Religion and State separation - Yes or No ?

[Ababeel]

you mean islamic countries feel threatened by islam?

Not Islamic countries but the ruling Secular or Westernised or ultra modernist or ultra moderates feel threatened by Islam as it applies many full stops at their many un Islamic activities.

We need to follow secular laws as it would turn out to be closer to true Islam than if we tried to implement Islam.

So you mean you want to follow the laws followed by the Prophet (PBUH) in the Islamic state formed by him before his death and the laws followed by the Righteous Caliphs (Khulfa-e-Rashideen) during their period of caliphacy. Am I right?

No, its more like feel threatened by the mullah version of islam

So these Secularists want to implement the version of Islam taught by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and followed by the Righteous Caliphs?

There is the one n only version of Islam, the one that is found in quran & was taught by prophet (PBUH).
These mullahs are all in for political & personal gains. They don't really care about people.

Which version of Islam Musharraf is following. Copmare it with first Islamic state formed by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and and later continued on the same guidelines by the Righteous Caliphs (Khlfa-e-Rashideen).

may be I should have been much more clearer. "versions of islam"="versions of practising islam".

There are no versions of Islam or versions of practicing Islam. Islam is purely based on the Quran, the final revelation of God and the Sunnah.

 

[zraver]

There are no versions of Islam or versions of practicing Islam. Islam is purely based on the Quran, the final revelation of God and the Sunnah.

So based on what your saying then the Wahabist are truly representing Islam? Or is the Shia or Sunni that are right? Did the Assassins truly represent Islam? Islam is based on purely on how the local religious leaders say it is structured. The truth is that Islam is divided as bad or worse than Christendom over what exactly the true faith and how to practice it is.

Religion does best when it controls a moral compass that people can freely choose, but not the reigns of power over which people have no choice. Even your prophet said there is no compulsion in religion, and what is the ability to write laws but a form of compulsion.

 

[Awesome]

So you mean you want to follow the laws followed by the Prophet (PBUH) in the Islamic state formed by him before his death and the laws followed by the Righteous Caliphs (Khulfa-e-Rashideen) during their period of caliphacy. Am I right?

Yes and no. Times have changed. The ideal laws would incorporate the new times through a process of Ijtihad but also not oppose the letter of the law as handed down by the Prophet. Secular laws by large do not go against Islam and if you look deep into it, if set by good (morally) lawmakers then they might not oppose Islam at all.

For example secular laws do not permit Alcohol, they just don't ban it. They do however restrict it for minors. But on the other hand secular laws give you the full command to go ahead and CONVINCE your people not to drink even if its available. After all that's true Islam. You shouldn't be tempted towards sin.

Ideal Islam that comes out after a lot of Ijtihad efforts is just not happening overnight or perhaps if we start today, not even in a decade.

So these Secularists want to implement the version of Islam taught by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and followed by the Righteous Caliphs?

Nobody should implement a religion. It should be followed with freewill of the people.

Which version of Islam Musharraf is following. Copmare it with first Islamic state formed by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and and later continued on the same guidelines by the Righteous Caliphs (Khlfa-e-Rashideen).

I once heard an argument how Umar slept under the open sky and Musharraf needs a lot of bodygaurds. I find the comparisons really disconnected as we are in a different time period of sniper rifles, bombs and chemical weapons.

But yes when it comes to the simple fundamentals of Islam, I think Pakistan under Musharraf is not disconnected with that. Musharraf has reintroduced the concept of freewill. Do the hijab, don't do the hijab. The person who does, good, the person who doesn't, also good.

True in this way we do not get ONE correct version of Islam, but we would never have gotten it by declaring Islam's definition ourselves. We need to let the people figure it out. What we do end up accomplishing is that no one's Islam is the wrong ISlam either.

There are no versions of Islam or versions of practicing Islam. Islam is purely based on the Quran, the final revelation of God and the Sunnah.

Exactly Islam is based on the Quran and the Sunnah. But each time period can reinterpret the Quran and the Sunnah right? Islam pretty much is the HUMAN interpretation of the Quran. It's human, it would change. Thankfully since the Quran is divine, it won't. But the two make it a good thing. We can always revise our interpretation since we can always fall back upon the text.

 

[aksingh]

"In front of Allah's decree, I am a Muslim first. If you ask me to participate in this country abandoning this religion (Islam), this Shariah (Islamic way of life) and this complete doctrine of peace, then I am absolutely not ready to do so. And same should be the sentiments of followers of any other religion, that they should not quit their fundamental beliefs and religion for the sake of worldly affairs. As far as the independence of India, its development and uplift is concerned, I am an Indian first and an Indian last. I draw two equal sized circles around me, one is centered on India and the second is centered on Islam, we, as Indian Muslims, belong to both.” – a raw translation of an excerpt from one of Moulana Mohammed Ali Johar’s speeches.

 

[Awesome]

Moulana saahab makes sense if the question asked to him was are you an Indian first or a Muslim.