| |
I said to his companion: It is of the good of the country's secular democracy as we deal in terms of religion, treated better than we treat them.
I replied: Examples that they allow us to build mosques and establish the prayers, and allow freedom of the call to Islam while we do not allow them any such thing in our country.
The second said: First: What is said about us is not correct to release; In the Arab world and Muslim Christians and Jews practicing their religion in their churches and monasteries in complete freedom. Pain visited a country such as Egypt and Sudan? I said: But what about Saudi Arabia?
II: Saudi Arabia's special status; it is part of the island, which is the Prophet peace be upon him should be no religion other than Islam. It should not be a stranger even to Western countries, which see you defend.
I: What do you mean?
Second: Did you hear the country called the Vatican? Do you find the mosques or places of worship is the role of Catholics?
I: both.
II: The second thing that you would like to remind you it is that they do not allow us including letting out of kindness to us, or as a compliment to us as is thought some of those who do not know, otherwise they would have said to us: either to allow us as we allow it to you and only Mnanakm as Tmanonna.
I: That's what I thought I heard you effectively, has increased my appreciation to them as they failed to do.
II: What they allow us in the amount of religious freedom is allowed to each owner of belief, confirming or denying the existence of the Creator of existence, was a believer or a polytheist, idol or Abed Abed humans. As they allow so much of the intellectual freedom they allow as much like or greater than the advocates of immorality of homosexuals and adulterers and makers pornography. Doing all this; because they see it in the interest of their country according to their conception of freedom. The third thing is they use a lot of laws to limit this freedom, both for their visitors from the country
Islamic or the residents therein.
First: I agree. But not see, however, that their system is better than our system in terms of the amount to be allowed freedom is greater than we allow it?
The second is: No! I do not see what you see; because freedom is not measured quantitatively, and only the best systems is that people leave in vain does not order something someone does not tell him anything at all.
First: "What is measured, then?
II: measured by their utility and strength. This prohibition on theft is a limit of freedom, but somewhat useful. The prohibition on eating fish, for example it does not limit its usefulness, but may be extremely harmful for some people. Therefore, the Islamic prohibitions described as if overcome the limits of human impact in what will harm him. You can be envisioned such as borders that are placed on the bridge Jnepti; they also limit the freedom of the stepper or the driver, but they are useful to him; to prevent it from falling into the sea or passion into a ravine.
I: No doubt about it. But who is this issue resolved and the laws that deny? The democratic system for the tireless people; understand what Aisalham who determine what is harmful in complete freedom. The religious systems, including the Islamic system, they do not give people this freedom, but the matter to the tireless efforts of religion.
II: You mean that every law supersede or deprived emanates consensus of the people?
I: No; you know that is not the case, but which are issued by the majority of people.
II: But the majority of people is not that the promulgation of laws in the country's secular democracy, but which is issued by the legislative assemblies.
I: Yes! However, these councils are composed of individuals selected by the majority of people; they express their ideas.
Two: they are concerned with expressing the ideas of the voiceless.
I: But it is impossible a reality to be the case otherwise.
Two: Yes! But you also learn that even we say that they express the opinion of the majority that elected not correct; because the majority do not consulted, even consulted as to the majority opinion in the majority of laws; they need to know is not available to them.
I: But the fact remains, however, that these people Rdehm people rulers to them, and they give them what version of the laws they see fit.
II: So; people in the country's secular democracy are pleased that lawmakers are human beings like them.
First: Yes! This is the advantage of it.
II: The condition for them to be their own legislation under the Constitution, and did not leave them free to embark on what they want.
I: Yes! Because political stability is only available with something like this.
II: What's the difference between us and them? We also can not we have a legislative council members and people choose to give them the right of legislation on the condition that is not contrary to the Supreme Law of the country which is called a constitution. Which is for us the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, peace be upon him.
I: But the constitution is the same of their status, they can change it what they want.
II: But the constitution also includes materials such as those relating to what they call human rights is not one to be varied.
