Hmmm

Interesting point

When an Islamic state HAS been created, it has not been a success
Saudi
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Iran
thyere not total disasters but theyre not brilliant at the same time
Not one country applies Islamic principles properly. They're all corrupt

1R4M wrote:

Hmmm

Interesting point

When an Islamic state HAS been created, it has not been a success
Saudi
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Iran
thyere not total disasters but theyre not brilliant at the same time
Not one country applies Islamic principles properly. They're all corrupt

I guess on the basis that Islamic principles are idyllic you could say that proper application of Islamic principles is the measure of an Islamic state's success. Or else you could be saying that they are not successful at being Islamic. I wonder though in what areas you consider that those states fall short in applying Islamic principles and who you feel could best recognise the shortfall in leading those countries.

BM wrote:

Iram,

I think you may have wrongfully perceived these countries as being "Islamic States" in the strict sense of the words. They may apply portions of Islmaic Shariah in some cases, but other than that not entirely. A HT bro once informed me that they sent a representative to Afghanistan during Taliban rule to seek confirmation whether they are an islamic state and it transpired that they negated such claims.

That's my point
No country can truly be islamic
if they could, then I'd say go for it!

Imam Mehdi will create the true Islamic State when he begins cleaning the White House of its filth.

He will order Isa (pbuh)to get rid of Satan from Washington and plant his own black flag on top of the White House.

The evil president of America will have to kneel before the Power of God.

Inshallah, this will be the beginning of the new ear for Muslims.

Ya Ali Madaad!

1. AFAIK, there is nowhere where it says there can be only one single unified muslim state.

2. A lot of these Muslim states do have the Qur'an and hadith as the highest powers for law. This does not automatically mean that any derrivations are good. Look at the recent case in pakistan where the qur'an and hadith was applied in an unjust manner in respect to rape - 4 witnesses to prove a rape. If not 4 witnesses, then the victim has admitted to adultery and should be punished.

3. Even if there was an all encompassing Muslim state, it does not mean all laws would come from a central administration. It would probably be federated to meet local needs. Thus would be pertty similar to what we have now, except possibly for unified armed forces.

4. Muslim states have tried a number of times to use unified armed forces - and failed spectacularly.

We tend to label countries as "Muslim" or "Islamic" countries, when in reality the only thing Muslim about them is that the majority of their population follow the Muslim belief. Even though some of them, e.g. Saudi, implement parts of the Shariah that suit them, this still doesnt make them Muslim states because it doesnt work like that!! Its all or nothing, You cant pick the bits you want and discard the rest.

Currently there is no Islamic state in the world as the Islamic state known as the Ottoman Khilafah ended on March 7th, 1924. I quote from "Khilafah is the Answer," Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain:

"Since the destruction of the Khilafah, Muslims have been plumbing in the depths of despair. The Islamic world has become characterised by failure, disunity, bloodshed, insecurity and oppression...our rulers themselves act as the dagger help at our throats in the hand of our enemies."

Yes a country can be truly Islamic and *Insha'Allah* one day we will be living under the Islamic state. Many people don't know the true importance of having a Khilafah; it is not an option, it is an obligation. It is haraam for a Muslim to remain more than two nights without having a pledge of allegiance (baya) on his neck. This was the reason behind delaying the burial of the Prophet until a successor had been chosen. And yes it HAS to be ONE leader because this ensures the unity of the entire Ummah. Two leaders would only cause disunity (unless of course they were unaware of each other because they were so far apart in the world.) The hadith states "When oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them" Muslim.

As for your question: is the Ummah ready for a Muslim state? Well, more and more people are becoming aware of what the benefits are of living under the Khilafah and are striving towards creating an Islamic state. Even Non-Muslims that are faced with the flaws in the economic system of today can see that the laws regarding Money and Economy in Islam are the better options. A survey showed the 70% of the World said they would like to live under an Islamic state.

love to live but living to die wrote:

Another thing that just poped in me mind: Today we come hard on Jewish Zionism for the fact that they want a Jewish State... but building our own Muslim State, what would that be perceived as? Muslim Zionism? ... Is it necessary to have an Islamic State? why can't one live and lead a life any where on earth? ... i mean it is made for such purpose... it doesn't matter where and whata time frame you are in, its just common curtesy to live it under the light of Islam... get guidance if needed... otherwise... carry on living!

LOL dear, Muslims wanting a Muslim state, thats called "terrorism" (no am joking!)
See the difference between the Jewish state and Muslim state is: Muslims wouldn't be kicking out all Non-muslims (e.g. like the situation in Palestine and the Jews) because in Islam there is utmost respect for the Dhimi (non-Muslim) and they have EQUAL rights. So in reality life for a Non muslim would be no different under an Islamic state, whereas obviously under the ideal Jewish state....

Yes its necessary, if you read my first post you'll see why.

afzana_javed wrote:

e.g. Saudi, implement parts of the Shariah that suit them, this still doesnt make them Muslim states because it doesnt work like that!! Its all or nothing, You cant pick the bits you want and discard the rest.

Which bits (according to their understanding of Shariah) do they not implement? Same with Iran?

That my dear is easy to say but when it comes to reality... i'm afraid its not gna go as it may have been planned... establishing a state... any state is bound to cause blood shed... it's human fitrat to do what humans do best... jealousy, grudge, greed and Power will eat away the true path... it will do nothing but blind the population... and i will still ask the question: Is it necessary? because i don't want no one to say when everything starts to go wrong "this is not how it was suppose to be!"

You wrote:

afzana_javed wrote:

e.g. Saudi, implement parts of the Shariah that suit them, this still doesnt make them Muslim states because it doesnt work like that!! Its all or nothing, You cant pick the bits you want and discard the rest.

Which bits (according to their understanding of Shariah) do they not implement? Same with Iran?

Well the bits they dont implement, there's a lot to discuss in terms of what isnt implemented and Im not just talking about Saudi and Iran, or the Middle East only.

I'll give one example of Saudi, If you've ever been to Mecca you'll see African women and children with limbs chopped off. Im talking about small children!! Every single day they set up illegal stalls outside Masjid-el-haram to earn money and to get by and when the Police arrives they all pack up and run away.
In an Islamic state, yes the cutting of the hand is a part of the law. But there's certain rules and regulations that it has to fit in. For example, If the person stole something because they are poor or starving, they have no income, no one to earn for them (in the case of children), then that is the responsibility of the State to provide for him or her. The Khalif is supposed to be aware of this and it is his responsibility to make sure no one is going hungry or goi without the BASICS e.g. shelter, food, water etc.
In the above example, the cutting of the hand does not apply because it was a basic human need that drove them to stealing. Now when you look around the world at how the wealth of the world is disproportionate and how many people are being forced into stealing, is cutting their hands or arms off justified? When the state itself isn't using Shariah in every aspect of its laws, then why use tiny bits like this?

Another example, obviously the Shariah isnt just regarding the legal system of the country; its a whole way of Life. So it applies to all things in a society. If you look at countries that have Muslims in them, they don't even elect leaders the way that Islam tells them to. They mimic Western man-made systems, e.g. the monarchy, a democratic government etc. Then furthermore, if you look at the attitude that some countries have, they're very nationalistic and in Islam every muslim is your brother- there is no such thing as divisions due to countries and geographical positioning. Now, do you really see the Muslim countries implementing this when Pakistan allows America to attack Afghanistan from its soil? When Egypt closes its border to Palestinian Muslims? The sense of unity of the Ummah and true brotherhood has evaporated because instead of implementing what Islamic laws say, we are adopting secular values.

(I'm in a rush please excuse any mistakes lol! I hope that made sense)

SID wrote:

it will do nothing but blind the population... and i will still ask the question: Is it necessary? because i don't want no one to say when everything starts to go wrong "this is not how it was suppose to be!"

That may be true about blinding the population and the greed that comes with power, but No one will say 'this is not how it was supposed to be', because an Islamic state will come about Allah has told us so, It's been prophesised in relation to the Coming of Imam Mehdi and Prophet Isa.

Islam came as a stranger and over time it has left our hearts and minds, it will come back as a stranger as well. We as Muslims should not feel put off when we think of having an Islamic state, we can strive and strive for an Islamic state and in our lifetime it still may not come about, does that mean we should not make people aware that there is an alternative, there's something better out there than this puppet democracy? Are we supposed to settle for what we have been given?

Allah SWT says:

“Indeed Allaah does not change the condition of a people until they change themselves.” [Soorah ar-Ra`d (13):11]

malik wrote:

Imam Mehdi will create the true Islamic State when he begins cleaning the White House of its filth.

He will order Isa (pbuh)to get rid of Satan from Washington and plant his own black flag on top of the White House.

The evil president of America will have to kneel before the Power of God.

Inshallah, this will be the beginning of the new ear for Muslims.

Ya Ali Madaad!

errrrm Prophet Isa is returning to earth for two reasons. Number one to get rid of the cross and tell ppl to stop calling him the son of God. Number two to defeat the Dajjal.

If only Bush had choked on that pretzel.

I'm not prepared to back anyone who claims that they're gonna run a country according to Sharia. Why? Because it's an excuse for them to push away responsibility and to poorly justify their draconian regimes. Rather than making hudood really difficult to sentence and preferring mercy and rehab, they've made it really easy. Rather than being fair, accountable, transparent and open they've chosen to be draconian, oppressive and corrupt military dictatorships. Rather than supporting social and global justice they've bowed down to the White House and the tycoons.

We should implement some bits of Sharia, as long as we have a good debate and can expect everyone, including non-Muslims, to follow them.
There are certain things we can't expect people to follow, either because society isn't ready or because some people are non-Muslims.
The 'Islamic' Countries aren't really even Islamic!
Ironically Britain runs more according to Sharia than some "Islamic Countries" in some aspects.
So first define what exactly do you mean by Sharia, and which parts of the Sharia are you talking about?

afzana_javed wrote:

You wrote:

afzana_javed wrote:

e.g. Saudi, implement parts of the Shariah that suit them, this still doesnt make them Muslim states because it doesnt work like that!! Its all or nothing, You cant pick the bits you want and discard the rest.

Which bits (according to their understanding of Shariah) do they not implement? Same with Iran?

Well the bits they dont implement, there's a lot to discuss in terms of what isnt implemented and Im not just talking about Saudi and Iran, or the Middle East only.

I'll give one example of Saudi, If you've ever been to Mecca you'll see African women and children with limbs chopped off. Im talking about small children!! Every single day they set up illegal stalls outside Masjid-el-haram to earn money and to get by and when the Police arrives they all pack up and run away.
In an Islamic state, yes the cutting of the hand is a part of the law. But there's certain rules and regulations that it has to fit in. For example, If the person stole something because they are poor or starving, they have no income, no one to earn for them (in the case of children), then that is the responsibility of the State to provide for him or her. The Khalif is supposed to be aware of this and it is his responsibility to make sure no one is going hungry or goi without the BASICS e.g. shelter, food, water etc.

Are you trying to suggest that people starve in Saudi? And that these people with amputated limbs are those starving people who have been caught stealing?

How do you know? that these amputees did not arrive in Saudi in that condition? that they were starving? That the saudi justice dept cut off their hands? even if it did, are you suggesting they ignored qur'an and hadith?

They run from the police because begging is not allowed - and in islam it is haraam. So the saudi's are actually implementing Islam by preventing begging.

You wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that people starve in Saudi? And that these people with amputated limbs are those starving people who have been caught stealing?

How do you know? that these amputees did not arrive in Saudi in that condition? that they were starving? That the saudi justice dept cut off their hands? even if it did, are you suggesting they ignored qur'an and hadith?

They run from the police because begging is not allowed - and in islam it is haraam. So the saudi's are actually implementing Islam by preventing begging.

While that might or might not be the case.

The fact is there is no monarchy in traditional Sunni Islam.

Abu Bakr (ra) took over as leader of the Muslims when the Prophet passed away. His closest male relative didn't become leader til later. The Ummayad or Abbasid dynasties should not be taken as an example for people who follow the first two generations only (King Abdullah claims to be Salafi).

This suggests (to me) that the Saudi government likes to 'pick and choose' the elements of shariah that help maintain there power and control, but not the bits that lose them oil revenue.

As someone said earlier: with Shariah its all or nothing. Otherwise you get a lop-sided system of government.

They run from the police because begging is not allowed - and in islam it is haraam. So the saudi's are actually implementing Islam by preventing begging.

Okay you dont know the story behind their limbs being cut off, but Of course saudi is picking bits of Shariah because like I pointed out earlier in a true Islamic state- the Khilafah, there would be no begging, people would not be forced into begging because the State would take care of people, this is where things like Zakat come in to place. The Leader has the responsibility to know exactly how his people are living and that they are not going without. He cant be off swanning himself in luxurious palaces whilst people are struggling to survive because SubhanAllah he would understand his role and that he will be accounted. And yes if they were begging yet secretly they owned palaces and 10 cars and such luxuries, then they wouldnt qualify to be looked after by the State because that would just be their greed getting the best of them.

Thats is just one example, Im not picking just on Saudi but look at how much Poverty there is in Muslim Lands, if they were following ALL of the Shariah then there would be no Poverty.

