[Hitfaromarf]

I do know secularism, and that's why I reject it as kufr.
But maybe you don't know that Islam is not just about Salah and Sawm, but rather, one of its obligation is also to implement Allah's law on Allah's land and having His Din reign supreme..

Secularism is just one facet of modern governments.
Government is about governing roads, infrastructure, health, welfare, science, taxation, education.
I dont understand the need of putting an Alim in for e.g. the department of civil and urban engineering.
If you dont want an Alim for that role then why do you say you are for a government of people learned in 'sharia'?

People talk illogical things. People say they want sharia-based government. But however not a single government on earth has Alims in its parliaments because logic dictates that Alims should advise on religious affairs to population not sit as a chairman of the ministry of health and advise governments how to make hospitals be efficient or of higher quality.

Parliament, democracy, secularism and a constitution not contradicting Islamic values all facilitate governance. They are not meant to replace religion or overstep it. They are doing what they are supposed to do i.e. Govern the sophistications of modern civilization. Sometimes I wonder how muslims can sit and keep on repeating the mantra 'sharia' government and dont know how the hell to go about it or have no model example in modern times to exemplify it. Every other government which says we are 'sharia based' is rejected by people who want sharia based government because they are too ashamed to say that society is a product of sharia because all examples so far are a mess and shambles.

[Michmant]

Secularism is just one facet of modern governments.
Government is about governing roads, infrastructure, health, welfare, science, taxation, education.
I dont understand the need of putting an Alim in for e.g. the department of civil and urban engineering.
If you dont want an Alim for that role then why do you say you are for a government of people learned in 'sharia'?

People talk illogical things. People say they want sharia-based government. But however not a single government on earth has Alims in its parliaments because logic dictates that Alims should advise on religious affairs to population not sit as a chairman of the ministry of health and advise governments how to make hospitals be efficient or of higher quality.

Parliament, democracy, secularism and a constitution not contradicting Islamic values all facilitate governance. They are not meant to replace religion or overstep it. They are doing what they are supposed to do i.e. Govern the sophistications of modern civilization. Sometimes I wonder how muslims can sit and keep on repeating the mantra 'sharia' government and dont know how the hell to go about it or have no model example in modern times to exemplify it. Every other government which says we are 'sharia based' is rejected by people who want sharia based government because they are too ashamed to say that society is a product of sharia because all examples so far are a mess and shambles.

Again you are talking about Secularism. I wonder how on earth you are comparing secularism with Islam and treating it as a substitute for Islamic Shariah. After reading your posts I have analyzed that there are few misconceptions:
1) You have a misunderstanding about the structure of Islamic Shariah. Brother, It is NOT necessary or an obligation that the Shura (or in your words the Parliament) must have Ulema in its ranks. Yes of course the administrative positions must be held by the Ulema but that does not mean that the person responsible for health should be an aalim too. It could be someone knowledgeable in terms of worldly knowledge but will be chosen by the Khalifa based on conditions in the sharia.
2) You say that there are no examples of Shariah implementation in the world. What about the eras Khulafa e Rashideen then? What about Taliban of Afghanistan whose government was unanimously accepted by the Muslims (except the secular ones of course!)? This is an argument which is posed by secular minded people every now and then!
3) When you talk about democracy, secularism and a "superficial" constitution that does not contradict Islamic Values, you become self contradictory. Brother, Do not compare Shariah with these man made laws. They will always go against Allah's law no matter if they 'seem' to have a positive impact.
4) By the terms sophistication of modern civilization. Are you trying to imply that Islamic Shariah is in ANYWAY obsolete and can not be implemented with the changing times. Brother, you are living in a superficial world of your own. People in this day and age have been there and done that. They have implemented shariah from its roots alhamdulillah.

And Allah knows best!

[abouthotels]

Brother, It is NOT necessary or an obligation that the Shura (or in your words the Parliament) must have Ulema in its ranks.

What about Taliban of Afghanistan whose government was unanimously accepted by the Muslims

Brother, Do not compare Shariah with these man made laws. They will always go against Allah's law no matter if they 'seem' to have a positive impact.


Are you trying to imply that Islamic Shariah is in ANYWAY obsolete and can not be implemented with the changing times.

