Secularism and openness is the way to go for the Muslim World

[Khostai]

So now Saudi Arabia is a pure Islamic Shariah state? lol

I don't like ISIS/ISIL and it would be obvious if you have read any of my posts. Your own argument of what makes a strong state is defeated by the existent of the rich gulf states none of which are tolerant or accomidating, except for naked euro tourists such as yourself who get drunk on their beaches.

Being a Muslim means that God is the be all end all, not that man can live under its own legislation and sidestep shariah while being a friday night Muslim.

Aren't you a little too old to go from being a radical Badlun to a radical leftist now?

Yes ofcourse, what do you want to call SA than?

Yes you don't like talibs and ISIS, but you do support the feeding ground for the emergence of groups like those. Stop hding and just admit that you are one of those western brainwashed fundementalists, how dream about Ummah but live in a kafir land.

[Herat]

With all due respect guys, randolph85 is, my fundamental disagreement with his religious worldview notwithstanding, one of the most intelligent, moderate and considerate posters (no homo) in this forum (and this is why I regret past posts and hesitate to expound my views on religion in more detail here lest I offend posters like him; I also unfortunately fail to hold true to my own precepts when I lose my temper).
The point I was trying to make with my earlier post is that secularists actually have common interests with our religious countrymen at the most important and rudimentary level: all of us wish to improve the standards of living of our home countries, the scientific evidence suggests that social secularization (and not merely in the form of political tyranny) is not the cause but in fact a typical effect of high living standards. Most of you have confounded effect for cause.

[کیش]

Yes ofcourse, what do you want to call SA than?

Yes you don't like talibs and ISIS, but you do support the feeding ground for the emergence of groups like those. Stop hding and just admit that you are one of those western brainwashed fundementalists, how dream about Ummah but live in a kafir land.

Wow, lol.

Let's take an analysis of "Saudi" Arabia,

The Al-Saud family took control of the land that was Arabia back in the 20's. They than changed it to "Saudi" Arabia the "I" after Saud indicates a possessive adjective (in Arabic), to Arabia, the Noun.

That made clear "SA" is a family monarchy/Tyranny. Whose presence in the land, makes Haj and Umrah invalid (whole other discussion)

[Herat]

Thanks Herat. It will be a nice reading.

Although still a strong secularist, I have had a change of heart. I no longer trust the secularization and democratization missions being pursued by the West in the rest of the world. I consider them to be mostly self-serving and aimed at perpetuating Western hegemony and control over the rest of humanity. The proof is that, best democracies can be un-acceptable to the West and destabilized by it until in the interest of the West. Mussadiq Iran is an example.

Likewise, worst dictatorship and orthodoxy can be acceptable to the West if in the interest of the West. Examples have been many in the past. The current example is the regime of Al-Saudi/Saudi Arabia that the West has no qualm to have dealing with despite its extremely retrogressive ways because it is virtually a West-propped satellite state.

In my opinion, every nation of the world should learn self-reliance should be flexible to get along with others, particularly if Muslims want to have stable peaceful societies they should adopt secularism and democratic system of course adjusted to local environment.

Toramana, I subscribe to the realist school of thought in international relations (in large part because this is the view that seems most consistent with the emerging picture of human nature as painted by evolutionary biology) and its central principle is the idea that nations, and (temporally) allied groups of nations, are fundamentally self-interested entities (in other words, there is no free lunch even or rather especially at the scale of nations). That the "west's" modus operandi in the Muslim world is mostly exploitative is a given for me in the sense that I always expect it to be as such and not merely as it obviously is now. On the other hand, I am, on the basis of a personal precept, always sceptical about ideologically driven frameworks which includes this modern Marxist / far-left one of "neo-imperialism" that seems to be very popular amongst intellectual Muslims. Let me elucidate this with an analogy: I also believe that the "Israel lobby" as framed by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, for example, exists but I don't believe in Neo-Nazi theories of Jewish control. The reason why I tend to be sceptical about theories coming from both extremes of the political spectrum is best explained by David Sloan Wilson in the link I posted: extreme political ideologies tend to be what he amusingly calls a "stealth religion".

