Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
YaHujja

Separation of Church and State

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Assalamu Alaykum,

In modern day, western societies, do you support separation of church and state? Do you find Religion to be crucial to an ethically and morally healthy society?

Thank You.

Wassalams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest faithful8876_

(bismillah)

If we all followed religion the way it actually is, then I would say yes, 100% religion should mix with politics, but unfortunately throughout history we have seen how power leads to corruption, even with 'religious' people.

Still, I voted against the seperation of Church and State because as a Muslim I think Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life. You can't ignore it in some aspects and pay attention to it in other aspects, it's a whole package.

fee iman illah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

And to my Beloved Brothers and most Honoured and Respect Sisters in Islam

(salam)

The people of Medina were rubbing the flowers on date palms against each other to increase the yield. When people of Medina to know if this practice was interference into the act of God approached prophet, Prophet asked them to carry on their worldly affairs in the light of their experience. This instance demonstrates the area where spiritual needs to yield to temporal. Islam as a true religion did not lay any constraint on intellectual freedom since the very beginning. At the same time it does not tolerate disruption of harmony by irresponsible exercise of this freedom. The protagonist of separation of church and state want to curb the right of religion and relegate it to one of sermonizing so that they can usurp absolute power to corrupt the society. Any attempt by religion to correct this mess is dubbed by them as fundamentalism and incursion of church on the right of state. This doctrine of separation of church and state was a reaction against the cruel hold of the medieval church, and is not applicable to Islam, which blends both the church and state in great harmony.

And may Allah (SWT) hasten the reappearance of A'li Muhammad (pbuh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asalamu alaikum,

i really think this is an interesting topic but one that is difficult to address or disect in western society. if i lived in a muslim country (meaning one that is predominantly inhabited by a Muslim population....) i would be very much against seperation of 'church' and state, of course, because i believe that Islam is an integral part of every aspect of every day life and politics and judicial aspects of government can not be seperated. that said, i can't think of too many countries where the population is mostly Muslim and the country is actually run Islamically. too much disorganized dictatorship.

living in the west, i think mixing politics with religion is dangerous, as anyone who has witnessed the rise of the 'religious right' in america since early in the Reagan administration can attest to. not to mention the israel lobby. but then, that is a different topic with which i could rant much much more.

khadijah. :Hijabi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

In modern day, western societies, do you support separation of church and state? Do you find Religion to be crucial to an ethically and morally healthy society?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because of the way you worded the first part of your question - "in modern day, western societies" - I chose separation. Let's face it; at least at this point in time, we aren't going to see any Islamic governments in the West, which would leave us with a so-called "Christian" government. Example: George Bush. :huh:

As to the second part of your question, I most certainly do, but I don't think the way to go about that is to combine "church and state." The well-being of the society should be handled on a more personal level, by the members of the communities themselves, insh'Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Excellent question sis Ya Hujja, this has been a topic of interest for a while.

But there's so much to discuss and convey that one can't be bothered atm..LOL

just 2 quick points.

this seperation in the west started from the french revolution.

and

jesus is not happy when politicians say it's ok to allow immoral and corrupt behaviour in society.

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

If we all followed religion the way it actually is, then I would say yes, 100% religion should mix with politics, but unfortunately throughout history we have seen how power leads to corruption, even with 'religious' people.

Still, I voted against the seperation of Church and State because as a Muslim I think Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life. You can't ignore it in some aspects and pay attention to it in other aspects, it's a whole package.

fee iman illah

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Separation of church and state does not promote a godless society. In essence what it means in the US is that gov't will not make law promoting or endorse one religion nor pass laws to hinder a religion as long as religious practices don't infringe on another person's rights.

It is inherent in religious gov't that minorities are disadvantaged and repressed.

BTW That dude Robinson that you quote is a fundamentalist Christian evangelist who if asked would say Muslims are going to burn in hell. His quote is directed at a particular brand of Christianity.

