Discussion: Islamic teachings by Dr. Badawi (Canada)

[Sahar]

Tch. Call it what you want that is the political system the Quran admonishes and the practice of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and if secularism was his practice then Islamic and Secular political systems are the same.

This what I am trying to understand how the secular and Islamic systems are the same.

Actually the Qur'an doesn't say at all that carrying out the divine laws is subjected to the people's will in the Islamic society:
"And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers." Qur'an - Al Ma'ida: 44
So very expected in an Islamic society (with or without a non Muslim minority) to have a political system that establishes God's laws, and the highest authority in such society is the authority of the Qur'an and the Sunnah and both the government and the people are subjected to the this authority.
And if the society considered some ideologies, persons, things, people, organizations...etc having an authority that is higher than what Allah revealed then this is kufr according to the Qur'an: "And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers." Qur'an - Al Ma'ida: 44

Your speculation clearly contradicts the Qur'an and Islam.

 

[TashaN]

I logged out to study, because i have an exam after few hours, but i was soooo tempted to come back to answer these questions. I kept thinking about it.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but wouldn't Sharia law forcibly prohibit me, as an atheist, from:

• Marrying the woman I love, if she happens to be Muslim?

You can't marry whom you love as an atheist if she was a muslim girl, simply because she won't agree to do so if she was really a muslim.

I don't know though how the court would deal with this issue if the girl herself agreed. I need to look into this more from a legal point of view, but in general, Islam doesn't allow a muslim girl to marry a non-muslim simply because that would be injustice against that man, because he might not want for his children to be muslims like his wife.

• Expressing myself in ways that are deemed to "insult" or "blaspheme" against Islam?

Do you mean plain insults for the sake of insulting or just some thoughts and ideas which goes against what Muslims believe to be about God and Islam in general?

• Being elected the supreme ruler / president / whatever?

We will leave that for the community to decide. After Prophet Mohammed died, the first Caliph asked people to choose, and it been said that he was going along with the other great companions of Prophet Mohammed from a house to another in the city to ask them whom they wanted to be the Caliph, which is equavilant to what we call today general elections. Although he didn't want to be the Caliph himself, but at the end, people chose him to be the first Caliph. His name was Abu Baker.

• Having a glass of my favorite red wine with a pork chop dinner? (In fact tonight I cooked some pork chops in a delicious white wine vinegar and dijon mustard sauce.)

Yes you can have it all you want, but i won't join you on that.

• Paying the same exact tax that all citizens must pay? (I'm thinking of the "jizya" tax.)

It's not fair to non-Muslims to pay Zakat like what Muslims do because it's a religious duty to Muslims, unlike non-Muslims. That's why the non-Muslims had to pay something similar which is Jizyah, and by doing so, they were being exempt from participating in wars to protect the state. Note that ...

Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the people of the book. Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits and the poor, were all exempt from the tax, unless any of them was independent and wealthy. However, these exemptions were no longer observed during some periods in Muslim history, and discarded entirely by the Shafi'i School of Law. There was no amount permanently fixed for the tax, though the payment usually depended on wealth.

Taken from: Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Althought not all the information in this link are true but it hold alot of truth. When reading the above link, please keep in mind that political environment at that time and how was the islamic law compared to others. Because today, the situation is different and it needs a new interpretation based on the current political and society laws.

Also, i have read that, when the non-Muslims were choosing to participate in defending the state, they were exempted from paying the Jizyah, unlike Muslims who had to pay it as a religious duty anyway, whether they participated in wars or not. They Jizyah was less than Zakat anyway.

You can read more about it here:
The Fair Logic of <i>Jizyah</i> - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam

• Would my testimony against a Muslim be admissible, and have just as much weight as anyone's testimony, in court?

No, the testimony can have even as much weight as the Caliph/President HIMSELF.

In the time of the fourth Caliph, Ali bin abi talib, a Jew found an armor which fell from the Caliph at that time, Ali, and when Ali saw that armor with the Jew, he claimed to be his, and the Jew protested and asked him to go to court.

When they went to court, the Muslim judge asked Ali if he had any evidence that it's his armor, and Ali said that he can't prove it but he knows it is his, then the judge said that, in this case, you have no proof, and thus, the Jew will keep it. Then, the Jew seeing all that happen, was astonished from the way the Caliph of the state was treated at court, just like anybody else, and he returned it to Ali, and became a Muslim later on.

At that time, do you imagine that anything similar could happen?

By the way, non-Muslims can have their own courts in the islamic state.

• Could all the dance clubs and gay bars stay open?

All proprties of non-Muslims should be protected by the islamic state.

• What about TV shows, movies, art, or literature that is deemed to have "bad morals" or to have too much nudity, romance, or pornography? Would I, as a non-Muslim citizen under Sharia law, be free to buy these things or produce them?

