The Confused Pashtun

[Badlun]

Akbar Jan Folad, from the Sciences Academy in Kabul said it on National Television in Kabul. All Madrassahs should be banned, Islamic dawah organizations should be banned and all scholars and preachers speaking about politics should be prosecuted.

He is an outspoken secularist and there are a large number of secularists just like him. Like that guy named Fakoor who was on Tawde Khabari right after the coup in Egypt saying that he will stage a similar coup against what he deems Islamist government.

There are so many people who openly state that they are against the existence of madaris, darul ulooms and the propagation of Islam.

Take a look at you dear friend, Badlun here who is basically the mouth piece of secularists. He deems the entire Sunni population as extremist terrorists.





This is because Muslims as a minority in the West have no political power. It doesn't matter what they do, as long as they do not unite in one block and make demands from the government to implement laws stemming from Islam.

We know of organizations such as Tibyan in USA and other political organizations in UK that are banned not because they have commited acts of terrorism. But rather because they preach or distribute political literature deemed undesirable by the government.

Dr. Tarek Mehanna in USA was arrested and convicted for the fact that he translated documents from Arabic to English.

The government in USA is actively sponsoring those Islamic organizations that are designed to depolitisize Islam and serve the interests of the state. People like Hisham Kabbani of Washington, Suhayb Webb of Boston are known for their stance in support of American war against Islam.



Thats not true. We are being constantly monitored, spies posing as Muslims are sent into masjids, there are cases of framing and entrapment by the government and any Muslim organization that is advocating for political mobilization of Muslims is quickly labeled terrorist and its leaders are either arrested or deported without proper trial.

Example: Abu Hamza Al Masri in the UK, Shaykh Ali al Timimi in USA, Ahmed Musa Jibril in USA, Bilal Philips in Germany, Zakir Naik in UK and so many other examples of politically motivated policy against Muslims and Muslim organizations.

Only people who are burying their heads in the sand claim that there is freedom for Muslims in secular countries.




If you think that Islam is a religion of eating, sleeping and doing a few acts of worship, then you are wrong. Some of those Afghans who attend Masjid in USA or here in Holland often work as translators for the foreign troops and commit acts of kufr and basically exit the fold of Islam while still practicing rituals of Islam because its a social and cultural thing, not because they trully believe in Islam.

We can't just fool ourselves and think that Islam is limited to a few rituals. This is exactly what secularists want. They want us to change our religion to suit their corrupt and immoral system where a homosexual, a banker, a pimp or a alcohol salesman can be elected as public representative and the decide over the affairs of people while religious and pious people are confided within the walls of local masjid limiting their teachings to basic ritualistic matters and avoiding social and political aspects of Islam as if they do not exist.

I really appreciate that your this post explains the real war between secularists and Taliban or Islamists. This is the real issue that we want Mullahs must be restricted to mosques and religious ceremonies. A Mullah by qualification being a Mullah cannot become a politician, economist, artist or scientist. He is an expert of religious knowledge and he must remain limited to his profession. As one can become Mullah after studying more than 8 years , the same is true for other professions.

I totally agree with Polad when he says that all scholars and preachers speaking about politics should be prosecuted.How can a Mullah intervene in politics. As a politician cannot become a Mullah, similarly a Mullah cannot become a politician.

Secularists are not against Islam but against Islamism. I am a Muslim but I do not base my politics, economics, culture, society, education and science on Islam. In the 5 pillars of Islam we do not see politics, economy or other spheres of life?

Western secular countries might have expelled few individuals who were threat to their security but how they tolerate millions of Muslims on their soil if they are against Islam. They like me must be against Islamism but not Islam. Daily they are issuing thousands of visas to new Muslims who are leaving their so called Muslim states to search for a better future and food for their children in secular kafir countries. Even you are also enjoying the secularism in the infidel country where you live so happily.

You are spitting in the same plate where you eat. At least be thankful to them for the life you have because of them. What parallel religious example you can present where people live better than secular countries?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I am a Muslim but I do not base my politics, economics, culture, society, education and science on Islam. In the 5 pillars of Islam we do not see politics, economy or other spheres of life?

Who is going to collect zakat and spend it?

[Badlun]

Who is going to collect zakat and spend it?

Zakat is a kind of worship not a political act or tax. Also zakat can be given to relatives or nearby poor and it is better they may not know you are giving them Zakat. It is better not to show the act of zakat then how you need a government to distribute zakat. For the last 1400 years people are giving and receiving zakat without any state so how come now you need a state for this purpose. Or when there is no Islamic state Zakat is no more a duty?

