Reform in Muslim societies

[Toramana]

Religious reform, science and technology, better intra-muslim relations, eliminate sectarian differences, peace, stability, propsperity, knowledge pursuit, and overall thrust towards modernization.

[Porus]

Introduce a secular environment where religion and its role in society can be discussed. To do this you have to have the full well-being of the establishment of whichever country you live in.

Minimise the role of religion to a personal matter. Don't give preference to any particular one.

[Toramana]

Introduce a secular environment where religion and its role in society can be discussed. To do this you have to have the full well-being of the establishment of whichever country you live in.

Minimise the role of religion to a personal matter. Don't give preference to any particular one.

Agree on that.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Minimise the role of religion to a personal matter. Don't give preference to any particular one.

everything except this part; you'll have backlash since Islam is intrinsically a public and social enterprise. this won't be accepted by most cognizant Muslims who esteem Islam.

[Porus]

everything except this part; you'll have backlash since Islam is intrinsically a public and social enterprise. this won't be accepted by most cognizant Muslims who esteem Islam.

You're right, in the current atmosphere it won't be accepted. That's why Muslims like me or maybe you, will have to strive for it.

The day you and I can fight for the rights of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis and various other religious groups in our respective countries, that's when we can hope to be like secular countries in Europe and North America.

I, as a Pakistani, don't want an 'Islamic Republic'. This is a flawed idea, and only exists to serve a small number of elite Muslims.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

, that's when we can hope to be like secular countries in Europe and North America.

.

I have no interest in Western Liberalism; rights of minority groups is guaranteed by Islam already; the problem is people are cherry picking which parts of Islam to advocate.

[Porus]

I have no interest in Western Liberalism; rights of minority groups is guaranteed by Islam already; the problem is people are cherry picking which parts of Islam to advocate.

Disagree, I think secularism is the only way for equal rights for minorities.

In an Islamic state, even if all other religions are respected, the point remains that you cannot mock Islam. Though, if you can prove to me that I can be an Atheist and mock Islam and call Mohammad a pedo in an Islamic state, then I'd be all for it.

Plus, Jizya is not a secular concept. The concept of extra tax for non-Muslims, and originally this was for non-Arab 'Muslims' a.k.a Dhimmis. Non-Muslims according to Islam have to pay a Jizya Tax.

[Toramana]

Disagree, I think secularism is the only way for equal rights for minorities.

In an Islamic state, even if all other religions are respected, the point remains that you cannot mock Islam. Though, if you can prove to me that I can be an Atheist and mock Islam and call Mohammad a pedo in an Islamic state, then I'd be all for it.

Plus, Jizya is not a secular concept. The concept of extra tax for non-Muslims, and originally this was for non-Arab 'Muslims' a.k.a Dhimmis. Non-Muslims according to Islam have to pay a Jizya Tax.

I agree with Porus on that. Only secularism and equal status can give a sense of security to religious minorities. But hay I it is not equivalent to saying religion should be excluded - neither that is possible. Religion be a part of our collective heritage and should play a strong social community building role.

[Porus]

I agree with Porus on that. Only secularism and equal status can give a sense of security to religious minorities. But hay I it is not equivalent to saying religion should be excluded - neither that is possible. Religion be a part of our collective heritage and should play a strong social community building role.

Precisely. Afghanistan and Pakistan are Islamic in nature due to their history. However, religious minorities exist in both countries. So to call our state 'Islamic' would be like excluding them from public discourse. There is no 'Judeo-Christian' state of Denmark, Belgium, UK, or France. They are simply republics.

In fact, the best example for Pakistan is India. Best examples for Afghanistan are its Central Asian neighbours; Tajikistan, Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan. They are Muslim in character, but completely secular in their statecraft.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Disagree, I think secularism is the only way for equal rights for minorities.

In an Islamic state, even if all other religions are respected, the point remains that you cannot mock Islam. Though, if you can prove to me that I can be an Atheist and mock Islam and call Mohammad a pedo in an Islamic state, then I'd be all for it.

Plus, Jizya is not a secular concept. The concept of extra tax for non-Muslims, and originally this was for non-Arab 'Muslims' a.k.a Dhimmis. Non-Muslims according to Islam have to pay a Jizya Tax.

