[t78VPkdO]

[QUOTE=Abu Zakir;782837]

I only saw the propaganda on British TV regarding the Taliban, so my views might well be wrong. But my impression was that they were trying to impliment the Shariah in all matters, stopping men from shaving or trimming their beards, punishing people for listening to music in the areas that they controlled. Yes they were still fighting a war and trying to establsih peace in many areas of Afghanistan, however had they not tried to force people to grow beards etc. they may have won peoples hearts and minds, and they may have got widespread support from the common people. The US may have found it very difficult, even more that they are now to get Afghan people to support them against the Taliban. I know I am making judgements on people I have no right to judge from the comfort of my nice secure home...and it was a very difficult situation and I might be wrong. The Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan used to have quite an interesting website that put their side of the story which was quite different from the Western and Arab media. It certainly showed a very different situation than the one presented in the commercial media.

I think a lot of things that they were criticized for were nothing but propaganda, but no one can deny that they shot themselves in the foot by (after decades of deliberate de-Islamification) trying to bring lax Muslims and Shiahs quickly into adherence with a very strict interpretation of Hanafi fiqh in regards public behaviour.

I always thought that they seemed to have learned their approach to policing the externals of the religion more from observing the Saudis (and then become even stricter) rather than from any teaching originating with the Deobandi Ulema on how to run a society.

[wheettebott]

I have got alot of ideas from the Murabitun though I am not one of them. I have also read about anarchism, libertarianism, marxism etc. Libertarians tend to promote the idea of free markets as a way of organizing society, I have afew issues with this that I do not agree with but generally because they are anti State and anti-Democracy I prefer their ideas to the ideas of Socialists, Democrats and Fascists (collectivly knows as collectivists).

Jazakallah Khair

I can see where you are coming from brother. Its a more natural earthy approach to political thought. It has a lot going for it. Its likely InshaAllah that peak oil etc will gradually take us to situations where the things that encourage current 'big states' may be challenged by developments.

Also I can see how you became aware of the weak points of Muslim Brotherhood's thoughts (and also Mawdudi's) as they contain some assumptions about politics and modern society that were influenced by elements of the ideologies of socialism, fascism and democracy that were all strong (and seemed to offer answers) in the early-mid 20th century CE. However, we may find that MB and JI are more flexible and able to learn than they sometimes appear InshaAllah.

[dHXaE2h9]

Jazakallah Khair
Also I can see how you became aware of the weak points of Muslim Brotherhood's thoughts (and also Mawdudi's) as they contain some assumptions about politics and modern society that were influenced by elements of the ideologies of socialism, fascism and democracy that were all strong (and seemed to offer answers) in the early-mid 20th century CE. However, we may find that MB and JI are more flexible and able to learn than they sometimes appear InshaAllah.

Insha-Allah I hope you are right. Modernism in the west has now turned into Post-Modernism...where ideas that emerged during the so called European Enlightenment are now considered self-referential and circular not actually based on Reason as they claimed. This means that Modernism is now out of date already. Anyone who still works within the Modernist paradigm is doomed to failure...just look at the so called mature Democracies in the west...the masses are being told they have to pay off 'The Deficit", the they need to face deep "Cuts" and "Austerity", so the bankers can be paid off. The same bankers that went bust in 2008 and were bailed out by the tax payers...and some of them still take yearly bonuses of 6 or 8 million pounds. This is the potential for great corruption. People in Democratic policies are easily bought and the masses have very little choice is selecting a genuine leader. Many Arabs do not know what Islam is...they think it is something like Socialism.

[ashleyjoseph]

its up to the people involved in any situation to decide for themselves knowing the context as much as possible. We cannot have one rule for all places. However i heard a bayan where the shaykh was saying that the rasul In the early days was not angry with a bedoin who urinated in the masjid...years later he was very angry at a man who spat on the outside of the masjid wall. This means in the early days the rasul Knew that the people were close to jihala and could be excused.

i do not agree with the first two sentences you wrote.

you see there is a limit to individual reform that the preachers can hope for with their preaching. there has to be action by the muslim government. i am not saying the preaching has limits. what i am saying is that the society needs to have laws that shun evil and encourage goods in addition to people who do it. for example a man attends a good bayan in masjid and when he goes out he runs into a group of young scantily clad modern women. ofcourse he turns his gaze away.
now let us repeat that hundred times over the course of 6 months. even though this brother is struggling hard to preserve his deen the exposure to fahisha that he is subjected to because the hijab law isnt promulgate dby the government means his emaan is decreasing.
soon he will turn to pornography - and the govt again has not banned it.
and then his emaan will spiral downwards.

and this is just one small example. the man could get perverse by hundred other things. but shariah makes sure as many doors as physically possible can be closed upon wrongs in society, commerce, culture, economy, govt etc.

my actual question was in regards to what you said after your first sentences about what you heard in the bayan. yes, outreach is important. till then perhaps some wrongs in society can be excused. but till how long? few years? decades?

