Re: Mechanisms for spreading Islam in Quran
Two different things.
I say you should keep religion and state separate in the sense that the state has no right to enforce certain Islamic practices and recommendations. For example, you can mandate Zakat from people. But you cannot mandate a dress code, because everyone has different ideas about what pious dress is and isn't.
Peace PyariCgudia
Actually zakat is not a mandate in Shari'ah. It is an obligation on every legible Muslim to pay on their own accord so hopefully that will surprise you that I have said this. The wave should be that paying zakat should be encouraged and the benefits should be highlighted the same should be the case with hijab. The mandate is jizyah tax.
There should be an ideal dress code but not one that is enforced by law rather it should be one that is delivered by persuasive means.
On one hand you might have someone come in and say only Arab-fashion dresses are permitted, and you'll have many people disagree. On the other hand, you might have someone come and say nudity on beaches is permitted, and again, you'll have lots of people disagree. Moderate laws are needed, and the rest is left up to you. If you want to be a full niqaabi, then fine, no one is stopping you. If you want to do a hijaab or wear a dupatta, no one is stopping you. But dress code should not be a forced thing.
It is actually against the law in many Western countries to be nude in most public areas, following the thread of this argument I would like to believe that Islam has it's limits on acceptability a bit higher than nudity. Let's say for arguments sake that it makes as a limit for men navel and knee to be seen as unlawful and for women shins and shoulders as unlawful then would this be acceptable as a limit that should not be crossed? I think it should start here.
Why? Because even the Quran and Sunnah does not give a perscribed punishment for not covering one's head.
That is true I agree wholeheartedly ... it shoud be totally a thing that based on the condition of society.
Therefore, the state has no right to impose a punishment either. And if there is no punishment, then there is no legal crime by law, and therefore, its a matter between God and a woman.
That is where I cannot agree. The state develops laws as and when necessary. There is no punishment in Islam for litter throwing but in a state it may be necessary to put a small punishment for this act to prevent it. It is the states expert decision that enables the strengthening and weaking of law that is extractable from the Qur'an and Sunnah. It is not a requirement for the punishment to be there in order for the state to have a right to exercise it.
Likewise, things like girls getting education - should be allowed, and PROMOTED. That's not done in countries where you do have Islamic law.
That is another double edged statement. If the countries are not promoting girls to be educated then those countries cannot be implementing Islamic law. Islamic law favours the education of the woman over the man ... did you know that? Obviously not ...
You can go and read the punishment of lashes carried out on a girl in Saudia Arabia who was gang raped. Meanwhile, her rapists have gotten an easy punishment of a few years in jail, when their real Islamic punishment should be death by state.
Their real Islamic punishment should be death? Well at least you know that Saudi therefore are not implementing real Islam ... Good on ya!
Then you wonder why people are suspicious and wary of "Islamic law"?
Yes I do wonder ... when they can easily distinguish themselves about what is "fake" Islamic law and what is "real" Islamic law they still blame the law not the people who implement it ... Of course I wonder why ... No ... actually I don't ... people in their hearts do not want even the "real" Islamic law and they justify their stance by using the "fake" Islamic law to add fuel to their ultra liberal arguments. Hopefully this excludes you sister.
What you've stated is fine. I agree with some or even most of what you've said in your last post, (not everything), and yet, if you take this utopian system, and have jaahils who do not have a good understanding of Islam execute it as a system, it falls to pieces.
That is not a fair assessment because you can take jaahils to implement any system and it will fall to pieces. Look at Pakistan now! Is it not a case of democracy run by jaahils falling to pieces? Islamic Shari'ah is not utopian it is practical the more utopian system is actually democracy.
That's why I think religion, at this point in time in history, is better left at home. Strengthen yourselves as people first, then bring it into a system of law.
To strengthen ourselves as people we need to start from our homes correct? And where did you say religion should be left? At home right? Thus it is truly religion at home that will strengthen us as people at home only then can we take the religion out. I totally agree. Leaving our religions at home while we go out is akin to a knight who goes out to fight without his armour on.
Muslims are not tolerant, they are not peaceful, they can barely obey the laws that are in place, and they can barely execute the laws that are in place.
That is why people like yourself sister need to show that not only are Muslims good at keeping law and being tolerant but we can be better than people of any other following at being law abiding. We need to take society and have it bestow in us the trust that we can lead it. This is the challenge of the positive thinking Muslim today. InshaAllah you are one of them.
What in the WORLD would make you think that these same people would be able to properly and successfully institute Shariah?
Nothing in the world can make me think that these same intolerant people can establish Shari'ah sister that is why my focus is on the educated Muslims and non-Muslims to sell Islam to them. Don't you feel the people who understand Islam better aught to begin to take over ownership of the identity of the Muslim?
You could give them ANY system of law, and they'd mess it up!
quite