It is a mere individual act of worship for which you do not need any machinery of state to distribute it. Yes on societal level you may need amileen e zakat but it is not the sine qua non.

You will find this kind of stuff in Islamic literature everywhere.

The literal meaning of the word zakat is 'purity'.The Prophet (peace be on him) has said: "God has made zakat obligatory simply to purify your remaining property ." There is no equivalent practice in other religions. Hence, while terms such as 'charity " poor-tax', 'alms-tax' and 'poor-due' have been coined by various translators, none of these terms actually conveys the true sense of the word zakat. Zakat is not a tax levied by a government, nor is it a voluntary contribution. It is first and foremost a duty enjoined by God and hence a form of worship. In Qur'an the payment of zakat is frequently mentioned in the same sentence or verse as the establishment of salat(prayers).
"Lo! Those who believe and do good deeds and establish salat and pay zakat, their reward is with their Sustainer; and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve." (2:277)
"These are verses of the Book full of wisdom, a guide and mercy to the doers of good -those who establish salat and pay zakat and have the assurance of the Hereafter. These are on guidance from their Sustainer, and these are the ones who will prosper ." (31 :1-5)

Thus, while salat is an act of worship through words and bodily action, zakat is a devotional act through one's wealth. Without the spirit of submission to God and love of Him, both acts are without spiritual and moral significance.

It is permissible to give the Zakat to deserving relatives. The Prophet peace be upon him said, "Your relatives deserve more your goodness"

However, other non-dependent relatives such as brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews, etc., can receive the Zakat if they are poor and need some financial help. The person who gives the Zakat must make an intention that the amount he/she is giving is for the purpose of Zakat, but the recipient does not have to be informed about it. It is better to give the charity to an individual in a respectful manner without hurting his/her dignity. If you have some relatives who need your help, you should help them from Zakat or from some other Sadaqat.

You may give them the money yourself quietly or you may give them through some other indirect ways. Allah says in the Qur'an "If you disclose your charity, it is well, but if you conceal it and make it reach to those who are really in need that is best for you. It will remove from you some of your sins and Allah is well-acquainted with what you do." (Al-Baqarah 2:271)

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Jaahil you are mixing up sadaqah with zakat. You just exposed yourself even further. You lied about reading those hanafi law books. Haha what a shameless liar.

[khushal]

Who are secular militants and extremists in our context of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Najib is now a past but he was not that much militant as the ones who disgraced him and martyred the man who could really give Afghanistan a future.

Secularism means separating religion from poiltics and once you separate religion then how can one become a militant or extremists. Militancy and extremism is based on emotions and religion represent blind faith and emotions. In secularism one has to respect constitution, rule of law, human rights, democracy, development ,then how can one become militant or violent?

War is another thing and a reality. Secular Wars are fought but not on religious lines but on political grounds. A state must have paraphernalia to defend it self and fight against its enemy. deterrence , preemptive action and military exercises are important for the security and prosperity of any nation or any state.

The war in Afghanistan is not a war between two religions but between two enemies. Taliban and terrorists are equally killed by ANA, Pakistan army and even by Saudi forces.

In the whole world secularism is adopted then what is so special for Pashtuns and few Muslim countries that they will base their state only on religion? Why mullahs should be our rulers. Why not we also should have the decent system of parliamentary or presidential democracy?

your under the impression that extremism only exists in religion.

[Badlun]

Jaahil you are mixing up sadaqah with zakat. You just exposed yourself even further. You lied about reading those hanafi law books. Haha what a shameless liar.

Read the whole post. It is about Zakat not Sadaqah. Otherwise you will also call Allah jahil as he does not mention the word zakat in the following verse which is the classic verse which explains who can receive zakat


There are eight groups of people on whom Zakat should be spent, as mentioned in the Quran:

"The alms are only for the Fuqara' (the poor), and Al-Masakin (the needy) and those employed to collect (the funds); and to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam); and to free the captives; and for those in debt; and for Allah's Cause, and for the wayfarer (a traveler who is cut off from everything); a duty imposed by Allah. And Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise." [Al-Quran 9:60]



According to all the following verses you do not need a state for the distribution of zakat.