I: Yes! Because of this, including the rights of every human being is a human being, is not permissible for one to be unfair on them.
II: Who gave her this position? After all, I do not want to go out of our topic to talk about human rights, Let us do it on another occasion. Let us return to the topic, then!
First: good.
Second: I wanted to tell you that it was not for them we preferred the fact that the constitution of the invention; because if they are voluntary they saw it in their interest to initiate them, human beings like them; we also think for ourselves and our view that it is in our interest to accept what is permitted by us, our Lord who created us, which is us know what is corrupting us or reformer, which is kind to us tells us not only what will benefit us, not only forbade us from what is harmful to us. So there is no difference between us and them in terms of the principle of choice. Just as they chose their freedom, we also chose our freedom, our Lord did not force us to, including satisfaction of prescribed for us, but leave it to us humans] it is willing, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve [(al-Kahf: 29) and we chose the grace of our Lord to believe. We preferred to not have the permission of the terms of the principle of freedom of choice, but credit for those of us who showed us the truth and God grant us success to his followers.
I: But you have chosen religion, and people differ in their religions, and societies of contemporary multi-religious societies, and must each of its citizens have rights equal to others regardless of religion.
Two: How Secular solved this way?
I: suit easy solution, is the fact that religions from power so that each citizen has the right to assume any position of political head of state to below whatever the religion or belief.
Second: We also do what they did: Ngosai all religions except Islam for governance and as ...
I interrupted: Oqsoua but they have not been spared all of them one as you do.
II: Oqsoua mean they all except a secular religion.
I: But secularism is not a religion.
Second: Yes it is and our concept of God to the religion of the Arab-Islamic! But the evil of religion.
I: What do you mean?
II: I mean that religion is all we owe it to people and Iatadunh and practice in any aspect of their physical and spiritual, whether from their Lord, or was their invention. Did you hear the words of the poet that the Arab camel Ajhdha frequently travel:
If you Orahlha night groan groan sad man says that if her and Dini stressed: Is religion never religious? Ate solution and migration of age? But keep my mind on what?
I: but you know that the poet used the religion here in the sense of habit; What is the relationship of that systems of governance?
Second: I do not doubt that he used it in the sense of habit; but do not you think that if you get used to the solution, which is traveling in the life of a man and a camel called us, it is a fortiori be called as well as getting used to what was more comprehensive and more numerous. Moreover, the Quran used in this sense the Arab religion, Did not you hear the words of God on Joseph and his brother:] What used to take in the king's brother, except as Allah wills [(Yusuf: 76) religion is meant here is what we now call the law. In the Holy Quran is also called debt guidance revealed by God Almighty has sent His Messenger, as they are called to condemn what people do in fact whether to agree that the right religion or dissenting. This clearly shows you the interview
Prophet peace be upon him which he stated that God sends to this nation at the head of every one hundred years of renewed its religion; renew the religion that is owed by the people. The debt came down from heaven, there is no need to renew; because it does not create. And the renewal of what is owed by people to make it conform to the religion of truth.
I: the interpretation of this strange religion, which is contrary to what has been termed the people, especially in the secular Western country that is the subject of our conversation.
II: Is it fair that the debate would be always according to their perceptions and vocabulary? Why does not understand them that there is a difference between us even in our perception of the religion? All I do not want to dialogue that turns into a debate about words. It is important to clear meanings; and when it is clearly there is nothing wrong in terms. Can not let the word religion and instead use the word applies to secular and they call us? What do you think life is a Platform?
I: not too bad.
II: I hope that is clear to us from using it to say that the secular system neutral between religions is a myth spread to many people.
I: think of the ratifications of this myth; Could explained to us, sir, evil superstitions Guide to being a myth?
II: Suppose that we say to a person fair: that there are two systems (a) and (p)
And we gave him the following table:
The rules of a system p
- The provision only of God - that the provision only to the people
- It is permissible for a man to marry two or - is not permissible for a man to marry more than three, or four and one
- Take the right heirs recommended it - but recommended that inherits from his deceased mother, even if the deceased was not recommended for animals, and if the State has not recommended that
Acting in his
- Alcohol is haram - old wine
- Do not be a sexual relationship only between married couples - are permitted sexual relations between adults Tradiin man and a woman or two men or two women
- Interest is haram - Interest old
I: What if I think will be able to put it this way.
