DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - The Islamic 'state' an oxymoron (contradiction in terms)

**Britfunclubs** · 09-04-2012, 02:56 AM

Walaykum Salaam

I will answer some of your questions later insha-Allah, when I have more time. If you read some of the books cited by Richard Maybury he gives the example of Switzerland. It is one of the richest countries in the world. It was neutral in WW2 and all its citizens are trained in warfare...they have weapons hidden in the mountains should they ever be invaded the people would fight, so the view that lack of state bureaucracy and standing armies makes one vulnerable is wrong. The taliban failed because they were beating people and trying to impliment shariah top down...had they simply established peace and security in the land and sent our good humble preachers and sufis to the people they would have changed.

The Ottomons did not have a state it functioned for 800 years. The kuffar had to destroy it for them to be able to create their riba based global system. We should refrain from calling it a state because it is not a state...anarchists use the phrase government without state...and this is what we want. Umar ( RA) did kind of increase the power of the government, but it was still very minimal when compared to the modern State. We never had central banks in out history. If you are interested try to do some research on central banks what they do and how they rule us, I am sure you will find it very enlightening. It will not take you long, go to the dailybell.com website to see how even non Muslims who are not 'intoxicated' by the idea of the state know how evil and destructive it is.

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah brother

I quite agree with most of what you are saying, but what I'm wondering is, what is it like to organize a country with tens of millions of people and massive cities without a complex state with a beaurocracy?

can a country ruled from a small village survive in this modern technological age without the apparatus of a state (such as a foreign office, health and social services, ministries related to education, agriculture and industry etc, a secret service, a standing army and a method of policing etc)?

wouldn't such a country just get wiped away by the enemies of Islam like the Taliban was?

would you say the situation of Islamic governance under Caliph Umar (for example) was a state or something else?

when the rightly guided Caliphs took over Egypt and Persia, they didn't completely eradicate existing state structures in those countries, rather they Islamicized them (got rid of the Haram and promoted the Halal) and we must remember that they were rightly guided Caliphs.

the Ottomans too had a complex state with a complex beaurocracy, was this un-Islamic?

also if people use the term state to describe the society at Madinah (as many do) are they wrong to do so?

or do they just use the term in a different way from some of your definitions?

maybe state is just a term people use, but society is a better term.

09-04-2012, 02:56 AM	#4
Britfunclubs Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 361 Senior Member	Walaykum Salaam I will answer some of your questions later insha-Allah, when I have more time. If you read some of the books cited by Richard Maybury he gives the example of Switzerland. It is one of the richest countries in the world. It was neutral in WW2 and all its citizens are trained in warfare...they have weapons hidden in the mountains should they ever be invaded the people would fight, so the view that lack of state bureaucracy and standing armies makes one vulnerable is wrong. The taliban failed because they were beating people and trying to impliment shariah top down...had they simply established peace and security in the land and sent our good humble preachers and sufis to the people they would have changed. The Ottomons did not have a state it functioned for 800 years. The kuffar had to destroy it for them to be able to create their riba based global system. We should refrain from calling it a state because it is not a state...anarchists use the phrase government without state...and this is what we want. Umar ( RA) did kind of increase the power of the government, but it was still very minimal when compared to the modern State. We never had central banks in out history. If you are interested try to do some research on central banks what they do and how they rule us, I am sure you will find it very enlightening. It will not take you long, go to the dailybell.com website to see how even non Muslims who are not 'intoxicated' by the idea of the state know how evil and destructive it is. Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah brother I quite agree with most of what you are saying, but what I'm wondering is, what is it like to organize a country with tens of millions of people and massive cities without a complex state with a beaurocracy? can a country ruled from a small village survive in this modern technological age without the apparatus of a state (such as a foreign office, health and social services, ministries related to education, agriculture and industry etc, a secret service, a standing army and a method of policing etc)? wouldn't such a country just get wiped away by the enemies of Islam like the Taliban was? would you say the situation of Islamic governance under Caliph Umar (for example) was a state or something else? when the rightly guided Caliphs took over Egypt and Persia, they didn't completely eradicate existing state structures in those countries, rather they Islamicized them (got rid of the Haram and promoted the Halal) and we must remember that they were rightly guided Caliphs. the Ottomans too had a complex state with a complex beaurocracy, was this un-Islamic? also if people use the term state to describe the society at Madinah (as many do) are they wrong to do so? or do they just use the term in a different way from some of your definitions? maybe state is just a term people use, but society is a better term.
	Quote