Finally, I am in complete agreement with your remark on national self-reliance -randolph85 has a good general sense of international relations but he has also created a false dichotomy between self-reliance and collectivism at the national level - these two things are not discrete, mutually exclusive phenomena. Some of our more extreme religious friends decry the concept of the nation state (yes it was created by Europeans but so was the internet) but actually, especially from an evolutionary perspective, the ethnically homogeneous nation state is the best form of social organization for minimizing between group ethnic conflict (well you can manage ethnic strife the way wealthy nations do but much of the Muslim world is in destitution). The age of the Caliph ruled empire is gone forever in the exact same manner that the age of the hunter-gatherer is gone forever. Modern technological society has replaced the former in the same way that the Neolithic revolution (agriculture) replaced the later. That doesn't mean that the Muslim world cannot strive for unity but cohesion is best and most realistically pursued in the form of a modern union(s). I have nothing to add your remarks on the need for global cooperation.

[Khostai]

Wow, lol.

Let's take an analysis of "Saudi" Arabia,

The Al-Saud family took control of the land that was Arabia back in the 20's. They than changed it to "Saudi" Arabia the "I" after Saud indicates a possessive adjective (in Arabic), to Arabia, the Noun.

That made clear "SA" is a family monarchy/Tyranny. Whose presence in the land, makes Haj and Umrah invalid (whole other discussion)

So, Islam and shariah doesn't need democracy or what so ever, I still don't understand how a name change and who is in power has anything to do with the whole legal system of Saudi Arabia, becuase it based on Islamic law with implementation of shariah, just becuase some rich sheikh doesn't folow all the rules doesn't mean there is no shariah in SA.

[کیش]

So, Islam and shariah doesn't need democracy or what so ever, I still don't understand how a name change and who is in power has anything to do with the whole legal system of Saudi Arabia, becuase it based on Islamic law with implementation of shariah, just becuase some rich sheikh doesn't folow all the rules doesn't mean there is no shariah in SA.

Again that doesn't really make sense. Yes fat rich "Sheiks" do not follow any Shariah rules, neither do his other rich A-rab friends. But they also have decadent laws about females not allowed to drive.

What "Shariah" Laws do Saudi- controlled Arabia follows/enforces? I can't think of any, I mean the Al-Saud family has controlled Arabia for 90 years when nepotism is illegal in Islam. Unless you work hard for your position, which any of the Al-Sauds have not.

It's also embarrassing to see so much Meccans begging for money outside the Holy Harem, but the Saudi family has unforeseen wealth for themselves.

The Prophet was not Rich when he was the leader of the Muslims, he gave most of his assets to the Ummah. Another factor the Al-Saud family do not. So how do they implement Shariah?

[Khostai]

Again that doesn't really make sense. Yes fat rich "Sheiks" do not follow any Shariah rules, neither do his other rich A-rab friends. But they also have decadent laws about females not allowed to drive.

What "Shariah" Laws do Saudi- controlled Arabia follows/enforces? I can't think of any, I mean the Al-Saud family has controlled Arabia for 90 years when nepotism is illegal in Islam. Unless you work hard for your position, which any of the Al-Sauds have not.

It's also embarrassing to see so much Meccans begging for money outside the Holy Harem, but the Saudi family has unforeseen wealth for themselves.

The Prophet was not Rich when he was the leader of the Muslims, he gave most of his assets to the Ummah. Another factor the Al-Saud family do not. So how do they implement Shariah?

All the laws are derived from shariah and interpreted by them, most laws are just copy pasted actuly, how they were in the seventh century. Just becuase they don't fit your version of Islam and shariah doesn't mean that SA doesn't have a shariah.

That women are not allowed to drive a car is explained by that women will get to much freedom and comit zeena, what is forbiden in Islam....

There will be always poor in this world and the saud family is paying there "Islamic tax" precentage that is obligatory in Islam. If that this is not helping to eliminate the poverty, than some Islamic laws should be changed and socialist laws adopted, like what sweden has with its welfare state.
but shariah is not a socialist system where the poor are looked after at, like in sweden or other scandinavian countries, so those begars will be always there.

The prophet did a lot of things difrently he had also more than 4 wifes, should we also marry more than 4 wifes, to folow his example in everything? And by the way he is a prophet, you can't compare ordinary humans with him.

Al saud did work hard with establishing his kingdom, the first king of Saud Arabie fought many comflicts, this all didn't came to him on a silver plater.

And by the way most of you guys claim that election and democracy is un-Islamic and haram, so if you don't want election or a democratic country, you can only get this.

But even tough SA is a monarchy, it still has a parliment with ministers who are elected by males, becuase again women are not allowed to vote due to that they can get to much freedom and run away with some strange male that they can meet during the voting process, you know how loose arab women are, they will run away with everyone :P (yes this was sarcasm, if you didn't get it).

