[quote]
Originally posted by Pristine:
*He did send armies to defeat and kill Musailma Kazab and his followers. *
[/quote]
When Musailma Kazab was killed during the battle, his forces surrendered. Muslims didn't butcher 40,000 of his men.
I have yet to read a history where it says all those who surrendered, converted to Islam right there, right then on the battlefield.
Hazrat Abu Bakar send forces to go to war with him, you will need to show me his orders where "killing" Musailma was issued.
Thus, if he had surrendered, he would have been pardoned also!
Musailma was not alone; there was a whole row of false prophets during that era. Why not list them all down & go by the list one by one? See how Hazrat Abu Bakar (razi allaho tala anho) treated them. :)
Gentlemen, the question was "Does a state have the right to define a religion and demand its adherents to follow this definition or else suffer legal action and persecution" This is a socio-political question, but as usual, we are trying to answer it by looking for guidance from the behaviour of people in Saudi Arabia, a thousand years ago. To me this is not a religious question.
Faceup, put the question more clearly as "Finally, this Question for you noble Guppies: Is there any Muslim country that can guarantee & then ENFORCE the safety & full liberties to its non muslims or even muslim minorities? "
I would change that quote as follows:
"Can a country with laws based on a particular strict religious doctrine, guarantee & then ENFORCE the safety & full liberties to all its citizens equally and fairly, even to the non adherents of the official religious code."
We can use Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Israel as examples. I havent lived in these countries and so I cannot grade them in this respect.
As a non practicioner of any religious faith, I have one observation to make about muslims. We have a very difficult time separating religion and politics. we talk a lot about equality and liberty and compassion in Islam, but find it impossible to apply in civil life.
In many Gupshup threads I have noticed this difficulty. We can only grant civil liberties to non muslims and muslims of a different persuasion, to the extent as defined by our own individual interpretation of the religious texts.
For example in one discussion, Jazia Tax( a clear act of civil discrimination) was defended vehemently as a great thing for the safety and protection of the non muslims."
Then similarly, the poor treatment of Ahmedis in Pakistan was defended by stating that they are breaking the laws of the land, by calling themself muslims and their place of worship a mosque.
And these people were enjoying the full religious liberties living in the west.
Thait is why I asked the question"
How do thoughtful muslims deal with this intellectual conflict. Especially when they have experienced religious freedom in the west.
[This message has been edited by Tanhaa (edited November 20, 2001).]
This question is strictly about muslims, and not about christians and jews and so on. And this is largely a theoretical question at this point. Since its specifically about islam and not about any other religion, so its answer is to be limited to islamic jurisprudence. Whether some of you feel the laws of islam are archaic and out-dated, is irrelevant. You can open another thread and vent all about islamic laws, but for the purpose of this discussion, the focus is on the theoretical question... can a muslim state interfere in the right of a person to call him/herself as a muslim?
I have read it a number of times on this forum and elsewhere, that no one has a right to stop a person from practicing his faith. I have also read a number of times, that a person's faith is between him/her and his/her God. I have also read that if a person wishes to call himself a muslim, no one should interfere in this right. Really?
This is the crux of the matter. Why interfere in someone else's faith? Yes, there were a long list of fake prophets after the passing away of the Prophet (SAWW). Did muslims accept them? Did they allowed them to continue in their mission and call themselves as muslims? Or did they made war with them? If those groups were allowed to grow, where are there folowers now? Musailma had perhaps the biggest following. He was killed in the battle. Islamic state declared war on him. Why?
Why does the state of Islam interfere in the faith of a person? Why go to battle with them and prosecute them? Killing them per se is not the issue, but rather not accepting them as muslims is the main question.
So far it has been ,b/c many theocratic states Saudi,Israel ,Iran.Pakistan etc exist
If theocratic state are allowed, recognizd to exist then it becomes domain of that particular religion how it governs.Different religion differ vasdtly & it is accepted what may be legal in Israel can be illegal in Saudi.
PPl.may agree or disagree but ultimately the ppl.of the country determine what type of govt they want for themselves.
Islam as with all religion has some obligations & priveleges built in its adherents.Sometime in order to level the grounds ,the adherents have to be ‘compensated’ for sacrifices of call to duty of protection of the faith as when non adherent are exempted from it ,just by declaring himself non adherent.
so may be true for zakat,obligations of 5 pillars of islam .In islam religion isnt confined"between me & my god"meditation like spirituality but rather internal AS WELL AS EXTERNAL VISIBLE PHYSICAL COMPONENTS e.g. our prayer consist of series of elaborate choreographical motions of namaz which very few religions have it .There is compulsion of following islamic jurisprudence in matters of marriage,divorce,inheritence,custody ,iddat ,etc etc.May be other religions dont have obligations therefore no need to be compensated to be equal ,but certainly ,in a Islamic state where majority are muslims ,laws cannot be skewed to make the adherent at a disadvantage thereby encouraging irreligousness or opting to other faith just to make life more comfortable .Iam against luring into the faith at the same time im against PUSHING muslim out of faith too due harder life for them in there own country .
So we first agree that Islamic or theocratic is a legitimate state at present or as long as Israel is .
If theocratic state wont govern by theocracy what should it govern by ?
If certain privileges or obligation are due virtue of being so & so religion ,it is judicial duty to HAVE A LEGALLY BINDING DEFENITION OF EVERYTHING INCLUDING hindu ,muslim,christian ,jew, or buddhist ,or subsect of these major religions.
I wish there were no theocratic state in the world ,but as long as ISRAEL continue to discriminate everyone else being the NON CHOSEN RACE BY GOD ,the ripple effect is unlimited.
barque(bijli) yoon akadti hai apne karname pe ke
jaise phir naya hum aashiyaan bana nahi sakte
[This message has been edited by Azad Munna (edited November 26, 2001).]
So Azad Munna... based on all those arguments... do you say "yes"?
ps. I know it was kinda hard to follow your whole argument, but I guess your second-to-last sentence wraps it up ("If certain privileges or obligation are due virtue of being so & so religion ,it is judicial duty to HAVE A LEGALLY BINDING DEFENITION OF EVERYTHING INCLUDING hindu ,muslim,christian ,jew, or buddhist ,or subsect of these major religions.").