Indonesia may see more sharia-based laws

[nahtanbob]

Not possible in Indonesia,to big and no homogeneous population.

Won't 80% of population be Javanese Muslim ?

No Islamic law ever held society back. Not a single one.

Has any society prospered because of Islam in recent times ?

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Won't 80% of population be Javanese Muslim ?

That’s where the modern Islamicization is coming from, not Aceh.

Has any society prospered because of Islam in recent times ?

Pre-invasion Iraq, Lebanon, and Libya, pre-coup Iran, pre-Soviet war Pakistan, pre-assassination KSA.

See a trend?

More recently Turkey, KSA, UAE, Qatar, Oman.

 

[313ghazi]

Won't 80% of population be Javanese Muslim ?



Has any society prospered because of Islam in recent times ?

What a stupid question to ask at a time where every single Muslim society has been attacked and destroyed by the west. For over 200 years christendom and its agents have waged war on us and continue to do so today. The steal our wealth, have destroyed our institutions and and have placed tyrants, yes men and broken systems designed to weaken us in thier place.

How can any society flourish under such conditions? I hope you live long enough to see our victory, recovery and the restoration of the glorious Islamic state.

 

[AUz]

SE Asia doesn’t need any country that is run by Mullahs.

Indonesia and Malaysia are already Islamic states with Sharia playing central role in society.

You can cry and bitch about it. Nothing changes. Not only that, the ‘Muslim’ part of Philippines has also gained autonomy to implement Sharia law and its principles after the govt was forced to sign peace agreement with the insurgents.

Islamic Shariah is a GLOBAL culturo-religious legal code that is governing the lives of billions of people across continents. Don’t worry about it....worry about Vietnam.....Southern Vietnam

This is a constant problem with theocracies, so constant that the idea that theocrats will see themselves as above the laws is practically inevitable.

I do not want to be pessimistic but it looks like your country is going to be such a theocracy.

Islamic Republics/States like Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria etc are not “theocracies” as English-speakers understand the word. The European concept of theocracy does not exist in Islam. Islamic statehood is based on rule of (Islamic) law. There’s no “divine” right of religious leadership to rule like it was the case with Church rule in Europe.

Iran might be the closest thing that comes close to European concept of “theorcracy”....but Iran is an anomaly and even Iran is not same as what you’d regard as theocracy.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Islamic Republics/States like Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria etc are not “theocracies” as English-speakers understand the word. The European concept of theocracy does not exist in Islam. Islamic statehood is based on rule of (Islamic) law. There’s no “divine” right of religious leadership to rule like it was the case with Church rule in Europe.

Iran might be the closest thing that comes close to European concept of “theorcracy”....but Iran is an anomaly and even Iran is not same as what you’d regard as theocracy.

 

[T-123456]

Won't 80% of population be Javanese Muslim ?

I dont think so,Java is just one of the many Islands.

For your information, the muslim world was far ahead in everything, from anyone on the planet. Thanks to the sultans and kings that became drunk on power and started doing nonsensical things, is when we declined.

No the Muslim world was not,some Muslims(not only Muslims) were ahead under Ottoman rule,most of the Muslim world was behind.

 

[Beast]

Has Indonesia recently sentenced a Chinese descent major to jail for blasphemy? It seems the country is getting more radical with a nationalist religious populist government. Who knows it may rename to Islam Republic of Indonesia. But hey I think China is on the same path. You live in a country with increasing fanatic driven population.

Really, not as fanatic as Vietnamese driven by nationalistic citizen who think Vietnam is world number one that starts spewing nonsnese like chopstick is Vietnam invention or making 100 lies of China. I guess this is what Vietnamese school teaches u all. ill upbringing will bring sick people.

At least Chinese being nationalistic is for a reason. We can have proud project of lunar Chang e 4 mission or world leading artificial sun project. Vietnam? Nothing to be proud off and can start bragging about world leading. I will jump off and killed myself if I am born Vietnamese or convert myself to PRC citizen.

 

[gambit]

Islamic Republics/States like Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria etc are not “theocracies” as English-speakers understand the word. The European concept of theocracy does not exist in Islam. Islamic statehood is based on rule of (Islamic) law. There’s no “divine” right of religious leadership to rule like it was the case with Church rule in Europe.

Oh...Pleeeeze...

Yes, the sarcasm was intended for that one.

