I looked it up, and I stand corrected.** But **I will look into this more, and get back to you because to me it doesn't make sense that Muslims that leave Islam should be killed unconditionally.
WaSalaam
hmmm.. let's say if a person commits that crime and he is a muslim. Now, it is outlined in the law [as you suggested] that if one does not want Islamic Punishment, it is allowed. Knowing that he/she is destined to death and the type of crime one has done, from logical & more importantly realistic point of view, what will the person decide?
As for the conditions, yes there are few that I know. First of all, the state has to be Isalmic meaning the total socio-politco-economic structure of the state must be completely based on Islamic guidelines [which no where in the world at this point exists]. And only state can give that punishment. Second, person has to be given chance to come back to Islam and must be asked at least three times.
If they truly believe in Islam, they will accept their punishment. I have seen examples of people commiting a sin and then accepting their punishment in hadith. I will try and give you some examples.
As for the conditions, yes there are few that I know. First of all, the state has to be Isalmic meaning the total socio-politco-economic structure of the state must be completely based on Islamic guidelines [which no where in the world at this point exists]. And only state can give that punishment. Second, person has to be given chance to come back to Islam and must be asked at least three times.
Ahh, I see. That makes more sense to me. Thanks for the clarification.
The question that secularists need to clarify is that if religion is separated from state then on what basis is state policy made. How is the public good determined? How is justice defined? What is the basic philosophy of the state.
For example, now in the West, some people's religious beliefs are not allowed to be enforced. This gets complicated when dealing with issues such as inheritcance and marriage. Moreover, people are free to do things that may affect other people, but are not controlled.
However, I think it could still work in Muslim states. If a Muslim wants to follow Islam, they can, if they don't want to they don't have to. If I commit adultery and want to be stoned to death - fine, if I don't then fine as well. I shouldn't have to follow law against my will.
But I expect that from any inbred hick, BJP or RSS intellectual...
History is witness that Muslims were at the height of their power and achievements when Islam was enforced from the seat of the Khilafat...
But I believe you would not be aware of this fact as it is written in history...And since it is written, it would require an effort on your part to read and become aware of facts...
That alone would leave you in the dark about many aspects...Hence, the result is the bolded statement in your diatribe...
Believe the hype...
More nononsense. I'll grant you Islamic states made progress in many fields many centuries ago. However, one must also recall that in those places where Islam ruled, there were few, if any, non Muslims. Not the case anymore. If The Caliphate was the only caveat, then why no progress in the 19th century?
Second, I am not an Islamophobic. That denotes fear, and I don't have any. Third theocracies are failures. They have no place in modern society.
Yes, the functions of the State are certainly based on many principles beyond religion. But, right, religion is largely an act of faith. I do think that you can enfore a political system to abide by the principles of a religion, sure. But just as in any other basis for a poltical system, not everyone is going to follow it. So yes, in a way, it is impossible to compeltely mandate a religious society but not impossible to enforce it.
Of course, secular is not the same as non-religious. I think what you get in the Islamic world is many people who confuse those two.
Subhanallah!
To me enforcing a secular system is abandoning major part of your religion especially is you are a muslim because we have guidelines which encompass everything sphere of life. For some scenarios we have even laws which would require no change or fiqh to evolve them. Like an argument many non-muslims give is Capital punishment for adultery is too brutal in Islam. It may appear very brutal however the reason for it being such is to deter people from committing adultery. The fear of such a punishment should deter people from indulging in it. Its pretty much like Pakistan's nuclear deterence policy. Pakistan has nuclear weapons to deter India from an attack. The fear of the use of nuclear weapons will deter both countries to go to an all out war. Similar reasons for theft hudood.
Now in the west since they moved away from the Church no matter how screwed up Christian beliefs many of their moral standings have changed. Adultery is no crime and look what it has stemmed into. Their society is all sex oriented. Nothing to deter it exists. If you talk to most average American non-muslims a lot of them will admit adultery is wrong however all they can do to prevent is just talk about it. Nothing to really enforce it as a public wrong. Now another thing is the political system greatly depends on the majority of the population or how it was created. For instance USA was formed by immigrants which is why they could not have gone forward with a Christian political system though Christianity is the major religion here.
Pakistan was formed as an Islamic republic though I Jinnah did not view it this way. Like you said its not impossible to enforce it. However to properly use it is what we have definitely failed at. We have nothing that really upholds our constitutional rights and policies. or in other words Failed State. Secular would be fine if there are equal amounts of diversity in your country. However with a one sided population secularism tends to reform people to actually move away from their beliefs because of the leeways they may be capable of getting.
What I always fail to understand is, if people want a theocracy so badly then why come and live in the "West"? Why live in a secular state where the quran, or bible, or gita, are treated, by law, the same as Harry Potter? Why not live in a theocracy?
This talk of "true rule" does not exist is hog wash. Aren't you more likely to make changes within an Islamic country to bring about the correct theocracy than in the "West"?
Quite simple because there is no theocracy at least not an Islamic one. If there was a modern state with Islamic principles being enforced in it, I would definitely be there. If you can take away the emphasis on sex and flirtation in the west then I think we are much better off here than our own countries.
Obviously there is a disconnect. I think sex is way more emphasised in third world and Islamic countries. From barring women from driving to forcing them to cover up, it's all focus on sex. Moreover, as I said before, aren't you more likely to establish a caliphate in a current, albeit not to your standards, theocracy like Saudi Arabia? There are more likely to be people there that also think a theocracy should be established, afterall they are the ones funding all these religious groups around the world.
So, as you said, why live in decadant west, when you can live in a "true" theocracy?
Ok Islam is not secular and has a complete system for living...Allah didnt send rules to be read but to be implemented...
If when it is implemented you dont like the rules then leave the state...its quite simple...if im a nudist then im not going to appreciate public nudity laws in this country...just cos it doesnt emanate from my belief system doesnt mean im not entitled to punishment if i dont follow rules...Again in my country we cant smoke in public places...Most dont believe in it but its a rule so live with it...
So if you are living somewhere that has rules you dont agree with either live with it or dont go there...I dont see gay pride people marching through Riyadh so use common sense and respect the fact that states have a right to implement rules and as a citizen of the state you are entitled to follow rules just as you do in your own country now...
The only difference here being that one is the Rule of God and the other is the Rule of Man...
Sadiq...
A state needs more than rules to be strong...If you had a state in the countries you stated the West would crush ot overnight...Along with people who desire your way of life you need a country with resources so it can sustain itself independently and to have strong technology and weapons to protect itself from attack and also to have the ability to spread...
NameinUse...
Bro i dont think anyone would suggest making a theocracy in a country which didnt desire it...Khomeinis regime made that mistake by implemeting their form of Islam on people who didnt want Islam at all...Iranians were as Westernised as the West and they liked the values of Mr Pahlavi but Islamists implemented something that was alien to the people...i
If you implement Islam you have to implement it somehwere where the people desire Islam...
Sadiq...
A state needs more than rules to be strong...If you had a state in the countries you stated the West would crush ot overnight...Along with people who desire your way of life you need a country with resources so it can sustain itself independently and to have strong technology and weapons to protect itself from attack and also to have the ability to spread...
I agree, but I was merely stating that it's easier for a Muslim to live there than it is to live in the west if they want to follow all of the religion's laws properly. My parents moved to Canada because work brought us here, but I hope to move back to an Islamic country.
I think people may appreicate the difference more when they make a change between a non Islamic country and an Islamic country. However, I also agree that for some people (that come from opressive families or places with a lot of pressure etc) might find the west better than their Islamic home country.