His church and parishoners are a TV audience and he is also a tout for a particular brand of of vitamin.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

Because of the way you worded the first part of your question - "in modern day, western societies" - I chose separation. Let's face it; at least at this point in time, we aren't going to see any Islamic governments in the West, which would leave us with a so-called "Christian" government. Example: George Bush.  :huh:

As to the second part of your question, I most certainly do, but I don't think the way to go about that is to combine "church and state." The well-being of the society should be handled on a more personal level, by the members of the communities themselves, insh'Allah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sister Z,

Bush is Christian and most of his appointees are Chriatian but we do not have a Christian Gov't.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest faithful8876_
Separation of church and state does not promote a godless society. In essence what it means in the US is that gov't will not make law promoting or endorse one religion nor pass laws to hinder a religion as long as religious practices don't infringe on another person's rights.

It is inherent in religious gov't that minorities are disadvantaged and repressed.

BTW That dude Robinson that you quote is a fundamentalist Christian evangelist who if asked would say Muslims are going to burn in hell. His quote is directed at a particular brand of Christianity.

His church and parishoners are a TV audience and he is also a tout for a particular brand of of vitamin.

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know of James Robison, watched his show, cruised his site, I know his viewpoints and I don't see him an exemplary figure. But I really like his quote, and I think God's people should come out of the closet, Since that's where I heard I think it's only right I quote him. Not very fond of him :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sister Z,

Bush is Christian and most of his appointees are Chriatian but we do not have a Christian Gov't.

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

salam,

the United states may not technically be a Christian government, but the Bush administration has done many evil deeds with the influence of the Christian Religious Right (or should i say, intensive financial pressure) such as stopping the funding of HIV/AIDS reduction programs in africa and central/south america because the religous right does not want american tax dollars spent on such things as condoms. ok. that is just one tiny example. and the fact that the Israel lobby (which is inherently political but also tied deeply to orthodox and ultra orthodox religous jewish groups) is so controlling and politically threatening to all aspects of the federal and state governments should be an indicator that the American government is not exactly secular.

wasalam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Well, I would say that church and state should be separate. Nowadays, transportation has allowed mass migration from different countries, best epitomized by the United States population. It would be unnecessary to create a theocracy when the large majority are not all one religion. Not everyone in America is caucasian anymore, there are hispanics, blacks, asians, etc. and they all have different belief systems. Maybe in the past it might have worked because people were bound together due to geographic barriers.

I don't ever think relgion and politics should mix because, frankly, human beings are fallible and so vulnerable to corruption that it would get outta hand. Besides theocracies force relgious ethics onto people and that is not the nature of Islam. Both should remain separate (even though there would be overlap). If the politician was a good Muslim, then he would pass laws in accordance with his beliefs...there's the overlap.

So yeah :angel: peace out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sister Z,

Bush is Christian and most of his appointees are Chriatian but we do not have a Christian Gov't.

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I know -- THANK GOD! :P My point was, ppl like HIM will have even more power over other religious groups if they remove the barrier between church and state.

He's already done his the entire time he's been in office to help promote the idea that MUSLIM = TERRORIST.

Edited by Sister Zaynab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah) (salam)

From a purely Shia perspective:

Islaam is the deen favoured by Allah. It is also the last revealed deen, and for all time to come. Mohammad (pbuh) the Prophet of Islaam is Allah's last and final prophet. Concurrent with the finality of prophethood is the continuum of the Wilayah embodied in Waaliyaan-e-Amrillah, the Prophet and the 12 twelve appointed and annointed, inerrant, infallible, m'asoom Imaams (as).

Islaam administers the worldly affairs of humankind through a benign dictatorship of Allah, with the Prophet Mohammad and the Aaimmah-e-athna-ashar (as) of the era as Allah's manifest viceregents. The general laws have been ennunciated by Allah, the m'asoom Wali-e-Amr (as) is the overseer and witness of the observance thereof.

Now what do we see happening at the time of the demise of the Holy Prophet (pbuh)?

Temporal power passes into the hands of errant, sinning folk.

Or in other words, a separation of church and state came into being.

Apart from the brief period of the temporal rule of Imaam Ali (as) after the murder of Uthmaan bin Affaan, this same situation has obtained throughout the history of Islaam. Temporal power has been in the hands of errant, sinning folk in the balaad-e-islaamiah.

Now, Karbala? Why did that happen?

What was the reason behind it?

