Is it time to separate religion from politics?

[Legend of Zu]

Originally posted by Khayr:

Why the Rasul (salallahu cailyhe wasilm) was corrected on many occassions by Allah in the Quran. 13 times Hadrat Omar gave Advice to the Rasul (salallahu cailyhe wasilm)cand Allah corrected the Rasul (salallahu cailyhe wasilm) and took Omar's side.

^^ You may want to rephrase that comment You just said the Rasul is fallible and discounted the reliability of the Sunnah.

 

Cheers

[Khayr]

^^^

 

Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should speak a good word or remain silent." Reported by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim

[Legend of Zu]

^^^ Waar niyow tanoo kale, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I have just provided you with a chance to correct yourself.

 

What you uttered (shaped as an example) was pure nonsense sxb and indirectly you called the Prophet (SAW) fallible.

 

Why don't you (madax adayga inta iska daysid) rephrase -note I am using the word rephrase- your comment however if you insist I will question your intent and then hammer you with evidence about your erroneous assertion.

 

Cheers

[Naden]

Legend of Zu, before you hammer Khayr with evidence, perhaps you (or he) could clarify the difference between the terms Prophet and Messenger as they are used in the Quran (نبى and رسول, respectively).

 

Although right in his assertion in those instances of chiding and correction, Khayr does not clarify that the Prophet (csw), as a man, was the one chided and corrected.

 

Although right in your own assertion, you do not clarify that the Messenger is infallible (or معصوم) in delivering the message of the Quran completely and without change to people.

 

If you notice, when being chided and/or corrected by God, the Prophet (csw) is often called O Prophet (يا أيها النبى) but not O Messenger (يا أيها الرسول ). It indicates that the man who is being corrected is only a man, despite being of the highest morals.

 

If you also notice, believers/people are instructed to obey the Messenger (أطيعوا الرسول). However, instructions to the Prophet (csw) are phrased as O Prophet while instructions to obey the Messenger are not phrased as Obey the Prophet (أطيعوا النبى).

 

The dual designation of Prophet and Messenger is important and can clear both your points.

Originally posted by Legend of Zu:

You just said the Rasul is fallible and discounted the reliability of the Sunnah.

Sunnah in the Quran refers to the laws/ways of being as ordained by God and has nothing to do with the Prophet's fallibility as a human being.

[Khayr]

Naden,

 

You are an enigma!

 

Walahi cajib, who would of thought that such an impressive response and explanation btwn the being/existence (Nabi) and function (Rasul) (salallahu caliyhe wasilm) would come forth from you.

 

As a Messenger (function), HE (salallahu caliyhe wasilm)was infallible because that is what the function demanded. His utterances (quranic revelation) and sayings (ahadith)reflect that infallibility and it must be so.

 

As a Nabi (being/existence), He (salallahu caliyhe wasilm) did error at times. E.g. At the battle of badr, His camel sat at the wrong place, deeming that it was a source of water. The Sahaba corrected him on that.

 

In anycase, we have digersed and the crux of my original post is being misplaced.

 

Wa akhiro dawa an Alhamudulillah!

[ElPunto]

^Estonians are an odd lot - very hard to figure out.

[Legend of Zu]

Originally posted by Naden:

If you notice, when being chided and/or corrected by God, the Prophet (csw) is often called O Prophet (يا أيها النبى) but

not

O Messenger (يا أيها الرسول ). It indicates that the man who is being corrected is only a man, despite being of the highest morals.

Whilst you have put forward a strong argument for the difference between a Messenger and a Prophet...

 

It is no secret I am one of those who hate to point out the obvious...Khayr's assertion is still erronous even using the litmus test your provisioned for the distinction of the function vs the man. Khayr used the Rasul (SAW) as the one corrected and not the Man The Prophet(SAW); what made it even worse was his response of wanting to silence rather than correct himself...

 

Again...to point out the obvious I asked for re phrasing not changing the gist of the message he wanted to convey.

[NGONGE]

Ailamos come here.

[ailamos]

^ oh my! not again... ... the conversation seems to be going well and no one has resorted with personal attacks (yet) your (Ngonge) lengthy response was quite refreshing... but without dwelling in too much, as I have to take off in a bit, I just want to counter people's statements that Islam is a "Way of Life" as if it's unique but fact is that all religions are "Ways of Life"... take any one of the world's religions as an example.

 

I think it would be a difficult task to separate religion from politics and governance, as much as I, and others, object to that combination. If you look at the world, no one is willing to put down their crosses, kufis, and david stars, sit down and compromise.

 

I just think that religion can bring about the worst in people because of their attachment to what's sacred to them. As we have seen in these forums time and again, people get very angry if one merely criticizes their religion and religious witch hunts are still the preferred method of weeding out heretics who do not share the same conviction (unless you're Ibti, I noticed she prefers to reason). That mixed with power can be a lethal combination.

 

Therefore, I, as an individual, prefer to be governed by a system that does not come with all that extra baggage. Now people are quick to say that Islam is perfect, all religions (and even communism) have the potential to be perfect if everyone adheres to their core principles of "love thy neighbor" but sadly, as we can see around us, there is no such thing as a perfect system. You can say all you want that it's perfect but what we see around us is evidence.

 

Yes, a majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus just want to live peaceful lives and are not fanatics, that much is true, which is why a country like India has opted to have no state religion. India is 80.5% Hindu and contains more Muslims than Pakistan, it also has many Christians and people of other beliefs. The country's leadership took a positive step in making sure that no one is discriminated against.

 

From Wikipedia:

The word secular was inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. It implies equality of all religions and religious tolerance. India does not have any official state religion. Every person has the right to preach, practice and propagate any religion of their own choice. The government does not favour or discriminate any religion. It treats all religions with equal respect. All citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs are equal in the eyes of law. No religious instruction is imparted in government or government - aided schools.

 

Because of the religious diversity, religious tolerance is established in both law and custom.

 

A country that is overwhelmingly Hindu as India made such an important step forward and even went as far as to elect several Muslim Presidents (including the father of the Indian nuclear programme), despite tensions between Muslims and Hindus and between Hindus and Christians, then it serves as an example to be followed.

 

In my opinion, the closest system to perfection is system that guarantees individuals the right to be themselves, worship who or what they worship, think what they want, say what they want and carry on their lives however they wish as long as it does not disturb or intrude on the rights of other citizens. All this under a system that is not an authoritarian one that controls everything they do.

 

Those are my two cents, I have to run now, off for the weekend

[burahadeer]

Lovely!Pragmatism should be order of the day.

[Khayr]

the closest system to perfection is system that guarantees individuals the right to be themselves, worship who or what they worship, think what they want, say what they want and carry on their lives however they wish as long as it does not disturb or intrude on the rights of other citizens.

Ahhhh, the call of Rossou and the french revolution - the Liberal, Secular Democratic state. Utopiaaaaaa!!!

 

Ofcourse, ALL THINGS must be EQUAL in Utopia and my way idea is not better than you idea, it just my idea. Equality on all levels.

 

We can drive on the highway with the same car, with the same family, at the same time - as long as it doesn't intrude on other people's rights.

 

But what if I want a different car? a different family? a faster car so that I can a true individual?

 

No two things are equal and therefor, the nature of the world necessities hierarchy. One thing must be better than the other (that is what our intelligence does - it differentiates, it grades and ranks people, objects, ideas stc.).

 

What you are ignoring is human nature and intelligence? Dumbing down everything for mass consumption...but ofcourse, how else can you drum up people to vouch for an idea.

[Cara.]

^I like the highway analogy, it so clearly shows how self-serving your objections are. If you can share the road safely with others, then you can drive any damn car you choose, and have any passengers you want in your car. You can even blast Celine Dion from your speakers, and wear a tie that clashes with the upholstery. NOBODY CARES, that's the whole point.

 

It's when you run down pedestrians because they offended you, or because they were wearing blue jeans when you wanted everyone to wear plaid, or you decide to hog a whole lane to yourself because you are an INTELLIGENT MAN, that people may get irate. Or maybe you abducted the passengers in your car from the local Safeway, or maybe you are swinging your child out the window while speeding and drinking. Then you may have some trouble with the law.

 

Your "intelligence" will show itself in what kind of car you drive, how you drive it, and whether you can get yourself from point A to point B safely, and maybe even help those who share the road with you get to their goals. Your "intelligence" won't be automatically acknowledged because you are a man, or you happen to have inherited a nice car, or because you say so.

 

Your problem with democracy isn't that it doesn't reward merit. Everyone is equal before the law, is not the same thing as "equality on all levels". The idea is that everyone have equal opportunities, but there will be differences in achievement which should be rewarded by society. In school, teachers should be impartial and grade everyone fairly, yet there are students that get A's and students that get D's. But your idea of hierarchy would call for a teacher grading students based on whether they are related to her, or whether they are girls vs boys, or whether they are rich vs poor, rather than based on the actual work they do. I wonder why.

[N.O.R.F]

Sharia nay sayers, please explain your definition/understanding of the Sharia/Islamic system of governance.

 

Once you've done that, please highlight where it differs with a secular system.

 

ailamos, ever been to Malaysia?

[ailamos]

No Norf, I haven't been to Malaysia but I've heard a lot about it. I think you asked that question with regard to its interesting dual legal system. I think Malaysia is way ahead in the Muslim world in terms of accommodating to its diverse populace. Sharia is a state matter and it's not imposed on the Malaysian federation as a whole.

 

Regarding the freedom to of association and religion: In 5 states out of Malaysia's 13, apostasy is a criminal offence and is punishable with a fine or a jail sentence... which is in contrast with other Muslim countries that advocate the death penalty but the situation could still prove as a bit of a predicament if one is born into a Muslim home and later in adulthood realizes that Islam is not the right religion for him/her.

 

One state has developed its own unique system of dealing with potential apostates which includes filing an application with the Sharia court to declare apostasy, following which the applicant undergoes a almost one year's worth of counseling with a sheikh or mufti, if the applicant still wishes to convert, then a judge may grant permission to officially convert and change the religious status of applicant's ID card and legal papers.

 

In some states though there is the issue of the Islamic police who patrol the streets and businesses and arrest Muslims who are caught drinking and/or engaging in un-Islamic unions. Although, one might not think this is fair, but I believe the residents of those states have opted for such laws.

[Castro]

It is time to separate religion from brain-dead followers.