abu_rashid wrote on Sep 1
st, 2008 at 12:50am:
Quote:things like communism, democracy etc that you brought up to show that ideologies require government implimentation otherwise they lose their following.
Well I think we have a misunderstanding here as to what's meant by following. After Communism fell, there's still many Communists left in Russia. People who believe in the ideology, but that doesn't mean that Communism is implemented in their society anymore. So they might keep and read their little red books (ok, that's Mao, but just using it for effect), they might attend communist party gatherings, they might do certain things (almost ritual like stuff), but that doesn't mean they're implementing Communism. Believing in an ideology and actually living/implementing it are not the same thing. One requires a state, the other does not.
Quote:Fair enough if people abondon the tax laws once the government stops enforcing it, but that doesn't explain why the middle east went 'back' to opressing women etc so quickly.
You still have this view that something like tax laws are irrelevant to Islam, whereas treatment of women shouldn't be. I understand what you're saying, that tax is something implemented on the people by the state, whilst treatment of women is an individual activity, but the fact is that if the government has spent the past 80 years educating the populace in tribalistic beliefs like that men own women, then people will move towards those beliefs. They become ingrained in society. Now back to the original point, Islam clearly states the girl has a right to refuse or accept a marriage, and the Islamic state must uphold that right. If the state doesn't exist, then arguing over what occurs today is irrelevant. Also arguing over why society no longer protects that right is irrelevant, since the new societies that've been formed in the Muslim lands are not based on Islam. They might mix a few Islamic ideas in here and there, but by large they are not Islamic.
I put this in my list of techniques used to try to decieve non-Muslims.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doe...Most of the criticism of what happens in the middle east has nothing to do with contract law, tax law, dodgy used car salesmen etc. It is about social issues. These are not solely controlled by the state. Abu claims that once a state stops enforcing a particular religious ideology, it stops having an influence. This is simply not true. Christianity had a very strong influence over western societies for centuries after it stopped being imposed on them. The distinction itself is absurd, because it is not a one-way street. The government, whatever form it takes, reflects the religion and views of the people more than it influences them.
Saying that social standards like the treatment of women have nothing to do with Islam if Islam is not imposed on people by the state is absurd. People are still Muslims. If anything, this is evidence that Islam undermines the standing of women in a society, because it is not enough for people to hold Islamic values. Rather, it has to be imposed on them. Muslims will not simply treat women right because it is the right thing to do, either at the personal, family, or community level. Instead, they will mistreat them, and can only be coerced into treating them well if it is imposed from above.