Quote:




Unwilling to answer the hyperthetical in public ??
Their response is in keeping with the quotes I have given here.
Thanks for your vote malik, it follows on from your one of your previous comments that mohammad means the most in your life.
It follows from that that whatever he says, you would slavishly do.

If someone proves to you he said to hehead us infidels, you would do that.

Answer my question first

I think we have the happy circumstance of muslims being able to lie their head off for allah.
The convenient little code which tells them they only need to be honest to muslims, and with 90% calling the others "not real muslims", it seems they can pretty well crap on all day without any fear of damnation for being bald faced liars.

Malik has unconvincingly pushed the lie that sharia law does not call for the death penalty for apostates, are we merely getting the version of lie reserved for unbelievers??

I guess we will have to decide that for ourselves, because we could not rely on the response with any confidence.

Here is a little from a UK paper;
"Patrick Sookhdeo was born a Muslim, but later converted to Christianity. He is now international director of the Barnabas Fund, an organisation that aims to research and to ameliorate the conditions of Christians living in countries hostile to their religion.

He notes that "all four schools of Sunni law, as well as the Shia variety, call for the death penalty for apostates. Most Muslim scholars say that Muslim religious law - sharia - requires the death penalty for apostasy.

"In 2004, Prince Charles called a meeting of leading Muslims to discuss the issue," adds Dr Sookhdeo. "I was there. All the Muslim leaders at that meeting agreed that the penalty in sharia is death. The hope was that they would issue a public declaration repudiating that doctrine, but not one of them did."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571970/Muslim-apostates-threatened-over-Christianity.html

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:01am:

That's a good point FD and you're correct, in history power mongers have usurped control, from the day the Prophet pbuh died this happened and people who shouldn't have been in charge became in charge, you see there is a difference of opinion on this issue. Some scholars say it's prohibited to vote in elections because your voting in a non muslim government, others say it's ok because you need the people who'll represent you best. In my opinion if you aren't willing to partake in democracy, you shouldn't live in one because you can't expect your government to be mind readers and cater for your needs if you don't get involved.

Also firstly that I said that if there were a referrendum on whether Australia should be an Islamic State or not I would vote for one? Well actually an election is different to a referrendum..

But an Islamic state can be set up in many ways, it can include elected officials too. I think that way is the best.

While Iran isn't an Islamic State proper they do have many aspects of an Islamic State, they also elect their prime ministers and presidents, the only people they don't elect is their Islamic leadership, the Islamic leadership is elected by a council of scholars, to ensure that they choose the person best suited to the role of guiding their congregation. But even the religious leadership is still bound by the Shariah.

Christian and Jewish leadership in the Islamic state is not appointed by the state, in fact they are chosen directly by the Christians and Jews themselves.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:01am:

Which Qur'an quote was that? Can you paste it?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:01am:

Well actually, democracy isn't a protection from that at all either, many tyrants have been elected into government.. Look at all of the things George Bush has done after being elected, sometimes peoples apathy let democracy down.

In an Islamic State we have separation of powers the same as the west has (although we've had it for considerably longer). There were cases where people even took the caliphs to court over matters and won against the caliph. If the Caliph goes against the shariah and starts oppressing the people, they can be deposed by the courts and if the president goes against it and does similar they can be deposed by the courts and voted out by the people. 

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:01am:

Yes, a small levy is imposed because Muslims are obligated to serve in the military and protect the citizens of the Islamic State, that includes non-Muslims.

Non Muslims however are not obligated to join the army, nor defend the nation in case of attack.

In the constitution of Medina it made it clear that non-Muslims who partook in defending the nation didn't have to pay the jizyah. But they weren't obligated to pay it.

Against my better judgement I'm resuming posting in this thread...

Quote:


Note that I said forbidden from partaking in democratic elections. As I mentioned earlier, democracy doesn't mean electing your leader, democracy means human beings legislating right and wrong from their own minds. As far as I'm aware the word "republic" describes the system by which the leader is popularly elected to represent the people. Islam has no problem with a republican model of electing a leader, but when it comes to human beings legislating, the Qur'an and hadith are quite clear.

"And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are disbelievers" (5:44)

Also from the hadith we have the story of Adi Bin Hatim (May God be pleased with him) who came upon a gathering around the Messenger of God (Pbuh) and heard him saying the Jews and Christians had stooped into polytheism. He interjected and noted that even though the Christians had done this, the Jews had not. So Muhammad (Pbuh) said that their Priests and Rabbis make right and wrong for them from their own minds, and the people follow it, and that is worship of them, instead of God.

Basically what it comes down is that one of God's 99 attributes/names according to Islam is Al-Haakim (The Legislator). And he is the sole being worthy of legislating, so anyone who competes with him in this matter is considered to be a false god, and anyone who subscribes to that legislation is a worshipper of a false god, ie. a polytheist.

That is why a Muslim is not permitted to partake in Democratic elections, whether in Australia or Makkah or in Timbuktu for that matter. Whether the party is the ALP or it is a so called "Islamic party". Democratic elections are a competition not simply for who will be ruler, but who will be legislator, Muslims are forbidden to elect a legislator, we may only elect a representative (Caliph) who will implement the legislation of the only true Legislator, God.

Quote:


I suggest you read some Islamic history, and learn about how Muhammad (Pbuh) attained control over Yathrib (now known as Madinah), that is our example.

Quote:


There are institutions we must put into place to prevent such things, like the Majlis ash-Shura (Consultative Assembly), but in the end, nobody can guarantee they can prevent tyrants from taking control, it can seep into any system, as humans are imperfect beings.

Quote:


Why is it you seek only to promote conflict and hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims? Are you afraid that if we share our commonalities that you might be "seduced" by our teachings and duped into letting us overrun your state?

Quote:


If you honestly value our input, why are you always so hostile towards Islam? Why can't you concede it would be only fair and balanced to also include commonalities in your wiki entry?

I'm not trying to claim it's all love and peace and living happily everafter, it's not. But there are many commonalities and things that can lead to cooperation and prosperity between Muslims and non-Muslims. All throughout the history of the Islamic Caliphate, Muslims and non-Muslims have cooperated and lived in harmony (not on every front, but in some way or another). Look for instance to the exchange between Harun ar-Rashid (May God be pleased with him) and Carlos Magnus (Charlemagne) and the prosperity and shared advancement in al-Andalus and Dar al-Hikmah in Baghdad, where wealthy Europeans used to send their children to be educated by the Muslims, and great scholars from both sides used to work together to translate and disperse knowledge.

Quote:


It's a hadith, not a Qur'anic verse.

And it quite clearly (in Arabic anyway) states "If he abandons the nation/community", indicating it is for the crime of treachery against the state. Which is punishable by death in many "modern" states today.

Quote:


It requires a tax on ALL citizens, as do almost all countries. The Muslim and non-Muslim taxes just have different names, one is called Zakaat, the other Jizyah. Both would probably be much lower than what you're getting taxed today, so living under Islam would be quite attractive to a lot of people today.

Quote:


Well it's better if you get a proper account of it, rather than just my second hand account. If indeed you are sincere in wanting Muslims to contribute to the dialogue here, and are serious about getting even a rudimentary understanding of the political methodology of Islam to attain statehood, then you should at least skim a brief historical account.

You can find a very brief account here

And a full biography and historical record here (You can skip straight down to the section "The First ‘Aqabah Pledge")

Quote:


I don't think that's a very logical supposition. You can't really conquer anything if you don't even have a homeland to begin from. You must work to establish a state before it can "expand by conquest".

Quote:


Actually our system is proven. It was implemented for over 1350 years straight, and very rarely did tyrants surface. In contrast the secular societies have seen the rise of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein, Assad, Sharon, Bush etc. and the complete catastrophe that has resulted from only about 100-200 years of secular rule. There has been nothing but famine, world-wide war, nuclear obliteration of entire cities and their populations, chemical warfare etc. since the secular states began dominating global affairs.

Quote:


We never had a renaissance because we never needed one really. Our belief system doesn't suppress science and technology and advancement, it advocates and promotes them. The lessons weren't learned because the mistakes weren't made to begin with.

Quote:


I'm more concerned about why you're not interested in listing commonalities. After all the entry is entitled "Islam and Australian values" so shouldn't it show an all-round picture of that topic?

I'm not against contributing to it, I'm just dismayed you don't seem interested whatsoever in portraying both sides of the coin yourself.

Quote:


If? Hello! It's prospering! Islam is growing phenomenally in Autsralia. Hardly a week goes by that  I don't come across new converts to Islam some way or another. Either meeting them personally, or hearing about them or actually being an audience when they embrace it. The government may have slowed down immigration of Muslims into Australia, but they cannot stop the growth of Islam amongst Australians.

Some local Muslim groups, like the ones John Howard hand picked to represent us, are not upfront about Islam, agreed. But you'll find the vast majority of us are quite honest about our position and beliefs.

Quote:


Judaism also has a belief in a theocracy, and I'm sure there's members of Jewish groups here that call for a Halachic (their theocratic law system) state, so why aren't you as vocal about them? Not PC for you to do so? It's popular to confront the intentions of Muslims, but not popular to confront the intention of Jews?

Quote:


I didn't say that.

Quote:


Of course they're not. As Malik pointed out, national service is also due upon Muslims.

Quote:


Of course it does. Not just individuals, states, companies etc. Islam has a complete governmental system, would you expect it not to have tax laws???

Sure you're used to thinking of religion in terms of Christianity only, but you must realise some other religions are much more than just personal rituals of worship.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 9:57pm:


That's correct. While we had very few tyrants it is nothing compared to the amount we acheived. Heck we even turned the Mongol hordes from ravaging hordes intent on only conquest and bloodshed to peaceful patrons of the fine arts, architecture, poetry etc after they converted to Islam.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:53pm:

trolllllllllllllllllll..

sprint those aren't islamic values.