People in this day and age have been there and done that. They have implemented shariah from its roots alhamdulillah.

I wonder how on earth you are comparing secularism with Islam and treating it as a substitute for Islamic Shariah.


Brother, you are living in a superficial world of your own.

Salams brother,

'Shura should not compulsorily have Ulema' - What Sharia model are you talking about? Almost all sharia based models today have men learned in religion to influence government, take the taliban or the Al-Shabab or even the Saud-wahhabi alliance ruling or influencing saudia Arabias governance.

'Do not compare sharia with man-made laws' Allah has praised reasoning, thoughtfullness and knowledge in All fields including the fields of governing society. Allah sent his religion for people to worship and acknowledge Him in his full majesty. He didnt send a religion for people to start debate whether women should go to school and university which would happen in a parliament of Ulema if a true sharia based society were pursued.

You say Islamic sharia is not obsolete and then you give example of TAliban. Bro are you serious in your intentions to make the Islamic civilization the most supreme civilization materially and spiritually by mentioning the Taliban as an exemplar?

I am not living in a superficial world of my own. I am expressing and advocating that efforts be directed elsewhere. Modern nation states having constitution, democracy and laicism are stable, progressive and infact allow full development of religiousity in a society if it has has strong grassroot religious institutions. You can even see in secular UK Darul-Uloom institutions for example are churning out good scholars. Why dont you get good scholarly output from so called 'sharia' grounded communities like saudia arabia or taliban.

Pragmatism above mindless emotions is important. No Muslim can dare give precedence to ideas contradicting Islam. However you label secularism and modern governance as contradicting Islam where as I see the western model of governance as one which will promote genuine Islamic values in a Muslim-majority country and will also allow ISlam to spread rapidly in non-muslim states too.

To be honest, I dont exactly understand how this hypothetical sharia nation would look like. Its just too difficult to imagine in this modern day and age. How in the 21st century can a country structure her whole government around religious educated individuals is beyond my understanding of efficiency in governance. Religious people think piety, dawah, hadith, fiqh and other fields of religious education..
How they will understand departments of universities, or the specialties of medicine or fiscal policies or the latest in scientific and technological advances is beyond my understanding.

[induffike]

Secularism is just one facet of modern governments.
Government is about governing roads, infrastructure, health, welfare, science, taxation, education.
I dont understand the need of putting an Alim in for e.g. the department of civil and urban engineering.
If you dont want an Alim for that role then why do you say you are for a government of people learned in 'sharia'?

People talk illogical things. People say they want sharia-based government. But however not a single government on earth has Alims in its parliaments because logic dictates that Alims should advise on religious affairs to population not sit as a chairman of the ministry of health and advise governments how to make hospitals be efficient or of higher quality.

Parliament, democracy, secularism and a constitution not contradicting Islamic values all facilitate governance. They are not meant to replace religion or overstep it. They are doing what they are supposed to do i.e. Govern the sophistications of modern civilization. Sometimes I wonder how muslims can sit and keep on repeating the mantra 'sharia' government and dont know how the hell to go about it or have no model example in modern times to exemplify it. Every other government which says we are 'sharia based' is rejected by people who want sharia based government because they are too ashamed to say that society is a product of sharia because all examples so far are a mess and shambles.

Islamic government based on Shari'ah doesn't have anything to do with placing Ulama' as head of every department, or even as head of the State.
It means implementing the law that Allah ordered us to implement, instead of the English or the French law.

[sztc38tg]

Islamic government based on Shari'ah doesn't have anything to do with placing Ulama' as head of every department, or even as head of the State.
It means implementing the law that Allah ordered us to implement, instead of the English or the French law.

Exactly.
I am quite tempted to bring in my favourite date pollination Tradition into discussion but I'll resist.

[Quaganoca]

STo be honest, I dont exactly understand how this hypothetical sharia nation would look like. Its just too difficult to imagine in this modern day and age.

Astaghfirullah, you basically mean that the Law of Allah is "outdated" and "no more valid" for "this modern day and age"?...

How in the 21st century can a country structure her whole government around religious educated individuals is beyond my understanding of efficiency in governance. Again, you are misunderstanding what it means having an Islamic government.
It doesn't mean a government in which all state officials are Ulama with only religious education!
It means that you apply the Law of Allah and it reigns supreme.
Then, to each one his own duty: engineers will be engineers, doctor shall be doctors, ulama shall be ulama. In an Islamic framework, as Allah commanded us.