"They ask you as to what they should spend. Say: Whatever wealth you spend, it is for the parents and the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it." [Al-Quran 2:215]

"(Alms are) for the poor who are confined in the way of Allah-- they cannot go about in the land; the ignorant man thinks them to be rich on account of (their) abstaining (from begging); you can recognize them by their mark; they do not beg from men importunately; and whatever good thing you spend, surely Allah knows it." [Al-Quran 2:273]

"And give to the near of kin his due and (to) the needy and the wayfarer, and do not squander wastefully." [Al-Quran 17:26]

It is better to give zakat oneself .

If an agent is given Zakat for distribution, and he does not distribute it, then the Zakat will not be regarded as fulfilled, and the sin of not discharging the obligatory duty of Zakat will remain a burden on whom it was obligatory.

http://www.hidaya.org/publications/zakat-information/160-how-is-zakat-to-be-distributed

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

You never even read the quran liar. Lol you are too easy. Bring your scholar here who taught you quran so i can slap him.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Who are secular militants and extremists in our context of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Najib is now a past but he was not that much militant as the ones who disgraced him and martyred the man who could really give Afghanistan a future.

No, he was beyond militant - he was tyrannical which is the next step beyond militant secularism. Also, ANP is full of militant secularist extremists and drunkards just like Parcham and Khalq right hand man Salih Mohammad Zeary described of his own groups and himself.

He does not meet the definition of martyrdom. Rather, che kum zwanano aha soolaay tha we kheyjowl - aw pansee e kro- aghee la nishaan-e-daulaat bakhshish warkowl pakar da.

This saved the Afghan nation from a maniac who really inspired a generation of secular militants because he was a communist militant which is just one step leftward on the spectrum.



Secularism means separating religion from poiltics and once you separate religion then how can one become a militant or extremists.

Secular militants are common place now. They are extremists in inspiring kharijaan driven coups and represent a minority fifth column. For this reason, their amplify their propaganda because they have a hard time winning sympathy - so their lust for inflicting violence on unwilling indigenous people grows

Militancy and extremism is based on emotions and religion represent blind faith and emotions. In secularism one has to respect constitution, rule of law, human rights, democracy, development ,then how can one become militant or violent?

Not true at all, look at the violence of Al Sissi in Egypt, Ataturk, and of course Najib. They were far removed from the generally benign and northeast localized American secularism. Rather, they are like the equivalent of Takfirists - driven mainly for self gain first, meglomania/pursuit of dominance second, and blood lust and violence as well.

War is another thing and a reality. Secular Wars are fought but not on religious lines but on political grounds.

Disproving the very line of logic you had above. Of course they drive wars based on various grounds, ranging from ideological-political, etc. Their very nature is to disturb peace and introduce nihilism into an unaccepting locale. These are usually the types of violent creatures with huge inferiority complexes - assuming that if they wear the dress and talk the talk of outside dominant powers, that they are somehow better than indigenous peoples. Ironically, most of the world views these folks as mentally colonized

A state must have paraphernalia to defend it self and fight against its enemy. deterrence , preemptive action and military exercises are important for the security and prosperity of any nation or any state.

Thank you. This is exactly what I mean. The secularist mind is usually bent on pretending that violence is absent in it, but it is replete with premeptive violent thoughts, retrospective violence thoughts, and intrigues of how to disturb the peace regularly.

The war in Afghanistan is not a war between two religions but between two enemies. Taliban and terrorists are equally killed by ANA, Pakistan army and even by Saudi forces.

The Afghan War is not self sustainable. These folks you mention that are killing people Matthew Hoh wrote vividly about as indigenous, are the very same militant secularists or their generally docile and willing subordinates or paid lackeys

In the whole world secularism is adopted then what is so special for Pashtuns and few Muslim countries that they will base their state only on religion?

The Pew polls and the evidence at hand point to what they prefer. Irrespective of what one thinks - they key to a prosperous and peaceful future for any government in Pashtun lands is marginalization and then eventually criminalization of militant secularism.

Why mullahs should be our rulers.

Mullahs dont need to be the rulers - but they may serve useful in helping to isolate, marginalize, and criminalize secular militants

Why not we also should have the decent system of parliamentary or presidential democracy?

The indigenous people will derive their own system of governance, but the key will be to remove secularists from the discussion. Their goal will generally be to subvert a native solution in line with the value system and religion that has, in the words of Michael Scheuer, graced the Muslim peoples for 1400 years.

The key theme is to remember is that secular militants are commonly fifth column citizens and opportunists. Because of this, they cannot be trusted to protect the integrity of a nation's autonomy and indigenous roots.