I'm not sure about this one. In the past, it was ok for non-muslims to keep their own pork, alcohol, etc because it wasn't harming the muslims, unlike this one which can be accessed by everybody.

On the other hand, my own personal belief is that, today, no one can force anybody what to watch and what to not watch, because people have satalites, the internet, etc, so a self control is more effective that imposing certain laws to legalize that or prohibit that, when it comes to media.

• What would happen to someone like Salman Rushdie or Theo Van Gogh?

Unforunatly, i didn't have the chance to read the work of any of them, so i don't know.

If the answers to the questions are what I think they are, or even if just a few of them are, then an Islamic state *would indeed* be imposing its religion on me and anyone like me.

So?

The Islamic state is also certainly not a democracy, according to Dr. Badawi.

It's not a full democracy system, and it's not a theocracy as well.

EDIT: Note that, when i was answering you, i was recalling the time of Prophet Mohammed and the Caliphs after him, and what would they have done if they were here today, also, i kept in mind the major schools of thought in Islam. Nevertheless, what they have done in the past was mainly to cope up with the environment at that time while observing islamic laws and regulations. So, also today, we have to analyze the current enviornment and interpret the texts based on that, just like what they did in the past.

What they did in the past was a revolution in human thoughts standards, and i don't recall any ruling which was better than the islamic one at that time. That's why, with the current relative fairness we see in democracy, and the many western countries who successfully applied it as the best solution they could come up with to govern the country, i believe that the islamic law can surpass that easily, based on the results and performance of the past, and the revolutionary laws and thoughts which Muslims could successfully implement.

You see, it wasn't as bad as you expected. j/k

That's why I was wondering about how far islamic law can be successful and why we stopped interpreting the texts from a modern point of view, and i started posting some questions to my Muslim fellows ...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam/71427-we-stuck-past.html

You can join us there if you want to find out what happened!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

TashaN - Thanks for your well-reasoned and informative reply.

I logged out to study, because i have an exam after few hours, but i was soooo tempted to come back to answer these questions. I kept thinking about it.

I keep obsessing about it too! I'm supposed to be a physicist for goodness' sake.

You can't marry whom you love as an atheist if she was a muslim girl, simply because she won't agree to do so if she was really a muslim.

I don't know though how the court would deal with this issue if the girl herself agreed. I need to look into this more from a legal point of view, but in general, Islam doesn't allow a muslim girl to marry a non-muslim simply because that would be injustice against that man, because he might not want for his children to be muslims like his wife.

If she was really a woman, she'd agree. (Haha, just kidding.) But in all seriousness, someone must have considered it a possibility or there wouldn't be an Islamic law against it in the first place. And how can you say it would be an injustice to the man, if the man himself wants to marry the girl and does not think it would be an injustice? Perhaps they will decide to raise the children Muslim, perhaps they will raise them in a different religion, or perhaps they will educate the children broadly and let them decide for themselves. I know many mixed couples in the U.S. where one is Jewish, one is Christian, or one is non-religious. They love each other and they have a great family with kids. It would seem cruel to me to prohibit these people from marrying.

Do you mean plain insults for the sake of insulting or just some thoughts and ideas which goes against what Muslims believe to be about God and Islam in general?

That's an excellent question, but in my opinion if one is not protected free expression, than neither is the other. If I say "George W. Bush is incompetent" am I insulting him just for the sake of insulting or is it a thought and idea which goes against the Republican party? I might think it's a thought or idea, but Republicans will generally deem it an insult, especially if they are the one's in power to judge.

But let's consider the insult: if someone levels an insult at the Prophet Muhammad in an Islamic state, what happens to them? What if they level insult after insult, for as long as they live?

We will leave that for the community to decide.

Wow, really? An atheist president of an Islamic state? I wouldn't have guessed that would be allowed.

Yes you can have it all you want, but i won't join you on that.

Hehe, I guess I'll have to have two glasses of wine then, for both of us. I can offer you some mixed green salad which I also made, with dried fruit and nuts, red peppers and balsamic vinaigrette, with milk or apple juice to drink.

It's not fair to non-Muslims to pay Zakat like what Muslims do because it's a religious duty to Muslims, unlike non-Muslims. That's why the non-Muslims had to pay something similar which is Jizyah, and by doing so, they were being exempt from participating in wars to protect the state. Note that ...

Taken from: Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Althought not all the information in this link are true but it hold alot of truth. When reading the above link, please keep in mind that political environment at that time and how was the islamic law compared to others. Because today, the situation is different and it needs a new interpretation based on the current political and society laws.

Oh, I do not have much difficulty believing that Islamic law was advanced for that time period. Thanks for the info.

No, the testimony can have even as much weight as the Caliph/President HIMSELF.