[ZESINTERS]

Salams brother,

'Shura should not compulsorily have Ulema' - What Sharia model are you talking about? Almost all sharia based models today have men learned in religion to influence government, take the taliban or the Al-Shabab or even the Saud-wahhabi alliance ruling or influencing saudia Arabias governance.

Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab (DB) said that in a meeting of significant organization it was decided that all technical matters will be decided in consultation with experts of that field.
'Do not compare sharia with man-made laws' Allah has praised reasoning, thoughtfullness and knowledge in All fields including the fields of governing society. Allah sent his religion for people to worship and acknowledge Him in his full majesty. He didnt send a religion for people to start debate whether women should go to school and university which would happen in a parliament of Ulema if a true sharia based society were pursued. Reasoning is a faculty that has been provided by Allah (SWT) but like any other blessing of Allah (SWT) this too should be subservient to Islam.
You say Islamic sharia is not obsolete and then you give example of TAliban. Bro are you serious in your intentions to make the Islamic civilization the most supreme civilization materially and spiritually by mentioning the Taliban as an exemplar? Shariah is obsolete because there is Taliban is a wrong argument.

I am not living in a superficial world of my own. I am expressing and advocating that efforts be directed elsewhere. Modern nation states having constitution, democracy and laicism are stable, progressive and infact allow full development of religiousity in a society if it has has strong grassroot religious institutions. You can even see in secular UK Darul-Uloom institutions for example are churning out good scholars. Why dont you get good scholarly output from so called 'sharia' grounded communities like saudia arabia or taliban. You are giving Dawah towards non-Islamic systems. We do understand that akhi.
Pragmatism above mindless emotions is important. No Muslim can dare give precedence to ideas contradicting Islam. However you label secularism and modern governance as contradicting Islam where as I see the western model of governance as one which will promote genuine Islamic values in a Muslim-majority country and will also allow ISlam to spread rapidly in non-muslim states too. This defies sense. You are saying be non-Islamic if you want to be Islamic.
To be honest, I dont exactly understand how this hypothetical sharia nation would look like. Its just too difficult to imagine in this modern day and age. How in the 21st century can a country structure her whole government around religious educated individuals is beyond my understanding of efficiency in governance. Religious people think piety, dawah, hadith, fiqh and other fields of religious education.. Shariah has prohibition of alcohol.
Pakistan has to to some level.
Shariah means you have a Ministry for Haj.
Many Islamic countries have it.
Shariah means Islamic justice.
Saudia implements some of them.
Shariah means Islamic way of doing business.
The Halal business is a billion dollar enterprise today.
Shariah means preference to Hereafter over this world.
A relative engineer of mine was bent on his work during Salah time in Dubai. His employer Shaikh passed by and was disturbed and rebuked him saying that you are not supposed to give preference to work over Salah.

So look for the evidence - you have lot of it.
We know it is not that much which will please the western mind. Why should you care for that?

How they will understand departments of universities, or the specialties of medicine or fiscal policies or the latest in scientific and technological advances is beyond my understanding. There are Muslims who understand departments of universities.
There are Muslims who understand the specialties of medicine.
There are Muslims who understand fiscal policies.
There are Muslims who understand scientific and technological advances.

[Bonioners]

You say Islamic sharia is not obsolete.....

With the above statement it is clear that you think it is.

Modern nation states having constitution, democracy and laicism are stable, progressive and infact allow full development of religiousity

such states may indeed be the civilized places that you are implying

but very often they may ban the hijab, ban minarets, ban the niqaab, make it difficult or impossible to build new Masjids....

or they may launch and take part in invasions of Muslim countries (against the will of their populous) killing hundreds of thousands of innocents and engaging in the torture of Muslims....

don't idolize these states, they can go either towards benevolence or evil.

Pragmatism above mindless emotions is important. No Muslim can dare give precedence to ideas contradicting Islam. However you label secularism and modern governance as contradicting Islam where as I see the western model of governance as one which will promote genuine Islamic values in a Muslim-majority country and will also allow ISlam to spread rapidly in non-muslim states too.

non-Muslim states can govern themselves however they wish - it is between them and Allah.

