Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Forgive me, but you believe in this nonsense too, Tashan? :thud:
Things such as ... ? According to ... ?
You know, they *say* there's no mechanism to un-Islamise the state, but if it's a democracy there's no mechanism to prevent this from happening. I think they usually mean, there's no legitimate mechanism. Of course you're right about the Queen, that's my point, not every officially "Christian" state is the same and so it is with an "Islamic" state, we can't really talk about this without getting into specific details. My concern is that we in the West are too quick to lump everything Islamic together just as we used to lump everything communist together, when in reality there is a big difference between Archbishop Romero and Joseph Stalin. The constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan declare those countries to be officially Islamic, I personally disagree with this, but Iraqis and Afghans overwhelmingly want it, there are bigger problems to worry about, and their version of an Islamic state in principle is different from the Taliban version in principle.kai said:
I'm talking about how we respond. The last person to be executed for "sorcery" in Saudi Arabia was in 2007. While this is breathtakingly stupid and inhumane, it would be insane to respond to this the same way we should respond when a country is carrying out genocide.
Yes , I agree
The knowledge through revealation can't be proven scientifically ,untill now....but i think you missed my point almost entirely...we don't need scientic evidence because science is not the only tool of verifying knowledge..nor is the scientific evidence the only evidence
No, but the ruling government is.
No, I didn't say this. I said the fact that my government is a secular one that doesn't follow Islamic Shari'a is a problem to me as a Muslim who believes that the political system values should stem from Islam because Islam is a comprehensive way of life, Islam is not about my individual relationship between me and God only, Islam is much more comprehensive than this. So the secular government can't represent me by any means, although I still can practice my religion. As I said, and under Islamic government, you should be able to practice your religion as well.
They are in fact important but I don't know why you can't grasp that generally I don't disagree with such requirements but we will disagree on what constitute a "reasonably justified" violation of these requirements as basically what harm and antagonize the best interest of the Islamic society wouldn't be the same in a secular society. If in a secular society, producing a porn movie doesn't violate the liberal principles of that society and doesn't cause any harm according to them, it does to an Islamic one.
Of course, my question to you all this time was who has the right to define these limitations?
I never said that the Islamic political system is a theocracy. The Islamic political system drives its legitimacy from the people, so how is this in a secular system only?
Do you seriously read what I post? (Because if you don't then this will be helpful to figure out the cause of this bad communication between you and me) What do you think of this passage that I have posted three times until now?
So do I.
Sure. In cases like genocide, that's something I see as virtually absolute: if a democratic government were engaging in genocide, even with full support of the majority of the people, this is something I'd see as unacceptable. That's the sort of issue where, depending on the specific circumstances, I'd support invading that country and overthrowing its democratic government in order to prevent the crime.
That's the sort of issue where I'd say that if a government did this, it would have stepped across the line from a "free society" to one that is not free.
I think that rights enter into the equation in the sense that I think that constraints on liberty should be justified, and an increased tax is a constraint on liberty to a certain degree. However, in general, I don't have a problem with the idea of a government raising or lowering taxes to acheive policy goals (e.g. making sure the government has enough money to function properly).
Maybe it would be helpful if I explain how I view things: I think certain things, such as rights, democracy, human life, etc., have value. Losing any of these things represents a cost.
Right - and that's what I'm suggesting.
I've never said anything about secular dictatorship or enforcing power through violence.
); what I'm saying is that when certain lines are crossed, we can identify this as bad. This doesn't necessarily mean that we oblige ourselves to "fix" the problem.