Even an atheist like myself?

In the time of the fourth Caliph, Ali bin abi talib, a Jew found an armor which fell from the Caliph at that time, Ali, and when Ali saw that armor with the Jew, he claimed to be his, and the Jew protested and asked him to go to court.

When they went to court, the Muslim judge asked Ali if he had any evidence that it's his armor, and Ali said that he can't prove it but he knows it is his, then the judge said that, in this case, you have no proof, and thus, the Jew will keep it.

At that time, do you imagine that anything similar could happen?

I agree that the judge in that story demonstrates a remarkable degree of justice for that time period. But I'm certain similar displays of justice and fair-mindedness often occurred in places like Athens or Rome over a thousand years before your example. Look at Classical Roman law. Law during that time was an advanced science, and they developed structures of government that have become universal in all modern governments. Their rulers were certainly subject to the law as in your example, as they could be impeached, they had term limits, and regular elections (thanks, wiki: Roman law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). The idea that any party, even a governing official, must present evidence in court goes back at least to classical Rome.

All proprties of non-Muslims should be protected by the islamic state.

Once again, I'm surprised. Did I mention gay bars?

Unforunatly, i didn't have the chance to read the work of any of them, so i don't know.

What sort of content in their work would lead to legal ramifications, and what would those ramifications consist of?

If the answers to the questions are what I think they are, or even if just a few of them are, then an Islamic state *would indeed* be imposing its religion on me and anyone like me.

So?

So, maro asked me: i don't know which part of my post gives you the impression of imposing our beliefs on the non muslim minority ? It looks like we have an answer.

It's not a full democracy system, and it's not a theocracy as well.

Fair enough.

What they did in the past was a revolution in human thoughts standards, and i don't recall any ruling which was better than the islamic one at that time. That's why, with the current relative fairness we see in democracy, and the many western countries who successfully applied it as the best solution they could come up with to govern the country, i believe that the islamic law can surpass that easily, based on the results and performance of the past, and the revolutionary laws and thoughts which Muslims could successfully implement.

I'm skeptical. Restricting free expression, adopting a sort of constitution that can never be amended (the Qu'ran, etc.), treating Muslims and non-Muslims differently as a matter of state business, and so on, only seems revolutionary to me in a retrograde sense. And we didn't even get into what a putative Islamic state does with apostates and homosexuals.

Now, this, to me, is revolutionary in the progressive sense, and we don't have to struggle to reconcile it with ancient texts, it simply stands on its own: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The beautiful thing to me about this is that any thinking, compassionate person can accept it, even if they all disagree about which holy book is the true one, or what God's will really is.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Your speculation clearly contradicts the Qur'an and Islam.

I must admit I was quite taken aback by the verse you gave. That was until I decided to read all of the verse and the context becomes extremely clear.

Al-Ma'idah Chapter 5 : Verse 45
Surely, We sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to US, judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law, because they were required to preserve the Book of Allah, and because they were guardians over it. Therefore fear not men but fear ME; and barter not My signs for a paltry price. And whoso judges not by that which Allah has sent down, these it is who are the disbelievers.

See the Prophets judged for those who followed them. This refers to religious judgement of a person who accepts the law of Islam. It is not referring to political rule. Just turn two verses back and therein is your political ruling:

Al-Ma'idah Chapter 5 : Verse 43
They are eager listeners to falsehood, devourers of things forbidden. If, then, they come to thee for judgement, judge between them or turn aside from them. And if thou turn aside from them, they cannot harm thee at all. And if thou judge, judge between them with justice. Surely Allah loves those who are just.

It is clear enough, I think but if you still insist:

Al-Ma'idah Chapter 5 : Verse 48
And let the people of the Gospel judge according to what Allah has revealed therein, and whoso judges not by what Allah has revealed, these it is who are the transgressors.

All verses are near each other in all three cases.

 

[maro]

Marrying the woman I love, if she happens to be Muslim?

A muslim woman wouldn't marry an ahreist at the first place..

Expressing myself in ways that are deemed to "insult" or "blaspheme" against Islam?

i believe in free speech..so you may insult islam as mush as you can...i don't think that will affect islam..and i wish other muslims realize that too

Being elected the supreme ruler / president / whatever?

you might become a candidate..why not ?

• Having a glass of my favorite red wine with a pork chop dinner? (In fact tonight I cooked some pork chops in a delicious white wine vinegar and dijon mustard sauce.)

  yes sure...

Paying the same exact tax that all citizens must pay? (I'm thinking of the "jizya" tax.)

you will pay al gizya becuase 1)you don't pay the zakat..2) unlike muslims , you are not obliged to join the army at the time of war..and muslims are obliged to defend you and your property a a citizen in the islamic state

Would my testimony against a Muslim be admissible, and have just as much weight as anyone's testimony, in court?