Take celebrity worship, for a moment. Why do we follow certain individuals? The accomplish great things, for one reason, right? Einstein had his groupies, just like Eric Clapton whose followers declared him 'God'. Am an Air Force guy, so Robin Olds is one figure I admire. An Army guy will go after Patton or Napoleon. Am sure you get the picture.

But it is not enough to simply follow a figure, we ALWAYS claim -- or at least try -- to have some kind of association with that figure. Robin Olds is Air Force, so am I. The USAF is the link between Olds and all who served in the USAF. Obviously, I cannot claim a blood or marriage tie with Olds, only his family members can. But the USAF is a link, nevertheless, even if it is just an philosophical link between Olds and me.

Muslims are no different.

In Shia Islam, those who wears black turbans claimed to have DIRECT descendency from the Prophet Mohammad, which somehow implies a higher status among Muslims. Why does the distinction matters? Albert Einstein's children did not really distinguish themselves, so what make the descendants of Mohammad significant to the point that each man makes it clear to other Muslims by way of a black turban?

Claiming some kind of link automatically implies authority about a particular subject. I can talk with some authority about the USAF and Robin Olds but not about the US Army and George Patton and his tanks. As a Jesuit educated Catholic, even a lapsed one, I can speak with some authority about Catholicism but not about Buddhism. The Jesuits are considered the 'intellectual commandos' of the Church, by the way.

So when a Shia Muslim displays a black turban, he is, at the very least, claimed elevated status in terms of education and wisdom regarding Islam. You say that there is no concept of a 'divine right of leadership' in Islam. I call BS on that. If the right is not of divine origin, then it is of (claimed) birth. It is human nature to make oneself stand apart from the ordinary even when one is supposed to be humble in character.

Pragmatically, a theocracy does not require a claim of 'divine right' to govern in order to make the country a FUNCTIONAL theocracy. I will concede that the Western countries came from theocracies or highly theocratic foundations, but with the exception of the Vatican City, no Western country is as FUNCTIONALLY religious in character as the Muslim countries.

 

[313ghazi]

Oh...Pleeeeze...

Yes, the sarcasm was intended for that one.

Take celebrity worship, for a moment. Why do we follow certain individuals? The accomplish great things, for one reason, right? Einstein had his groupies, just like Eric Clapton whose followers declared him 'God'. Am an Air Force guy, so Robin Olds is one figure I admire. An Army guy will go after Patton or Napoleon. Am sure you get the picture.

But it is not enough to simply follow a figure, we ALWAYS claim -- or at least try -- to have some kind of association with that figure. Robin Olds is Air Force, so am I. The USAF is the link between Olds and all who served in the USAF. Obviously, I cannot claim a blood or marriage tie with Olds, only his family members can. But the USAF is a link, nevertheless, even if it is just an philosophical link between Olds and me.

Muslims are no different.

In Shia Islam, those who wears black turbans claimed to have DIRECT descendency from the Prophet Mohammad, which somehow implies a higher status among Muslims. Why does the distinction matters? Albert Einstein's children did not really distinguish themselves, so what make the descendants of Mohammad significant to the point that each man makes it clear to other Muslims by way of a black turban?

Claiming some kind of link automatically implies authority about a particular subject. I can talk with some authority about the USAF and Robin Olds but not about the US Army and George Patton and his tanks. As a Jesuit educated Catholic, even a lapsed one, I can speak with some authority about Catholicism but not about Buddhism. The Jesuits are considered the 'intellectual commandos' of the Church, by the way.

So when a Shia Muslim displays a black turban, he is, at the very least, claimed elevated status in terms of education and wisdom regarding Islam. You say that there is no concept of a 'divine right of leadership' in Islam. I call BS on that. If the right is not of divine origin, then it is of (claimed) birth. It is human nature to make oneself stand apart from the ordinary even when one is supposed to be humble in character.

Pragmatically, a theocracy does not require a claim of 'divine right' to govern in order to make the country a FUNCTIONAL theocracy. I will concede that the Western countries came from theocracies or highly theocratic foundations, but with the exception of the Vatican City, no Western country is as FUNCTIONALLY religious in character as the Muslim countries.

So what?

1. Shia are a small minority in Islam
2. Nobody claims divinity through bloodline or a right to rule.

It should come of no surprise that someone of European descent would attribute no value to knowing thier own bloodline and ancestry.

 

[hussain0216]

This is the biggest problem with Islam that it is not just enough for the Muslim population to willingly abide by its religious practice, but rather seek to implement its religious law onto the entire population.

If its our country we can do what we like and force whst we like

How would you like people to stop chinese forcing communism on people within china

 

[gambit]

So what?