Was it an attempt to unite the church and the state? Was it an attempt to establish the supremacy of the church over the state?

Or was it something else?

This topic is of utmost import . . . and may Allah save us from frivolous responses

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting replies.

Do you guys find that the lack of freedom to express your religion as a result of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State has caused such a decline in the morality of western countries such as the United States?

Do you believe Separation of Church and State harms western culture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people forget also when you seperate church and state then the State become other half of what you worship also called patroitism it makes u fight other muslim when they are not from your country or accept things that are against sunnah but allowed per secular man made. Then you start plegde and saying athmen all these are ritual brothers and sister same hajji . Prophet(pbuh) made hajji not flag pledge who is your examp secular presient or best of creations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asalam,

good question.... but as a Canadian, i feel perfectly able and comfortable to express my religion. when i lived in America i lived in the bible belt (texas... yes, please don't laugh) and there it was MORE than ok to express a Christian point of view, but woe be to the poor Muslims, Hindus, etc who wanted to be extra vocal. We non-Christians were often ignored in matters of politics (except the Jewish contingency, but i need not explain why i'm sure) or culture. but at the same time, in dallas (where i am from ) there is a large Muslim population alhamdullilah, and lots of community events. but i would say Canada is great in the sense that we have a lot more protection and platform to speak out. even if you simply compare the agendas and announcements of CAIR versus CAIR-Canada, it seems really obvious that we canucks get the good end of the stick, so to speak.

so really, the only joy in having a seperation of church and state here, is that i am not forced to be a Christian, or to espouse Judeo-Christian ideology for fear of not having employment or access to higher education etc. i think if i was a loud and practicing Christian in Saudi, i would not enjoy the same rights and freedoms that i have as a Muslimah in Canada.

khadijah. :Hijabi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting replies.

Do you guys find that the lack of freedom to express your religion as a result of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State has caused such a decline in the morality of western countries such as the United States?

Do you believe Separation of Church and State harms western culture?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah) (salam)

The doctrine of seperation of church and state would not limit freedom to express one's religion. What it would perhaps limit is aggressive proselytising -- for instance compulsory cathecism classes in Catholic schools.

One would also need to know what exactly is meant by morality, and what is perceived as decline thereof.

For all I know, and that is precious little, as a brother Orion here is always ready to testify, morality is no absolute.

Muslims of all shades and hues consider polygamy moral, whereas the Catholic church considers it highly immoral. Anthropology tells us of societies where polyandry has been the norm.

In short, one needs to know what one may be talking about before one can express an opinion.

Haazirmoula

Edited by haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)  (salam)

The doctrine of seperation of church and state would not limit freedom to express one's religion. What it would perhaps limit is aggressive proselytising -- for instance compulsory cathecism classes in Catholic schools.

One would also need to know what exactly is meant by morality, and what is perceived as decline therof.

For all I know, and that is precious little, as a brother Orion here is always ready to testify, morality is no absolute.

Muslims of all shades and hues consider polygamy moral, whereas the Catholic church considers it highly immoral. Anthropology tells us of societies where polyandry has been the norm.

In short, one needs to know what one may be talking about before one can express an opinion.

Haazirmoula

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Totally agree with this. Although the aggresive prosyletizing still happens (Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons :dry:... so annoying), but at least we can tell them to go away without fear of retaliation.

I'll go several steps further and say that the moment any religion (including my own) truly becomes state religion in my country, I will leave, legally or illegally, and go somewhere with separation of church and state, if I have to sleep in the gutters. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The best intentions can quickly give way to oppression and hidebound traditionalism. I need look no further than the Catholic Church's Inquisition to prove this point. They tortured and killed so many people for not being Catholic (to be Christian wasn't even enough)... it horrifies me. Just as the thought of being under the Religious Right's law, or Sharia, or any religious code of laws, horrifies me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll go several steps further and say that the moment any religion (including my own) truly becomes state religion in my country, I will leave, legally or illegally, and go somewhere with separation of church and state, if I have to sleep in the gutters. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The best intentions can quickly give way to oppression and hidebound traditionalism. I need look no further than the Catholic Church's Inquisition to prove this point. They tortured and killed so many people for not being Catholic (to be Christian wasn't even enough)...  it horrifies me. Just as the thought of being under the Religious Right's law, or Sharia, or any religious code of laws, horrifies me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