I guess so..why not ?

Could all the dance clubs and gay bars stay open?

• What about TV shows, movies, art, or literature that is deemed to have "bad morals" or to have too much nudity, romance, or pornography? Would I, as a non-Muslim citizen under Sharia law, be free to buy these things or produce them?

Nope..you may try to pass a law legalizing sodomy and pornograpgy , though...and let's make a vote

• What would happen to someone like Salman Rushdie or Theo Van Gogh?

ignored

Of course you aren't obliged to read this thread, reply to my posts, or justify your beliefs. But that WAS what I requested in the OP, for you to justify your beliefs, not simply state them as if their truth is obvious to everyone. It is claimed that Islamic law is a perfectly just, loving, reasonable set of laws. I'm inviting you to substantiate that claim by carefully considering facts and reasoning. Tariq and Cordoba have done an admirable job of this on the issue of interest loans (which we aren't discussing anymore, for now! )

i want to tell you something you better understand well ,so that your discussion with any muslim will be fruitful from now on...
For muslims . wether they understand the wisdom behind the ruling partially ,totally or don't understand it at all...they still believe in the perfection of that religion and it rulings..
However , this is not an excuse to hinder thr objective thinking to figure out the wisdom behind every ruling..for two reasons :1) to strenghten our faith..2) to dicuss things with you

Facts and reasoning might or might not be available...they might be scientifically established facts : like if you asked me :why alcohol is forbidden ?...or just guesses that are not yet considered facts taken for granted.. like what cordoba done with ushury...time may prove him right...and may be if you asked him the same question 50 years ahead ,his answer will be : what a very silly question...it's something agreed upon by all economists that ushury causes any econmical system to collapse sooner or later....( note that i wouldn't have been able to answer the alcohol question ,let's say , 100 years ago...when its harms was not yet scientifically proven )....and as an answer for some questions , you might hear : i don't know the widom !!.

There are innumerable things that I have the freedom to do in a democratic country besides vote. One thing I CAN'T do is pass a law that makes atheism the official religion and makes blasphemy against the great prophet Richard Dawkins, or mishandling of his sacred book 'The God Delusion' punishable by fine or incarceration. Christians have a significant majority in this country and yet NONE of my Christian friends would pass similar laws imposing a Christian state even if it came to a vote.

LOL..i guess you might suggest passing that law in an islamic country..why not ?..and let's make a vote

Let me explain it this way: if 51% of the voters are atheist, does that make atheism true? Of course not. If 51% are Hindus, does that make Hinduism true? Of course not. The idea that a simple majority of fallible, corruptible, ignorant human beings has the ability or the authority to determine cosmic truths about the universe and God, and God's will, is simply ridiculous. They can barely manage to figure out what they want in this world, much less what God wants in the next world.

i guess you are missing a very important thing here..just like applying the shariah has a connotaion of some cosmic truths...like : There is one true God ..we are here to obey and follow
also , secularism has a cannotation of other *cosmic truths*..for example : there is no God..or God created this world and forgot about it...or god doesn't care what we are doing in our lives ,so logically he has to leave us alone and let what to cesar to cesar

it's logic, that every practical application has its own ideology...The question is : who has the right to impose his law and thus his ideology as the major policy of a particular community...let's make a vote...fair enough...

another important thing for you to know , the chrisitans are not our Role models

That's why even though the Christians have a strong majority in this country, they would never outlaw "blasphemy" against Jesus, for example, because they reject *the very principle* that the majority has any authority to decide such issues. They are free to criticize blasphemers, they can choose to boycott their books or TV shows, prevent their children from watching it, etc. But they can't *force* those whom they disagree with to shut up by means of a fallible human government.

i agree on that point ..no one should shut up forcibly..that era has passed and will never return again...

The issue is whether an Islamic state is a democracy, and if that is a good thing. Dr. Badawi explained quite candidly that a democracy derives its power from the people, and is accountable solely to the people, and therefore it is not the same as an Islamic state in which its power, authority, and accountability is from God. What Dr. Badawi does not understand, i.m.o., is that in practice any state that does not derive its power from its people, and is not 100% accountable to its people, is tyrannical and has no accountability at all.

i might slighly disagree with him...becuase the people are the ones who choose God..if god wanted to impose his religion on everyone ,he would have done that ..rather he wanted to be chosen..

I was talking about the Qu'ran and the prophetic tradition, the basis of Islamic law. I presume there is no specific mention of these kinds of issues in those texts, because the people who wrote those texts lived in the 7th century and could not have known these issues would come up 1,300 years later.

not everything has to be mentioned literally...we have something called al Qiyyas ,which enable the scholars to judge a current issue based on how something similar was dealt with before.. or wether or not it contradicts any of the pillars of faith..