Muslim states should be governed according to however Allah (SWT) has informed us they should through his Messenger (saws) - and this is open to different interpretations, many of them which are not reactionary or cruel like the examples that the enemies of Islam like to give.

To be honest, I dont exactly understand how this hypothetical sharia nation would look like. Its just too difficult to imagine in this modern day and age.

It would look like any other nation apart from the good would be enjoined and the wrong prohibited according to what God has declared right and wrong not according to what man has.

How in the 21st century can a country structure her whole government around religious educated individuals is beyond my understanding of efficiency in governance.

Your view on what an Islamic state would be is cartoon like.

You have some very strange ideas, a true Islamic state is governed according to the light of Islam from which its rules spring, everything else goes on much as before unless it is something hateful to Allah and pretty much everyone remains in the same job.

Religious people think piety, dawah, hadith, fiqh and other fields of religious education. How they will understand departments of universities, or the specialties of medicine or fiscal policies or the latest in scientific and technological advances...

You are being very insulting to religious people and implying that they are retards with an inability to understand anything other than religion.

Many scientists, economists and important physicians are "religious people" as you call them.

The ruler of an Islamic state has always been advised by many viziers who have included amongst their ranks the best scientists and thinkers of their days, just as the rulers of any modern state are advised on matters like the ones you are talking about.

[Avoireeideree]

To be frank I do idolize western governance. I dont idolize western nations culture, way of life or their media and entertainment. I think ISlam in unsurpassable in all the fundamentals of culture, ethics, behaviour and has better values of living. But just like how the muslims after the generations of the early salaf they indulged themselves in greek, indian, persian non-muslim works to produce great scientific innovations and upgrades to civilization. I think we can similarly learn the art of governance i.e. the pillars of modern governance - secularism, parliament, democracy and constitution to ease complexities of governing society. Turkey's AKP is doing that. It borrowed western modes of government whilst Individuals are committed to Muslim faith. IT is one of few muslim nation which can hold its head high in the modern world in terms of economics, science, infrastructure and technology and that is because Ataturk followed pragmatism. People who accuse him of Kufr e.t.c. are the same one's probably who would be doing the same when the early muslim indulged in greek, roman, chinese or persian works and implemented them. He did what he had to do, face the challenges of modern civilization and be comparable to any great nation of the time - america, britain, france e.t.c. The ottoman caliphate because it adhered to old models of governance could not be efficient. Infact I salute the turks to be the only nation in the past 600 years who continue to show versatility in pursuing the very best the world has got to offer. They have the same spirit by which they ruled the Muslim World for the past many centuries and inshAllah they will also continue to unify the Muslim nations into a single bloc and be an exemplar leader of governance and prosperity.

[neonasafluni]

To be frank I do idolize western governance. I dont idolize western nations culture, way of life or their media and entertainment. They have the same spirit by which they ruled the Muslim World for the past many centuries and inshAllah they will also continue to unify the Muslim nations into a single bloc and be an exemplar leader of governance and prosperity.

Don't you idolize the usury-based central banking system of the West ?

Who cares what kind of Islamic state Turkey becomes as long as it allows usury based central banking system ?

You do have a great magnficent central bank in Turkey , don't you ?
The central bankers hated the Ottoman empire, because , it was a big barrier on the road to world government !!

So they destroyed it through subversion using Donmeh Jews including Kemal Atatruk.

They will destroy Turkey again if those dirty Turks dare to rise up again.

Who is behind the PKK ? Follow the money ! Soon , you might see Turkey splitted into two. Greater Kurdistan is coming !!

More on these central bankers , check these links.

##########
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...atanic-bankers
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...-global-empire
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ming-to-Turkey
#########

[triardwonvada]

lol.

Just a few years ago, the Turks were begging to be let into the EU...imagine what would have happened to them now if they had been involved in this whole euro-zone debacle. Turkey dodged a huge bullet. They would have gone the way of Greece and Spain. In the long run, Western governance and economic schemes bring nothing but misery. Where is the West now? Skyrocketing unemployment, aging infrastructure with no funds to update it, unimaginable levels of debt. There is not a single "secular democracy" that hasn't been co-opted by the banks. If things don't change course soon, it's only a matter of years, maybe decades if we're lucky, before there is complete social upheaval.

