Secularism: The Devil?s greatest trick
-
Don't walk before you can crawl now... No, single parents aren't at fault for pre-marital sex. I am saying single parents aren't good for children. How you seen how mentally freaked (sorry not a cuss word!) America is?
Agreed.
Agreed if we were in a system where the government wouldn't 'help out'.
Also define Responsible and Irresponsible sex?
Responsible sex would be sex with someone you are committed with, someone you are in a "long term relationship" with. Irresponsible would be like a one night stand...getting drunk and going at it with someone you just met.
-
What are you talking about?
The "Kuffar West" idea, really.
-
Islam is a religion...
Religion? Only beliefs and rituals, you mean? The rest of the laws are not part of 'ad-deen'/'al-islam'?
Ad-deen is not mere rituals, but it is to give ibadat/service to Allah by obeying His absolute authority in ALL matters dealt with in the Quran, not just the rituals. Take 29/17 and 2/172 for example.
...and not a state
Well, 'al-islam' itself is not a state, but God promises(24/55) those who believe and do works of improvement that He will make them successors in the land and establish their deen/al-islam there for them, so they will serve Him and not associate anything in His hukm(Rule/Judgement). You can call it a Quranic state, society or domain whatever. What do you say?
-
Peace fahad
Peace Elke.
That we all bow, willingly or unwillingy, to the system of god is imo pointing to the submission to the laws of nature (3.83).
I dont think so. It is not just the natural laws. Both verses are talking about the same laws, since 'ad-deen'(2/256) and 'deenillah'(3/83) are the same thing. (like al-huda and hudallah are the same thing, 6/71, 3/73). Do you agree?
Which should in no way affect our freedom to belief /or not in God ...
It does not effect the freedom to believe.
...or to "practice" islam or not .
Don't think of it as "practicing a religion", think of it as living by the law of the land(the Quranic domain in, this case) like we all do. The laws aren't many, neither are the punishments. If we think that the laws are too strict, we can leave. There are no punishments for not believing or not performing rituals etc.
-
Fahad The dogmatic beliefs and hatred will result whenever we are taken away from Allah's deen, whether towards sectarianism or secularism. We are either in Allah's deen or we are in Shaitaan's. If we are in Allah's deen, then He receives our ibadah/service. If we are not, then whether you label it Secularism or Sectarianism or whatever, we are in the Shaitaan's deen and he receives our ibadah. There is no middle way.
Zulf The problem is that everyone claims that HIS deen is Allah's deen, they just call it different things. There can be no consensus on this, and has never been. Only a way which let's people of different creeds coexist will minimize the level of hatred and war etc.
And a Quranic system isn't good enough for peaceful co-existence?!
Such a system is nowadays called secular, simply because there can't be consensus on what deen to follow.
Did you know that secularism is also a deen? Shaitaan's deen?
If we stop shoving such things that we can't agree upon down others throats, then we can have a common ground. Beyond this you are free to practice your own deen, the one which YOU are sure is Allah's deen, for yourself.
Say, if I am not happy with the traffic laws, should I be allowed to drive as I please? Shouldn't the law be shoved down my throat?
Of course, we can always promote items from Allah's deen and show others how it would be beneficial to humanity, and adopt it through some democratic way... and in this way have more and more of Allah's deen in our secular system. Items from Allah's deen should afterall be the best, so the challenge is to win peoples hearts by appealing to their common sense, logic and goodness... not by force, fear or threat.
2/120, 6/116, 7/179.
Things are not that black and white!
Everyone is a servant of Allah(19/93). But most are not exclusive to Him, and Shaitaan will claim them all collectively(not individually, like you think) as his servants. Like the partial ibadah/service you are promoting. Serving Allah is no big deal. Everyone can do that. We have to be exclusive to Him. We are either exclusive to Allah or we are claimed by Shaitaan
4/118 God has cursed him(Shaitaan); and he had said "I will assuredly take a definite portion of your servants/ibaad".
38/82 He(Shaitaan) said "By Your majesty, I will assuredly mislead them all(i.e. collectively)."
38/83 "Except for those among Your ibaad/servants who are mukhliseen/exclusive(to You)."
38/84 He(God) said "Therefore the Truth is, and the Truth is all I speak,"
38/84 "that I will fill Hell with you and all those who follow you."Therefore, things are black and white, in this case. What do you say?