You shouldn't have the right to mock Islam in the first place. You can challenge Islam, if you logical reasons but mocking is not logical.

Personally, I would oppose any movement that tries to encourage Western Liberalism under the pretext of promoting secularism. Western Liberlaism is an ideology like any other and why should we kowtow to it over Islam? What qualitative advantages does Western Liberalism have over Islam? None that I can see.

You can be an Atheist in Muslim lands if you respectfully apostatize, but you're still obligated to abide by the norms of society i.e. not encouraging the spread of alcoholic subsances, lewd materials, trying to encourage Muslims to abandon Islam. You must also abdicate any inheritance rights or legal privileges you had as a Muslim with regards to civil procedures.

Otherwise if decide to flout Islam, then you'll rightfullyl be dealt with for trying to sow discord; but of course to safe guard against those who will use such "accusations" for an agenda to discredit people; you should have a chance to vindicate yourself of such charges in court, but if convicted you'll very rightfully be penalized for your behavior.

I have never seen any references that suggest non-Arab Muslims have to pay Jizya according to Islamic Doctrine itself. Perhaps you can give sound narrations.

[Porus]

You shouldn't have the right to mock Islam in the first place. You can challenge Islam, if you logical reasons but mocking is not logical.

That's not for you, or any state to say. You might not agree with my mocking, but under a democratic state you can either tolerate my views or go your own way. You're not obligated to hear my views, but you have to respect them.

Personally, I would oppose any movement that tries to encourage Western Liberalism under the pretext of promoting secularism. Western Liberlaism is an ideology like any other and why should we kowtow to it over Islam? What qualitative advantages does Western Liberalism have over Islam? None that I can see.

Define 'Western Liberalism'.

You can be an Atheist in Muslim lands if you respectfully apostatize, but you're still obligated to abide by the norms of society i.e. not encouraging the spread of alcoholic subsances, lewd materials, trying to encourage Muslims to abandon Islam. You must also abdicate any inheritance rights or legal privileges you had as a Muslim with regards to civil procedures.

Disagree. That goes against the very fundamentals of freedom of speech. If a Muslim came to me, and asked me why they shouldn't believe in God, and I gave them my opinion, then under your description I could be tried for 'encouraging Muslims to abandon Islam'.

Otherwise if decide to flout Islam, then you'll rightfullyl be dealt with for trying to sow discord; but of course to safe guard against those who will use such "accusations" for an agenda to discredit people; you should have a chance to vindicate yourself of such charges in court, but if convicted you'll very rightfully be penalized for your behavior.

Such is the intolerant nature of the Islamic system.

I have never seen any references that suggest non-Arab Muslims have to pay Jizya according to Islamic Doctrine itself. Perhaps you can give sound narrations.

"Dhimmis who chose to join military service were exempted from payment."

Meaning any non-Arabic Muslim who didn't become a soldier, still had to pay extra tax.

Source:

Abdel-Haleem, Muhammad (2010). Understanding the Qur'ān: Themes and Style.


"Islamic jurists required adult, free, sane, able-bodied males of military age with no religious functions among the dhimma community to pay the jizya"


Source:

M. Zawati, Hilmi (2002). Is Jihād a Just War?: War, Peace, and Human Rights Under Islamic and Public International Law (Studies in religion & society).


--

They try and sugarcoat it by saying if you are 'able' and 'sane', but the fact is that if you weren't a solider in the Caliphate, you had to pay extra tax because of your ethnicity.

Even if we change this now to mean just non-Muslims, it's still immoral. Why should anyone have to pay an extra tax just because of their religion/ethnicity?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

That's not for you, or any state to say. You might not agree with my mocking, but under a democratic state you can either tolerate my views or a go to jail. You're not obligated to hear my views, but you have to respect them.

This is actually incorrect from an Anthropological perspective. The purpose of human society is to sustain the welfare of human interests, but mocking has never shown any benefit in that regards. On the contrary this type of behavior interferes with social harmony. Thus it is not only the right but DUTY to suspend those who engage in that behavior to maintain social integrity and accord.