Without ulamaa involved in government, how are leaders supposed to know if, say, a certain investment or trade agreement is halal? Or how to collect zakah?

[GroosteFoessy]

To be frank I do idolize western governance. I dont idolize western nations culture, way of life or their media and entertainment. I think ISlam in unsurpassable in all the fundamentals of culture, ethics, behaviour and has better values of living. But just like how the muslims after the generations of the early salaf they indulged themselves in greek, indian, persian non-muslim works to produce great scientific innovations and upgrades to civilization. I think we can similarly learn the art of governance i.e. the pillars of modern governance - secularism, parliament, democracy and constitution to ease complexities of governing society. Turkey's AKP is doing that. It borrowed western modes of government whilst Individuals are committed to Muslim faith. IT is one of few muslim nation which can hold its head high in the modern world in terms of economics, science, infrastructure and technology and that is because Ataturk followed pragmatism. People who accuse him of Kufr e.t.c. are the same one's probably who would be doing the same when the early muslim indulged in greek, roman, chinese or persian works and implemented them. He did what he had to do, face the challenges of modern civilization and be comparable to any great nation of the time - america, britain, france e.t.c. The ottoman caliphate because it adhered to old models of governance could not be efficient. Infact I salute the turks to be the only nation in the past 600 years who continue to show versatility in pursuing the very best the world has got to offer. They have the same spirit by which they ruled the Muslim World for the past many centuries and inshAllah they will also continue to unify the Muslim nations into a single bloc and be an exemplar leader of governance and prosperity.

brother mubakr,

you have no idea how sharia governance functions and you're making some comparison to it? Probably you're a bit early to start making comparison when you should first understand how shariah based government functions?

Allahu'alam.

[finnmontserrat]

To be frank I do idolize western governance. I dont idolize western nations culture, way of life or their media and entertainment.

We do understand that aspect also akhi.
Basically you are talking about a model that has shown worldly success.
That is the western model.
Right?
This should prompt us to ask a question now - is this system in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah?
This is a relevant question and necessary because we, as Muslims, are obliged to align our lives around the Noble Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Success in this world is not the sole criterion for a Muslim, for others it might be.

And Mufti Muhammed Shafi Sahab (RA) had told his sons that if you see any non-Islamic system doing well then you should look carefully at at it. They must be doing something Islamic and truthful. The reason is simple that falsehood does not have the property of continuing, prospering and surviving indefinitely.

If we look carefully then it is not difficult to find the reasons behind western success.
Sheer hard work, dedication, perseverance, long hours put in and high amount of honesty and integrity put in by them is no secret. To some extent all of them are Islamic.

But this does not make them completely Islamic. They indeed have mixed good elements with bad. You have identified some of the bad elements. Mixing good with bad is Munker. This is one of the three strictly forbidden things in Islam. Fahsha-Munker-Baghyy.

[Freedjome]

Allah's word is already supreme. Nothing is needed to make His word supreme. And about implementing His law. Everyone who is a scrupulous muslim can implement Allah's laws in his life in their most truest and fullest sense in a secular state. I can avoid alcohol, i can wear modestly, i can speak goodly speech, I can read Quran to my full, I can avoid vanities and keep away from associations I see wrong.

Insha'Allah I hope one day you will understand that Din is not just about "intimate private religious practise and relationship with Allah" - that's the modern european-influenced capitalist-based definition of "religion", not the Islamic one.

http://www.ashrafiya.com/2012/01/24/...ot-a-religion/

However in your hypothetical 'sharia state', everything will be limited in choice such that my belief is moulded by state rather than conscience, reason, faith and intellect. An imposed artificial belief determined by state institutions and law. Forcing 'sharia' on people will correspond to an increased prevalence of fake religiousity, hypocrites and false dramatized piety by people who are not even keen in the first place to believe.

Your "opinion" is unfortunately opposed to what our Din and Shari'ah command in this regard, and is rather influenced by extra-islamic ideologies.

