This is a discussion that “we” were having. Religion and politics…how far is it possible to seperate the two, and should we? Or are there certain circumstances under which a deep integration of both is the way to go?
Personally I belive that the only way forward is to limit religion to the home and to seperate it from the state completely.
separation of church and state - nonexistent as far as I'm concerned...its like saying there is only good...whereas we all know bad must be there as well.
just my opinion.
Re: Religion and politics
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hiccup: *
This is a discussion that "we" were having. Religion and politics.....how far is it possible to seperate the two, and should we? Or are there certain circumstances under which a deep integration of both is the way to go?
Personally I belive that the only way forward is to limit religion to the home and to seperate it from the state completely.
[/QUOTE]
rightly said dude...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Munni: *
separation of church and state - nonexistent as far as I'm concerned...its like saying there is only good...whereas we all know bad must be there as well.
just my opinion.
[/QUOTE]
thanks shaiwaz but I would love to hear your reasons why you agree too :)
Munni, although it is non existant at the moment, my question is merely theoretical, should this be the case, so far as I have seen religion (in a multicultural society) does nothing but cause friction. As one group of peoples whom the laws of the country represent feel morally superior to the rest, who are (presumably) minorities.
Of course in the USA you are as far away from this as can be imagined in a Islamic state, but I am asking would this not be the way to go in the future?
Re: Religion and politics
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hiccup: *
This is a discussion that "we" were having. Religion and politics.....how far is it possible to seperate the two, and should we? Or are there certain circumstances under which a deep integration of both is the way to go?
Personally I belive that the only way forward is to limit religion to the home and to seperate it from the state completely.
[/QUOTE]
I would disagree. What do you do when the religion that is followed very clearly lays out instructions for how a state shoudl be run, and the principles by which a state should take its actions?
Such as a religion that states that no man-made law can over-rule a divine law?
Do you feel that a religion should be followed only in part, if the religion in incompatible with the separation of religion and politics?
If you look at the world today it is the SEcular capitalist man made laws that cause all the wars and chaos!
WOrld War I and II was man made
Vietnam
Korean
Gulf War I and II
Cold War just to name a few
How many millions and millions of deaths have been as a result of these secular extremists policy and actions around the world!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hiccup: *
thanks shaiwaz but I would love to hear your reasons why you agree too :)
Munni, although it is non existant at the moment, my question is merely theoretical, should this be the case, so far as I have seen religion (in a multicultural society) does nothing but cause friction. As one group of peoples whom the laws of the country represent feel morally superior to the rest, who are (presumably) minorities.
Of course in the USA you are as far away from this as can be imagined in a Islamic state, but I am asking would this not be the way to go in the future?
[/QUOTE]
to me the question is not legitimate (its not u, its the question), therefore i have no answer for it.
Like Allama Iqbal said:
Juda ho siasat se deen
Tu rah jati hai changaizee
Islam is the life style every human should adopt. It guides you in every aspect of life, now how will you seperate it from government. You simply cannot.
the way i see it is that Islam shouldnt be viewed as a manuscript for governance..it should be viewed as a scale to measure things by. Systems of governance can be Islamic or unislamic in light of the Quran and Islamic tradition..but..Islam does not prescribe one particular form of government.
Yes we're told that the state will collect taxes..but are we told if parliamentary style democracy is better or local representatives forming a majlis-e-shura?
our prophet's twelve years were not a struggle to acquire power (if you disagree with this your arguments hold no relevance here), nor were all his efforts directed towards the formation of an islamic state. no, his emphasis was on spreading Islam, wars were either defensive, or they were carried out to remove hindrances in the way of Islam.
Islam did not radically alter the way government was carried out in pre-Islamic times. It changed things subtly, where they were needed. Does this mean that pre-Islamic arab system of government...or at best post-islamic arab system of government is the best for all cultures, over all time? i highly doubt it.
the representatives of muslims chosen by the prophet and those who came after him were not chosen on the basis of their virtue. they were chosen on the basis of their qualifications, on their capability.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
If you look at the world today it is the SEcular capitalist man made laws that cause all the wars and chaos!
WOrld War I and II was man made
Vietnam
Korean
Gulf War I and II
Cold War just to name a few
How many millions and millions of deaths have been as a result of these secular extremists policy and actions around the world!
[/QUOTE]
And the Afghanistan war - a religious war.
Extreme example of failure of religion in politics.
From small city states to bigger religious states, to feudal monarchy and after industrial revolution, democracy is the latest advanced stage of governing.
The next step is transparent democracy, has already started in some of western countries.
