What's new

Wanted: a strong liberal voice

Status
Not open for further replies.
one cannot separate state and church

And why not? Remember not to see things as black and white. Everything is a different shade of grey.
Politicising Islam for whatever reason is wrong, religion should be between a man and his God, not the state.
 
.
Meray bhai I have read Islamic history in detail .. I know very well what I am talking about .. So please prove me wrong .. I am waiting ...

The only thing you're liberal at is applying liberal amounts of makhan to your makaiii diii rotiii ! :bunny:
 
.
Tell me about the Abbasids and the Mutazilites, as the first example I gave you

And then please tell me about the Zaydi Imamate in Yemen, for 1000 years

[ in sha Allah, dozens of more examples are waiting for you ]

wa bilAllahi tawfiq

Inshallah/Mashallah etc. does not make your case stronger !!

Islam made max progress under (so called)secular and tyrant kings (First Ummayads then Abbasids) , this is a historical fact ...

The concept of Islamic state cannot be traced to Qur'an or Sunnah as no such concept existed in those days ...

In fact right in the beginning of Islam there was no political theory. There was no concept of state in the Qur'an or in the hadith literature. The very concept of state did not exist among the Arabs. It is tribal chiefs who took all decisions in Mecca through a tribal council called mala'. There were no state institutions like the police or army even after the Prophet of Islam established a political unit in Madinah. It would be difficult to describe it as a full-fledged 'Islamic State'. Everyone worked voluntarily inspired by moral and spiritual teachings of Islam and under the direct guidance of the Holy Prophet.

There were no defined functions nor there were state functionaries maintained by the state funds. All these functions were purely morally inspired and only reward expected was in akhirah i.e. the Hereafter. If one fought against the enemies it was also voluntary courting martyrdom for a moral cause and, if won, could get a share in the defeated enemy property as per the well- established tribal practice.

Similarly, for internal law and order or security there was no police or para- military force. Even the offenders tended to treat their offence as offence against Islamic morality rather than against the state and more often than not, they voluntarily presented themselves for punishment so that they are not punished in the Hereafter by Allah. Obviously such a moral dispensation cannot qualify as a state. It was moral rather than political community.

Since we cannot call it a state it cannot qualify for a term like the Islamic state. This term will not be found even during the Umayyad or Abbasid period. The Umayyad or Abbasid political establishments were known as Caliphate rather than Islamic State. The terms like the Islamic State or Islamic nation are modern day terms. The word khilafat also does not connote any concept of state but of succession to the Prophet.

The mode of succession also was full of controversy. There was no unanimity among Muslims as to who or how one would succeed to the Prophet, through nomination or election? It was this question which brought about formal split among the Muslims. Those who are known as Sunnis maintained that succession should be through bay'ah (pledge of loyalty) of the believers and those called Shi'ahs maintaining that the Prophet (PBUH) had nominated his successor ..

The Caliph was treated as the supreme leader of Muslims who led them in religious as well as worldly matters. Again, he was more of a religious and moral leader than a political one. His primary duty was to guide the believers in the light of the Qur'an and Sunnah and by evolving ijma' (consensus) among them on controversial matters. The khilafat did have well defined concept of functions, rights and duties. The whole discourse was a moral and not a political discourse. The word siyasah also came into existence much later and was derived from the function of tending and controlling horse. A ruler was also thought of tending and controlling people. There was no such division as the state and civil society.

The concept of civil society is also a modern concept when people got civic rights and the whole political discourse became discourse of rights, not of duties. Those who propound the theory of Islamic state lay stress mainly on duties of believers, not of their rights. One cannot think of modern state without the concept of rights. In the theory of Islamic state the whole discourse - whether it pertains to the rulers or to the people - is a moral discourse and in terms of duties.

The only thing you're liberal at is applying liberal amounts of makhan to your makaiii diii rotiii ! :bunny:

Kiya matlab bhai ?
 
Last edited:
. . .
And why not? Remember not to see things as black and white. Everything is a different shade of grey.
Politicising Islam for whatever reason is wrong, religion should be between a man and his God, not the state.

You don't give any reasons for "wrong". And Political Islam is a false term made to scare monger, a horrible term.

Inshallah/Mashallah etc. does not make your case stronger !!

Islam made max progress under (so called)secular and tyrant kings (First Ummayads then Abbasids) , this is a historical fact ...

The concept of Islamic state cannot be traced to Qur'an or Sunnah as no such concept existed in those days ...

In fact right in the beginning of Islam there was no political theory. There was no concept of state in the Qur'an or in the hadith literature. The very concept of state did not exist among the Arabs. It is tribal chiefs who took all decisions in Mecca through a tribal council called mala'. There were no state institutions like the police or army even after the Prophet of Islam established a political unit in Madinah. It would be difficult to describe it as a full-fledged 'Islamic State'. Everyone worked voluntarily inspired by moral and spiritual teachings of Islam and under the direct guidance of the Holy Prophet.

There were no defined functions nor there were state functionaries maintained by the state funds. All these functions were purely morally inspired and only reward expected was in akhirah i.e. the Hereafter. If one fought against the enemies it was also voluntary courting martyrdom for a moral cause and, if won, could get a share in the defeated enemy property as per the well- established tribal practice.

Similarly, for internal law and order or security there was no police or para- military force. Even the offenders tended to treat their offence as offence against Islamic morality rather than against the state and more often than not, they voluntarily presented themselves for punishment so that they are not punished in the Hereafter by Allah. Obviously such a moral dispensation cannot qualify as a state. It was moral rather than political community.