In sum, SA is an Islamic counry with Shariah, it is not perfet, but what is perfect in this world? Nothing, even the so called democratic countries has there laws and restriction that are not trully democratic or secular, but still nobody denies that most western countries are secular and democartic.

[کیش]

All the laws are derived from shariah and interpreted by them, most laws are just copy pasted actuly, how they were in the seventh century. Just becuase they don't fit your version of Islam and shariah doesn't mean that SA doesn't have a shariah.

That women are not allowed to drive a car is explained by that women will get to much freedom and comit zeena, what is forbiden in Islam....

There will be always poor in this world and the saud family is paying there "Islamic tax" precentage that is obligatory in Islam. If that this is not helping to eliminate the poverty, than some Islamic laws should be changed and socialist laws adopted, like what sweden has with its welfare state.
but shariah is not a socialist system where the poor are looked after at, like in sweden or other scandinavian countries, so those begars will be always there.

The prophet did a lot of things difrently he had also more than 4 wifes, should we also marry more than 4 wifes, to folow his example in everything? And by the way he is a prophet, you can't compare ordinary humans with him.

Al saud did work hard with establishing his kingdom, the first king of Saud Arabie fought many comflicts, this all didn't came to him on a silver plater.

And by the way most of you guys claim that election and democracy is un-Islamic and haram, so if you don't want election or a democratic country, you can only get this.

But even tough SA is a monarchy, it still has a parliment with ministers who are elected by males, becuase again women are not allowed to vote due to that they can get to much freedom and run away with some strange male that they can meet during the voting process, you know how loose arab women are, they will run away with everyone :P (yes this was sarcasm, if you didn't get it).

In sum, SA is an Islamic counry with Shariah, it is not perfet, but what is perfect in this world? Nothing, even the so called democratic countries has there laws and restriction that are not trully democratic or secular, but still nobody denies that most western countries are secular and democartic.

My brother, do you even know what you're talking about? The leadership was given from father to son without a say from the residents. That is what we call, a form of tyranny.

I don't have "versions" of Islam's, but young, confused, one day I'm Muslim, the next I'm Atheist sure do. Nobody in that despotic family practices Islam so they have no credibility to pass the laws.

There's a difference between a democracy and family monarch/Neopotism, do you know how inheritance works in Islam? The Al-Saud occupied Arabia have ministers and officials who are all related to each other. There's no working your way from the bottom there.

So in the real "Sum" Arabia is illegally colonized by the descendants of desert Arabs, who are selling the country out for petrodollars. Their occupation of Mecca makes Hajj and Umrah invalid until a real Caliph who knows what he's doing is in leadership position. There is no "Sharia" until there is a real Caliph.

I suggest you read the lives of the Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar Ibn Khattab, Uthman Ibn Affan, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Hussein Ibn Ali, and Hassan Ibn Ali to learn what it means to be caliph, and legitamely carry out Shariah law.

[Khostai]

My brother, do you even know what you're talking about? The leadership was given from father to son without a say from the residents. That is what we call, a form of tyranny.

I don't have "versions" of Islam's, but young, confused, one day I'm Muslim, the next I'm Atheist sure do. Nobody in that despotic family practices Islam so they have no credibility to pass the laws.

There's a difference between a democracy and family monarch/Neopotism, do you know how inheritance works in Islam? The Al-Saud occupied Arabia have ministers and officials who are all related to each other. There's no working your way from the bottom there.

So in the real "Sum" Arabia is illegally colonized by the descendants of desert Arabs, who are selling the country out for petrodollars. Their occupation of Mecca makes Hajj and Umrah invalid until a real Caliph who knows what he's doing is in leadership position. There is no "Sharia" until there is a real Caliph.

I suggest you read the lives of the Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar Ibn Khattab, Uthman Ibn Affan, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Hussein Ibn Ali, and Hassan Ibn Ali to learn what it means to be caliph, and legitamely carry out Shariah law.

How was the leadership given in the time after prophet? And actualy during the prophet time? Weren't most of the ruling class his family and or related family who married in? How is this diffrent?

The Saud family is quite big, you can't claim that nobody practise Islam in that family, this is just a generalisation. And individuals in the family are not responcible of the action of some others.

Like for example you are not responcible for the action of some of your nephews who don't pray or vast during ramadan....

