Conecpt Of Islamic State

[nawazshahzad]

Dear Readers

The governance has nothing to do with the matters pertaining to religion and ethics. The governance is comprehensive and composite which encompasses the entire life of the individual members of the society and is never accountable to anyone for its functions and decisions. It raised power from the geographical boundaries for its nationalism.

Here we are discussing in general about the salient features of the modern system of governance. But as we look from the Quran's point of view this is wrong. The Quran develops its foundation on the concept of ideology which is the other name of Deen, a system of life and Iman (belief), acceptance. The State which is established on this concept is called the Quranic State or you can say Islamic State, which encompasses two groups of people:

(i) The group whose members believe in the Quranic concept of Ideology and

(ii) The group whose members do not believe in this Ideology.

The members of the first group run the administration of this State and also look after the human rights of the second group so that the members of this group are not deprived of any human right. The concept of Ideology makes it clear that the System of Governance is not all-powerful; it operates only within the limitations of the Ideology. It cannot function beyond these sanctions. These are permanent values and the system is not empowered to cross them, neither longitudinal nor latitudinal. This concept of Ideology basically transforms the idea of nationalism as false and farce. Today the foundation of the nationalism has nothing to do with ideology, but instead it rests within the boundary walls of geographical boundaries on which the country is founded.

So if look at the genesis of Quranic Message for Islamic State it tells that it has nothing to do with creed, language or caste of its people. Therefore the groups of people who are living in the Islamic country without believing in its ideology do not make them the members of that nation, but on the other hand a person not living in that state but believing in this ideology makes them the members of that nation. Beyond any shadow of doubt it can be said that it is based on: Laa Elaa ha - Illa Ullaho - Muhammad-urr-Rasool Ullah .

This is nothing but Kalema, the theory of life or the concept of life. In the present day terminology this is know as Ideology.

Thanks
Nawaz
Parvez-Video

 

[Fracker]

I think you are confuse about the state and nation concept. State is around the boundaries, while Nation is without boundaries.

Jews and christians used to live in madinah in Prophet Muhammad (SAWW)'s time, and when some external powers try to attack madinah, He (SAWW) didn't call only muslims to go and fight with enemies, but at that time prophet muhammad (SAWW) was defending boundaries so he welcomed all Jews, Christians to join him (SAWW) in this fight (Jihad) against external bodies.

 

[muse]

For non-Islamist readers, any time you hear or read any of these use words such as "system of life" or" way of life" when describing Islam - beware! Becauise it is a code, what it really means is islam as a totalitarian ideal, everything become what they call islam and begins to displace culture, infact it will strangle culture, their islam cannot tolerate culture.

Notice when they say "way of life", it seems pretty regular, it conjurs images of a state of normalcy, a happy family - it is in fact very much the opposite - because it is totalitarian and because it is alien, it is never, never at ease with culture - any culture. However; it recognizes that cultural identity is a social glue and it therefore presents itself as the totality of culture - in fact it is a disguise of Arby imperialism reaching out from the 7th century, offering tribal social organization and governance, and above all, intolerance.

You may be asking yourself why this so called "way of life" would above all things, be intolerant - because it is a radical ideology, it has the most marginal relationship with Islam the religion of faith, because their islam is a religion of ideology and it must be intolerant to bend any who submit themselves to it, to it's idea of culture, expressed in appropriate headgear and ninja masks and such, with absurd precision on the appropriate size of beard, how high above the ankles menswear should be, etc; etc; -- these then are aspects of the "culture" it seeks to transplant into unsuspecting societies and by doing so, inject itself like a malignant cancer cell into the body of the once healthy society. In effect it offers true subjugation for those who will not conform to thier ideal and locks society in stasis, a sort of living death .

Don't buy this?? OK, look at the first post in this thread, read it, note this:

The Quran develops its foundation on the concept of ideology which is the other name of Deen, a system of life and Iman (belief), acceptance. The State which is established on this concept is called the Quranic State or you can say Islamic State, which encompasses two groups of people:

(i) The group whose members believe in the Quranic concept of Ideology and

(ii) The group whose members do not believe in this Ideology.

The members of the first group run the administration of this State and also look after the human rights of the second group so that the members of this group are not deprived of any human right. The concept of Ideology makes it clear that the System of Governance is not all-powerful; it operates only within the limitations of the Ideology. It cannot function beyond these sanctions. These are permanent values and the system is not empowered to cross them, neither longitudinal nor latitudinal

 

[gambit]

A 'nation' is a people with a common bond, be it ethnic or even religion. So the Christians can be considered to be a 'nation'. Same with the ummah.

A 'country' is a geographical locale that does not include any politically recognized borders or demarcations. Europe and Asia are physically connected but are considered to be distinct countries.

A 'nation-state', or informally 'the state', is a politically recognized entity that has absolute sovereignty over a territory in a 'country'. Africa is a 'country' that contain many 'nation-states'. Same for Europe or the Americas or Asia.

So is there an 'Islamic state'? There are many 'Islamic' states. Look at the ME. This is not about the religious contexts of what constitute an 'Islamic state' but about the majority ethos of a 'nation-state'.

ethos - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution

The majority ethos for Saudi Arabia is Islam just as the majority ethos of Italy is Christianity, sub Roman Catholic.

Can members of diverse nations coexists peacefully under a government? Of course but under what conditions? There is an accommodating peace and a subjugative peace. US citizens come diverse nations and live under an accommodating peace. On the other hand, Christians live under a subjugative peace in Saudi Arabia.

 

[dabong1]

I would not like the state to be involved in what i class as private sharia....growing a beard-reading namaaz ect
The public sharia sector like education and health ect is where i accept the concept of an islamic states power.

 

[waraich66]

US citizens come diverse nations and live under an accommodating peace. On the other hand, Christians live under a subjugative peace in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is Kingdom ,so can not be taken as example for islamic state, Khalafat with shourah and independent Qazi shariah court is structure of islamic state, where non muslim do have all rights,protection and freedom same as muslims but they have to pay tax instead of Zakat, which is complusary for all muslims except Al Rasool(Close Relatives of Prophet Muhammad PBUH).

 

[dabong1]

Khalafat with shourah and independent Qazi shariah court is structure of islamic state,

Thats the base for most govt of the world today i would say but with different words meaning the same thing.
Khalafat-govt
shourah-parliment
Qazi-judge

pay tax instead of Zakat, which is complusary for all muslims except Al Rasool(Close Relatives of Prophet Muhammad PBUH).

I might be wrong bro but i think Muhammad PBUH and his Close Relatives had to pay zakat but where not allowed to recieve zakat.

 

[U-571]

the more topic like this one is opened here, the more people will be fed with people here, who have mastered their art of spreading propaganda. it will be appropriate to stick with defense stuffs. topics regarding shariah theology etc etc will invite people of very different mind set to make people believe what they believe. these topics should be posted at the forums who really deal with these things. most of people here cant handle the professionals. u simply cant beat them.

a crusader guy has like opened a crusade against muslims in a youtube channel, makes videos, to make them believe that their religion is **** n **** and all lies. well actually if u are an amateur, then god knows, u may be christian tomorrow. he likes to brainwash muslims by his unique tactics, he's usually backed by his followers.

 

[gambit]

Saudi Arabia is Kingdom ,so can not be taken as example for islamic state, Khalafat with shourah and independent Qazi shariah court is structure of islamic state, where non muslim do have all rights,protection and freedom same as muslims but they have to pay tax instead of Zakat, which is complusary for all muslims except Al Rasool(Close Relatives of Prophet Muhammad PBUH).

A 'kingdom' IS a 'state'. You need to take basic political science.

 

[EjazR]

A 'kingdom' IS a 'state'. You need to take basic political science.

What Fundamentalist said was KSA can't be taken as an example of an "Islamic state". In a kingdom, the head of state is decided on a lineage basis and is usually hereditary. This can't be a basis of an Islamic state where the head of state should be selected by consensus of the people.

 

[Righteous_Fire]

As Muslim we take our Opinions and Code of Law from "The Law" i.e. God, his Messengers and the Momineen. These, 1,2 and 3 are our sources, The concept of the Islamic state has very thoroughly been established by the Prophet and the Four Caliphs, that is true concept of the Islamic state

 

[gambit]

What Fundamentalist said was KSA can't be taken as an example of an "Islamic state". In a kingdom, the head of state is decided on a lineage basis and is usually hereditary. This can't be a basis of an Islamic state where the head of state should be selected by consensus of the people.

Here is the basic definition of a 'state'...

Sovereign state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sovereign state is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to, the power of any other power of state.

How a people select (or elect) the 'head of state', be that position hereditary or otherwise, is not the point. First and foremost the nature of 'statehood' is political, not moral. A sovereign state has institutions responsible for administering the territory, such as Ministry (or Department) of <Whatever> lead by a Minister or a Secretary. A sovereign state must be willing to defend the security of the territory from external threats and assert its authority as absolute from internal threats. To be 'willing' is not the same as 'able' but that is another issue.

The character of the people would determine the label, for better or worse, for that nation-state, or loosely 'the country'. If the predominant character of a people is of a religion, like Christianity or Islam, then the appropriate label, for external purposes, is 'Christian' or 'Islamic'. Whether that government is somehow morally responsive to the tenets of that predominant religion or not is no concern to outsiders. As far as we care, if a man dress in a certain manner, prays several times a day and hate Jews, he is a 'muslim'. If he eat pork, imbibe alcohol and practices usury, those are issues for members of his community to address, not for us outsiders to determine if he is appropriately 'Islamic' or not.

Saudi Arabia is very much a 'state' by every political definitions and is very much an 'Islamic state' by every observations.

 

[PAFAce]

Saudi Arabia is very much a 'state' by every political definitions and is very much an 'Islamic state' by every observations.

You're right, to the world, Soudi Arabia is very much an Islamic State. However, it is very much not an Islamic State according to the definition of an Islamic State in Islam, which was the point being made by Ejaz.

Islamic Statehood is a complicated issue, but the simplest way to define it would be a State which operates according to Islamic Law (Shariah) and is governed in the Islamic fashion (Caliphate), i.e., an Islamic Democracy (as opposed to the mythical pure democracy that does not exist anywhere in the world). Of couse, I'll be the first to admit, my knowledge of both Islam and Political Science is very much lacking. In fact, I believe that I may regret joining this debate in a few days time, but oh well.

 

[waraich66]

Here is the basic definition of a 'state'...

Sovereign state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How a people select (or elect) the 'head of state', be that position hereditary or otherwise, is not the point. First and foremost the nature of 'statehood' is political, not moral. A sovereign state has institutions responsible for administering the territory, such as Ministry (or Department) of <Whatever> lead by a Minister or a Secretary. A sovereign state must be willing to defend the security of the territory from external threats and assert its authority as absolute from internal threats. To be 'willing' is not the same as 'able' but that is another issue.

The character of the people would determine the label, for better or worse, for that nation-state, or loosely 'the country'. If the predominant character of a people is of a religion, like Christianity or Islam, then the appropriate label, for external purposes, is 'Christian' or 'Islamic'. Whether that government is somehow morally responsive to the tenets of that predominant religion or not is no concern to outsiders. As far as we care, if a man dress in a certain manner, prays several times a day and hate Jews, he is a 'muslim'. If he eat pork, imbibe alcohol and practices usury, those are issues for members of his community to address, not for us outsiders to determine if he is appropriately 'Islamic' or not.

Saudi Arabia is very much a 'state' by every political definitions and is very much an 'Islamic state' by every observations.

Please read about khalafat (Islamic state) and come back for discussion.

I am sorry to say that few green members dont have basic knowledge of islam because they are Miltery professional.

Web Admin need to review criteria for green membership.

99.9&#37; issues discussed in this forum need basic knowledge(fundamentals) of islam.

 

[Fracker]

Muse

isn't we are talking about "Islamic Nation" and "Islamic State" here? how come Jews or christian become part of Islamic nation?