Politics is a purified form trading and nothing else. Only idiots stop trading on religious grounds and off course the present world setup has some 56 such states.
(And dear AK47, pls explain the Iran-Iraq war or Pak-Bangla conflict, because on both the sides 'jihad' was proclaimed. Were these wars God made?)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
And the Afghanistan war - a religious war.
Extreme example of failure of religion in politics.
[/QUOTE]
Afghanistan religious war which religion was fighting which!
I think you find Afghanistan fight communists (athiests) in 80's and recently it has been warlords fighting warlords over power and territory not religion!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by yahudi: *
(And dear AK47, pls explain the Iran-Iraq war or Pak-Bangla conflict, because on both the sides 'jihad' was proclaimed. Were these wars God made?)
[/QUOTE]
If you want to compare World War I and World War II to pak vs bangledesh conflict then you are comparing a mountain to a small stone!
That was ethnic war based on nationalism they both muslims so i don't understand how that was based on islam.
Iran vs Iraq was created by america whole world knows that and both countries was silly to fall into trap. they both wanted to be superpower in region and they ended up wasting a decade killing each other for nothing.
^ the point is that religion is not a unifier as you fundos make it out to be. Cultural, ethnic and other affinities are a lot stronger than religion. SO all this these cries about the ummah and khilafah are loony premises.
i think, theoretically, religion among others is a way of controlling a state. And it is also meant for that. However, if in practice this doesn't seem to be the case then it's not cuz the religion is bad per se, but moreover that the way religion is conducted is wrong.
So, if u look at Islamic states today, we can conclude that their way of conducting religion is wrong because they're not controlling the state as it ought to be. According to me, if they conducted religion in the right way then there wouldn't be any problem with using religion as a way of controlling the state.
All the crys and slanders of the fanatical secualrists like yourselves cannot hide the fact secularism and capitalism have caused the most amount of destruction and killings in just the past 100 years!
WWI & WWII, Veitnam, gulf War I & II = millions of deaths because of the clever secular extremists and there greedy policies!
remeber your last quote on a great unifier NOT!
refuting ideas takes bit more work than shouting terrorist and fundo.
try harder next time!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
Afghanistan religious war which religion was fighting which!
I think you find Afghanistan fight communists (athiests) in 80's and recently it has been warlords fighting warlords over power and territory not religion!
[/QUOTE]
Afghan religious war - religion islam fought with western religions. They consider western world as anti islamic. so they fought. You can also analyze it oppositlly. You can say west did not liked islamic fundamentalist government there. In this angle also it is a religious war.
Wars with communism also appear to be religious in nature for communists preach communism just like a religion. It can be considered as a "secular religion". Therfore more wars are religious in nature.
Yes so many wars are capitilists in nature. Seek to capture more and more resources and land. Both religious and capitilist wars must be condemned. Capitilist wars should be controlled by adopting and acquiring at least minimum deterent defence equipment because I do not think any other method exists to avoid the capitilists wars. You have to rescue your land and resources by yourself. Infact capitilist war is difficult to avoid. But to avoid religious war is a simple matter. Just keep religion and politics separate.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *
i think, theoretically, religion among others is a way of controlling a state. And it is also meant for that. However, if in practice this doesn't seem to be the case then it's not cuz the religion is bad per se, but moreover that the way religion is conducted is wrong.
So, if u look at Islamic states today, we can conclude that their way of conducting religion is wrong because they're not controlling the state as it ought to be. According to me, if they conducted religion in the right way then there wouldn't be any problem with using religion as a way of controlling the state.
[/QUOTE]
Using religion as a tool to control the state had been important in history and is an important stage and step in the evolution of human civilization. But now human civilization has been developed. Now other more powerful tools are available to control the state. There is no need of religion to control the state, especially in a democratic state. It however can be manupulated by a dictator state as General Zia did in Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
Wars with communism also appear to be religious in nature for communists preach communism just like a religion. It can be considered as a "secular religion". Therfore more wars are religious in nature.
Infact capitilist war is difficult to avoid. But to avoid religious war is a simple matter. Just keep religion and politics separate.
[/QUOTE]
Basic
I don't where you get your analogies from communism is or appears to be religous?
communism is athiesm non religious they say god does not exist.
Capitalist wars are difficult to avoid but religious wars are easy to avoid?
Keep Religion an Politics seperate?
Islam is political it cannot be avoided to take politics out of islam then you abandon 99% of islam and that is not gonna happen.
Capitalist is pure 100% greed and does'nt matter what happens to the people as long as the rich is satisfied then it is all good. Islam on other hand insist all people regardless of status is given basic food clothing and shelter.