Lobster,
I will reply to your post. -
Peace fahad
I dont think so. It is not just the natural laws. Both verses are talking about the same laws, since 'ad-deen'(2/256) and 'deenillah'(3/83) are the same thing. (like al-huda and hudallah are the same thing, 6/71, 3/73). Do you agree?
i checked the wording in arabic before i answered you and yes found that it is deen each time. still my stance on this is that 3.83 is talking about bowing to the will of allah (as expressed by laws of nature because no one escapes these laws) and that there is no compulsion as you say yourself in quote underneath if you don't accept the laws of the ("quaranic" land, you can escape these laws, at least for your lifetime. So there is a difference. But rereading your post i get what you mean and agree in fine everybody is in the hand of god and we are forced to submit to the system 'deen' without any choice - but this is yawn al quiyama - judgement day. As long as we are on this earth, we have a choice for part of the system (laws organising society in quran) but not for natural laws.
Don't think of it as "practicing a religion", think of it as living by the law of the land(the Quranic domain in, this case) like we all do. The laws aren't many, neither are the punishments. If we think that the laws are too strict, we can leave. There are no punishments for not believing or not performing rituals etc.
i agree, but want to add that i don't take all the laws in quaran as divine laws - i'm a little on bigmos line for this and said it many times before. If the finality of the law (what i call the "morals" that count and if the finality can be reached differently nowadays, laws should be adapted.
elke
-
Fahad No, its because you are unable disprove my interpretation at all. Try it, then you'll see it is not just my personal interpretation, it is actually what Quran is saying. Thats what I want to show(the Quran's stance) to those who believe in the Quran.
Lobster My knowledge of arabic is crap to say the least, so I can't disprove your interpretation through that method.
Thats the only method, since it is a discussion about whether it is Quranic, not about whether it is right or wrong. My knowledge of Arabic was also crap a year ago, not that it is very good now, but it is not too difficult to understand the Quran's language. Give it a try, specially if you can read urdu, it'll be very easier for you.
I can however, under the assumption that the quran is true, prove your interpretation wrong through logic and counter examples. If I can prove my position, and my position is contrary to yours, then either your interpretation or the quran itself is wrong.
What logic have you provided so far? You have only told what you believe is right and wrong. And again, we are not here to prove that the Quran is right or not, but to prove whether the laws are Quranic or not. I hope you can see the difference. There is a whole another section for proving the right and wrong.
But since you take the quran only as proof, I honestly don't know how to prove it because I can only give you my interpretation of the verses.
"there is no compulsion in deen." (I honestly don't get how you are interpreting it)This is how I interpret it
Your interpretation is actually that there are no punishments for breaking the Quranic laws. Now how can you say that when you can see that there ARE punishments in the Quran for breaking the law(tale adultery for example). Therefore, can "no compulsion" mean what you think it means? Tell me please.
My interpretation of it is that we cannot be forced into submission.
We CAN be forced into submt(27/31, 3/83), but we cannot be forced to believe.
Maybe outwardly we can pretend to be believers, but then we are hypocrites. So really the only way to follow the truth is to truly believe in it.
Right. (4/65)
And here's the problem,
With people, it doesn't matter whether you're a hypocrite or not. It DOES NOT MATTER what you do when you're alone. The only thing that matters to others is how your actions affect them.
But with God, it's an entirely different matter. To god, it matters what you do when you're alone. If you're a hypocrite, god will know it, and every action of yours will be accounted for.
See the difference?A person is a hypocrite when he pretends to believe while he actually does not believe. But belief is not same as submission. Because when a person "pretends" to submit, he is actually submitting. See the difference between belief/eeman and submission/islam?
Being a hypocrite is wrong, but can people punish you for it? They won't even be aware of the fact let alone punish you.
Do you understand what I'm saying?Right, I understand what you're saying. What you are saying is about belief, not about submission. Now tell me if you understand this
People CAN punish you for not submitting, because they WILL BE AWARE of the fact that you are not submitting when you are caught breaking the law(of zina, for example). Again, do you understand the difference between belief and submission now? Let me know please.
There's the law of man (social) and the law of god (personal). You can't deal with both the same way.
Why isn't there a punishment in the quran for eating pork? Because it falls under the "law of god." It's a personal thing. You are not harming anyone but yourself. God is the only one that can punish you.Where did I say that there is any punishment for eating pork?
I think the quran tries to deal with both matters. It deals with personal and social matters.