To someone else's questions (sorry I cant remember who it was), The Shariah I am talking about isnt Shariah as in what we've been told by the Media. Shariah isnt just limited to the laws and legal system of a country. It is basically a ruling system, the Islamic ruling system called the Khilafah (some refer to it as the Imamah) which follows the divine laws of Allah swt. So basically the state is run the way Allah has ordained- unlike man-made laws, these laws work no matter where you live and what year it is. From the time of the Prophet SAW upto the Turkish Empire, it was used and never went out of date, the beauty of it is that its a divine system and that is exactly why it only works when you use all of it, when you start using bits of it, it doesnt give the same result.

I'm not prepared to back anyone who claims that they're gonna run a country according to Sharia. Why? Because it's an excuse for them to push away responsibility and to poorly justify their draconian regimes.

SubhanAllah wanting to run the state according to Allah's law is NOT pushing away responsibility. The muslim ummah is like one body, when one part hurts the rest of it remains sleepless with the pain and when you realise how much of the Ummah's mistakes or actions we will be made accountable for, thats when you realise that there is no such thing as pushing away responsibility as a Muslim. Allah has made us witnesses, in the Quran Allah says:

Thus, we have made you the just Ummah that you might be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger a witness over you.

(Al- Baraqah: 143)

We should implement some bits of Sharia, as long as we have a good debate and can expect everyone, including non-Muslims, to follow them.

The rights of a Non-muslim dont disappear in a Muslim state, if you look at History, Christians and Jewish people used to prefer to live under the Muslim state because they made much more freedom, their rights to trade, to live, to eat what they wanted, these rights were not taken away from them. Look into what the rights of a Dhimmi is in an Islamic state, theres a hadith that goes along the lines of the Prophet saying If you hurt a Dhimmi, You hurt me. SubhanAllah this is the status of a non-muslim, under a muslim ruling system.
Also I've mentioned before, You cant pick bits of the Shariah that work for you, Because its a set of Divine Laws, its a system. When you say "Islam is a way of life" thats exactly what it means, it IS a way of life, from your legal system to foreign affairs.

The 'Islamic' Countries aren't really even Islamic!

yes we have already established that

Ironically Britain runs more according to Sharia than some "Islamic Countries" in some aspects.
So first define what exactly do you mean by Sharia, and which parts of the Sharia are you talking about?

Where does Britain use more Shariah than the countries with Muslim populations? Can you give me some examples?
(I defined what i meant by Shariah in the post before this)

You do realise that if there was a pan Islamic state, it would contain over a billion people in it?

There would be no way possible for the leader to account for the livelihoods of each and everyone on a personal basis. Same for a smaller state with just millions of inhabitants.

That is why there is a whole government with various departments looking into various things.

Your reasons as to why Saudi is not a model Islamic state are IMO not valid.

"Ofcourse it picks and chooses"
"The Leader has the responsibility to know exactly how his people are living"
"The Leader lives in a palace"

none of the three are valid reasons.

Even in a model Islamic state there will be crime. Some people will want more than they have. Others will find begging to be an easier form of collecting an earning than actual labour.

It may not feel too classy, begging just to eat. But you know who does that? Lassie, and she always gets a treat

Mecca Da Lyrical Berretta wrote:

I know I'm being nit-picky here and going off topic but its my bday today so I dnt really care.

hmm... It's Malik's belief so what's the point of nit-picking? I don't think there is any point arguing with it, unless you do it on one of the millions of Shia-related topics that are on the forum already.

A meditation on just two Islamic states.

afzana_javed wrote:

I'm not prepared to back anyone who claims that they're gonna run a country according to Sharia. Why? Because it's an excuse for them to push away responsibility and to poorly justify their draconian regimes.

SubhanAllah wanting to run the state according to Allah's law is NOT pushing away responsibility. The muslim ummah is like one body, when one part hurts the rest of it remains sleepless with the pain and when you realise how much of the Ummah's mistakes or actions we will be made accountable for, thats when you realise that there is no such thing as pushing away responsibility as a Muslim. Allah has made us witnesses, in the Quran Allah says:

Thus, we have made you the just Ummah that you might be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger a witness over you.

(Al- Baraqah: 143)

We should implement some bits of Sharia, as long as we have a good debate and can expect everyone, including non-Muslims, to follow them.

