Turkey on the Right Path

[mubakr]

I do know secularism, and that's why I reject it as kufr.
But maybe you don't know that Islam is not just about Salah and Sawm, but rather, one of its obligation is also to implement Allah's law on Allah's land and having His Din reign supreme..

Secularism is just one facet of modern governments.
Government is about governing roads, infrastructure, health, welfare, science, taxation, education.
I dont understand the need of putting an Alim in for e.g. the department of civil and urban engineering.
If you dont want an Alim for that role then why do you say you are for a government of people learned in 'sharia'?

People talk illogical things. People say they want sharia-based government. But however not a single government on earth has Alims in its parliaments because logic dictates that Alims should advise on religious affairs to population not sit as a chairman of the ministry of health and advise governments how to make hospitals be efficient or of higher quality.

Parliament, democracy, secularism and a constitution not contradicting Islamic values all facilitate governance. They are not meant to replace religion or overstep it. They are doing what they are supposed to do i.e. Govern the sophistications of modern civilization. Sometimes I wonder how muslims can sit and keep on repeating the mantra 'sharia' government and dont know how the hell to go about it or have no model example in modern times to exemplify it. Every other government which says we are 'sharia based' is rejected by people who want sharia based government because they are too ashamed to say that society is a product of sharia because all examples so far are a mess and shambles.

[AK-1990]

Secularism is just one facet of modern governments.
Government is about governing roads, infrastructure, health, welfare, science, taxation, education.
I dont understand the need of putting an Alim in for e.g. the department of civil and urban engineering.
If you dont want an Alim for that role then why do you say you are for a government of people learned in 'sharia'?

People talk illogical things. People say they want sharia-based government. But however not a single government on earth has Alims in its parliaments because logic dictates that Alims should advise on religious affairs to population not sit as a chairman of the ministry of health and advise governments how to make hospitals be efficient or of higher quality.

Parliament, democracy, secularism and a constitution not contradicting Islamic values all facilitate governance. They are not meant to replace religion or overstep it. They are doing what they are supposed to do i.e. Govern the sophistications of modern civilization. Sometimes I wonder how muslims can sit and keep on repeating the mantra 'sharia' government and dont know how the hell to go about it or have no model example in modern times to exemplify it. Every other government which says we are 'sharia based' is rejected by people who want sharia based government because they are too ashamed to say that society is a product of sharia because all examples so far are a mess and shambles.

Again you are talking about Secularism. I wonder how on earth you are comparing secularism with Islam and treating it as a substitute for Islamic Shariah. After reading your posts I have analyzed that there are few misconceptions:
1) You have a misunderstanding about the structure of Islamic Shariah. Brother, It is NOT necessary or an obligation that the Shura (or in your words the Parliament) must have Ulema in its ranks. Yes of course the administrative positions must be held by the Ulema but that does not mean that the person responsible for health should be an aalim too. It could be someone knowledgeable in terms of worldly knowledge but will be chosen by the Khalifa based on conditions in the sharia.
2) You say that there are no examples of Shariah implementation in the world. What about the eras Khulafa e Rashideen then? What about Taliban of Afghanistan whose government was unanimously accepted by the Muslims (except the secular ones of course!)? This is an argument which is posed by secular minded people every now and then!
3) When you talk about democracy, secularism and a "superficial" constitution that does not contradict Islamic Values, you become self contradictory. Brother, Do not compare Shariah with these man made laws. They will always go against Allah's law no matter if they 'seem' to have a positive impact.
4) By the terms sophistication of modern civilization. Are you trying to imply that Islamic Shariah is in ANYWAY obsolete and can not be implemented with the changing times. Brother, you are living in a superficial world of your own. People in this day and age have been there and done that. They have implemented shariah from its roots alhamdulillah.

And Allah knows best!

[mubakr]

Brother, It is NOT necessary or an obligation that the Shura (or in your words the Parliament) must have Ulema in its ranks.

What about Taliban of Afghanistan whose government was unanimously accepted by the Muslims

Brother, Do not compare Shariah with these man made laws. They will always go against Allah's law no matter if they 'seem' to have a positive impact.


Are you trying to imply that Islamic Shariah is in ANYWAY obsolete and can not be implemented with the changing times.

People in this day and age have been there and done that. They have implemented shariah from its roots alhamdulillah.

I wonder how on earth you are comparing secularism with Islam and treating it as a substitute for Islamic Shariah.


Brother, you are living in a superficial world of your own.

Salams brother,

'Shura should not compulsorily have Ulema' - What Sharia model are you talking about? Almost all sharia based models today have men learned in religion to influence government, take the taliban or the Al-Shabab or even the Saud-wahhabi alliance ruling or influencing saudia Arabias governance.

'Do not compare sharia with man-made laws' Allah has praised reasoning, thoughtfullness and knowledge in All fields including the fields of governing society. Allah sent his religion for people to worship and acknowledge Him in his full majesty. He didnt send a religion for people to start debate whether women should go to school and university which would happen in a parliament of Ulema if a true sharia based society were pursued.

You say Islamic sharia is not obsolete and then you give example of TAliban. Bro are you serious in your intentions to make the Islamic civilization the most supreme civilization materially and spiritually by mentioning the Taliban as an exemplar?

I am not living in a superficial world of my own. I am expressing and advocating that efforts be directed elsewhere. Modern nation states having constitution, democracy and laicism are stable, progressive and infact allow full development of religiousity in a society if it has has strong grassroot religious institutions. You can even see in secular UK Darul-Uloom institutions for example are churning out good scholars. Why dont you get good scholarly output from so called 'sharia' grounded communities like saudia arabia or taliban.

Pragmatism above mindless emotions is important. No Muslim can dare give precedence to ideas contradicting Islam. However you label secularism and modern governance as contradicting Islam where as I see the western model of governance as one which will promote genuine Islamic values in a Muslim-majority country and will also allow ISlam to spread rapidly in non-muslim states too.

To be honest, I dont exactly understand how this hypothetical sharia nation would look like. Its just too difficult to imagine in this modern day and age. How in the 21st century can a country structure her whole government around religious educated individuals is beyond my understanding of efficiency in governance. Religious people think piety, dawah, hadith, fiqh and other fields of religious education..
How they will understand departments of universities, or the specialties of medicine or fiscal policies or the latest in scientific and technological advances is beyond my understanding.

[umar_italy]

Secularism is just one facet of modern governments.
Government is about governing roads, infrastructure, health, welfare, science, taxation, education.
I dont understand the need of putting an Alim in for e.g. the department of civil and urban engineering.
If you dont want an Alim for that role then why do you say you are for a government of people learned in 'sharia'?

People talk illogical things. People say they want sharia-based government. But however not a single government on earth has Alims in its parliaments because logic dictates that Alims should advise on religious affairs to population not sit as a chairman of the ministry of health and advise governments how to make hospitals be efficient or of higher quality.

Parliament, democracy, secularism and a constitution not contradicting Islamic values all facilitate governance. They are not meant to replace religion or overstep it. They are doing what they are supposed to do i.e. Govern the sophistications of modern civilization. Sometimes I wonder how muslims can sit and keep on repeating the mantra 'sharia' government and dont know how the hell to go about it or have no model example in modern times to exemplify it. Every other government which says we are 'sharia based' is rejected by people who want sharia based government because they are too ashamed to say that society is a product of sharia because all examples so far are a mess and shambles.

Islamic government based on Shari'ah doesn't have anything to do with placing Ulama' as head of every department, or even as head of the State.
It means implementing the law that Allah ordered us to implement, instead of the English or the French law.

[Maripat]

Islamic government based on Shari'ah doesn't have anything to do with placing Ulama' as head of every department, or even as head of the State.
It means implementing the law that Allah ordered us to implement, instead of the English or the French law.

Exactly.
I am quite tempted to bring in my favourite date pollination Tradition into discussion but I'll resist.

[umar_italy]

STo be honest, I dont exactly understand how this hypothetical sharia nation would look like. Its just too difficult to imagine in this modern day and age.

Astaghfirullah, you basically mean that the Law of Allah is "outdated" and "no more valid" for "this modern day and age"?...

How in the 21st century can a country structure her whole government around religious educated individuals is beyond my understanding of efficiency in governance.

Again, you are misunderstanding what it means having an Islamic government.
It doesn't mean a government in which all state officials are Ulama with only religious education!
It means that you apply the Law of Allah and it reigns supreme.
Then, to each one his own duty: engineers will be engineers, doctor shall be doctors, ulama shall be ulama. In an Islamic framework, as Allah commanded us.

[Maripat]

Salams brother,

'Shura should not compulsorily have Ulema' - What Sharia model are you talking about? Almost all sharia based models today have men learned in religion to influence government, take the taliban or the Al-Shabab or even the Saud-wahhabi alliance ruling or influencing saudia Arabias governance.

Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab (DB) said that in a meeting of significant organization it was decided that all technical matters will be decided in consultation with experts of that field.

'Do not compare sharia with man-made laws' Allah has praised reasoning, thoughtfullness and knowledge in All fields including the fields of governing society. Allah sent his religion for people to worship and acknowledge Him in his full majesty. He didnt send a religion for people to start debate whether women should go to school and university which would happen in a parliament of Ulema if a true sharia based society were pursued.

Reasoning is a faculty that has been provided by Allah (SWT) but like any other blessing of Allah (SWT) this too should be subservient to Islam.

You say Islamic sharia is not obsolete and then you give example of TAliban. Bro are you serious in your intentions to make the Islamic civilization the most supreme civilization materially and spiritually by mentioning the Taliban as an exemplar?

Shariah is obsolete because there is Taliban is a wrong argument.

I am not living in a superficial world of my own. I am expressing and advocating that efforts be directed elsewhere. Modern nation states having constitution, democracy and laicism are stable, progressive and infact allow full development of religiousity in a society if it has has strong grassroot religious institutions. You can even see in secular UK Darul-Uloom institutions for example are churning out good scholars. Why dont you get good scholarly output from so called 'sharia' grounded communities like saudia arabia or taliban.

You are giving Dawah towards non-Islamic systems. We do understand that akhi.

Pragmatism above mindless emotions is important. No Muslim can dare give precedence to ideas contradicting Islam. However you label secularism and modern governance as contradicting Islam where as I see the western model of governance as one which will promote genuine Islamic values in a Muslim-majority country and will also allow ISlam to spread rapidly in non-muslim states too.

This defies sense. You are saying be non-Islamic if you want to be Islamic.

To be honest, I dont exactly understand how this hypothetical sharia nation would look like. Its just too difficult to imagine in this modern day and age. How in the 21st century can a country structure her whole government around religious educated individuals is beyond my understanding of efficiency in governance. Religious people think piety, dawah, hadith, fiqh and other fields of religious education..

Shariah has prohibition of alcohol.
Pakistan has to to some level.
Shariah means you have a Ministry for Haj.
Many Islamic countries have it.
Shariah means Islamic justice.
Saudia implements some of them.
Shariah means Islamic way of doing business.
The Halal business is a billion dollar enterprise today.
Shariah means preference to Hereafter over this world.
A relative engineer of mine was bent on his work during Salah time in Dubai. His employer Shaikh passed by and was disturbed and rebuked him saying that you are not supposed to give preference to work over Salah.

So look for the evidence - you have lot of it.
We know it is not that much which will please the western mind. Why should you care for that?

How they will understand departments of universities, or the specialties of medicine or fiscal policies or the latest in scientific and technological advances is beyond my understanding.

There are Muslims who understand departments of universities.
There are Muslims who understand the specialties of medicine.
There are Muslims who understand fiscal policies.
There are Muslims who understand scientific and technological advances.

[Abdul1234]

You say Islamic sharia is not obsolete.....

With the above statement it is clear that you think it is.

Modern nation states having constitution, democracy and laicism are stable, progressive and infact allow full development of religiousity

such states may indeed be the civilized places that you are implying

but very often they may ban the hijab, ban minarets, ban the niqaab, make it difficult or impossible to build new Masjids....

or they may launch and take part in invasions of Muslim countries (against the will of their populous) killing hundreds of thousands of innocents and engaging in the torture of Muslims....

don't idolize these states, they can go either towards benevolence or evil.

Pragmatism above mindless emotions is important. No Muslim can dare give precedence to ideas contradicting Islam. However you label secularism and modern governance as contradicting Islam where as I see the western model of governance as one which will promote genuine Islamic values in a Muslim-majority country and will also allow ISlam to spread rapidly in non-muslim states too.

non-Muslim states can govern themselves however they wish - it is between them and Allah.

Muslim states should be governed according to however Allah (SWT) has informed us they should through his Messenger (saws) - and this is open to different interpretations, many of them which are not reactionary or cruel like the examples that the enemies of Islam like to give.

To be honest, I dont exactly understand how this hypothetical sharia nation would look like. Its just too difficult to imagine in this modern day and age.

It would look like any other nation apart from the good would be enjoined and the wrong prohibited according to what God has declared right and wrong not according to what man has.

How in the 21st century can a country structure her whole government around religious educated individuals is beyond my understanding of efficiency in governance.

Your view on what an Islamic state would be is cartoon like.

You have some very strange ideas, a true Islamic state is governed according to the light of Islam from which its rules spring, everything else goes on much as before unless it is something hateful to Allah and pretty much everyone remains in the same job.

Religious people think piety, dawah, hadith, fiqh and other fields of religious education. How they will understand departments of universities, or the specialties of medicine or fiscal policies or the latest in scientific and technological advances...

You are being very insulting to religious people and implying that they are retards with an inability to understand anything other than religion.

Many scientists, economists and important physicians are "religious people" as you call them.

The ruler of an Islamic state has always been advised by many viziers who have included amongst their ranks the best scientists and thinkers of their days, just as the rulers of any modern state are advised on matters like the ones you are talking about.

[mubakr]

To be frank I do idolize western governance. I dont idolize western nations culture, way of life or their media and entertainment. I think ISlam in unsurpassable in all the fundamentals of culture, ethics, behaviour and has better values of living. But just like how the muslims after the generations of the early salaf they indulged themselves in greek, indian, persian non-muslim works to produce great scientific innovations and upgrades to civilization. I think we can similarly learn the art of governance i.e. the pillars of modern governance - secularism, parliament, democracy and constitution to ease complexities of governing society. Turkey's AKP is doing that. It borrowed western modes of government whilst Individuals are committed to Muslim faith. IT is one of few muslim nation which can hold its head high in the modern world in terms of economics, science, infrastructure and technology and that is because Ataturk followed pragmatism. People who accuse him of Kufr e.t.c. are the same one's probably who would be doing the same when the early muslim indulged in greek, roman, chinese or persian works and implemented them. He did what he had to do, face the challenges of modern civilization and be comparable to any great nation of the time - america, britain, france e.t.c. The ottoman caliphate because it adhered to old models of governance could not be efficient. Infact I salute the turks to be the only nation in the past 600 years who continue to show versatility in pursuing the very best the world has got to offer. They have the same spirit by which they ruled the Muslim World for the past many centuries and inshAllah they will also continue to unify the Muslim nations into a single bloc and be an exemplar leader of governance and prosperity.

[pawlak]

To be frank I do idolize western governance. I dont idolize western nations culture, way of life or their media and entertainment. They have the same spirit by which they ruled the Muslim World for the past many centuries and inshAllah they will also continue to unify the Muslim nations into a single bloc and be an exemplar leader of governance and prosperity.

Don't you idolize the usury-based central banking system of the West ?

Who cares what kind of Islamic state Turkey becomes as long as it allows usury based central banking system ?

You do have a great magnficent central bank in Turkey , don't you ?
The central bankers hated the Ottoman empire, because , it was a big barrier on the road to world government !!

So they destroyed it through subversion using Donmeh Jews including Kemal Atatruk.

They will destroy Turkey again if those dirty Turks dare to rise up again.

Who is behind the PKK ? Follow the money ! Soon , you might see Turkey splitted into two. Greater Kurdistan is coming !!

More on these central bankers , check these links.

##########
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...atanic-bankers
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...-global-empire
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ming-to-Turkey
#########