[Draftcasino.com]

Success in this world is not the sole criterion for a Muslim. No one disputes that, however aiming for success is not an anti-islamic goal. If one want the best roads, hospitals, institutions, scientific literacy and technology for his/her nation that is not an anti-Islamic goal. Its not a Muslims end only goal, no one is arguing that. Every Muslims ultimate goal is to please Allah and aim for paradise. However if westerners aimed for good governance/administration of a complex society and have developed a tried and tested model to achieve that with all their centuries of european history why cant we borrow from them. The Europeans today are basically the greeks, romans, chinese and persians from which the Muslim Arab of the middle ages borrowed and changed the whole world and standards of civilization.

I think we are running around in circles. My point is that western models of government are not designed in their aim and structure to oppose Islam or its fundamentals. They have not evolved to do that.

Strangley most members on this thread think that democracy, secularism, constitutionalism are somehow anti-Islamic because they have not been directly derived from Quran and Sunnah and thus must necessarily be in contradiction to them. Quran and sunnah will modify and regulate existing pillars of modern governance. For e.g. in the development of a constitution there would be no statement directly opposing Quran and Sunnah rulings which are black and white, clear as the sky. Issues of grey and with diverse opinion - democracy comes to play and modern learned men and women experts of the fields come together debate and argue them in parliament in the context of modern society, civilization. No one says in a democratic, secular muslim nation the opinions/recommendations of independent Ulema gathered from mosques, media avenues and public forums will be ignored. That is illogical and impractical from a political standpoint. Democracy is nothing but people deciding what leaders and policies a community prefers. In a Muslim nation, all policies will ofcourse be within the social context of a Muslim community. But what I am arguing against is giving Ulema power to institute laws of governance for a modern nation. The modern nation is far complex then confining it to a purely religious scholarship body.

When I talk of secularism, we are not talking about secularism which is anti-religious in nature or religion ignorant or makes a mockery of religion or diminishes its role in social civility. WE are talking about secularism which shows and presents itself as a religious neutral but which is on its inside inspired by the best in religion and faith. Examples are many of the politicians in America who play along with religion neutral secularism but who are deeply inspired by their faith. I would prefer that model rather than an artifical show of religiousity model like saudi arabia where people's outward attire and social norms serve to give them undue authority. What I am trying to say is that religious wear, guise and rhetoric by ignorant religious scholar/legislators will simply lead to disasters especially if a group of such ignorant scholars who all look 'religious' but who make narrow minded decisions get together to form a legislative body or even an disproportionately influential advisory body to a government. FOr example, a modern nation needs women in workforce like how women work in turkey, malaysia, indonesia e.t.c. IF a group of scholars come and decide like in saudia that women should confine themselves at most times to the houses, have to attire themselves completely in black head-toe coverings, should not drive in cars and should always feel a degree inferior to men because Allah and His messenger's view on role of women is such then that would be a disaster for economy, social prosperity and basic freedom of self. Or if a group of such scholars deem a certain Islamic group or orientation as one with heretical beliefs one can just imagine what the consequences eventually be for such a group in a religious government. Shia's can for example not even build a mosque in saudia even outside blessed hijaz. Allah will always give truth victory over falsehood without need or resort to violence, crookedness, undue oppression or trampling on freedoms if the war between two groups are purely ideological. For example comparing in my country sunnis and shias in a secular christian east african country. Shia's are far behind sunnis in dawah and islamic propagation. Even though shia's are more succesfful business wise and prosperous they are unable to influence the locals more than sunnis. Thererfore even on free terrain truth always does better. So why should government suppress a certain groups members simply for an ideological choice they make. If a shia wants to be shia let him be shia. Same goes for ahmadis in pakistan who basically fear for their life. I parallel them to nation of Islam. Both are similarly ineffective if given free terrain like how nation of Islam is in america. So why make members who make an ideological choice to be ahmadis fearful of their environment. Let them feel free to choose what they want and lets counter them ideologically. Even with the repressive legislation for ahmadi's they are still basicallly not dissapeared from pakistan.

Lets make things simple - Quran and Sunnah is the realm of the Ulema. IF governance is to be devised on the basis of Quran and Sunnah, it basically has to be orchestrated by Ulema i.e. Alims, mullahs, sheikhs because they are supposed to know Quran and Sunnah best. Then who will anyone be to say or opine as a non-ulema expert that Allah says in the Quran that scientificism, rationalism and human rights are core parts of Islam. That is why I say western models of government take care of many sophistications. They have gone through all this debate about religion and government. Catholic church domination over previous western civilizations is part and parcel of european history. Lets learn and avoid going into places which have failed. We are in modern times. Lets seperate religious scholarship and government/administration as seperate disciplines.