The rights of a Non-muslim dont disappear in a Muslim state, if you look at History, Christians and Jewish people used to prefer to live under the Muslim state because they made much more freedom, their rights to trade, to live, to eat what they wanted, these rights were not taken away from them. Look into what the rights of a Dhimmi is in an Islamic state, theres a hadith that goes along the lines of the Prophet saying If you hurt a Dhimmi, You hurt me. SubhanAllah this is the status of a non-muslim, under a muslim ruling system.
Also I've mentioned before, You cant pick bits of the Shariah that work for you, Because its a set of Divine Laws, its a system. When you say "Islam is a way of life" thats exactly what it means, it IS a way of life, from your legal system to foreign affairs.

The 'Islamic' Countries aren't really even Islamic!

yes we have already established that

Ironically Britain runs more according to Sharia than some "Islamic Countries" in some aspects.
So first define what exactly do you mean by Sharia, and which parts of the Sharia are you talking about?

Where does Britain use more Shariah than the countries with Muslim populations? Can you give me some examples?
(I defined what i meant by Shariah in the post before this)

OK, mate, let me explain some stuff to you. Many countries make draconian laws and then hide behind the Sharia. If you challenge the Saudi government on why it treats women like it does, the answer you'll get is that the laws are based on Shariah, which is bull! I really felt like finishing that word but I don't know if Admin would allow that.
Anyway, I call that twisting the Sharia to refuse to take responsibility, unfortunately some fanatics resist true progress by trying to run behind Sharia. Obviously this doesn't work for the sane and sceptical people, but you know what? It's sad that they even use it.

Ofcourse under Sharia, their rights don't disappear but try telling the big Sheikhs that. There ARE some bits of Sharia we CAN'T expect non-Muslims to follow, and we shouldn't force it on them.
It is a way of life and on a personal scale we can't pick and choose, Islamically, but on a political level we have to legislate with the guidance of the Quran, Sunnah and our own judgement, and like it or not, mate, society may not be ready for certain laws yet and we can't expect people to follow some laws.

You want to know how in some aspects Britain runs more in accordance to Shariah than some "Islamic Countries?"
Isn't it an Islamic principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? That it's better to be too lenient than to to be too harsh? Are you denying that?
Isn't Social Justice part of the Sharia? And don't we have at least some of that here with NI and income tax contributions and free health care? It's not enough social justice, I know and Brown wants to reduce it, but at least there's a little bit there.

Salam

Malik happens to be right on this one.

Prophet did say that Jesus will be the follower of Mahdi.

According to Traditons, Mehdi will be the leader.

Omrow

I think he said Isa (as) will be the his own follower, not Mehdi's.

You think?

Come on man.

Live up to your name.

OK A: It doesn't say Courage on my birth certificate
and B: I'm allowed to think and disagree with you, nothing wrong or cowardly about that.

Courage wrote:

I'm allowed to think and disagree with you, nothing wrong or cowardly about that.

Indeed.

You can disagree.

But only when you "really" disagree.

Not when you simply "think" that you disagree.

There is a big difference, my young courageous friend.

Omrow

How can I think that I disagree but actually agree? Make sense for once in your life!

Isa (as) will be the only Prophet to join the Ummah of Muhammad (i.e. the Muslim Ummah). He will swear allegiance to the leader of the Muslim Ummah (the Caliph) who will be the Mahdi. This was always my understanding.

But I've also heard it said that Isa (as) is the Mahdi, which is Arabic for 'saviour' or 'messiah'.

I guess Allah (swt) knows best, and there is no point forr us to eve discuss this. As long as we can recognise the Dajjal and don't follow him, then we'll be OK insha'Allah. So can everyone here read the word 'kafir' in Arabic? well you'd better learn!

Joie de Vivre wrote:

A meditation on just two Islamic states.

The article contains a few fallacies, but where it really lose credibility is with this paragraph:

Shpetim Mahmudi teaches at the University of Tetovo and belongs to the Bektashi order of Sufi mystics. The Bektashis are part of a distinct branch of Shia Islam, and many self-identify as the most liberal on Earth. These are the last people in the Islamic world who will join any kind of jihad. They drink alcohol, for instance, and they are not obligated to pray five times every day in a mosque. Bektashi women don't wear oppressive clothing, and their feelings of openness toward people of other faiths is genuine. Naturally they are detested by Wahhabis and other radical Sunnis as much as they would be if they were pagans or Jews.

The author has his own prejudices to fight before trying to report an an impartial witness.

By talking about the prayers, does he mean they do not need to pray at all, or just in a mosque? I think he means the latter, but it is phrased as to imply the former.

He is too easy in using terms such as radical (ie anyone who he disagrees with) and oppressive (anything he disagrees with).