Since we cannot call it a state it cannot qualify for a term like the Islamic state. This term will not be found even during the Umayyad or Abbasid period. The Umayyad or Abbasid political establishments were known as Caliphate rather than Islamic State. The terms like the Islamic State or Islamic nation are modern day terms. The word khilafat also does not connote any concept of state but of succession to the Prophet.

The mode of succession also was full of controversy. There was no unanimity among Muslims as to who or how one would succeed to the Prophet, through nomination or election? It was this question which brought about formal split among the Muslims. Those who are known as Sunnis maintained that succession should be through bay'ah (pledge of loyalty) of the believers and those called Shi'ahs maintaining that the Prophet (PBUH) had nominated his successor ..

The Caliph was treated as the supreme leader of Muslims who led them in religious as well as worldly matters. Again, he was more of a religious and moral leader than a political one. His primary duty was to guide the believers in the light of the Qur'an and Sunnah and by evolving ijma' (consensus) among them on controversial matters. The khilafat did have well defined concept of functions, rights and duties. The whole discourse was a moral and not a political discourse. The word siyasah also came into existence much later and was derived from the function of tending and controlling horse. A ruler was also thought of tending and controlling people. There was no such division as the state and civil society.

The concept of civil society is also a modern concept when people got civic rights and the whole political discourse became discourse of rights, not of duties. Those who propound the theory of Islamic state lay stress mainly on duties of believers, not of their rights. One cannot think of modern state without the concept of rights. In the theory of Islamic state the whole discourse - whether it pertains to the rulers or to the people - is a moral discourse and in terms of duties.



Kiya matlab bhai ?

you evaded the examples again!
 
. . .
You don't give any reasons for "wrong". And Political Islam is a false term made to scare monger, a horrible term.

Why would I give reasons??

You were the one who said that state and church can't be separated. Please explain. Your notion, not mine, the burden of argument is yours, not mine.

And political Islam is different from 'politicized Islam'. I'm not scare mongering at all, politicians/clergy have all used Islam for their political game and it's sickening. It's extremely sad.

It has tarnished the image of Islam throughout the world, and it has led to Muslim lands being torn up, an all you can eat buffet for global players. All thanks to those people who divide us on religious lines, make us fight amongst ourselves, or those TTP for example who regard us as non-believers and blow us up at every given opportunity, or those clerics who say that our army's fallen are not shaheed, or those that say that age restricting marriage laws are unIslamic.
 
.
Deen comes from both Quran and sunnah lady Quran tell to offer Salah and pay zakat and all other orders it's hades which tells you how to do that and that revelation is for both Quran and sun nah and tell me method off salah only from Quran
Ok listen up and listen carefully...I say get your basics right...I never said where you need to get them from ...

I also said fix you basics then go to higher parts like talaq and what not....

Dont try to be holier than the prophet! There were things Prophet did because he was a prophet why make life miserable? Allah said that the deen is simple and easy...so who are you to make it complex? The Muslims of today sound just like the Bani Israel in Surah Baqarah where they were asked to get a cattle and sacrifice it...but they wanted to show off how smart they are and questioned what kind of cattle, how old, and so on....

You people know not the differences between Wajib, Sunnah and Nafl and you go digging hadith to prove this and that! Get the basics right first which is pray! How to pray ....But you people want to include every Sunnah as faradh classifying them at will that Zohor doesnt only contain 4 faradh but this many Sunnah and Nafl bhi parnay cha hiyea warna namaz nai hoti ....this is what I am saying this is what I am pointing at which makes people confuse! And since you are damn confused yourself you never got any of my point but just copied and pasted from the Quran blindly...

Sunnah means Sunnah Prophet did that is why it is called Sunnah and not Faradh or Wajib! Learn this basics first before digging and going through Hadith! You people dont even read the basics and bounce into Hadith and get others confused!

@Azlan Haider If you have failed to read the topic at hand please dont state what you think it is....
I am trying to show him just how confused some people who blindly follow hadith are now if I cant quote the hadith and Quran how the hell can I show him? So before crying out to admin take the time to read what I am doing before calling it what you wanna call it!

How can you justify this to the "Islamic" group?
Islamic group? Well it depends which group how you bring the problem and finally how much knowledge they have regarding Islam itself and the word secular which has evolved mind you from its original form (when it was introduced)
 
.
you evaded the examples again!

Because your examples are irrelevant , there is no concept of an "Islamic state" in Quran/Sunnah/early Islamic history .. hence your assertion that religion was a inseparable part of Islamic state throughout history is incorrect ..

@Azlan Haider If you have failed to read the topic at hand please dont state what you think it is....
I am trying to show him just how confused some people who blindly follow hadith are now if I cant quote the hadith and Quran how the hell can I show him? So before crying out to admin take the time to read what I am doing before calling it what you wanna call it!
Certain mods are not happy with religious discussions . So they say that instead of replying to any of Zarvan`s religious posts , you should report it .. and that is what I am doing !! And yes I have read your posts , don`t cast your pearls before swine .. that`s all I can say ..
 
. .
Certain mods are not happy with religious discussions . So they say that instead of replying to any of Zarvan`s religious posts , you should report it .. and that is what I am doing !! And yes I have read your posts , don`t cast your pearls before swine .. that`s all I can say ..
From the bible? would you care to elaborate for what and why did you use this phrase?
 
. . .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom