Faith enforced

[xiinfaniin]

CG & Naden , to fill in for Northern’s absence here, Muslims are not longing for monarchic dictatorship under the cloak of religion. The talk about the return of Islamic governance primarily means the establishment of a relatively just government, just like other secular governments in the world, but a one with fundamentally different mission. A mission of serving the masses by serving Allah that is. Past models may not be the perfect example to cite when it comes to its structural maturity and development in governance, as Naden alluded to, but it had the right principles and the ideal outlook and was indeed the best then. With today’s well-advanced knowledge about almost anything, what makes you think I dare ask that a Islamic government with a framework of accountability could not be established, and be the best again?

 

And oh how could I resist saying a word to my friend JB. Fishing for trivialities, like this topic truly is all about, and finding snippets of negativity to discredit this way of life is not going to cut it yaa JB! If that was not what you intended blame it not on my comperhensoin but on my age instead...

[Naden]

Xiinfaniin, we disagree on whether secularity and religions fit as I believe a so-called secular environment can be the best environment for a believer. We probably also disagree on what I see as an unnecessarily nostalgic examination of past Islamic rule that was largely a function of interests and politiking, much like it is now. I do agree with you that pursuing ideal principles made just treatment possible in the past. If accountability and justice are the goals of a muslim ruler and his government today, then muslims would indeed be staying true to the goals and ideals of the message. There is no issue with sharia being ruled by people who elect to be ruled by it. The issue largely remains one of what constitutes islamic law and who decides that a particular law is 'serving the masses by serving Allah'.

[Faarax-Brawn]

I didnt follow the whole thread but i will like to respond to the lovely Naden.

 

CG, what is even more troubling is the number of young people reared and bred in so-called secular laws handing over their brain to these new calls for a return to the past. Impoverished and hopeless youth in the muslim world, their future cannibalized by a parasitic upperclass, are rightly drawn to this utopic return of a khalifa who will do justice by them. How the wealthy, western-bred ones subscribe to this is a mystery.

Its not a new call dear Naden & its not laws of the past & its certainly not directed at the young; They are past and present that affect the future, it’s a continuing call that was always preached by ALL ULAMAS of every color in every geographical area to ALL demographics.What you term as a "new" call is nothing really but an awakening to follow that which was done and said by rasululah(saw) some centuries ago.

 

There is no proof that those termed khalifas (a political position that has nothing to do with the faith) or sahabas were any more just as a group than others who are nonkhalifa/nonsahaba.

I would like to remind you that the caliphas really didn’t come with their own style of governance, they followed the exact ways and means of the prophet (saw). These laws of course came DIRECTLY from Allah(swt),Doubting the justness of the Caliphas is of course tantamout to doubting the prophet,which of course means doubting the message itself. A side from a few documented cases of human error,the caliphs followed the teaching of the prophet to the best of their knowledge & ruled in the most just manner.

 

Save for a few direct laws (mostly concerned with personal/civic rights such as marriage, divorce, inheritance), there is no reason to believe that what is termed sharia as a whole is a God ordained system of governace

OK,I think you either have no clue of your subject matter or you are hell bent on triviliazing the caliphate dynasty. Before I comment on this statement, I will like for you to first find out the jurisdiction of the caliphas, the size of the dynasty they ruled & the level of civilization attained during that time of period. Perhaps,that will give you an insight & hopefully save me some much needed time.

[Caano Geel]

Originally posted by Naden:

what is even more troubling is the number of young people reared and bred in so-called secular laws handing over their brain to these new calls for a return to the past. Impoverished and hopeless youth in the muslim world, their future cannibalized by a parasitic upperclass, are rightly drawn to this utopic return of a khalifa who will do justice by them.

Naden, i agree with you on that, its sad for the notion that a pan-islamic movement is the anathema to the secular political movements for no reason other the kleptomania of modern muslim rulers. Its also sad that its no more than the current bandwagon, much like the socialist inspired movements were in the 50's and 60's. and lets not even start on the "awakening"

 

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

With today’s well-advanced knowledge about almost anything, what makes you think I dare ask that a Islamic government with a framework of accountability could not be established, and be the best again?

Nothing at all, and on the contrary it is probably a good thing that a society has some moral aims. It would at least stop politicians from deciding which bandwagon to hitch their policies to based on if its going up or down. The point is which aims -noting that its got to serve a population, not just replicas of you, how and whom are they judged by and who are the guardians.

 

In short, so long as the people governed are ultimately the ones that define and ratify what they are governed with and by whom, it doesn't matter. Sadly, this simple concept of choice seems to repel the *modern muslim* for no other reason than it may have a non-arbic name.

[Naden]

^^^Oh my! *Blushes furiously* I must then reciprocate and respond to the ruggedly handsome Faarax-Brown.

 

They are past and present that affect the future, it’s a continuing call that was always preached by ALL ULAMAS of every color in every geographical area to ALL demographics.

Very spirited and inspirational! The new call or sahwa is not my word but those of numerous religious groups and parties. I see little new in it as it largely clothes old ideas in new clothes.

 

Doubting the justness of the Caliphas is of course tantamout to doubting the prophet,which of course means doubting the message itself.

That's what you say and does not make it the truth. Tantamount is one of those expansive terms, large enough to twist someone's words and scary enough to suffocate a discussion.

 

OK,I think you either have no clue of your subject matter or you are hell bent on triviliazing the caliphate dynasty. Before I comment on this statement, I will like for you to first find out the jurisdiction of the caliphas................that will give you an insight & hopefully save me some much needed time.

[/QB]

Not one to miss a chance to be schooled by a Faarax and a Brown one at that, I will say go ahead and save the time now in this case. Highlighting my ignorance may very well be valid but will not mask your own of the subject. Your admiration of the dynasty's size, wealth and scope of influence is noted. What this has to do with the faith and modern day sharia application remains a mystery.

[Faarax-Brawn]

Naden, i agree with you on that, its sad for the notion that a pan-islamic movement is the anathema to the secular political movements for no reason other the kleptomania of modern muslim rulers. Its also sad that its no more than the current bandwagon, much like the socialist inspired movements were in the 50's and 60's. and lets not even start on the "awakening"

I don’t think anyone is calling for pan islamism or calling for the rejection or expulsion of the secular movements. I think what the Ulamas are calling for is staying true to the message,the ways and means of the prophet & his Saxabas. I don’t think this qualifies as an anathema Caano.

[Faarax-Brawn]

Originally posted by Naden:

^^^Oh my! *

Blushes furiously

* I must then reciprocate and respond to the ruggedly handsome Faarax-Brown.

 

quote:

---

They are past and present that affect the future, it’s a continuing call that was always preached by ALL ULAMAS of every color in every geographical area to ALL demographics.

Very spirited and inspirational! The new call or sahwa is not my word but those of numerous religious groups and parties. I see little new in it as it largely clothes old ideas in new clothes.

 

Doubting the justness of the Caliphas is of course tantamout to doubting the prophet,which of course means doubting the message itself.

That's what you say and does not make it the truth. Tantamount is one of those expansive terms, large enough to twist someone's words and scary enough to suffocate a discussion.

 

OK,I think you either have no clue of your subject matter or you are hell bent on triviliazing the caliphate dynasty. Before I comment on this statement, I will like for you to first find out the jurisdiction of the caliphas................that will give you an insight & hopefully save me some much needed time.

Not one to miss a chance to be schooled by a Faarax and a Brown one at that, I will say go ahead and save the time now in this case. Highlighting my ignorance may very well be valid but will not mask your own of the subject. Your admiration of the dynasty's size, wealth and scope of influence is noted. What this has to do with the faith and modern day sharia application remains a mystery. [/QB]

Well, I feel violated with all your receptive blushings & your lavish praises,None the less thank you ma'am.

 

Now,back to the topic;Your first two quotes are but your opinion, I will respect them & let you be Naden.

 

As for schooling you, I am no historian & it certaintly was not my intention to come across as a schooler if you must,but I will have you know that any large dynasty has laws beyond marriage,divorce & inheritance. Business & Trade laws,taxes,military rules of engagment,land laws among many are also covered.

 

My ascertion to the size and civilization was really meant for comparison purposes as that any society that big really requires complex laws. That’s all lady...

[Caano Geel]

I don’t think anyone is calling for pan islamism or calling for the rejection or expulsion of the secular movements. I think what the Ulamas are calling for is staying true to the message,the ways and means of the prophet & his Saxabas. I don’t think this qualifies as an anathema Caano.

Faarax saaxiib, the stated aim of the Khalifet movement is the creation of one worldwide Khilafah and like any other movement/philosophy, the Ulama has always called for staying true to the message - regardless someone will always feel something is missing.

 

Why would doubting the Khalifah lead to doubting the quran? .. careful there, otherwise it will sound like the 'keep your self dump and your mouth shut' argument.

[Faarax-Brawn]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

quote:

I don’t think anyone is calling for pan islamism or calling for the rejection or expulsion of the secular movements. I think what the Ulamas are calling for is staying true to the message,the ways and means of the prophet & his Saxabas. I don’t think this qualifies as an anathema Caano.

Faarax saaxiib, the stated aim of the Khalifet movement is the creation of one worldwide Khilafah and like any other movement/philosophy, the Ulama has always called for staying true to the message - regardless someone will always feel something is missing.

 

The stated aim it is,we are talking about the reality of the day Caano.

 

Why would doubting the Khalifah lead to doubting the quran? .. careful there, otherwise it will sound like the 'keep your self dump and your mouth shut' argument.

If you put it in that context,it will otherwise sound as such. But you really need to look at the presiding quote sxb from your freind up there. She clear doubted the justness of the caliphas,who used the quran as a guideline given to them by the prophet.

[Johnny B]

Naden & CG ,

No matter how one turns & twists it, its almost impossible to deny the obvious nostalgia of some Muslims to the theocracy of the caliphate dynasty,those who have defficulties accepting the impracticality of theocracy need to discuss the reasons behind the fall of that caliphate dynasty and not reinvent History.

 

A very intresting point is almost lost in the heat of making another one, namely, there is an apparent need for acceptance among the Muslims( atleast those in Malaysia ). a need that shoulden't be there , given that one's faith is based on solid grounds.

 

Those who preclude the possibility of fellow human beeings to theologically/ideologically differ disclose the fragility of their foundations regarding virtue and decency, and that is exactly what is on display here.

 

EDIT:

 

Xiin-ow, the line "if you're not with us then you're against us " is almost copyrighted by Dubya & co, so don't use it against me .

 

Had the incident been switched to the other way around, still you'd see mee defending her individual choice.though i do understand the source of the mistrust i've to say i lack reason to discredit particular way of life.

thought its tempting to blame your age i'll settle for your comperhensoin.

[Khalaf]

"Why would doubting the Khalifah lead to doubting the quran? .. careful there, otherwise it will sound like the 'keep your self dump and your mouth shut' argument."

 

Lets repharse yaa akhi to: doubting /disliking/hating or thinking the way of Muhammad Scw is inferior ect to other ways ie secular law ect amounts to disbelieve.

 

^^^What do u say about that yaa Caano?

[Caano Geel]

First, I say bull, second I say bull, and last i say that no body brought doubt of faith into the debate, so don't.

[Khalaf]

^^^The islamic laws are part of faith (iman, aqeedah) no?

[Caano Geel]

depends on what is in the 'iman' and 'aqeedah'. You have your 5 basic pillars, then anything outside of the quran and limited number of sunnah, is the result of scholarly work and interpretation. Its therefore there to be debated discussed and enriched as its always been.

[Johnny B]

Khalaf, moot moot and moot, The Quran is in Arabic, to understand it and interpret it is open for the millions who speak and the trillions who can learn that language.

 

How many kalifa's will that make?

How do you decide which Kalifa is more pious and has the correct interpretations? according to their relation to Mohamed(pbuh)?

according to their Arabhood?, their what not?

 

Infact , you're not even in a position to decide who can be called a Kalifa.

welcome to theocracy.