salam,

what makes me go 'hmmm' is the number of converts i meet here who marry Saudi's and are super anxious to go live in Saudi so that they 'can live as real Muslims' under 'real Islamic law'. to me, when i hear stories from family members and friends who have lived there and moved away, i shudder in my shoes at the intolerance that the government, educational system and many of the citizens display to non-salafi Muslims or Muslims of colour. this is so alarming to me. they are not exercising the Islam that i believe in at all. so in that sense, i also feel horified when contemplating what life under Sharia would be like, at least in the Saudi sense. :cry:

khadijah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salam,

what makes me go 'hmmm' is the number of converts i meet here who marry Saudi's and are super anxious to go live in Saudi so that they 'can live as real Muslims' under 'real Islamic law'. to me, when i hear stories from family members and friends who have lived there and moved away, i shudder in my shoes at the intolerance that the government, educational system and many of the citizens display to non-salafi Muslims or Muslims of colour. this is so alarming to me. they are not exercising the Islam that i believe in at all. so in that sense, i also feel horified when contemplating what life under Sharia would be like, at least in the Saudi sense. :cry:

khadijah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah) (salam)

Jazaa'kum minallah Khairann jazaa'

This is what happens when errant, fallible, sinning folk arrogate to themselves the power to ennuniciate diine laws.

In truth, there is nothing divine in the laws promulgated and enforced by such people.

So far as the Shari'ah is concerned, it is up to the believer to follow it in letter and spirit, and if he/she chooses to do lotherwise, its his her own funeral, and thereafter. In this world, the One above has clearly ennunciated "Laa ikraah fildeen"

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Edited by haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Totally agree with this. Although the aggresive prosyletizing still happens (Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons  :dry:... so annoying), but at least we can tell them to go away without fear of retaliation.

2. I'll go several steps further and say that the moment any religion (including my own) truly becomes state religion in my country, I will leave, legally or illegally, and go somewhere with separation of church and state, if I have to sleep in the gutters. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

3. The best intentions can quickly give way to oppression and hidebound traditionalism. I need look no further than the Catholic Church's Inquisition to prove this point. They tortured and killed so many people for not being Catholic (to be Christian wasn't even enough)...  it horrifies me.

4. Just as the thought of being under the Religious Right's law, or Sharia, or any religious code of laws, horrifies me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah) (salam)

1. We too here have such pesky nuisances as the Tableeghi Jama'at. the Da'awah-e-Islami, as well as a new breed of "QAuran thumping" Muslim Evangelists spawned by the IPC and the likes of Babar Chaudhary and Ziauddin Naek. Its a small comfort that the Shia are refraining, at least till now, from such moronic activity.

2. You've hit the nail right on the head. This world of ours is no place to entrust absolute power in the hands of a non-m'asoom.

3. It appears that I'm even more of a cynic than you are. History testifies that those who use religion as a ladder to temporal power use it in a calculated, motivated manner.

4. A tad bit of a disagreement here. With temporal powers in the hands of a m'asoom life under Sharia'ah would be easy and hassle free. The m'asoom Wali-al-Amr is the repository of the will of Allah, and as such just as only one bestowed with divine knowledge can be. This is the reason why we Shia incessantly supplicate for the return of the m'asoom Wali-al-Amr minallah, our Imaam in gheabah, Mohammad ibnal Hasan al Mahdi (as)

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Edited by haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

So far as the Shari'ah is concerned, it is up to the believer to follow it in letter and spirit, and if he/she chooses to do lotherwise, its his her own funeral, and thereafter. In this world, the One above has clearly ennunciated "Laa ikraah fildeen"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Laa ikraaha fildeen" is about making people Muslim. You cannot force people to change their belief and become Muslim. BUT once they are Muslims they have to follow Islamic rules. If they dont, an Islamic government can punish them.

With temporal powers in the hands of a m'asoom life under Sharia'ah would be easy and hassle free.