Second: There is no other way. Permission must be the one who wants to be a Muslim that does not deceive himself. It can not be for a person to be a believer and be satisfied with the secular system of government. Either this or that.
I: Yes! The Platform for secular rule exclude other methods of governance; because you can not apply different approaches at the same time as is clear from your schedule. But the advantage to other approaches, including the Islamic approach that differentiates between the exclusion of individuals and the exclusion of the curriculum.
II: What do you mean?
I: I mean, it treats all individuals are treated equally as citizens of the right of every one of them to assume any political office in the State if favored by the people.
II: the condition that his ruling will be in accordance with the constitution's secular approach that excluded from power if he is a Muslim.
First: Yes! And I believe we have agreed on the matter which requires intuitive impossible to combine two approaches in different governance.
II: But does this mean you give the Muslim American example of freedom in the condition to be president to abandon his religion.
The first is: No! It can remain a Muslim prays and fasts and Hajj and tell him to do all his debt.
II: except in relation to governance.
I: Yes.
II: But the Muslim faithful to his religion by the knower does not accept this; because he knows that his religion does not accept all retail; the one who denies some have denied it all. He says:] Ovtwmnon some of the book and disbelieve in some of what penalty to do so you only disgrace in this life and the Day of Resurrection are responding to the most punishment [(al-Baqarah: 85) This is required by the rules of the secular Muslim.
I: But the Islamic regime does not give him even that much.
II: the Islamic system does not prevent non-Muslim be a Muslim, and thus qualify to be the ruler of the Muslims. But human as we do not be a Muslim unless secure the entire religion; because the system of governance in Islam is separate from the rituals of other; but this is the case in other religions, and still is, seen by some Jews and some Christians who reject the secular system, and who describe secularism as We have a half of being a warrior for their religions.
I: Yes! They are imposing this on them as the constitution accepted by the majority, but then allow them to no regard to religion, by order of governance.
Second: We also allow them to what you have mentioned, but we give them more than to give them a secular democracy.
I: But they argue that the system of government that Tafrdouna them is your religion, they do not like to impose their religion is not religion.
Second: We do not impose it on them being a sense of being we have come closer to the worship of God, but impose them as a system of government accepted by the majority of the citizens; no difference in this between us and the secular democratic system. If they are the majority in the country of Western secularism had been content to cut their religion from power, and liked it a substitute for secularism; What prevents them where they are a minority in Muslim countries to settle for excluding religion from power and satisfaction of the Islamic governance as a choice of the majority in the country in which they live.
First: It seems from your words that you almost do not see in secular Western democracy any good.
II: I did not say that, but I want you think that their system would prefer the Islamic regime.
First: I understand that you see in the aspects of Western life is good?
II: No doubt about it. But I see that in every nation some good aspects. We say this; because I could not believe it for a person no good not that good, who sees in religion the right to keep quiet tags. As long as this debt has come for all people, it must be God Almighty to make them good as they can see him really.
I: Would you told me some of these aspects of the good?
II: In this talk could be long; Vloktef you mention the best of what they see, the best of what they have is this great development in the natural sciences and was built of technology in various aspects of life, including the military side. I wish I was that we focused on this aspect of scientific technical we take it from the West, but the secularists in our country Chgllona such issues that we're talking about now; Smajtahm because they thought that the reason the foundation for the development of the West is the separation of religion from the state. This has been a focus on the cultural aspect of the Western experience is the main reason for our weakness and lack of evolution; because he was the main reason the conflict between us; and you know that United can not achieve a significant achievement religious or worldly is divided against itself competing with each other. I ask God that brings us together to do good and help us to introduce the reasons for the Renaissance and the power and greatness in all aspects of our physical and spiritual. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment