Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Shiraz Maher on Ideology

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ezY-FZ8NFHkJ:www.paklinks.com/gs/archive/index.php/t-86574.html+%22shiraz+maher%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=123

Shiraz Maher
Jan 22nd, 2003, 08:06 AM
Jagjeevan,I am fine with the ideology that asks its followers to do anything such as covering oneself etc....as long as it does not impinge on those who do not believe in that ideology. Problems begin when such tolerance is either not in-built into the ideology (you acknowledged that muslims are supposed to 'invite') or practiced as such.You raise a number of issues here.

1 - Agreed that with the absence of Islam today there is no central authority for the Ummah to look towards. This has resulted in many people using and abusing Islam for their own ends.

2 - Every ideology impinges upon those though who do not subscribe to it. Consquently although a tenet of the western ideology is freedom we need to address how free am I? who sets the limits? who has the right/authority to do so? on what basis do they set the limit? which criteria do they use? and so on. The premise of the society in the Khilafah would be different to the west. Sovereignty would be to Allah (swt) and He (swt) would be the legislator.

3 - The Islamic social system specifies a 'private' and 'public' life. This means that in the public life all the citizens of the Khilafah state were confined by the Islamic laws. Just how in the west everyone is bound by the laws. However, in the private life the non-Muslims will be free to practise whatever their religion states. Consequently you could marry, divorce, pray etc according to your own rules etc. The only point at which the state would intervene is if this became an issue which was a societal affair.Secondly you talk about Mohamed abhorring violence for any purpose. so why is pakistan causing th eviolent cross border terrorism - according to you they should not be even prividing "moral" support for such violence, let alone creating it!I did not say that Mohammed (saw) abhorred violence. I said that it was never used to establish the state. The Prophet (saw) fought in numerous Jihads which is sanctioned in Islam. What I am saying is that when the Prophet (saw) was working to establish the state then violence was never used making it invalid as part of the method.As for what other groups and other Muslim organisations do, in line with the etiquettes of Islam we would not address the publically. Rather we would meet with the privately and advise them regarding our concerns, as the Hizb has done in the past with numerous people/groups.My point is, an ideology may say a lot of things on paper. but it's only as good as it is practiced.The Islamic ideology has not been seen since 3 March 1924. It's return will be inshallah soon and then the world will see the ideological implementation of Islam as a coherent system for man, life and the universe. You must think Jagjeevan, about the Islamic ideology and contrast it to those that exist today and see for yourself which one you hold to be superior.

Kind Regards,

Shiraz

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home