[کیش]

How was the leadership given in the time after prophet? And actualy during the prophet time? Weren't most of the ruling class his family and or related family who married in? How is this diffrent?

The Saud family is quite big, you can't claim that nobody practise Islam in that family, this is just a generalisation. And individuals in the family are not responcible of the action of some others.

Like for example you are not responcible for the action of some of your nephews who don't pray or vast during ramadan....

Let me address your last paragraph first.

That was not what I was referring to. I was talking about being a Muslim, correalating to brotherhood. How and why does a member of the Al-Saud tribe spent tens of thousands of dollars in one night, but his neighbor is starving?

Second paragraph,

I havent heard of any male members of the Al-Saud complain about their greed and corruption. A real Muslim leader who claims his land follows Shariah will not let injustice rule. See Malcolm X, even MLK JR.

Third paragraph,

Good questions, which I have discussed in great detail last year in this section. This is the beginning of the split between Sunni/Shia, but there were no Sunni/Shia until a few hundred years after the Prophet's death.

The Khilifah went to Abu Bakr, than to Umar, than to Uthman, finally leading to Ali because they (early Muslims) didn't want Islam to become dominated by family monarchs/Neopotism. But as we see in occupied Arabia, evil transgresses when nobody does anything about it.

I suggest you to read several books about the time era After the Prophet. I have posted the ones I have read in the "what book are you reading" in literature section. There's to much to cover in this post

[asad71]

The way forward for the Muslim World is to follow the Holy Quor'an and the Sunnah. FULL STOP.

[Badlun]

All the laws are derived from shariah and interpreted by them, most laws are just copy pasted actuly, how they were in the seventh century. Just becuase they don't fit your version of Islam and shariah doesn't mean that SA doesn't have a shariah.

That women are not allowed to drive a car is explained by that women will get to much freedom and comit zeena, what is forbiden in Islam....

There will be always poor in this world and the saud family is paying there "Islamic tax" precentage that is obligatory in Islam. If that this is not helping to eliminate the poverty, than some Islamic laws should be changed and socialist laws adopted, like what sweden has with its welfare state.
but shariah is not a socialist system where the poor are looked after at, like in sweden or other scandinavian countries, so those begars will be always there.

The prophet did a lot of things difrently he had also more than 4 wifes, should we also marry more than 4 wifes, to folow his example in everything? And by the way he is a prophet, you can't compare ordinary humans with him.

Al saud did work hard with establishing his kingdom, the first king of Saud Arabie fought many comflicts, this all didn't came to him on a silver plater.

And by the way most of you guys claim that election and democracy is un-Islamic and haram, so if you don't want election or a democratic country, you can only get this.

But even tough SA is a monarchy, it still has a parliment with ministers who are elected by males, becuase again women are not allowed to vote due to that they can get to much freedom and run away with some strange male that they can meet during the voting process, you know how loose arab women are, they will run away with everyone :P (yes this was sarcasm, if you didn't get it).

In sum, SA is an Islamic counry with Shariah, it is not perfet, but what is perfect in this world? Nothing, even the so called democratic countries has there laws and restriction that are not trully democratic or secular, but still nobody denies that most western countries are secular and democartic.

I totally agree with this post. The constitution of Saudi Arabia is the holy Quran. Each and every law is based on the so called Sharia. Good logic that if there is no democracy in Islam then the only option is monarchy in Saudi.

Islam does not have a political system. Prophet Muhamamd, Abubakar, Omar, Uthman, Ali, no one was elected. All were dictators of that time. Left the power when died or killed. Nothing beautiful to copy from that era. Hazrat Ayesha and Ali fought for power.After Hazrat Ali it was total dictatorship.

The true Islam is that of Bilal, Abu Zar, Abu Harera etc who founded the Sufi Islam, not the political Islam of those dictators and monarchs.

[Tamim]

I have not read anyone's post. I just read the OP and I am commenting based on the question.

Secularism and Islam are synonyms of each other, in my point of view.

So, if we follow Islamic injunctions in our daily lives, and reflect upon our daily interactions with respect to what the Quran says it will guide us to live the best secular life.

So, if we see a person who has tattoos all over them, with all sorts of piercings and a colourful hairstyle, we should ask ourselves the question: hmmm...why are they doing this?

The why here does not mean, "why the hell are they doing this, have they lost their minds?" The why here is, "hmmm...how do they see life?"

These questions are answered in the Quran.