1. Shia are a small minority in Islam
2. Nobody claims divinity through bloodline or a right to rule.

My point is not about whether there is such a claim or no claim. My point is that human nature ALWAYS trumps religious philosophies and commandments even when supposedly came from the divine. If tacit approval is not there, then why the distinction between those who descended from Mohammad, even when that group is a minority? Iran is not a minority country, geographically and geopolitically. Do Shias care if Sunnis takes the black turban distinction seriously? No, the Shias do not care. To them, that distinction is important and important enough that every Shia tries to claim that distinction.

A theocracy cannot exist unless a figure or a group is successful in claiming some level of superior understanding of religious philosophies and principles, then successfully convince enough people to enact LEGAL institutions and non-legal customs that enforces those religious principles.

There is a difference between 'non-legality' and 'illegality'. The latter came from legal edicts and enforcement. My sister-in-law is a Puerto Rican Catholic and she crosses herself whenever she passes a cemetery or graveyard. There is no secular or Church commandment to do this. Her gesture is non-legal or personally customary. Excommunication is non-legal. The secular US government does not care if a person is expelled from the Amish or the Mormon community for whatever reason.

If caning -- a punishment -- is non-legal or customary, then there is no theocracy. But if the government recognizes that form of religiously based punishment, then there is a theocracy.

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

I dont think so,Java is just one of the many Islands.


No the Muslim world was not,some Muslims(not only Muslims) were ahead under Ottoman rule,most of the Muslim world was behind.

I'm talking before the ottomans. The ottomans were the ones that ended up destroying the muslim world, with their lust for materialism

 

[Nein]

I'm talking before the ottomans. The ottomans were the ones that ended up destroying the muslim world, with their lust for materialism

Why just the Ottomans?? So many Islamic Empires have destroyed the Islamic world due to their lust and corruption.

I hope the implementation of Sharia will drive a wedge to the Extremist Fanatics and the Khawarij terrorists this will allow their support to dry up and become irrelevant.

Then again even if Sharia is implemented the Terrorists will find some dumb excuse to make takfir.

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

Why just the Ottomans?? So many Islamic Empires have destroyed the Islamic world due to their lust and corruption.

They start of with a good intention and end up having rulers that are far from being Muslim. That is what destroys them in the end.

Why just the Ottomans?? So many Islamic Empires have destroyed the Islamic world due to their lust and corruption.

I hope the implementation of Sharia will drive a wedge to the Extremist Fanatics and the Khawarij terrorists this will allow their support to dry up and become irrelevant.

Then again even if Sharia is implemented the Terrorists will find some dumb excuse to make takfir.

Terrorists are terrorists, all they do is terrorize. They need no excuse for that, and they are against every religion on this planet

 

[313ghazi]

My point is not about whether there is such a claim or no claim. My point is that human nature ALWAYS trumps religious philosophies and commandments even when supposedly came from the divine. If tacit approval is not there, then why the distinction between those who descended from Mohammad, even when that group is a minority? Iran is not a minority country, geographically and geopolitically. Do Shias care if Sunnis takes the black turban distinction seriously? No, the Shias do not care. To them, that distinction is important and important enough that every Shia tries to claim that distinction.

A theocracy cannot exist unless a figure or a group is successful in claiming some level of superior understanding of religious philosophies and principles, then successfully convince enough people to enact LEGAL institutions and non-legal customs that enforces those religious principles.

There is a difference between 'non-legality' and 'illegality'. The latter came from legal edicts and enforcement. My sister-in-law is a Puerto Rican Catholic and she crosses herself whenever she passes a cemetery or graveyard. There is no secular or Church commandment to do this. Her gesture is non-legal or personally customary. Excommunication is non-legal. The secular US government does not care if a person is expelled from the Amish or the Mormon community for whatever reason.

If caning -- a punishment -- is non-legal or customary, then there is no theocracy. But if the government recognizes that form of religiously based punishment, then there is a theocracy.

First and foremost I'm not bothered by how an Islamic state is categorised according to Western values. What a theocracy is and whether you think it good or bad - really doesn't matter.

In an Islamic state, the head of the state is the caliph, the caliph is required amongst many things to have an adequate understanding of Islam and shariah, but ultimately he is not "better than anyone else". The definition of laws is in the hand of the judiciary and the legal community (which in an Islamic system requires them to be subject matter experts in Islam) but at no point are these people or the caliph "holier than anyone else.