the absence of a caliph, it is a collective legal obligation upon the entire Muslim people to have a caliph. The first generation of Muslims postponed the burial of the Prophet Mohamed pbuh 2 days in order to select a caliph. That means the body of the Prophet pbuh, laid unburied for 2 days. It is an extremely important duty, failing to uphold is a gross sin upon all who are not fulfilling it. Hence, when caliph Omar r.a was dying from his wounds and ordered the assembly of a shura body to select candidates and choose one to be a caliph after him, he also instructed that their assembly be guarded and if these beloved, respected, knowledge members of the assembly fail to accomplish their task, for them all to be executed and a new assembly to formed. While it is inconceivable today for respected, and trusted leaders of a society to be executed for failing to select a leader, Caliph Omar's ra commands were demonstrative which indicated that the duty was pivotal.

So in essence, the entire Muslim world especially those with knowledge and awareness, with exceptions for certain folk, are living with grave sins on their backs for failing in this matter. No real legal scholar can rightly claim political authority in the absence of a caliph.

A nation state cannot become an Islamic state. In short, all the Muslim nations today carry nationalism and are called nation-states, which was the design of Europeans, and are run from the U.N. (H.Q in N.Y), invoke secular law in foreign, domestic, economic and political affairs to varying degrees. The difference is they manipulate Ullemma (now generations after colonialism which controlled the education systems produced these Ullemmas) who continue to misguide the people especially in accepting the existing govt’s and confuse the masses with their un-Islamic fatwas.

Till then, I will be an Australian and follow Australian rules and regulations.

[gurey25]

An eleqount post Law26
well said.

[dhuusa_deer]

[quote="gurey25"] did you get this from your friend daniel pipes
, if yes i would love to correct him.
this will seriously embaress him.
heres a hint do some research before you copy shit like that. [quote]

Nah but it doesn't really matter who it's from. If it's inaccurate, feel free to challenge it.

Here are some sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_invasion_of_India

http://hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.htm

http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birod ... nrule.html

keep in mind, this covers a 500 year period. From 1000 AD to 1500s AD.


[quote] the bible was in print since gutenburg started the first printing press in1350,
at least 150 years before Martin Luther.
and the renaisance started in Catholic Italy, and bore fruit in catholic germany and catholic france.[/quote]

You're right, it was the moveable printing press (improvement over gutenburg's printing press) that helped the Protestants spread their message quickly and cheaply I had in mind. It was also them who started writting Bibles in local languages. It was only then that ppl began to become literate of their faith.

[PragmaticGal]

The Law,

Some great points there. I'm going to respond to some of the ideas you raised in a couple of days... Just one quick point: yes, theocracies and secular governments are both vulnerable to abuse by the power-hungry. However, only in a theocracy is it justified by the power-hungry that they are divinely guided, and any objection to them is going against the Creator. As such, these corrupt priests/mullahs have no compunctions about using people's beliefs to con them and turn them against decency and common sense. When the basis for your source of power cannot be questioned, then you can get up to all kinds of mischief. Secular laws, on the other hand, are always open to challenge and inquiry.

Gurey,

About the "advisory counsel of female ulemas": who appoints them? To whom are they accountable? Who decides what constitutes enough Islamic knowledge to be label a "alim"? Would these women be any more free of cultural mores than the male ulemas?

[gurey25]

these are the same hindu nationalists who believe that the ancient greeks, persians were indians, and that rome was founded by followers of lord Rama. lool

Ok hindu kush was named by the locals in the afghan/Pakistan border
becuase those mountain passes killed most of invading indian armies.
the correct translation is hindu killer., because no hindu could pass those passes.
This is from the maurana nd ashokan period when indian armies were moving north and subjugating the north, this was in the 300-100 bc

and has nothing to do with muslim invasions.

[Galol]

Law

Interesting post. I am pissed now but I will respond later. But just to say thank you for confusing me and in the process wasting a decent half bottle of single malt whisky (I finished all the good ones on Christmas)!

[LionHeart-112]

[quote="Galol"]Law

Interesting post. I am pissed now but I will respond later. But just to say thank you for confusing me and in the process wasting a decent half bottle of single malt whisky (I finished all the good ones on Christmas)![/quote]

Pathetic drunk.

[Ureysoo]

War baladaan maxa nugu dhajiyay, *naga fuq balaayo kula fuqday yahuu* allah fiicana ineey dhuusada kugu dhagto *kidding*...

*Waryeeh Dhuusaye*...

Ur comment *Muslim empires expanded and gained new lands the same way every other empire before it and after it did: conquest and colonization*.

I concur with ur stance, but 2 be so obvious I was conversing about the *Islamic politics* being one of the main factors, that assisted them 2 conquest. Well, *Why did the muslim empires found it easy 2 colonize, while on the other hand foreign nations couldn’t colonize , *merely becuz they need an influential politics in order to substantiate their hegemony. Beside, the significance of Islamic politics is certainly the most important reason why Islam has been occupying center stage in the world consciousness.

Ur comment *In one of the greatest acts of genocide in human history, muslim armies killed between 50-80 million hindus. Entire valley, the Hind-Kush -- which means Hindu Slaughter, was named after this episode of bloody conquest*.

Ninyahow, that part of *bilaad al sind wal hind* = *the land of India* which is known as (India, Afghanistan and Pakistan) now , used that term 2 dub a mountain and a valley which, were the reason why a lot of Indians died while they were attempting 2 pass that particular area. That term existed even be4 Islam was brought 2 them in 7th century.

Ur comment *sharply declined when there was NO MORE land to conquer...The further you get from 7th century, the weaker Islam became. Islam did not produce a functioning political system, it was only sucessful for no reason other then living off of other ppl's ideas and wealth*

How could u measure the potency of a particular nation, by the lands they conquered if it works that way, the Mongol would have been dominating the world, knowing the verity when Genghis Khan marched through, Mongols conquered various lands in a short period of time, initiating from China, 2 Baghdad, where they massacre a lot of Muslims, and threw the Islamic, scientific, etc...books into *Dijla and furaat* rivers, while they were hitting towards Egypt, be4 sultan qutuz overwhelm them in *Ayn Jaloot* battle. Alongside this battle and many other clashes happened after 7th century, so what makes u think they became drained @ that specific time. This illustrates that conquering lands and living on other ppl ideas and wealth (*as u presupposed*) won’t help 2 homogenize. Miyaa walaatay misa waa is waaloosa yaqee, how could u declare that Muslims didn’t produce political system (marka adi maa soo bixisay). Yes indeed they functioned an Islamic political system (from the prophet (PBUH) era, till Ottoman empire, seceded politics from shari’a, *which I think was the one of the reasons why they were trounced*

Ur comment *The West surpassed the muslims BECAUSE and ONLY because they freed themselves from superstitious and backward believes. Which ushered a new age of rational thinking and liberal attitude towards religion*

Yaa Salaam, so u saying they amusingly unchained themselves from ridiculous notions and dogmas, and contemplated about instigating a warfare with Muslims, thus (*Abra Ka Dabra*) they won the scuffle. *Nacala Maskaxda maxa ka dhahaa*. Evidently they were stringently against education and knowledge, which lead them 2 chastise those who invent or discover, by chopping of their heads, deeming that might make ppl stand critical 2 *the scholar of Christianity* which had a durable authority on the western countries politics and society back then, so they determined 2 restrict ppl from edifying themselves, 4 instance Hypatia who was massacred. But that’s not the only reason, there were many factors, that assisted them 2 defeat the Muslim armies and colonize their lands, and as I declared in my preceding post *the fall of ottoman empire, after they modified their political system* was one of the main reasons...

*Bless*