Malik posted:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/310#310

Next, the verse you pasted is regarding the position of non Muslims in the Islamic State. If they follow the laws and pay the Jizya tax then they receive all of their rights within the State as any citizen. The Jizya or Protection tax is applied because non-Muslims aren't required to defend the nation when it is under attack.

I think this concept of an Islamic state is more of a problem than violence in the Koran. It basically rules out any concept of separation of church and state. It also makes it inevitable that Muslims will try to take over government in the name of their church in any place where they gain a majority.

Is Islam unique in linking religion and government so strongly? Did Mohammed make any effort to distuinguish his role as a head of state from his actions as a representative of God? Does Islam promote a view that power corrupts men, or is the pursuit of power on earth part of being a Muslim?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 5:45pm:


Hi Freediver,

As mentioned, Islam is not unique at the least in this aspect regarding no separation between church and state.

It doesn't mean however that Muslims are going to try and take over the government by force. An Islamic state in a country like Australia could only be established if it was voted in by the majority of Australians through referendum by democratic vote. This is how the first Islamic state was established in Madinah after the Muslims migrated there from Mecca at the invitation of the residents of Madinah.

An Islamic State can have peaceful relations with a non-Islamic state with trade deals and good relations and this has occurred many times in the past. The only time an Islamic state would have the right to fight the non-Muslim state would be if the non-Islamic state went to war against the Islamic state, if they harmed or refused to allow Muslim missionaries to call people to Islam through peaceful means in their nations or prevented Muslims from practicing their religion.

In some cases it is also acceptable to go to war with a non-Islamic state if they have committed gross transgressions on peoples human rights like oppression etc. In such cases where they do this and diplomacy doesn't work, the Islamic state may be obligated to intervene militarily to force the government responsible to cease in their actions and if they do not force..

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 4:30am:

Hi sprint, that's referring to the situation at the time of the prophet Muhammad pbuh when the pagans were breaking the treaties between themselves and the Muslims.. After that happened several times the Muslims were ordered to fight them until there was no more idol worship in the Holy Land and that the Kaaba was free from being surrounded by idols.

Had the Pagans not been hostile to the Muslims and attacked them so many times the Muslims would have not fought them.

muso - much as I love another music lover I have to point out a few salient points here.

The Old testament is not binding to christians, only the new testament.
I am not aware of those two quotes, though they may exist.

The bible covers 6000 years, the koran one mans life.


Louis Armstrong is beautiful.   

Malik I noticed you mentioned a caliphate a few times - referring to a union of Islamic states. What advantage do you see in such a union that couldn't be achieved independently in each state? How would forming a union increase the liklihood of 'getting it right' as opposed to the current mess many middle eastern countries are in at the moment? Do you see the primary goal of the union as reinforcing the link between government and religion, or is it more 'politically' motivated, like with the EU? How would a caliphate compare with modern Turkey?

Regarding the establishment of an Islamic state by democracy - that doesn't really make it any less of a problem in countries where it might happen. Democracy is not the most important value we have. Freedom and human rights are. Democracy is merely the will of the majority being imposed on the minority. It is only tolerated because the alternatives are worse. Most nations with a decent constitution delibertely put freedom and human rights above all else and then seek to limit ways in which the democracy can undermine those freedoms. We deliberately limit concentration of power. We separate institutions like law enforcement, law makers and justice. We protect the media from government intimidation. We deliberately separate church and state, as any strong link between government and powerful undemocratic bodies will inevitably lead to the sacrifice of human rights in the pursuit of power. We recognise that you cannot put God in charge by giving a small numbver of powerful people too much authority, because power corrupts.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 8:24am:



I believe it is called getting rid of the competition.
The mafia use similiar principles.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 11:49pm:


Malaysia is a moderate Muslim country with the exception of the states of Terranganu, Kelantan (north-east Malaysia), Sabah and Sarawak (Borneo).

Parliament is modelled after the Westminster system and criminal and domestic law is based on British Law. Terranganu and Kelantan also have Shariah Law which has jurisdiction over domestic affairs only. Sabah and Sarawak are essentially secular and heavily influence by the English.

There is heavy lobbying for Shariah to be introduced throughout Malaysia. However, there is also heavy resisitance by the moderate govt and voters not to have it implemented.


** edit **

Having said all that, and in spite of Shariah Law in the conservative states it is still moderate (eg: Muslim women are not punished for not wearing headscarves). It does not have a virtue and vice police like Saudi Arabia.

Acid - maybe so so far.
A friend of mine visited thailand last year.
Told me how the islamics are taking over the villages.





"Jihadist activity increasing, study warns  : Print By Mark Schliebs
June 25, 2008 09:21am

INDONESIAN jihadists are pumping out an increasing number of magazines and publications in a bid to continue their holy war.

A new report says the Australian Government should be concerned about the growing number of jihadist publications being produced and the active recruitment schemes by secretive Islamist groups in Southeast Asia.

The report also said the controversial Hizb ut-Tahrir group, which has hundreds of members in Australia, was trying to find new recruits at a Malaysian university where al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorists have studied.

The report, Neighbourhood watch: The evolving terrorist threat in Southeast Asia, said Australia should be working to stop the growth in jihadist literature.

A new Indonesian glossy magazine, Jihadmagz, was identified in the report as one publication that authorities should see as a threat.

“The re-emergence of violent jihadist literature in Indonesia through glossy new publications such as Jihadmagz is a concerning trend and one that will need to be monitored closely,” the report said.

The report’s authors, Peter Chalk from US think-tank the RAND Corporation and Carl Ungerer from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, called on the Government to hold a meeting with foreign ministers to address the problem.

“Australia should consider hosting another round of ministerial-level talks that would continue the work of the previous sub-regional ministerial conference held in March 2007,” the authors said.

“A particular focus for this meeting would be dealing with the recent upsurge in jihadist publications as part of a more comprehensive counter-radicalisation strategy across the region.”

Thomas Sanderson from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies said security experts were concerned about the rise in jihadist publications.

“It is something that has been mentioned in our network… certainly people have been bringing up the literature,” Mr Sanderson said.

The International Crisis Group has previously said that JI, the organisation behind the 2002 Bali Bombings, had increased its production of literature in recent years.

Other threats

The success of the Hizb ut-Tahrir group in Malaysia was seen as potentially a major “radicalising influence” that Australia should keep an eye on.

Dedicated to establishing Islamic rule by overthrowing Western governments, Hizb ut-Tahrir is established in Sydney and has been recruiting new members at local university campuses.

The New South Wales Government publicly asked for the organisation to be banned last year, but then-federal attorney-general Philip Ruddock rejected the calls.

“According to Western diplomats and Malaysian political commentators, the group has already made inroads into Malay society and is now actively recruiting from prominent tertiary education institutions such as the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,” the report said.

It said the university was “a significant past source of both al-Qaeda and JI militants”.

The ASPI report was launched by Attorney-General Robert McClelland this morning. "



http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23919477-5003402,00.html