 

[Sahar]

Mayada, jazaki Allahu khayran for your posts but I wish if you can clarify two points for me:

Nope..you may try to pass a law legalizing sodomy and pornograpgy , though...and let's make a vote

I don't know if you're serious or sarcastic here...but under Islamic government you can't try to pass laws, vote on passing laws....that are inconsistent with the Islamic Shari'ah...

i believe in free speech..so you may insult islam as mush as you can...i don't think that will affect islam..and i wish other muslims realize that too

How come Mayada?

 

[Sahar]

Once again, I'm surprised. Did I mention gay bars?

I am more surprised than you.

All proprties of non-Muslims should be protected by the islamic state.

What are you saying, Abu Khalid?!

There are two distinct things; freedom of belief and "freedom" (if we could call it freedom in the first place) of corruption and mischief. Freedom of belief is granted in Islam but spreading immorality and corruption is fought in Islam whether you're a Muslim or non-Muslim (it doesn't matter here) you can't practice immorality. One of the basic purposes of the Islamic government is to establish the religion. I don't know how you could say this, I am really puzzled.
Bars (gay or not), night clubs, pornography....etc all this is illegal and the government must fight this corruption (not to protect it).

 

[maro]

Mayada, jazaki Allahu khayran for your posts but I wish if you can clarify two points for me:

but you jazaki allah khairan for asking me to clarify

I don't know if you're serious or sarcastic here...but under Islamic government you can't try to pass laws, vote on passing laws....that are inconsistent with the Islamic Shari'ah...

i have already said that we vote for the shariah as one package...take it or leave it....but since the man has difficulty realizing that...i wanted to make him understand that even if we made every single ruling up to voting...the net result is that the islamic Majority will end up applying the shariah , through the same democrcy which he used to honour..and suddenly he turned against it..

i wanted to tell him that his trial to legalize pornography and sodomy under the islmic law is just like my trial to legalize cutting the thieves' hands in the U.S. ..or as we Egyptians say : it's like calling for prayer in Malta :areyoucra

How come Mayada?

He certainly can't make our prophet (PBUH) in carttons ,because this has crossed the borderline of freedom of speech to rudeness..and hate speech...he can just criticize the religion decently and objectively..and if has a tongue..we have millions of tongues ,by the aid of allah..

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A muslim woman wouldn't marry an ahreist at the first place..

Then why would Islamic law prohibit it in the first place?

i believe in free speech..so you may insult islam as mush as you can...i don't think that will affect islam..and i wish other muslims realize that too

I must say I'm surprised, again. Yet judging by your later comments, it seems we don't share the same idea of "free speech".

you might become a candidate..why not ?

I thought being an atheist would disqualify me from ruling an Islamic state. Again, I'm surprised! Very well. (And thank you for correcting my assumptions.)

you will pay al gizya becuase 1)you don't pay the zakat..2) unlike muslims , you are not obliged to join the army at the time of war..and muslims are obliged to defend you and your property a a citizen in the islamic state

Again, thank you for correcting me. I didn't realize this.

I guess so..why not ?

I thought I read on Wikipedia that according to Sharia law, the testimony of a non-Muslim against a Muslim was not admissable in Islamic courts. I must have been mistaken because I can no longer find it. Thank you for correcting me for a third time.

Nope..you may try to pass a law legalizing sodomy and pornograpgy , though...and let's make a vote

A few things:
1) What you consider to be "pornography" may be inspiring art or literature or cinema to others. Who gets to judge? Can an atheist like me be the judge?

2) Personally, I am not interested in sodomy or pornography; but if other mature adults enjoy it in private among themselves, and they aren't hurting you or me, what right does the government have to interfere?

3) If you are against these things, you could speak out against them; protest, demonstrate; organize boycotts; write opinion letters to the newspaper. Wouldn't it be better to convince people that way? Is it really necessary to use the police to regulate what mature adults do in privacy, as if they are children who can't make choices for themselves?

4) What just, merciful punishment does Islamic law prescribe for people who commit sodomy or produce/consume pornography?

5) Finally, of course in most Western countries even if a majority voted to ban these things, the courts would strike down those laws as unconstitutional, since most Western democracies have a constitution which gaurantees freedom of expression and privacy rights. Now, you *could* change the constitution, with a very large majority (a two-thirds majority in the U.S.). But by doing that you have removed YOUR protections and rights as well. Christians could vote to ban the hijab. Jews could vote to enforce the strict observation of their Sabbath. Some especially mean-spirited atheists could vote to display cartoons of Muhammad on giant billboards on every highway . No one would be safe from the corrupt, ignorant, inconsistent and ever-changing whims of a tyrannical majority of human beings. By taking away the rights of others, you endanger your own, no?

ignored

Yet again I'm surprised. You mean to tell me that there would not be repurcussions for artists like Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Ghogh in an Islamic state?

i want to tell you something you better understand well ,so that your discussion with any muslim will be fruitful from now on...
For muslims . wether they understand the wisdom behind the ruling partially ,totally or don't understand it at all...they still believe in the perfection of that religion and it rulings..

I fully realize that is how many religious people think. However, do you think that it is reasonable for one to believe something that one does not understand? If you do not understand how a certain law / idea is just or reasonable, then perhaps it is because that particular idea is not just or reasonable. Isn't that always a possibility when we consider any idea?

However , this is not an excuse to hinder thr objective thinking to figure out the wisdom behind every ruling..for two reasons :1) to strenghten our faith..2) to dicuss things with you

If your goal is to figure out the wisdom behind every ruling, then you have already assumed that every ruling is wise, and therefore your thinking is not objective. To be objective you must be willing to follow facts and reason wherever they lead, even if they lead to the conclusion that the ruling is not wise (or at least, not perfectly wise, that there is room for improvement).

Facts and reasoning might or might not be available...they might be scientifically established facts : like if you asked me :why alcohol is forbidden ?...or just guesses that are not yet considered facts taken for granted.. like what cordoba done with ushury...time may prove him right...and may be if you asked him the same question 50 years ahead ,his answer will be : what a very silly question...it's something agreed upon by all economists that ushury causes any econmical system to collapse sooner or later....( note that i wouldn't have been able to answer the alcohol question ,let's say , 100 years ago...when its harms was not yet scientifically proven )....and as an answer for some questions , you might hear : i don't know the widom !!.

That is true, I agree.

By the way, the consensus today, based on very strong evidence from medical science, is that drinking excessive amounts of alcohol is harmful to one's health, but drinking moderately is healthier than not drinking at all. See Alcohol use: Why moderation is key - MayoClinic.com , Long-term effects of alcohol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , 26 Substance Abuse (from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

i guess you are missing a very important thing here..just like applying the shariah has a connotaion of some cosmic truths...like : There is one true God ..we are here to obey and follow
also , secularism has a cannotation of other *cosmic truths*..for example : there is no God..or God created this world and forgot about it...or god doesn't care what we are doing in our lives ,so logically he has to leave us alone and let what to cesar to cesar

it's logic, that every practical application has its own ideology...The question is : who has the right to impose his law and thus his ideology as the major policy of a particular community...let's make a vote...fair enough...

I see what you're saying. I don't think secularism has the specific connotations you listed. Instead, I think it is basically neutral about cosmic truths, except for the self-evident truth that God does not intervene in politics. He may or may not exist, he may or may not care, but he clearly does not intervene. The election of George W. Bush is proof of this. Secularism is simply this realization applied to government.

I agree that it should be possible to enact any law, given a large enough majority. In the U.S., it would take a two-thirds vote to change the Constitution to get rid of the privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion gaurantees.

Of course there are attempts to subvert these gaurantees all the time, which is why people like me find ourselves loudly defending the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, for example, while the conservatives call us unpatriotic.

In any case, if the Constitution is changed to no longer guarantee basic rights and freedoms, then a simple majority (in the Congress) could pass all the oppressive laws they want. I agree with you that we should have this ability (without it we wouldn't be able to improve the Constitution when necessary). But I disagree that we should ever use this power to take away our own guaranteed freedoms.

i agree on that point ..no one should shut up forcibly..that era has passed and will never return again...

People under an Islamic state can blaspheme by drawing cartoons of Muhammad, then?

not everything has to be mentioned literally...we have something called al Qiyyas ,which enable the scholars to judge a current issue based on how something similar was dealt with before.. or wether or not it contradicts any of the pillars of faith..

Yet so many things were mentioned literally and none of them were beyond what human beings could have imagined 1,300 years ago. My point is that it could be the imperfect work of human beings long ago. That would explain why it doesn't simply say that slavery is wrong, period, and why there is no mention of the ethics of genetic engineering.

By the way, what about the organ transplant issue in Morroco? Why on Earth did a woman have to get a PhD in order to convince Morrocans that organ transplants should be legal, that they are heroic and life-saving procedures?

 

[TashaN]

I am more surprised than you.

If there are people who call thesmelves gays, owned a bar. Do you think Muslims will destroy it?

i'm not talking about homosexuality because it's another subject. I'm talking about the properties of some people, that's all. It's always protected either it was a bar, pig, wine, etc.

What are you saying, Abu Khalid?!

There are two distinct things; freedom of belief and "freedom" (if we could call it freedom in the first place) of corruption and mischief. Freedom of belief is granted in Islam but spreading immorality and corruption is fought in Islam whether you're a Muslim or non-Muslim (it doesn't matter here) you can't practice immorality. One of the basic purposes of the Islamic government is to establish the religion. I don't know how you could say this, I am really puzzled.
Bars (gay or not), night clubs, pornography....etc all this is illegal and the government must fight this corruption (not to protect it).

