The Muslim Devastation of India

 

 

<HR style="COLOR: #fff; : #fff" SIZE=1>
<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
<DIV id=post_message_400378><!-- google_ad_section_start --><SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD3>islamic</SPAN>' '<SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD4>muslim</SPAN>' 'islamist' as far as political entities are concerned are all ambiguous terms and we could discuss them forever...Lets do a brief runthrough because everyone likes to use the terms Islamic state and Muslim country etc. from both sides of the line, attributing Islamic values wrongly to a political system or nonIslamic values as such...First, a population argument. The word 'Muslim' is <SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD5>personal</SPAN>, and donates a personal faith by someone. Someone can be a Muslim or nonMuslim. If a state has the majority of its population that call themselves Muslim, it is a Muslim-majority state. (and note that the state cannot decide who is Muslim or not. Its personal.) I dont prefer to call a Muslim-majority state a Muslim state. Look at Egypt today for example. A country rampant with corruption in its government and a dictatorship in the simplest of terms. Can you call this a 'Muslim' country inferring an 'Muslim' value to its system? I dont think so. But is it a Muslim-majority country? Yes.What is an 'Islamic' state then? Let us <SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD2>get back</SPAN> to the first (and only real) definition of this term.The first real political Islamic definitions were actually placed by Ibn Taimia and Imam Hanifa when he defined 'Dar al Islam' or 'Dar al Salam' v/s 'Dar al Kufr' and others like 'Dar al Hudna' and 'Dar Al Harb'. Abu Hanifa himself chose the definition out of his interpretations of the Prophet's <SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD6>politics</SPAN> and the Prophets own use of the term 'Dar al Salam' (more a 'Nation of Peace' than an 'Islamic Nation' although both are synonyms) . Note this closely: A country that is part of Dar al Islam or Dar al Salam (or 'Islamic'), is 1) a country where Muslims are totally free to <SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD1>practice</SPAN> their faith with no coercion whatsoever from any authority. 2) a country that is surrounded by other countries who constitute Dar Al Islam and present no threat at the border (otherwise a military presence is needed at the border with or without the permission of the ruling entity in this country to defend its Muslims).This is the original theme of what constitutes an Islamic country in the politics of Islam as instigated by the Prophet as a political leader. Note that this definition does NOT include anything about sharia government, about the government at all, or about Muslims being a majority. Keep in mind Abu Hanifa knew what he was talking about in interpreting the Prophet's politics. That was his lifetime engagement. In other words everything else that came up later about sharia rule in a country or coercive religion or anything as such to define an 'Islamic' has come later in politics, and according to the prophet, is not really an element of an 'Islamic state' at all! A key principle of Islam, and the verse mentioned right after the most important verse in the Quran is this: 'There is no coercion in religion, and the truth stands out from flaw' (La Ikaraha fil Din Qad Tabayyana AlRushdu min AlGhayy 2:256) and this is the basis of the Islamic state. You cannot impose a religion on anyone (or prayer - like the mutawwa3een do) or any system of faith or religious practice or even pass a sentence on someone who chooses to leave Islam. Full freedom of personal worship. That is the original and prophetic definition of the Islamic state, a personal definition. During the first caliphates what happened as the Islamic state expanded was this two step process: 1) The Caliph approached countries with Muslim minorities through a messenger heading to its ruler, and asked the ruler to grant Muslims full freedom of worship with no persecution, and some agreed. Then these would be called 'Dar al Da3wa or Dar Al 3ahd' depending on the political situation. Ethiopia was one such country. The country had a Christian government and yet was a total ally of the Islamic empire. 2) Then the Caliph would ask this ruler if they wish to pledge allegiance to the Caliph (who assumed the role similar to the Pope in the Holy Roman Empire...) and if they agreed, they would be offered a full defense contract and assistance in the form of protection from any invader from its border that would threaten its people and the borders of the Islamic empire. If the ruler agreed to this, then his country would be included in Dar-AlIslam, as an Islamic country. Ethiopia refused to plead allegiance to the Caliph while allowing Muslims freedom of worship (which is perfectly fine - it remains an ally). But Egypt was one such case that said yes. They agreed to allow Muslims freedom of worship, then agreed to pledge allegiance to the Caliph while keeping their autonomous government (and it was a Christian Pope - so it was actually