[tor_khan]

THere are secularists but then there are secular militants and secular extremists. Unfortunately, the militant secularists are the cheerleaders for interventionalism. The Pashtuns and the Muslim world will advance once it effectively deals with this subgroup and either extinguishes their ideology or at least neutralizes their disproportionate voice.

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]
You are talking about the advancement of Pashtuns/the Muslim world by dealing with militant (secular) subgroups. I think there is merit in your statement, though you go on to infer a distinction between secularists.

Do I therefore understand from your post that along this continuum of secularism you are (a) referring to Pashtuns on the forum as opposed to (b) making a statement about some forms of secularism being acceptable in the Pashtun lands?

Both could be the same although the latter is more important because it acknowledges the ultimate plurality of our people and the need to create the political space for all hues to exist. On the sliding scale between theocracy and secularism is there a comfortable point where most Pashtuns fit?

To a point, I understand your point on secular extremists. They are not alone in taking something that may have noble merit and using the pressure at their disposal to suppress alternative opinions. Is it fair then to say that we could we also put 'religious' extremists under the spotlight too?

Could we argue that because the hardened interpretations of the Salafists, Taleban etc. do not create the conditions for growth/debate they are, alongside, the militant secularists, just another form of rigid extremism?

Moreover can Muslims/Pashtuns progress under any form of extremism?

[Badlun]

The key theme is to remember is that secular militants are commonly fifth column citizens and opportunists. Because of this, they cannot be trusted to protect the integrity of a nation's autonomy and indigenous roots.

Sometimes you totally disappoint me. Najib is gone, Ataturk is no more. Where the hell you see violent secularists. Secularism emphasize on democracy, parliaments, dialogue, tolerance, elections, rule of law, human rights where you fit militancy in all this?

I am really shocked that you glorify Taliban for martyring Najib in the inhuman way they did. I am totally disappointed that you recommend killing your opponent in extrajudicial way. Dr Saib I am in shock.

They could have imprisoned them and then might have punished him in a court of law. I will stop writing otherwise I may use some disrespectful language for you who has gone blind in your hatred for secularism that you prefer such barbarian ways to murder your opponents. I do not see any difference in you and that blind suicide bomber killing innocent people in streets and markets and not in battle fields.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali
You are talking about the advancement of Pashtuns/the Muslim world by dealing with militant (secular) subgroups. I think there is merit in your statement, though you go on to infer a distinction between secularists.

Do I therefore understand from your post that along this continuum of secularism you are (a) referring to Pashtuns on the forum as opposed to (b) making a statement about some forms of secularism being acceptable in the Pashtun lands?

Both could be the same although the latter is more important because it acknowledges the ultimate plurality of our people and the need to create the political space for all hues to exist. On the sliding scale between theocracy and secularism is there a comfortable point where most Pashtuns fit?

To a point, I understand your point on secular extremists. They are not alone in taking something that may have noble merit and using the pressure at their disposal to suppress alternative opinions. Is it fair then to say that we could we also put 'religious' extremists under the spotlight too?

Could we argue that because the hardened interpretations of the Salafists, Taleban etc. do not create the conditions for growth/debate they are, alongside, the militant secularists, just another form of rigid extremism?

Moreover can Muslims/Pashtuns progress under any form of extremism?

To an extent Tor Khan. I think the issue with secularists in the Muslim world in general, or those born there are that they are for all intents and purposes a foreign inoculant. Does that mean they have no place? No, they have a place - but it should be far away from affecting governance. They can generally be allowed to commiserate with each other and have a political party that can write up grievances they have, but their voice should not be permitted to stretch beyond their tiny minority status.

What I find is the problem with them is that they are prone to proxy violence. This means that in all of these places, they are willing to either have a military affect violent change internally where that military is externally funded and armed. Or more importantly, they use the language of humanism but they often consider kharijaan pawns instead of humans (i.e. to them American lives are subhuman lives that are like chess pieces) and they play these kharijaan off against indigenous local people who have a natural reaction to outside presences and mores.

Their general modus operandi is to fight for their objectives via insidious propaganda (i.e. helping the Red Cell Memo group) or actually clamoring in a disproportionate and unrepresentative way for kharijaan to fight their war for them.

I think Najib really embodies this sort of militant mentality where he was keen on having Russian youth perish for his dystopia that would only be built on the rivulets of Afghan native blood.