If Muslims came to power and found out there was a bar for some non-muslims, Why would they ban that?

 

[Sahar]

If Muslims came to power and found out there was a bar for some non-muslims, Why would they ban that?

If Muslims came to power and found a dance club for some non Muslims, why would they ban that?
If Muslims came to power and found a pornography studio for some non Muslims, why would they ban that?
(As I understand "for some non Muslims" means owned by some non Muslims as this the context of your talk.)
What if Muslims came to power and found a bar for some Muslims, a dance club... would they protect them too?
Or only the "non Muslim properties" are protected?

 

[Sahar]

but you jazaki allah khairan for asking me to clarify


i have already said that we vote for the shariah as one package...take it or leave it....but since the man has difficulty realizing that...i wanted to make him understand that even if we made every single ruling up to voting...the net result is that the islamic Majority will end up applying the shariah , through the same democrcy which he used to honour..and suddenly he turned against it..

i wanted to tell him that his trial to legalize pornography and sodomy under the islmic law is just like my trial to legalize cutting the thieves' hands in the U.S. ..or as we Egyptians say : it's like calling for prayer in Malta :areyoucra



He certainly can't make our prophet (PBUH) in carttons ,because this has crossed the borderline of freedom of speech to rudeness..and hate speech...he can just criticize the religion decently and objectively..and if has a tongue..we have millions of tongues ,by the aid of allah..

What a relief!!
Thanks

 

[TashaN]

If Muslims came to power and found a dance club for some non Muslims, why would they ban that?
If Muslims came to power and found a pornography studio for some non Muslims, why would they ban that?
(As I understand "for some non Muslims" means owned by some non Muslims as this the context of your talk.)
What if Muslims came to power and found a bar for some Muslims, a dance club... would they protect them too?
Or only the "non Muslim properties" are protected?

I recall that Omar have not touched anything when he entered Jerusalem. Regarding Muslims, they are not allowed to do so. Anyhow, both can't open new ones based on what Omar did when he entered Jerusalem.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it's oppressive to impose religious laws on people who are minding their own business, even if those "Muslims-only" laws only apply only to so-called Muslims. Here's why:

People are allowed to use their own minds to determine what they believe in an Islamic state, right? There is "no compulsion" in religion, correct? If so, what if some people consider themselves Muslim, they believe in Muhammad, etc., but they don't agree with your views on Islam. Suppose it's not against their religious beliefs to go to a gay bar any more than it's against the beliefs of a Christian or an atheist. Do laws that apply only to "Muslims" apply to these people?

The way I see it, there are basically two possible answers to this question, and both answers make the creation of an Islamic state (as described by Dr. Badawi, not tariq's version) either unjust and unrealistic, or irrelevant.

If the "Muslims-only" laws do apply to those people, it is unjust. You are not allowing them to choose their own beliefs. And it is very unrealistic. No government can force every person to embrace every single orthodox interpretation of Islam, or reject every single teaching. The real world is not neatly divided into "Muslims" and "non-Muslims". There will always be Muslims who are regarded as having "heretical" non-orthodox, but GENUINE beliefs, just as in any religion.

If on the other hand the "Muslims-only" laws do not apply to those people, then effectively they do not apply to anyone. Because any Muslim could claim they reject this or that law as a matter of their religious beliefs, and it would be almost impossible to prove otherwise in a court of law. So effectively, it would come down to the personal responsibility of each individual Muslim to apply the law to themselves in their own lives. And that is what happens in a democracy even without an Islamic state.

 

[Sahar]

I recall that Omar have not touched anything when he entered Jerusalem. Regarding Muslims, they are not allowed to do so. Anyhow, both can't open new ones based on what Omar did when he entered Jerusalem.

Please, if there is some decent scholar who says that it's allowed to have dance clubs, pornography studios and bars in the Islamic state, can you give us a link or something?
When Umar entered Jerusalem, he didn't touch the places of worship; the churches not the dance clubs and bars!!!
I find it ironic that non Muslims can corrupt the Islamic society with the permission of the Islamic government but Muslims can't.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It seems that Maro said one thing to me, and something different to Not4me. This is what Maro said to Not4me:

i have already said that we vote for the shariah as one package...take it or leave it....but since the man has difficulty realizing that...i wanted to make him understand that even if we made every single ruling up to voting...the net result is that the islamic Majority will end up applying the shariah

I thought you said individual laws could be put to a vote. Now you say all of Shariah must be voted on as a single package take it or leave it. Who enforces that rule? That's not democratic. And how do you know that a majority of Muslims would vote to have state-enforced Shariah law? If they agreed with Tariq's views, they would not. You make it sound like you are certain that every Muslim, now and forever, will agree with your view that all of Shariah law should be imposed by the state. How can you know this unless you are psychic?

