freediver wrote on Jul 6
th, 2008 at 10:40pm:
What is Islamic law regarding music, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs?
There is a difference of opinion on this issue, some hold that singing is forbidden, some hold that musical instruments are forbidden and singing is ok providing the content is good, some hold that one particular percussion instrument is acceptable at weddings and other festivities and others hold that both musical instruments and singing is acceptable providing the message inside the songs are not perverted. Any intoxitant is forbidden in Islam.
freediver wrote on Jul 6
th, 2008 at 10:40pm:
What is the penalty under Islam for apostasy?
Depends who you ask. Some say that leaving Islam is punishable by death and will be punished by God in the next life and others say that leaving Islam is not punishable in this life but will be punishable in the next life.
freediver wrote on Jul 6
th, 2008 at 10:40pm:
Only in a nominal sense. Christianity is a religion, not a system of government. When you try to extend it to a system of government, it doesn't work very well. Saying that Christians should live under Christian law doesn't make sense because there is no 'Christian law' in the same way there is Islamic law.
I would disagree, look at the vatican and the empires ruled by the pope.
freediver wrote on Jul 6
th, 2008 at 10:40pm:
What about atheists and non-abrahamic religions?
That's a great question, I'm not quite sure, but the Hindus lived under the Islamic State for quite some time.
freediver wrote on Jul 6
th, 2008 at 10:40pm:
The only problem with these states is that they didn't make provisions in their teachings or holy books for people of other faiths
No, that is not the only problem in trying to figure out what 'Christian law' is.
There is Christian law, look at the vatican and roman catholocism and also orthodox religions etc.
freediver wrote on Jul 6
th, 2008 at 10:40pm:
Do those other Muslims distinguish between elections and referendums?
I'd say that would depend on the issue that is being voted on actually. Some might vote in other circumstances.
freediver wrote on Jul 6
th, 2008 at 10:40pm:
re: coups and conquests. I know you said before you would simply vote in a theocracy. But technically Islam forbids democracy. Abu responded to this by giving the example of Muhammed's method, which seems to be the unification of warring tribes into an Islamic state. Obviously that model is pretty useless when it comes to a state that already exists. Is there a 'policy vacuum' in Islamic law on this issue?
The people of Yathrib voted in an Islamic State actually, that was the first Islamic State.
freediver wrote on Jul 6
th, 2008 at 10:40pm:
I've told you it's referring to a situation where people had committed treason, they had apostated also but their crime was treason.
When you were responding to sprint's previous 'out of context' quotes you would quote the entire passage and/or explain the translational issues. can you do the same for that quote? It just seems so self-contained that it is hard to imagine anything preceding it that would change it's meaning.
I'll need to research more into it for you my friend and then I can.
freediver wrote on Jul 6
th, 2008 at 10:40pm:
I'm not so sure it does protect those rights. It seems to have done a better job of protecting minorities than Europe. But that is only a small part of the rights I am interested in. Obviously separation of church and state alone does not achieve anything, but is part of the doctrine of separation of powers (including the media, police, the courts etc) that makes democracy work. Centralisation of power makes tyranny inevitable.
But within an Islamic State there are separation of powers also. That's why it's possible to take the Caliph to court if they've done the wrong thing.
So that isn't necessarily something which is only in a democracy, it's also in other systems actually. Democracy is actually a bit different, it means that the people have the ability to legislate the laws according to their own lusts and wants.