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

**milfovoxapl** · 09-04-2012, 03:57 AM

The problem here is not with implementing shariah as a whole but the specific case of stoning of idolator, killing of apostate and using force to forbid evil. These are the three main issues.

As far as i know, using force to forbid evil although recognised by many is not yet the only opinion. These were ijthihadi issues and some level of relax can be attained there and strictness be applied that is best suitable and not causing more harm as it is principle that it should not cause more harm.

As for stoning, we know in the history of islam the cases of really stoning taking places are very few. The prophet turned away four times despite a person confessing their adultery. So even if we have a law on stoning writen on paper, its application by nature would barely take place. So is it really necessary to quickly jump onto this issue now when it might cause the sacrifice of much more ?

As for apostasy, then this is a real dilemma as apostasy is on a rise. I have no idea on what middle way is possibe unless ofcourse one then takes the modern day opinion of apostasy+rebellion only requiring death. The other opinion being of expelling them from the Islamic state as such option is mentioned in the Quran for those who commit fasad. And its always good that such are expelled while pious believers are attracted to the state rather than keeping them an underground force within the state. If the killing of mere apostasy should be ccarried out then it would raise the international hue and cry and not just home, because it would contradict the freedom of religion idea they espouse. So whoever implements should be ready and capable of absorbing tthe impact of international hue and cry, and if they can do that then they obviously can control the secularists within.

Moreover, in my view any Islamic government where secularists or other non-muslims have an equal say and authority to talk about and oppose the religious affairs of muslims is bound to fail. Hence I prefer the idea of each community to their own laws. So they non-muslims would have no problems with what Muslims do. So any law agreed upon by Muslims can be applied while those who don't want it can just migrate and live elsewhere rather than having a chance of equal authority to attack islam from within.

for rajm i think the historical accounts have to be seen in the light of the madhabs' rulings. it cant be dismissed yet should not be made the bone of contention.
there are other things too. banning of pornographic websites, the dealing of qadianis, implementation of hijab, and ofcourse qata yad. no community or country can eradicate corruption w/o qata yad.
i agree with your last paragraph. even though i have reservations with non-muslims and secularists asking to leave the said country. imho THAT will raise more hue and cry than any hudood.
at the end i guess any islamic govt should be ready and capable of handling international hue and cry. they will raise hue and cry at everything that is in actual Islam. when we implement full shariah, and when hue and cry is raised we should be prepared and strong and this is at the present moment all we can do. for me it boils down to tabligh + inclusion of islamic aspects in modern education + upgrading madrassahs to include modern education as well. years later there will be a huge force of muslims wanting islamic rule. that however is for another thread not this one.

09-04-2012, 03:57 AM	#36
milfovoxapl Join Date Dec 2005 Posts 563 Senior Member	The problem here is not with implementing shariah as a whole but the specific case of stoning of idolator, killing of apostate and using force to forbid evil. These are the three main issues. As far as i know, using force to forbid evil although recognised by many is not yet the only opinion. These were ijthihadi issues and some level of relax can be attained there and strictness be applied that is best suitable and not causing more harm as it is principle that it should not cause more harm. As for stoning, we know in the history of islam the cases of really stoning taking places are very few. The prophet turned away four times despite a person confessing their adultery. So even if we have a law on stoning writen on paper, its application by nature would barely take place. So is it really necessary to quickly jump onto this issue now when it might cause the sacrifice of much more ? As for apostasy, then this is a real dilemma as apostasy is on a rise. I have no idea on what middle way is possibe unless ofcourse one then takes the modern day opinion of apostasy+rebellion only requiring death. The other opinion being of expelling them from the Islamic state as such option is mentioned in the Quran for those who commit fasad. And its always good that such are expelled while pious believers are attracted to the state rather than keeping them an underground force within the state. If the killing of mere apostasy should be ccarried out then it would raise the international hue and cry and not just home, because it would contradict the freedom of religion idea they espouse. So whoever implements should be ready and capable of absorbing tthe impact of international hue and cry, and if they can do that then they obviously can control the secularists within. Moreover, in my view any Islamic government where secularists or other non-muslims have an equal say and authority to talk about and oppose the religious affairs of muslims is bound to fail. Hence I prefer the idea of each community to their own laws. So they non-muslims would have no problems with what Muslims do. So any law agreed upon by Muslims can be applied while those who don't want it can just migrate and live elsewhere rather than having a chance of equal authority to attack islam from within. for rajm i think the historical accounts have to be seen in the light of the madhabs' rulings. it cant be dismissed yet should not be made the bone of contention. there are other things too. banning of pornographic websites, the dealing of qadianis, implementation of hijab, and ofcourse qata yad. no community or country can eradicate corruption w/o qata yad. i agree with your last paragraph. even though i have reservations with non-muslims and secularists asking to leave the said country. imho THAT will raise more hue and cry than any hudood. at the end i guess any islamic govt should be ready and capable of handling international hue and cry. they will raise hue and cry at everything that is in actual Islam. when we implement full shariah, and when hue and cry is raised we should be prepared and strong and this is at the present moment all we can do. for me it boils down to tabligh + inclusion of islamic aspects in modern education + upgrading madrassahs to include modern education as well. years later there will be a huge force of muslims wanting islamic rule. that however is for another thread not this one.
	Quote