So Yes, there is a role, but its an isolated limited role. An important step will be to do what Erdogan is doing, which is to outcompete them and replace their leaders who are in disproportionate positions to their minority status.

The Anatolians are showing the rest of the world the way.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Sometimes you totally disappoint me. Najib is gone, Ataturk is no more. Where the hell you see violent secularists.

Their acolyte and partial like minded thought descendents.

Secularism emphasize on democracy, parliaments, dialogue, tolerance, elections, rule of law, human rights where you fit militancy in all this?

No this is incorrect. There is secularism, like the benign American secularism of the New England, North East region, but then there is the militant secularism of faux Pashtun nationalists. I detailed this above.

I am really shocked that you glorify Taliban for martyring Najib in the inhuman way they did.

Badlun Saheb, martyr is not the correct word. He is in the same category as Stalin, can anyone call someone like this a matyr in good faith? I would say a better description is vigilante justice against a well known dictator and murderer of Afghan people.

Also I am not glorifying this, I will explain below. Please read before judging!

I am totally disappointed that you recommend killing your opponent in extrajudicial way. Dr Saib I am in shock.

Najib was before my time, I am not recommending any extra judicial killing. I am comparing him to a tyrant like Haman from the Book of Esther.


They could have imprisoned them and then might have punished him in a court of law.

No Badlun Saheb, Najib is like OBL in a way. He was a symbol of extremism. The problem with Najib, is that like OBL he was trying to implement a global ideology. His final editorial and invitation documented in the NY Times showed he still had not learned from his defeat and wanted to inflict more pain on Afghanistan. He did this under the umbrella of now inviting the West to more interventionalism and creating the bogeyman, the Green Menace.

For this reason, the unit that handled Najib should be celebrated the way SEAL TEAM 6 is.

I will stop writing otherwise I may use some disrespectful language for you who has gone blind in your hatred for secularism that you prefer such barbarian ways to murder your opponents.

Once again, Badlun Saheb, Najib was a unique case, like OBL. He was inciting world wide violence and extremism. For this reason, he also should not have been allowed to be buried in a marked grave by the Ahmadzai tribe.

He probably should have been buried the way his colleagues and buddies did Daud Khan, in an unmarked grave.

This is because secular nationalists and secular militants are involved in what the rest of the world knows as the cult of Najib.

Even the Russians saw he was too unstable, after all this was a man whose own trained unit beat up Karzai's father.

I do not see any difference in you and that blind suicide bomber killing innocent people in streets and markets and not in battle fields.

No of course not, we do not agree with doing anything like this. Regarding the other secularists, their crime is being fifth column citizens and promoters of militant inteventionalism by proxy kharijaan. So in a way their crime against humanity is that they view kharijaan as subhuman chess pieces and indigenous people as cattle.

But even then, I am not calling for their termination from life... I am saying they need to be outlawed/marginalized and a criminalized. But I am not calling for capital punishment of them.

I do not know why you got so mad Badlun Saheb. These are well known facts about Najib and his behavior.

[Badlun]

Except Iran and Saudi Arabia and the erstwhile Taliban state, where in the world you have an Islamic state? No where. Islam is limited to individual and family spheres.

Majority of Muslim states are secular.
Ira M. Lapidus (October 1975). "The Separation of State and Religion in the Development of Early Islamic Society", International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (4), pp. 363-385

Or the variant is the choice in courts where still some lunatics want to be stoned and limbs amputated

"Islam: Governing Under Sharia", Author:Tony Johnson, November 10, 2010

The concept of Secularism in Islam has religious sanction too. The Sahih of Imam Muslim, the second most authentic book on Hadith, dating from the 2nd century Hijrah, contains a chapter headed as follows: “Whatever the Prophet has said in matters of religion must be followed, but this does not apply to worldly affairs.”
The Hadith is as follows: Once Prophet Muhammad came across some people doing artificial pollination of palm trees. Due to some reason he disliked the idea and commented that it would be better not to do any pollination at all. However for the following year the harvest was poor. When he came to know about this Prophet Muhammad admitted his limitation of knowledge regarding secular affairs and said: “If a question relates to your worldly matters you would know better about it, but if it relates to your religion then to me it belongs.”

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Except Iran and Saudi Arabia and the erstwhile Taliban state, where in the world you have an Islamic state?