[Ibrattnofich]

I think a lot of things that they were criticized for were nothing but propaganda, but no one can deny that they shot themselves in the foot by (after decades of deliberate de-Islamification) trying to bring lax Muslims and Shiahs quickly into adherence with a very strict interpretation of Hanafi fiqh in regards public behaviour.

i actually deny that as i have explained it below. the internal strifes between NA and taliban were not based on religious disputes as far as i can tell. their strifes with other tribes was also not based on differences in religion as far as i can tell. even their policy of 'quick adherence' did nothing to hasten or hamper the US invasion. they are two completely different things.
even now, dont judge their support or lack thereof by seeing the afghans living in afghanistan screaming on social media. they represent a minority.

[illerlytoindy]

i actually deny that as i have explained it below. the internal strifes between NA and taliban were not based on religious disputes as far as i can tell. their strifes with other tribes was also not based on differences in religion as far as i can tell. even their policy of 'quick adherence' did nothing to hasten or hamper the US invasion. they are two completely different things.
even now, dont judge their support or lack thereof by seeing the afghans living in afghanistan screaming on social media. they represent a minority.

that may be true, but the unfortunate truth is that the Americans found plenty of Sunni's ready to fight the Taliban and they weren't all ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks etc. It is reasonable to assume that 'quick adherence' had something to do with it brother as well as tribalism.

[Agehoobionibe]

that may be true, but the unfortunate truth is that the Americans found plenty of Sunni's ready to fight the Taliban and they weren't all ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks etc. It is reasonable to assume that 'quick adherence' had something to do with it brother as well as tribalism.

actually there is no evidence for that. there were people (who fought in afghan jihad) who were ousted from power when taliban took control, it could be them as well. the only thing we can say with hard evidence is that their approach towards social reforms didnt win them any supporters among secular muslims and non-muslims (not to mention sects and political parties grinding their own axe).

khair the main point to discuss is how much leeway can a state or govt give to the people before implementing actual shariah?

[Q0KmoR8K]

Have you checked al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah or the book Siyaasah Shari'ah by Ibn Taymiyyah? Maybe those books would have something. There are also the books of Muhammad Qutb who gives a lot of thought to matters like that. I think they're all in urdu since everything is in urdu.

[Tzqowwyt]

khair the main point to discuss is how much leeway can a state or govt give to the people before implementing actual shariah?

How much leeway can any other other Muslim give ? Its not like state in Islam has more rights than a normal Muslim can have. A state head is a individual Muslim too. Just that he is invested with more power or control and hence more responsibility. His rights are the same. Issues which are communal fard perhaps gets done by the state because of the better ability to function orderly.

In question of leeway we would have to look at what category of priority the issue comes in and the nature of the issue with regards to its obligatoryness and type of proof and the state of society as to whether it would bring more harm than good.

[Inenuedbabnor]

How much leeway can any other other Muslim give ? Its not like state in Islam has more rights than a normal Muslim can have. A state head is a individual Muslim too. Just that he is invested with more power or control and hence more responsibility. His rights are the same. Issues which are communal fard perhaps gets done by the state because of the better ability to function orderly.

In question of leeway we would have to look at what category of priority the issue comes in and the nature of the issue with regards to its obligatoryness and type of proof and the state of society as to whether it would bring more harm than good.

i am getting you. what if the country is consisting of majority population favorable towards islam and a significant minority extremist secularists? in pakistan for example, my friend who is a supporter of pakistan tehreek e insaaf ( a secular party) told me explicitly that implementation of qata yadd, rajm etc were just not possible in pakistan yet as it would create an uproar. give us some time , let the country be islamicized then we will implement them.
i have no doubt in my mind that party has no interest in islamic law nor will they ever work towards making an environment conductive to islamic laws.

what to do then?there will always be hue and cry whenever shariah is implemented. how much does one wait? and how does one measure that the society is now receptive to islamic laws?
am i correct in saying that the islamic laws governing the state were not revealed at once because of this precise reason? was the islamic society in makkah and madinah gradually islamicized before the entire shariah was applied?

[ttiokjbnhjjillp]

I dont think thats fair. Revivers of the deen come every century according to the cirumstances of the century.

If it wasnt for this man, Pakistan may have been like Turkey today in its secularism ? Men would not be wearing beards, and women would not be allowed hijab in public office. There is much more freedom to congregate and disseminate Islamic views in Pakistan, than just about any muslim country in the world today. A lot is down to this man. The fact the people of Pakistan is not a willing ally againt the war in afghanistan is a lot down to this man. The borders remain pourous a lot due to this man imho.

The Muslim Influence in the army is from JI.

He wrote for his time, and specifically for his area, about to be split into two (three, four and five) giant nation states..He was writing within this context of having muslim influence in the new "Muslim state of pakistan". The state itself was inevitable, and not within his control, so his influence was to include as many islamic elements into the infrastructure as possible within the extreme conditions. imho

Allah knows best

brother, frankly thats a hyperbole. You are grossly exaggerating the JI's influence on pak. There are the efforts of many Ulema, shuyukh and madarsas in preserving Islam in PAK. JI's influence has always been very limited.

[Ygd2qr8k]

Yes the Islamic "government" is a reward for individuals practicing, forming communities which are practicing.

The governments were there to allow freedom of religion and protect the community. It was not historically involved in the implimentation of sharia, so this conflaguration between a State and Shariah is a modern doctrine.

This modern interpretations brings the muslim world into the modern "State" definition, using "khilafah" groups to futher the cause.

Like you said this leads to unhealthy communities.

The muslims have no experience of anything other than state beuracracies disguised as democracies, or secular/theocratic dictatorships.

The responsibilities of the Muslim rulers are outlined as: ‘those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end and decision of all affairs.’ (Qur’an 22:41).

[NETvoyne]

The responsibilities of the Muslim rulers are outlined as: ‘those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end and decision of all affairs.’ (Qur’an 22:41).

Enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong applies to all Muslims. And hence from that perspective a ideal Muslim ruler would do too. Its not something exclusive to him. As a state therefore, an ideal Islamic state would do too. But who does it perhaps can be shared by different members of the state. So instead of expecting a government to do it, we could perhaps have a government with lesser restricted power while the power to enjoin good and forbid wrong is increased to other members of the society whereby they gain greater power in the state. This would be a case of division of power without diluting the duty or power of the community.

[DialOne]

two great books on this topic by Mufti Taqi Usmani DB (in Urdu), free download-
http://islamicbookslibrary.wordpress...i-taqi-usmani/
http://islamicbookslibrary.wordpress...i-taqi-usmani/

[moohassinny]

i am getting you. what if the country is consisting of majority population favorable towards islam and a significant minority extremist secularists? in pakistan for example, my friend who is a supporter of pakistan tehreek e insaaf ( a secular party) told me explicitly that implementation of qata yadd, rajm etc were just not possible in pakistan yet as it would create an uproar. give us some time , let the country be islamicized then we will implement them.
i have no doubt in my mind that party has no interest in islamic law nor will they ever work towards making an environment conductive to islamic laws.

what to do then?there will always be hue and cry whenever shariah is implemented. how much does one wait? and how does one measure that the society is now receptive to islamic laws?
am i correct in saying that the islamic laws governing the state were not revealed at once because of this precise reason? was the islamic society in makkah and madinah gradually islamicized before the entire shariah was applied?

i am getting you. what if the country is consisting of majority population favorable towards islam and a significant minority extremist secularists? in pakistan for example, my friend who is a supporter of pakistan tehreek e insaaf ( a secular party) told me explicitly that implementation of qata yadd, rajm etc were just not possible in pakistan yet as it would create an uproar. give us some time , let the country be islamicized then we will implement them.
i have no doubt in my mind that party has no interest in islamic law nor will they ever work towards making an environment conductive to islamic laws.

what to do then?there will always be hue and cry whenever shariah is implemented. how much does one wait? and how does one measure that the society is now receptive to islamic laws?
am i correct in saying that the islamic laws governing the state were not revealed at once because of this precise reason? was the islamic society in makkah and madinah gradually islamicized before the entire shariah was applied?

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.

[milfovoxapl]

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.

[Dfvgthyju]

actually there is no evidence for that. there were people (who fought in afghan jihad) who were ousted from power when taliban took control, it could be them as well. the only thing we can say with hard evidence is that their approach towards social reforms didnt win them any supporters among secular muslims and non-muslims (not to mention sects and political parties grinding their own axe).

khair the main point to discuss is how much leeway can a state or govt give to the people before implementing actual shariah?

As well as munafiqs, zindiqs and secularized people there were certainly some religious "bidati" type Muslims and Muslim lovers of various un-Islamic elements of traditional Afghan culture from amongst the Pastuns who very definitely failed to support the Taliban when it would have been useful, yet who weren't associated to the warlords etc, how influential they were only Allah knows, but the failure to get 100% support from the people when the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was invaded cannot have helped things for the Taliban.

Uthman dan Fodio (ra) had some similar problems with reviving and Islamizing a largely irreligious populous when he established the Sokoto Caliphate. He wrote a few books related to the subject. you may find these links interesting http://siiasi.org/wp-content/uploads...jl-Ikhwaan.pdfhttp://siiasi.org/wp-content/uploads...eh-al-umma.pdf others can be found here in the library http://siiasi.org. He is interesting because he overcame some issues that the Taliban had trouble with, with a little more leniency, pragmatically seeking to facilitate ease for the people within the bounds of established fiqh rulings, whilst not budging an inch on anything important. He recognized what sort of people he was working to reform an used wisdom and coaxing as his primary methodology and it worked.

[w4WBthjv]

6 books to read in this thread penned by amazing scholars.
lets meet after a few days.

[Dweplyododo]

Good thread

priceless knowledge

[Crundaangerge]

The responsibilities of the Muslim rulers are outlined as: ‘those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end and decision of all affairs.’ (Qur’an 22:41).

What does 'enjoin' mean? Do they use force, speach or dictates?