There's pornorgraphy (zina) for instance, there's a punishment of a hundred lashes...correct? Well, the quran knows that is a social issue, and other people will be harmed because of that action, so society can punish you...Ok. Wasn't I was saying the same thing?
The quran knows the difference.
If the quran wanted us to FORCE others to do the right thing, there would be a civil punishment for every sin, including eating pork, disrespecting your parents, drinking alcohol, gambling, and setting up partners with God.
But there isn't.Where did I say there is any punishment for the above mentioned sins?!
Do you get a hint of what I'm saying now?
I get the hint of what you are saying, but tell me if you get my hint. I did not say that there is punishment for eating pork, gambling, setting up partners etc. Or at least I am not aware of any punishments.
The relationship between me and god is between me and god. It's private. It's no one else's business. The only time it becomes other peoples' business is when they are affected by my actions.
Faith/eeman is private, yes. No one else's business.
I can believe in as many ****ing idols as I want, and you can do nothing about it.
Yep.
-
We CAN be forced into submt(27/31, 3/83), but we cannot be forced to believe.
No, not at all. The first verse has mutual consent, the second verse is a challenge to people, in the same way that "in which hadeeth after this" is a challenge.
-
Fahad I dont think so. It is not just the natural laws. Both verses are talking about the same laws, since 'ad-deen'(2/256) and 'deenillah'(3/83) are the same thing. (like al-huda and hudallah are the same thing, 6/71, 3/73). Do you agree?
Elke i checked the wording in arabic before i answered you and yes found that it is deen each time. still my stance on this is that 3.83 is talking about bowing to the will of allah (as expressed by laws of nature because no one escapes these laws) and that there is no compulsion as you say yourself in quote underneath if you don't accept the laws of the ("quaranic" land, you can escape these laws, at least for your lifetime.
We can't escape the laws, we only escape the legal punishments, not the natural consequences of breaking these laws. I think we can say that the law for adultery is a natural law(for humans, of course), but the punishment, not the consequences, is not natural.(because the punishment is given by other humans)
-
Fahad We CAN be forced into submt(27/31, 3/83), but we cannot be forced to believe.
OPF No, not at all. The first verse has mutual consent, the second verse is a challenge to people, in the same way that "in which hadeeth after this" is a challenge.
How has the first verse got mutual consent?! Have you read the context of the verse? Does this look like mutual consent to you
(Free-Minds translation)
27/37 "Return to them. For we shall come to them with soldiers the like of which they have never seen, and we will drive them out humiliated, and while they are debased."?
And how is "in which hadeeth after this" a challenge? People do believe in hadees other than the Quran. Does it mean that people have won the challenge?
Similarly, people do look for other than the deenillah. Have they also won the challenge?
-
peace Fahad,
Thats the only method, since it is a discussion about whether it is Quranic, not about whether it is right or wrong. My knowledge of Arabic was also crap a year ago, not that it is very good now, but it is not too difficult to understand the Quran's language. Give it a try, specially if you can read urdu, it'll be very easier for you.
I disagree that it's the only method. Obviously if your interpretation doesn't make sense logically, or has at least one counter example going against it, there is something wrong with it (or the Quran itself).
I think knowing quranic arabic would certainly help, but I don't know if learning arabic is worth it. I mean, there are a lot of arabic "experts" on this forum, but they still disagree with each other.
And to me, what the quran REALLY says isn't that important. As long as I am getting verifiable guidance from it.
Oh, and my urdu reading is poor too. '(What logic have you provided so far? You have only told what you believe is right and wrong. And again, we are not here to prove that the Quran is right or not, but to prove whether the laws are Quranic or not. I hope you can see the difference. There is a whole another section for proving the right and wrong.
Yes, I haven't provided any real proof, but I've used sound logic (based on the premise that people's right to freedom cannot be violated) to come to certain conclusions, and I have yet to see any argument against what I said, except "the Quran says you're wrong."
So in my last post, I decided to use the quran to show you that it does agree with me.Your interpretation is actually that there are no punishments for breaking the Quranic laws. Now how can you say that when you can see that there ARE punishments in the Quran for breaking the law(tale adultery for example). Therefore, can "no compulsion" mean what you think it means? Tell me please
I'm not saying there are no punishments. Of course there are.
For example, I am morbidly obese, and you (my doctor), tell me that I should stay away from ice cream or I will die.
Now, although you have warned, reminded, guided me(fulfilling the quran's role in this case), you cannot FORCE me to do anything. I can go back home and eat as much ice cream that I want. The punishment obviously will be death in this case. The reason you can't force me is because God has given me free will, just like god has given me life, no one has the right to take that away.
If you physically prevent me from eating ice cream, you are taking away my free will. I am no longer accountable for my actions. Well, I'm not going to get into why controlling others is wrong, because everyone I have met believes it is wrong...isn't that the reason we shouldn't have slaves?
So anyway, God has given you free will, and God will let you choose. God has given you the freedom to choose right or wrong.2731 Exalt not yourselves against Me, but come unto Me in willing surrender!
383 Do they seek, perchance, a faith other than in God, although it is unto Him that whatever is in the heavens and on earth surrenders itself, willingly or unwillingly, since unto Him all must return?About those two verses, I think God wants a willing surrender from us, because a forced surrender is meaningless. That's why we have no compulsion. The unwilling surrender happens when we die...we return to god.
But either way, these verses talk about surrender to God...not to people. WE cannot force anyone to do what we believe god wants.
A person is a hypocrite when he pretends to believe while he actually does not believe. But belief is not same as submission. Because when a person "pretends" to submit, he is actually submitting. See the difference between belief/eeman and submission/islam?
So in a perfect world, everyone would have computer chips implanted in their brains from birth which would make them follow the Quran without any questions.
Don't you see what's wrong with that?
If you think controlling people is okay, then I don't think we can debate about this because we have vastly different moral standards.People CAN punish you for not submitting, because they WILL BE AWARE of the fact that you are not submitting when you are caught breaking the law(of zina, for example). Again, do you understand the difference between belief and submission now? Let me know please.
I do understand what you mean by belief and submission...although I don't agree to those definitions.
I have no other comments on this.Where did I say that there is any punishment for eating pork?
Of course you didn't. Did I say you did?
Do you ever wonder WHY there isn't a punishment for eating pork? or for drinking alcohol, or for gambling?
If those things are wrong, why isn't there a punishment?My reasoning for that is that the Quran, like me, understands that following God and respecting the welfare and rights of other people are different issues. Believe in God is a personal matter, no one but God punishes you.
If you harm others, the others punish you.So yeah, I think it comes down to this question Do you think people have a right to freedom of choice?
If you think "no" then we can't have a debate because we don't have a premise.1091 SAY "O you who deny the truth!
1092 "I do not worship that which you worship,
1093 and neither do you worship that which I worship!
1094 "And I will not worship that which you have worshipped,
1095 and neither will you worship that which I worship.
1096 Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine !" -
I don't understand how and why the Secularism has anything to do with Pre-Marital Sex.
I don't understand why this topic has became a place to do a discussion on Pre-Marital Sex?
Secularism address a SECTARIANISM problems.
People gets stoned, crucified or burn to death because they defy an authorative priest and challenge their dogma.
Good example of those people are Jesus and his brother Jacob and also Ibrahim / Abraham.
Jesus was crucified yet survived, Jacob was stoned to death and Abraham was burnt yet survived.
Those people lives in a SECTARIANISM world.
Therefore I say SECTARIANISM is The Devil's greatest trick.In a secular world, no one should be punished due to their infidelity to the popular dogma / beliefs.
And "the country" by itself does not professed to the specific sect or dogmatic beliefs.As far as I know; no one gets stoned due to their infidelity to the priest / church in USA.
Although many people gets burned in the past due to their colour of skin, but it's not being done by the government, yet by certain sects with racist beliefs.In Short
Secularism is a cultural movement to bring down sectarianism and sectarian authority.And it is 100% aligned with the Quran. read 5727 about the human innovation of Rahbaniyah systems.
Salam
-
I don't understand how and why the Secularism has anything to do with Pre-Marital Sex.
I don't understand why this topic has became a place to do a discussion on Pre-Marital Sex?
Secularism address a SECTARIANISM problems.
I don't understand you want to discuss Secularism v.s Sectarianism here?! This topic is about Quran?s stance on Secularism, as I have already said a number of times.
People gets stoned, crucified or burn to death because they defy an authorative priest and challenge their dogma.
Good example of those people are Jesus and his brother Jacob and also Ibrahim / Abraham.
Jesus was crucified yet survived, Jacob was stoned to death and Abraham was burnt yet survived.
Those people lives in a SECTARIANISM world.It won?t be like that in a Quranic world.
Therefore I say SECTARIANISM is The Devil's greatest trick.
- Greatest trick to do what? Any reference?
- You haven?t read the article, have you?
In a secular world, no one should be punished due to their infidelity to the popular dogma / beliefs.
And "the country" by itself does not professed to the specific sect or dogmatic beliefs.As far as I know; no one gets stoned due to their infidelity to the priest / church in USA.
Although many people gets burned in the past due to their colour of skin, but it's not being done by the government, yet by certain sects with racist beliefs.No one is promoting sectarianism here.
In Short
Secularism is a cultural movement to bring down sectarianism and sectarian authority.And it is 100% aligned with the Quran. read 5727 about the human innovation of Rahbaniyah systems.
Read the article.
-
It won?t be like that in a Quranic world.
How do u know that? Any examples?
Bro....
To understand what something is, you must understand its opposites..
The opposite of Secularism is Sectarianism and vice-versa
By saying that Secularism is the devil's greatest trick means God commands you to uphold sectarianism..The article definitely put Secularism out of context...
And the author definetely doesn't fully understands what Secularism is..
He just presumes Secularism by observing the behaviour of "secular" people..
Just like the Christians presumes Islam by observing the behaviour of Osama Bin Laden and his mates..Quran does commands secularism.. (5727)
Salam
-
peace Fahad,
Quote
Thats the only method, since it is a discussion about whether it is Quranic, not about whether it is right or wrong. My knowledge of Arabic was also crap a year ago, not that it is very good now, but it is not too difficult to understand the Quran's language. Give it a try, specially if you can read urdu, it'll be very easier for you.
I disagree that it's the only method. Obviously if your interpretation doesn't make sense logically, ....Please show me where my interpretation doesn't make sense logically.
...or has at least one counter example going against it, there is something wrong with it (or the Quran itself).
It really does not matter in this thread whether the Quran is right or wrong. You want to believe that the Quran is wrong in what it claims to be? Ok. I believe that it is right in what it claims to be. But lets not debate over that. The thread is about Quran's stance on secularism. Even if Quran is not what it claims to be, it does not change anything about its stance on secularism. But you couldn't care less what the Quran's stance is, right? So either start caring or beat it.
And to me, what the quran REALLY says isn't that important. As long as I am getting verifiable guidance from it.
Then let me remind you again that this thread is REALLY about what the Quran REALLY says about secularism. And it IS important to me and I want other believers of the Quran to see it.
Fahad What logic have you provided so far? You have only told what you believe is right and wrong. And again, we are not here to prove that the Quran is right or not, but to prove whether the laws are Quranic or not. I hope you can see the difference. There is a whole another section for proving the right and wrong.
Lobster Yes, I haven't provided any real proof, but I've used sound logic (based on the premise that people's right to freedom cannot be violated) to come to certain conclusions, and I have yet to see any argument against what I said, except "the Quran says you're wrong."
Why should we use your premise? Why not my premise? If the Quran says you are wrong, thats what matters. Don't you ever realize what the discussion is about? I have yet to see any argument against what the Quran says except that going by your premise, "the Quran is wrong".
Btw, I am not saying that people's every action should be controlled by others. I have already said that only a few laws have punishments for breaking them. Otherwise a person is free to do what he wants to
I wrote
...The laws aren't many, neither are the punishments...
Fahad Your interpretation is actually that there are no punishments for breaking the Quranic laws. Now how can you say that when you can see that there ARE punishments in the Quran for breaking the law(tale adultery for example). Therefore, can "no compulsion" mean what you think it means? Tell me please
Lobster I'm not saying there are no punishments. Of course there are.
For example, I am morbidly obese, and you (my doctor), tell me that I should stay away from ice cream or I will die.
Now, although you have warned, reminded, guided me(fulfilling the quran's role in this case), you cannot FORCE me to do anything. I can go back home and eat as much ice cream that I want. The punishment obviously will be death in this case. The reason you can't force me is because God has given me free will, just like god has given me life, no one has the right to take that away.
If you physically prevent me from eating ice cream, you are taking away my free will. I am no longer accountable for my actions. Well, I'm not going to get into why controlling others is wrong, because everyone I have met believes it is wrong...isn't that the reason we shouldn't have slaves?So anyway, God has given you free will, and God will let you choose. God has given you the freedom to choose right or wrong.
Again, I already agree. There is no punishment for such "sins".
2731 Exalt not yourselves against Me, but come unto Me in willing surrender!
383 Do they seek, perchance, a faith other than in God, although it is unto Him that whatever is in the heavens and on earth surrenders itself, willingly or unwillingly, since unto Him all must return?About those two verses, I think God wants a willing surrender from us, because a forced surrender is meaningless. That's why we have no compulsion. The unwilling surrender happens when we die...we return to god.
If you read the context, the first verses is about unwilling surrender. Sulaiman commands the Queen to surrender or else...
(Free-Minds translation)
27/37 "Return to them. For we shall come to them with soldiers the like of which they have never seen, and we will drive them out humiliated, and while they are debased."Her surrender was unwilling until she realized that she had wronged herself...
(FM) 27/44 It was said to her "Enter the palace." So when she saw it she thought there was a pool, and she uncovered her legs. He said "It is a palace paved with crystal." She said "My Lord, I have wronged myself and I surrender with Solomon to God, the Lord of the worlds."
The Queen and her people were probably spreading fasaad, as the mufsideen themselves are the ones who falsely accuse(27/34) the musliheen of spreading fasaad.(Like Firaun's people accused Musa of fasaad) Against such people, force can be used.
The other verse(3/83) clearly mentions the surrender as 'tau'an/willing' as well as 'karhan"/unwilling'.
But either way, these verses talk about surrender to God...not to people. WE cannot force anyone to do what we believe god wants.
Right, people cannot, other than delivering the punishments as given in the Quran, or fighting against the mufsideen to force them into submission to God.
Fahad A person is a hypocrite when he pretends to believe while he actually does not believe. But belief is not same as submission. Because when a person "pretends" to submit, he is actually submitting. See the difference between belief/eeman and submission/islam?
Lobster So in a perfect world, everyone would have computer chips implanted in their brains from birth which would make them follow the Quran without any questions.You're getting me all wrong. I reapeat, I had already said that laws with punishments are very few. Other than that people are free to do what they want to.
Don't you see what's wrong with that?
If you think controlling people is okay, then I don't think we can debate about this because we have vastly different moral standards.I don't think we can debate about anything at all since you are concerned only with proving or disproving whether the Quran is right or wrong. I am not.
Where did I say that there is any punishment for eating pork?
Of course you didn't. Did I say you did?
Do you ever wonder WHY there isn't a punishment for eating pork? or for drinking alcohol, or for gambling?
If those things are wrong, why isn't there a punishment?My reasoning for that is that the Quran, like me, understands that following God and respecting the welfare and rights of other people are different issues. Believe in God is a personal matter, no one but God punishes you.
If you harm others, the others punish you.So yeah, I think it comes down to this question Do you think people have a right to freedom of choice?
If you think "no" then we can't have a debate because we don't have a premise.1091 SAY "O you who deny the truth!
1092 "I do not worship that which you worship,
1093 and neither do you worship that which I worship!
1094 "And I will not worship that which you have worshipped,
1095 and neither will you worship that which I worship.
1096 Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine !"Do I still need to comment on this? Or is my stance clear to you now?
-
It won?t be like that in a Quranic world.
How do u know that? Any examples?How do I know that?! Because the Quran does not give any such punishments for defying the priests or challenging their dogmas. In a Quranic society, Allah is the ruling ilah, so there is no fasaad(21/22).
Bro....
To understand what something is, you must understand its opposites..
The opposite of Secularism is Sectarianism and vice-versaAccording to whom? Secularism is the seperation of Allah's hukm from the worldly affairs, where people take their wishful thinking as their ilah, their ultimate authority. The opposite of it would be to do hukm/judgment or rule according to Allah's book.
Judging by the book of Allah will not lead towards sectarianism but towards impartial treatment of everyone.
4/58 ?And when you judge between people, judge with Impartiality?
?and the way to judge among people with Impartiality is to judge with the book of Allah
2/213 People used to be one single nation, and God appointed the Prophets as bringers of glad-tidings and warnings; and with them He sent down the Book(of God) in truth, so that they may judge between people wherein they differed in it;?
When you are judging by the book of Allah in a society, it is not secular anymore. So the Quran does not promote secularism. And it will be free from sectarian violence and fasaad etc as well due to its stressing upon on justice and impartiality.
Also try explaining 24/55 where God promises those who believe and do works of improvement that He will make them successors in the land and establish their deen/al-islam there for them. It won't be secular society, obviously. So will it be a sectarian one?
So Secularism is not the opposite of Sectarianism or vice-versa, but both are opposite of society ruled by Allah's book.
By saying that Secularism is the devil's greatest trick means God commands you to uphold sectarianism..
What I wrote above.
If we do follow God's law in a society , then it is not secular anymore. If we don't follow God's law, then whose law are we following? If the law is not quranic, but secular, whose law is it? even if it is partially quranic and partially secular, whose law is it? Whose deen?
Read these verses, then tell me
4/118 God has cursed him(Shaitaan); and he had said "I will assuredly take a definite portion of your servants/ibaad".
38/82 He(Shaitaan) said "By Your majesty, I will assuredly mislead them all(i.e. collectively)."
38/83 "Except for those among Your ibaad/servants who are mukhliseen/exclusive(to You)."The article definitely put Secularism out of context...
And the author definetely doesn't fully understands what Secularism is..
He just presumes Secularism by observing the behaviour of "secular" people..
Just like the Christians presumes Islam by observing the behaviour of Osama Bin Laden and his mates..So please put secularism in context for me.
Quran does commands secularism.. (5727)
Please explain how. I have already explained that sectarian and secular societies are not opposite of each other, but both are opposite of the society ruled by Allah's book.
-
peace Fahad,
I asked you whether you agree with me that we should respect and protect the freedom of others. If you agree, then that can be the premise for our debate, something we both agree on. If we disagree, then we can't really have a debate on this. If you disagree, your position will not have any contradictions or anything but you will have to admit that you believe other people don't deserve to be free. If you agree, your position will have an internal contradiction.
So, do you agree or not?And I think I tried to show you that the Quran supports "secularism."
The point we were debating was whether religion is a personal matter or a social matter.
The quran gives us social laws as well as personal laws. The personal laws do not have any punishment. For example eating pork or setting up partners with god. The reason there is no punishment is because the quran recognizes that religion is a personal matter and only god can punish individuals for breaking religious law.
The only time a punishment is given is for a crime that (according to the quran) affects other people. For example pornography (zina) which is supposed to harm society has a punishment.
Do you understand my position?Now, from what I understand, you are saying that everyone HAS to be forced to follow Islam (which would mean that everyone will be forced to avoid pork, and forced to testify that there is only one god), which I believe doesn't make any sense because as I said, these are personal matters and no one else has any right to force you.
No where does the quran say that we should force people to submit.
You believe that believing is a personal matter, but subbmitting is not.
I guess I don't agree with you on the definitions of the word "islam" and "iman." I would like you to start a new topic and explain how you arrived at those definitions. -
Peace Lobster.
peace Fahad,
I asked you whether you agree with me that we should respect and protect the freedom of others. If you agree, then that can be the premise for our debate, something we both agree on. If we disagree, then we can't really have a debate on this. If you disagree, your position will not have any contradictions or anything but you will have to admit that you believe other people don't deserve to be free. If you agree, your position will have an internal contradiction.
So, do you agree or not?I repeat, they are free to eat what they want, free to believe/disbelieve etc.
And I think I tried to show you that the Quran supports "secularism."
How in the world can it possibly support secularism?! It tells us to rule by the book of Allah.
The point we were debating was whether religion is a personal matter or a social matter.
The quran gives us social laws as well as personal laws. The personal laws do not have any punishment. For example eating pork or setting up partners with god.I repeat there is no punishment for eating pork etc.
Setting up other aaliha/gods ultimately results in fasaad(21/22). WHEN it does result in fasaad in the land, the mufsideen can be punished(5/33).
The reason there is no punishment is because the quran recognizes that religion is a personal matter and only god can punish individuals for breaking religious law.
The only time a punishment is given is for a crime that (according to the quran) affects other people. For example pornography (zina) which is supposed to harm society has a punishment.
Do you understand my position?Yes, I had already understood your position. But you haven't understood my position yet, despite my repeating it many times, sigh.
Now, from what I understand, you are saying that everyone HAS to be forced to follow Islam (which would mean that everyone will be forced to avoid pork, and forced to testify that there is only one god), which I believe doesn't make any sense because as I said, these are personal matters and no one else has any right to force you.
No where does the quran say that we should force people to submit.
One can only be forced to submit by others when he is committing fasaad.
You believe that believing is a personal matter, but subbmitting is not.
People cannot be forced into belief no-matter-what. However in case of people causing fasaad, injustice etc, they can be punished or forced to submit.
I guess I don't agree with you on the definitions of the word "islam" and "iman." I would like you to start a new topic and explain how you arrived at those definitions.
Will do.