a Christian government), and the Muslims came in and rid the country of its occupiers who were the Byzantinians and stations guards at the monasteries. So Egypt had a Christian government, and yet it was an Islamic country, by the Prophet's definition. These Islamic states were all autonomous, all with their own governments, be they Christian, or democracies, or secular, or Jewish, or tribal, whatever suits them, all in alliance at time of war (to mobilise armies at the order of the caliph) and all were independent. This is the Islamic empire made of Islamic countries, and apparently this system was efficient and it worked (a crest in knowledge, huge expansion, elimination of poverty, etc.)Now 'Islamist' or the third word is actually a new word coined by nonMuslims to attempt to define Muslims within their system, its orientalist actually. It literally means 'political Islam' when in reality the line between mosque and state is of an entirely different nature between church and state. So basically in its broadest, it is used to describe political movements within Islam. Its quite a meaningless term to Muslims (if you choose to follow the original interpretations of the Islamic state), or atleast it should be... But in any case and in its best definition, supposing we have a modern state today, the Islamist party would be the one that follows an sharia political model ( i wont say 'Islamic' cause most dont, the Islamic model is described above), similar to a Christian political party.Of course if you think about it, in a state like medieval Egypt ruled by the Christian pope whilst still being an Islamic country, an Islamist party makes no sense. What would its goal be? Egypt is already an Islamic state answering to the Caliph while ruled by the Pope...Modern European Islamic scholars like Tarek Ramadan choose to revert to the original definitions of Islamic state as used by the Prophet and interpreted by Abu Hanifa. In this respect, most European countries today would actually be Islamic states, cause they offer more freedom of worship to Muslims than many other Muslim-majority countries in the world today...So where is sharia in this picture? Sharia, is actually a law of deterrence. Like nuclear weapons. They are not meant to be used, but they are meant to be there, cause when they are there, people will behave themselves. You will not steal if you know that your hand will be cut off if yu do. But how is the law actually implemented? The first time you steal, you are forgiven. The second, you are forgiven. The third, you have your hand cut off (ie, you have to be a really persistent prick). And in all times, you CANNOT have stolen for need (like, to feed your family if yure poor). And if you repent at any point, even after the third time, you are forgiven. This is how all schools of islamic jurisprudence understand it. Can this law find any practical application? No. The exception is saudi arabia where they interpret it differently.For fornication or adultery, Islamic law requires someone to actually witness the act of intercourse (the only instance i can think of is actually a gangrape...) for a death sentence to be passed. This is nearly impossible to implement, again... except of course in saudi arabia where they interpret things extremely...Furthermore, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Sharia law as a deterrent really tells you what you deserve, more than what someone should do to you. It places a hierarchy on sins not an authority for someone to pass a punishment. No one has the right to carry out an Islamic sentence unless he has studied it very, very, very, very well (more than a civil case) because he has to answer God for that if he gets it wrong... And as such a civil penalty is actually preferred!In addition to all this, sharia law is actually a choice whether or not to follow by a ruler if he is Muslim. He can choose to overrule it at will, and it is a license God has given him as long as he finds reason for it. One of the caliphs lifted all penalties on theft because of a poverty phase...And now to Saudi Arabia. Does Saudis allow absolute freedom of worship to all Muslims with no coercion? The answer is actually quite clearly no to me, maybe debatable to others. Saudi oppresses shias for instance, and sufis, and others who call themselves Muslims of other sects. The prophet allowed Christians to pray INSIDE HIS OWN MOSQUE when they visited him... Saudi does not allow even a church on its territory. Saudi imposes on people prayer through shortat alnahy 3an el monkar wal 2amr belma3roof or the motawwa3 or religious police, and that is in direct contrast to the word of God where there is no compulsion in religion. imho i dont see saudi as an Islamic country neither by Abu Hanifa's first definition down from the Prophet nor by the fact that it answers to any caliph cause the caliphate has been over for a century or so now... and the mutawwa3s by virtue of their role are infringing on peoples Godgiven right to freedom of choice (the truth is there, if you wish to choose it, no coercion) and that by itself is unIslamic, so i see nothing educated about their role"<!-- google_ad_section_end -->