Yes hassle free for those Muslims who follow Islam and are ready to give their life for it. Big problem for those who dont. As someone had said, this is the grace period (easy time) we are living in. Can you imagine women walk arround without hijab, men selling beer on the streets, and so on under thr Imam (as)? Can you think of us refusing to join his army to defend the Islamic state?

I say Iran is just a trailer of what is to come. Iranian scholars are very lenient when it comes to enforce some laws. Just look at women from north Tehran.

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

Iranian scholars are very lenient when it comes to enforce some laws. Just look at women from north Tehran.

WS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings

Greetings

Someone posting on thread regarding cosmetic surgery "Iranian women defy . . ." first disparagingly mentioned women residing in north Tehran, and now you . . .

Is it right to generalize in this way? You seem to claim that every woman resident of northern Tehran breaks Shari'eh law and that the Iranian scholars are being lenient with them.

How many women of northern Tehran do you know? With how many have you broken bread, traveled some distance, seen them in anger and in serenity?

But, perhaps the conditionalities of hejaab would not allow you any of these experiences. In which case, what are basing your claim upon -- some pictures?

Peace

Rawshni M'abed

P. S. Are you implying that the Iranian scholars are picking and choosing on which laws to be strict and which to be lenient, and / or picking and choosing on with whom to be strict and with whom to be lenient?

The latter part of your statrement quoted above implies that women of northern Tehran are being dealt with leniently. Will you, on behalf of the Iranian scholars, explain, why this partiality to women of a certain locality.

R. M.

Edited by Rawshni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

1. "Laa ikraaha fildeen" is about making people Muslim. You cannot force people to change their belief and become Muslim. BUT once they are Muslims they have to follow Islamic rules. If they dont, an Islamic government can punish them.

2. Yes hassle free for those Muslims who follow Islam and are ready to give their life for it. Big problem for those who dont. As someone had said, this is the grace period (easy time) we are living in. Can you imagine women walk arround without hijab, men selling beer on the streets, and so on under thr Imam (as)? Can you think of us refusing to join his army to defend the Islamic state?

3. I say Iran is just a trailer of what is to come. Iranian scholars are very lenient when it comes to enforce some laws. Just look at women from north Tehran.

WS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah) (salam)

1. As usual, I have emboldened what I feel is the operative part of your post.

Anyone who claims to be a Muslim and does not follow the divine laws is a munafiq. There is a prescribed punishment for munafiqs. Nowhere have the mullahs been authorized to dispense such punishments. As I have earlier maintained, without divinely bestowed knowledge, non-m'asooms are in no position to judge matters pertaining to the divine will. But, of course, this is something upon which you and I do not agree.

2. Obviously any Shia will consider it the greatest honour of his life to manifestly be under the command of his Wali b'amrillah. (as) . And obviously it won't be a state bounded by physical / geographical boundaries. Hazrat-e-Hujjat (as) will establish His (as) rule to extend to ALL of the realms that belong to the "rabb ul 'aalemein". He is the Imaam ul 'aalemein (as) .

His qayaam revolution or whatever will be a revolution of mentalities and minds. Not an uprising utilizing street urchins, thugs, petrol bombs, car bombs, suicide bombers, AK 47s and whatnots.

I have earlier said, Orion, that the mullahs hardly have an idea where Islaam is at.

3. Someone here has a very lovely signature. " A fanatic is one who cannot change his mind and won't change the subject." Didn't we decide, in the conclusion to the thread about "Islamic" legislation, that we won't discuss the Irani regime.

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Edited by haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

"Laa ikraaha fildeen" is about making people Muslim. You cannot force people to change their belief and become Muslim. BUT once they are Muslims they have to follow Islamic rules. If they dont, an Islamic government can punish them.