Even the Qur'an says "Do not mock their Gods, lest they berate Allah out of enmity and ignorance" (Surah Al 'An'am: 108) So it would actually be for everyone's welfare including that of the Mocker.

Furthermore it trains people who use constructive forms of criticism which are more intellectually sound such as analysis. Thus improving the intellectual merits of discourse. So in that sense it LIBERATES the level of people's thinking into applying higher reasoning and faculties.Allowing mocking only enables intellectual laziness.

Define 'Western Liberalism'.

Since Western Liberalism is an ideological and cultural movement; no one definition can really encapsulate its scope in a sentence. So rather it's more useful to summarize it. It can be essentially summarized with the idea that any and all behaviors are qualitatively and morally equal as long as participants consent to do them. The emphasis is on safe guarding the opportunity to engage in such behaviors than evaluating whether things should be safe guarded by the merits of the behaviors in themselves.

Which falls into a Paradox since if "Allowing all behavior, as long as there's consent" Is the Moral Maxim and "disallowing certain behaviors regardless of consent" is the antithesis of that Maxim. Then "Disallowing" would fall into "allowed" behaviors.. Hence it's logically incoherent to rely on Western Liberalism.

A didactic example: Gay Marriage is sanctioned in Western Liberalist social theory since homosexuality and orientation are deemed as equally normal as heterosexual. even though biologically it is something that arises due to a physiological disorder. But such enabling only prevents people from correcting this disorder.

Disagree. That goes against the very fundamentals of freedom of speech. If a Muslim came to me, and asked me why they shouldn't believe in God, and I gave them my opinion, then under your description I could be tried for 'encouraging Muslims to abandon Islam'.

Perhaps according Western Liberalism; yes but Western Liberalism does not have the monopoly on the concept of "freedom". If a Muslim asked you why you believed and you told him; that's not you going out of your way to promote Atheism now is it? If you're accused of doing so, then you can vindicate yourself of these accusations.

Such is the intolerant nature of the Islamic system.

I disagree, It's quite tolerant; you're allowed to live a productive, fruitful and healthy life as long as you respect the boundaries. All your natural human needs and opportunities are allotted to you. If we it was intolerant you'd be persecuted for just existing. According to Social Theory, all your basic rights are accounted. Anything else is privilege. Here a compromise is met; you can be who you are in your private bubble, as long as you respect Islamic rules in the public domain.

Meaning any non-Arabic Muslim who didn't become a soldier, still had to pay extra tax.

Ok what you did is what's called in Informal Logic as a "Bait and Switch" You made Claim A such as "Non-Arab Muslims must pay jizya" , but switched it with claim B "Dhimmis who joined military didn't have to pay jizya"

The two notions are not logically equivalent; thus you have failed to support your claim. You're also conflating religion with ethnicity, which isn't stated within your citations.

[Aryana]

Precisely. Afghanistan and Pakistan are Islamic in nature due to their history. However, religious minorities exist in both countries. So to call our state 'Islamic' would be like excluding them from public discourse. There is no 'Judeo-Christian' state of Denmark, Belgium, UK, or France. They are simply republics.

In fact, the best example for Pakistan is India. Best examples for Afghanistan are its Central Asian neighbours; Tajikistan, Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan. They are Muslim in character, but completely secular in their statecraft.

A secular state with Islam being the majority population among the population, like in Turkey. That to me is the best form of government in regards to religion.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

A secular state with Islam being the majority population among the population, like in Turkey. That to me is the best form of government in regards to religion.

This is a picture of what's permitted freely in Modern Turkey



After all your arguing trying defend Pashtuns from negative criticism....are you sure this is the type of society you want to see in Afghanistan?


May Allah help Honest Believing Muslims in Turkey purify their society of this Fitnah.

[Khostai]

This is a picture of what's permitted freely in Modern Turkey



After all your arguing trying defend Pashtuns from negative criticism....are you sure this is the type of society you want to see in Afghanistan?


May Allah help Honest Believing Muslims in Turkey purify their society of this Fitnah.

This type os society can be seen in every muslim country behind close doors. Just becuase you do not see it on tv does not mean it does not happen.