[Stacypettlerr]

Allah ordered us to implement His law on His earth and to make His word supreme.

Allah's word is already supreme. Nothing is needed to make His word supreme. And about implementing His law. Everyone who is a scrupulous muslim can implement Allah's laws in his life in their most truest and fullest sense in a secular state. I can avoid alcohol, i can wear modestly, i can speak goodly speech, I can read Quran to my full, I can avoid vanities and keep away from associations I see wrong.
However in your hypothetical 'sharia state', everything will be limited in choice such that my belief is moulded by state rather than conscience, reason, faith and intellect. An imposed artificial belief determined by state institutions and law. Forcing 'sharia' on people will correspond to an increased prevalence of fake religiousity, hypocrites and false dramatized piety by people who are not even keen in the first place to believe.

[weluvjessicaalba]

It appears you're talking of a straw-man and haven't still understood what our actual stance is.

Strangley most members on this thread think that democracy, secularism, constitutionalism are somehow anti-Islamic because they have not been directly derived from Quran and Sunnah and thus must necessarily be in contradiction to them. NO, we don't think that democracy and secularims are "somehow anti-Islamic because they have not been directly derived from Quran and Sunnah and thus must necessarily be in contradiction to them".

Instead, we think that democracy and secularism are UTTERLY ANTI-ISLAMIC becuase they ACTUALLY CONFICT AND CONTADICT ISLAMIC AQIDAH AND LAW.

Allah ordered us to implement His law on His earth and to make His word supreme.

[priceyicey]

A khilafa system and an islamic state are a mirage. A true Islamic state is no true scotsman fallacy.
I would rather live in a secular state than so called tyrannical Islamic state where people where there is widespread hypocrisy and people often use the cloak of religion for thier own worldly desires.

Frankly 1300 years of khilafat history does not exactly inspire confidence that a khilafat state would be a just state.
In this so called state, minority sects,women and people of other religions would be marginalized and often harshly persecuted.

You have a long journey to make akhi.
No Khilafah is not a mirage. Mirage is virtual thing while Kihlafa was practiced by the Companions (RA) and hence it is real.
You might decide to live in a secular state but do not forget that you have to stand before Allah (SWT) one day. There is a chance that you might be asked why did you not migrate to Islamic state.
Strange that you have used tyrannical and hypocritical qualifications for Khilafah - fear Allah (SWT).
If you know of examples where people are using Khilafa for personal desires then please do tell us about them. If some one is using religion for personal gain then it is your duty also, nor ours alone, to take remedial steps.
To name an Islamic state so called it a serious thing - a Muslim is careful in the choice of his words.
An Islamic state is based on the Wishes of Allah (SWT) who is Al-'Aadilu, Most-Just.
It is just to minority sects, women and people of other religions will be given their due there and none will be persecuted, harshly or softly.

And the ability/possibility/capability is from Allah (SWT) only.

PS: Please do not assert 1300 years of Khilafah history. Know the history. Here it is in five minutes.

[egoldhyip]

Insha'Allah I hope one day you will understand that Din is not just about "intimate private religious practise and relationship with Allah" - that's the modern european-influenced capitalist-based definition of "religion", not the Islamic one.

http://www.ashrafiya.com/2012/01/24/...ot-a-religion/



Your "opinion" is unfortunately opposed to what our Din and Shari'ah command in this regard, and is rather influenced by extra-islamic ideologies.

Moreover there is the Qur'anic injunction to strive till the Deen completely belongs to Allah (SWT).

[dserbokim]

A khilafa system and an islamic state are a mirage. A true Islamic state is no true scotsman fallacy.
I would rather live in a secular state than so called tyrannical Islamic state where people where there is widespread hypocrisy and people often use the cloak of religion for thier own worldly desires.

Frankly 1300 years of khilafat history does not exactly inspire confidence that a khilafat state would be a just state.
In this so called state, minority sects,women and people of other religions would be marginalized and often harshly persecuted.