Oh Badlun Saheb, you are mistakenly making assumptions. Militant secularism is not just motivated to act against Islamism or Islamists. Rather even indigenous tribal laws etc are things they attack. Their preferred approach is enforced change and not gradual progress. But the change of militant muslim world secularists is most often due to an inferiority complex wherein they want to refer to colonial mores etc.

No where. Islam is limited to individual and family spheres.

This was not always the case once again. Islamic law codes were previously in place and penal codes derived from the Quran were utilized. Historical and anthropological data support this. A great example is Islamic inheritance laws and their implementation. Penal code wise, there is of course the famous description of how Umar applied various hadd laws.

The key is not the Islamic laws, but he unnatural enforced secular laws of militant secularists. For example, they want to utilize kharijaan economics and penal codes in place of indigenous substitutes. The issue is militant secularists are willing to use proxy force to achieve their goal.

Majority of Muslim states are secular.

Not by choice according to robust data from the University of Maryland and Pew polling. THat is the most powerful data to date and has the largest sample size.

But the issue is militant secularists are generally going to do their best to propagandize and ignore the data. Their goal is nihilistic war. Do them, a large part of their belief system revolves on opposing "the other" and annihilating the native self to replace it with the colonized self.

Ira M. Lapidus (October 1975). "The Separation of State and Religion in the Development of Early Islamic Society", International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (4), pp. 363-385

Thanks, this looks like a good source I plan on reading it.

Or the variant is the choice in courts where still some lunatics want to be stoned and limbs amputated

I think that this is more a radical response to the wars militant secularists sang their sirens song for. They lured proxy kharijaan in and these people radicalized in response. What is worse than amputations and the lot is the fact that the autonomy of states and peoples are subverted to suit their minority secular militant interests.

"Islam: Governing Under Sharia", Author:Tony Johnson, November 10, 2010

The concept of Secularism in Islam has religious sanction too.

No not according to militant secularist philosophies which go too far and define separation as subversion to suit their personal fancies.

The Sahih of Imam Muslim, the second most authentic book on Hadith, dating from the 2nd century Hijrah, contains a chapter headed as follows: “Whatever the Prophet has said in matters of religion must be followed, but this does not apply to worldly affairs.”
The Hadith is as follows: Once Prophet Muhammad came across some people doing artificial pollination of palm trees. Due to some reason he disliked the idea and commented that it would be better not to do any pollination at all. However for the following year the harvest was poor. When he came to know about this Prophet Muhammad admitted his limitation of knowledge regarding secular affairs and said: “If a question relates to your worldly matters you would know better about it, but if it relates to your religion then to me it belongs.”

I would say the better way to apply this is to note, for instance if Muhammad (S) recommended a remedy at the time for an illness, this hadith emphasizes his human nature. But on the other hand, revealed laws like inheritance, punishment for thieves/felons etc, murder, sale and distribution of alcohol - these are command form laws wherein it is in the category of "your religion then to me it belongs." But militant secularists want to enforce a ban and use verbal gymnastics to ban even these codified laws that were shown to be enacted by those most temporally and relationship wise close to the Prophet.

x

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Except Iran and Saudi Arabia and the erstwhile Taliban state, where in the world you have an Islamic state? No where. Islam is limited to individual and family spheres.

Majority of Muslim states are secular.
Ira M. Lapidus (October 1975). "The Separation of State and Religion in the Development of Early Islamic Society", International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (4), pp. 363-385

Or the variant is the choice in courts where still some lunatics want to be stoned and limbs amputated

"Islam: Governing Under Sharia", Author:Tony Johnson, November 10, 2010

The concept of Secularism in Islam has religious sanction too. The Sahih of Imam Muslim, the second most authentic book on Hadith, dating from the 2nd century Hijrah, contains a chapter headed as follows: “Whatever the Prophet has said in matters of religion must be followed, but this does not apply to worldly affairs.”
The Hadith is as follows: Once Prophet Muhammad came across some people doing artificial pollination of palm trees. Due to some reason he disliked the idea and commented that it would be better not to do any pollination at all. However for the following year the harvest was poor. When he came to know about this Prophet Muhammad admitted his limitation of knowledge regarding secular affairs and said: “If a question relates to your worldly matters you would know better about it, but if it relates to your religion then to me it belongs.”

Also Badlun Saheb, the Council for Foreign relations is a not a good source. They are notoriously partial.

http://antiwar.com/blog/2009/01/26/e...ign-relations/

Please use better sources. Militant secularists and opportunists for instance like Irshad Manji and others are notorious for using CFR citations.