, through the same democrcy which he used to honour..and suddenly he turned against it..

That's nonsense, I didn't turn against democracy, I merely voiced my opposition to the measures you proposed. If it were put to a vote I wouldn't interfere with the democratic process.

He certainly can't make our prophet (PBUH) in carttons ,because this has crossed the borderline of freedom of speech to rudeness..and hate speech...

Then you do not support freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the government can't censor people even if we despise what they say. (As long as they don't say things that could physically hurt people, e.g. shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.)

For the record, I have no desire to draw a cartoon of Muhammad any more than I want to draw a cartoon of Julius Caesar. But I feel I should be allowed to, if I wanted, because it's not against MY religion to draw Muhammad, that's only against YOUR religion, and it doesn't harm anyone or infringe on their rights.

Also, by making "rudeness" illegal you have not made people genuinely courteous and polite, you have merely made impolite people put on a show of politeness which is insincere. Courtesy is much more convincing and gratifying when the person has a free choice to act that way.

he can just criticize the religion decently and objectively..and if has a tongue..we have millions of tongues ,by the aid of allah..

Notice that I've been criticizing Islam decently and objectively all along (trying anyway), even though there is no law forcing me to do so.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I find it ironic that non Muslims can corrupt the Islamic society with the permission of the Islamic government but Muslims can't.

I find it alarming that you would accuse a 49% minority of non-Muslims of "corrupting" their own society by not embracing YOUR religious beliefs.

Maybe you should tell your Muslim brothers and sisters to stop "corrupting" society in China, Russia, and all the other countries where they are the minority.

The last time I checked, society belongs to everyone, not just the majority or those in power.

 

[Sahar]

I think it's oppressive to impose religious laws on people who are minding their own business, even if those "Muslims-only" laws only apply only to so-called Muslims. Here's why:

People are allowed to use their own minds to determine what they believe in an Islamic state, right? There is "no compulsion" in religion, correct? If so, what if some people consider themselves Muslim, they believe in Muhammad, etc., but they don't agree with your views on Islam. Suppose it's not against their religious beliefs to go to a gay bar any more than it's against the beliefs of a Christian or an atheist. Do laws that apply only to "Muslims" apply to these people?

The way I see it, there are basically two possible answers to this question, and both answers make the creation of an Islamic state (as described by Dr. Badawi, not tariq's version) either unjust and unrealistic, or irrelevant.

Their religious beliefs and views are one thing and their submissiveness to the laws of the Islamic state is another thing. Whether you're a Muslim, semi-Muslim or non-Muslim, adultery (Zina), for example ,is illegal and punishable. When there is a penalty in Islam for Zina or drinking Alcohol, it's not because you harmed your personal relationship with God but because it's a crime against the society. Crime against the society, it does not matter the beliefs of the persons who commit it. In the example of Zina, a Muslim may commit Zina inside closed doors and secretly, it's a thing between him and his God alone but a Muslim commited Zina and four persons could see and hear what he did, here it exceeded his relationship with his God to his society and here it's punishable.

Oh, gay bars would be illegal in the Islamic state.

If the "Muslims-only" laws do apply to those people, it is unjust. You are not allowing them to choose their own beliefs. And it is very unrealistic. No government can force every person to embrace every single orthodox interpretation of Islam, or reject every single teaching. The real world is not neatly divided into "Muslims" and "non-Muslims". There will always be Muslims who are regarded as having "heretical" non-orthodox, but GENUINE beliefs, just as in any religion.

No one forces anyone to embrace the teachings of Islam, however people will be forced to submit to the laws of the Islamic state.

If on the other hand the "Muslims-only" laws do not apply to those people, then effectively they do not apply to anyone. Because any Muslim could claim they reject this or that law as a matter of their religious beliefs, and it would be almost impossible to prove otherwise in a court of law.

Exactly.

 

[Sahar]

I find it alarming that you would accuse a 49% minority of non-Muslims of "corrupting" their own society by not embracing YOUR religious beliefs.

Corruption is fought whether this corruption comes from Muslims or non Muslims.
I never said a non-Muslim minority = corruption of the society.

 

[Sahar]

Wow, really? An atheist president of an Islamic state? I wouldn't have guessed that would be allowed.

You should know that a non Muslim president of an Islamic state is not widely accepted opinion and very nontraditional. But even if we accepted this opinion, the atheist president's duties, obligations and authorities would not be different from his Muslim counterpart. In other words, he would work to achieve the best interest of his nation inside the frame of the higher Islamic values and would work to implement the Islamic Shari'a (according to the constitution of the Islamic state).