WS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

salam,

ok, fine in theory. but which 'Islamic' government in the world would you want to put your trust in? what if you are a good Muslim, faithfully practicing and submitting yourself to Allah (swt) and you happen to live in a so-called Islamic state that in reality has a very warped sense of what Islamic law is? So, if i am a good Muslim living in a corrupt Islamic nation and i commit an error, is it really up to the corrupt government to punish me Islamically? what if i happen to be a Shia in Saudi.... and let's say the salafi's just do not like something i do because it is considered an affront to their salafi dawah.... do i really deserve to be punished? because in certain 'Islamic' mind set's (such as the salafis) being Shia makes one an apostate and there fore we can be subject to a wide variety of great punishments.... so whose "Islamic rules" do i have to follow as a Muslim? the states? how about the laws of Allah (swt), would that not be the correct answer? i believe so.

khadijah. :Hijabi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salam,

ok, fine in theory. but which 'Islamic' government in the world would you want to put your trust in? what if you are a good Muslim, faithfully practicing and submitting yourself to Allah (swt) and you happen to live in a so-called Islamic state that in reality has a very warped sense of what Islamic law is? So, if i am a good Muslim living in a corrupt Islamic nation and i commit an error, is it really up to the corrupt government to punish me Islamically? what if i happen to be a Shia in Saudi.... and let's say the salafi's just do not like something i do because it is considered an affront to their salafi dawah.... do i really deserve to be punished? because in certain 'Islamic' mind set's (such as the salafis) being Shia makes one an apostate and there fore we can be subject to a wide variety of great punishments.... so whose "Islamic rules" do i have to follow as a Muslim? the states? how about the laws of Allah (swt), would that not be the correct answer? i believe so.

khadijah.  :Hijabi:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah) (salam)

Sis Khadijah

When brother Orion says Islamic Government, he ALWAYS means the government of the "Islamic" "Republic" of Iran.

He places all his trust in the Iranian "Islamic" government.

And he probably wishes that the rest of us mortals do so too . . .

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in this discussion we should see what Allah says of those jews who didnt judge by what he had revealed to them:

{Yusufali 5:44} It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers

{Yusufali 5:45} We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers

so we see that the prophets, the "rabbis" and "doctors of law" were to judge as Allah had revealed. then Allah makes it clear that the laws included the hudood (life for a life etc..). then Allah tells us that whosoever did not judge by these laws were wrongdoers.

look at that even fallibles are told to judge as Allah revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in this discussion we should see what Allah says of those jews who didnt judge by what he had revealed to them:

{Yusufali 5:44} It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers

{Yusufali 5:45} We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers

so we see that the prophets, the "rabbis" and "doctors of law" were to judge as Allah had revealed. then Allah makes it clear that the laws included the hudood (life for a life etc..). then Allah tells us that whosoever did not judge by these laws were wrongdoers.

look at that even fallibles are told to judge as Allah revealed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah)

إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُواْ لِلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُواْ مِن كِتَابِ اللّهِ وَكَانُواْ عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاء فَلاَ تَخْشَوُاْ النَّاسَ وَا خْشَوْنِ وَلاَ تَشْتَرُواْ بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors, because they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allah, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers. Quran. CH.5:44 The M. H. Shakir Translation

وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالأَنفَ بِالأَنفِ وَالأُذُنَ بِالأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُوحَ قِصَاصٌ فَمَن تَصَدَّقَ بِهِ فَهُوَ كَفَّارَةٌ لَّهُ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأ ُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust. Quran. CH.5:45 The M. H. Shakir Translation

(salam)

Friend Mohammad Ali

Above I give the text of the verses you quote accompanied by M. H. Shakir's translation, the emphasis added [bold, colour change] are mine, simply to illustrate the great differences that are among translations of the Quran.

This is just the translation. When it comes to interpretation, the differences that arise are even more diverse . . .

And then, these verses have been quoted totally out of context, taken out of a sequence and pasted here to shore up an argument. The sequence begins with 41

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ لاَ يَحْزُنكَ الَّذِينَ يُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْكُفْرِ مِنَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ آمَنَّا بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَلَمْ تُؤْمِن قُلُوبُهُمْ وَمِنَ الَّذِينَ هِادُواْ سَمَّاعُونَ لِلْكَذِبِ سَمَّاعُونَ لِقَوْمٍ آخَرِينَ لَمْ يَأْتُوكَ يُحَرِّفُون َ الْكَلِمَ مِن بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ يَقُولُونَ إِنْ أُوتِيتُمْ هَـذَا فَخُذُوهُ وَإِن لَّمْ تُؤْتَوْهُ فَاحْذَرُواْ وَمَن يُرِدِ اللّهُ فِتْنَتَهُ فَلَن تَمْلِكَ لَهُ مِنَ اللّهِ شَيْئًا أُوْلَـئِكَ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُرِدِ اللّهُ أَن يُطَهِّرَ قُلُوبَهُمْ لَ هُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا خِزْيٌ وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيم

and continues on till 50

ٌأَفَحُكْمَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللّهِ حُكْمًا لِّقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ

Wassalaam

Haazirmoula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, fine in theory. but which 'Islamic' government in the world would you want to put your trust in? what if you are a good Muslim, faithfully practicing and submitting yourself to Allah (swt) and you happen to live in a so-called Islamic state that in reality has a very warped sense of what Islamic law is? So, if i am a good Muslim living in a corrupt Islamic nation and i commit an error, is it really up to the corrupt government to punish me Islamically? what if i happen to be a Shia in Saudi.... and let's say the salafi's just do not like something i do because it is considered an affront to their salafi dawah.... do i really deserve to be punished? because in certain 'Islamic' mind set's (such as the salafis) being Shia makes one an apostate and there fore we can be subject to a wide variety of great punishments.... so whose "Islamic rules" do i have to follow as a Muslim? the states? how about the laws of Allah (swt), would that not be the correct answer? i believe so.

khadijah.  :Hijabi:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah)

(salam)

I am talking about Islamic laws, government or a court under the guidance of a qualified Shia Athna Ashari Mujtahid.

WS

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

I am talking about Islamic laws, government or a court under the guidance of a qualified Shia Athna Ashari Mujtahid.

WS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

salam,

thank you for clarifying, now i would agree on more of what has been said. :D

khadijah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Alhamdu 'ala ahlehi w'salawatu 'ala ahleha

Seperation of the "church" and "state" with reference to Islamic civics raises a very interesting possibility for discussion.

The fact being that Shia Islam harbours neither any concept of "church" nor "state".

So far as the stress on fuqha, it is entirely misplaced, misguiding, misleading and motivated by vested interest.

Fiqh is one one part Sharieh, which again, itself is part of the umbrella "agheedeh". Fiqh itself alone is not Islam.

Ijtehaadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran is the only "Islamic government" that we know. There is a possibility that there exists another "Islamic government" under the Imam al-Asr (as) that we dont know about.

However, there is progress in Iraq, InshaAllah and there have been calls for an Islamic government there. Also I dont know what the conditions are in Shia dominated south Lebenon.

I place my trust in Allah. As fas as Iran is concerned it is not perfect, but an step in the right direction. So if they have a legal system under qualified fuqha, they can pass judgments under the Islamic law.

WS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you mean that wonderful gov't that beats women with batons and sticks? See yesterdays news out of Tehran.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There can never be a speration of Church and state, and I support a joint effort between the two, even in Christian countries. see all laws, in order to make them enforcable, must be based on social morals. this explains why in America, murder cases are relatively easy to prosecute compared to Drug cases. Everyone has a personal interest in seeing a murderer behind bars, but to a culture that does not forbid intoxication in its faith, it is hard to get jurrurs to send a guy to jail for ten years for a bag of pot. The drug war has a hard time, cause when private citizens know of where someone gets drugs, they are in no hurry to help authorities. Police are the LAST line of Law enforcement, and really are only meant to be used to go above and beyond the capabilities of ordinary citizen. the citizens themselves are the main law enforcers. and we are ourselves, our OWN COP. I mean, if we as citezens Decided to loot and riot and then go on some killing , stealing, andparking meter exhausting spree, there would be little the police could do to stop us. So a societies religious beliefs are the foundations of its laws. so when Iman drops in a society.. law breaking increases. in America, the government CANNOT regulate morals, and we have seen sharp spikes in the crime rate as a result. this is why president Bush (before he became the great Muslim buster) declared that he would fund faith based programs. alot of people objected, but it is really smart, he basicaly said "hey if I cant tell you to have good morals(and thereby be good for America) then I will pay someone who can.

Without God, there is Morals, without morals, there is no chance of society.

Edited by god_has_99_names

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...