Uzbekistan - Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

[vatanparvar]

Hey guys,

What about the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan? There is a huge debate about the relations b/w Uzbekistan Gavernment and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Some like Tajiks and Western human rights activists say the government should start negotiations and seek ways for incorporating the IMU into the Government. THe experience of Tajik resolution is cited as panacea.

What do you think guys? Would you like to see a Tractor Driver in the leadership of our defense system (Jumaboy Namangani)? What about a SPTU graduate in the Government (Tohir Yuldosh)? We really should have an opinion on this, since it is a challenge for us technokrats. It is like this: technokrats vs. whoever they are in the IMU - renegates.

I think no reconciliatory policy should implemented, especially based on the fact that they are convicted criminals now in Uzbekistan. On the other hand, the present situation reminds that in the famous game "Chicken", where to guys in cars rush directly at each other and who turns away first loses. In many cases the two cars clash.

So, what do you think guys? Should there be a dialogue? If yes, what kind of dialogue? If no, why?

Thanx

[OPTIMIST]

Final verdict have already been publicized,
Check uzreport.com for trial process,

OPTIMIST ;)

[Mehmet Ghaznevi]

Didnt Namangani use to serve the commie robotniks against the Afghan mujahideen before becoming a muslim?

[Mehmet/MahmudEGhazna]

And what is with this sneaky Shanghai Five (soon to become 6) deal?

[steel]

first, Vatanparvar why are you using the anomizer? interesting, recently we got addicted by anomizer (deeply in my heart i say that i don't use it at all). even if there is nothing "bad" about your message you wanna use it. WHY? Does it mean we don't trust each other? give me a break, we are people of the same blood, history, and culture !!!

sorry about the off-topic. i agree with the public opinion, the torrorists should not be in the government.

-gs

[NotUmidie]

I seldom visit this site, however,all the time when I visit this site,I get surprised by the variety of the topics you guys discuss about and argue on.This time, I got curious about your responses and decided to elaborate a liitle bit on my humble opnion. I do not know exactly who are the bad guys that you are talking about, however, I'd like to approach this Issue from an islamic and nonislamic points of views.As I found out recently, you guys are building a secular democratic state as we have in Turkey.( yes,my ancestors were from turkey but I was raised in Yugoslavia and doing my Islamic Studies at one of the US universities,we have an umidie at our university, we took the same course on Christianity(that's where I got to know him)while writing this paper he begged me to use anonymiser do that some bad guys cant fing out from which university this message was posted,I am surprised by you guyz not trusting each other.)First,I'd like to mention that Secular Democratic State is against, yes uncompromising, to the islamic notion of State.And muslims are supposed to have an islamic state (by islamic state I mean the original state established by Muhammad(saw) and his(saw) companions,I do not mean something like Iran, Aravia, or Pakistan). Secularism is defined in the Webster dictionary as: "A system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of religious faith and worship" or "The belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education."

There is no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. They are two different paths that never meet; choosing one means rejecting the other. Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to reject secularism. In the following, we go in the details of explaining why.

1- First, secularism makes lawful what Allah has made unlawful.

The Rule of Allah (Shari`ah) is compulsory and has basic laws and regulations that cannot be changed. Some of these laws are concerned with the acts of worship, the relations between men and women, etc.

What is the position with regard to these laws?

Secularism makes adultery lawful if the male and the female are consenting adults.

As for Riba (interest on money), it is the basis of all financial transactions in secular economies. On the contrary, Allah says (s.2 A. 278): "O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what comes from Riba if you are believers. If you do not do so, then wait for a war from Allah and His Messenger."

As for alcohol, all secular systems allow the consumption of alcohol and make selling it a lawful business.

2- Second, secularism is clear unbelief (Kufr).

Secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life and hence, it rules by law and regulations other than Allah's laws. Hence, secularism rejects Allah's rules with no exception and prefers regulations other than Allah's and His Messenger's. In fact, many secularists claim that Allah's laws might have been suitable for the time they were revealed but are now outdated.

As a result, most of the laws governing the daily affairs of life in the countries ruled by secular systems contradict Islam. Allah says (S.5 A.50): "Do they seek a judgment of Ignorance? But, who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?"

Ibn Katheer said in the Tafseer of this verse that Allah is denouncing those who reject His ruling and accept other rulings that are not based on the Shari`ah of Allah. Whoever does so is indeed a non-believer. Indeed, belief in Allah can never go with the acceptance of other than His rulings in one's heart. Allah says (S.5 A.44): "If any do fail to judge by what Allah has revealed, they are non-believers."

From the above, the status of secularism and its relation to Islam are clear. But the ignorance about the Islamic truth is still dominating the Muslim's mind. Most secular systems repeat slogans like "no religion in politics and no politics in religion" or "religion is for Allah, and the state is for the people." Such sayings portray their view of Islam as a religion to be practiced in the mosque only, and that it should not be allowed to rule life outside the mosque. Furthermore, they try to deceive people with democratic slogans like "personal freedom" and "people governing people." That means that people come first and no place is made for the ruling of Allah.

This is why secularism is clear Kufr, this is why secular systems have no legality and authority and should be rejected by Muslims.
Based on this, I darely say that Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has good and fair intention.However, I do not have enough information how they are going to establish islam based state.It is not secret,"terrorist" is not an new name,as my uzbeki firend told me you guys used to label them in Russian times "basmachs", you might now that French used to label the "barbarians" and the Americans labelled their own rebells as "merciless savages." Let's be honest, who the real terrorist is, Is not it the USA itself? Is not it french themselves?Is not Uzbeki government itself? if you doubt read the annual census of The UN himan rights agency on uzbekistan as of november,2000.You guys seem to me as the mass, the mass of men whic serve the state, not as men mainly, but as machines, with your bodies.You are the stading army, and the militia, jailers, constables, Posee comitatus,&c. in most cases no free exercize whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but you put yourselves on alevel with wood and earth and stones, and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw, or a lump of dirt. You have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as you guys (I do not hesitate to include my uzbeki fellow)are commonly esteemed good citizens or normal people. You( majority of you), your legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office holders, serve the State chiefly with your heads; and , as you rarely make any moral distinctions, you are likely to serve the devil, without intending it,as God. A few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, mujahids,reformers in the great sense and the men, serve the State with their consciences(Iyman al Akbar)also, and so necessarily resist you (seculars) for the most part; and they are cmmonly treated by you as enemies, terrorists. All you recognize the right of revolution; that is , the right to refuse allegiance to and to ressist the governmet, when its tyranny or its inefficency are great and unendurable.But almost all you say that such is not the case now.But such was the case, you think, in the 1991.Practically speaking, the opponents to a jihad in Uzbekistan are not hundred thousand politicians at the Central Asia, but a hundred thousand teachers and doctors,professors and students, fathers and mothers, who are more intersted in this materialistic world than they are in humanity, and not prepared to do justice to the fellow muslims, cost what it may. You are accustome to say that mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not materially wiser or better than the many.It is not important that many should be as good as you, as that that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump.There are thoisands of you esteeming yourselves children of Tamerlane and Baburshah, sit down with your hands in your pockets, and say that you know not what to do, and do nothing, who even postpone the question of iyman to the question of "enjoy the life". You (umidies)hesitate, and you regret, and sometimes you petition, but you do nothing with earnest and effect.You will wait, well disposed for others to remedy the evil and solve the problems,that you may no longer have it to regret.
Take care,with cheers Sarkan Tajhan Ogli.

[Mahmud]

Dear brother, what is ur email address?
you have a VERY VERY good argument...

[Freestyler]

This is concerning the message of <NotUmidie>:


In my opinion it is Islam which rejects secularism, but not secularism which rejects Islam!

Secularism is a much more democratic a system then any rule of the religion be that Islam, Christianity or any other. It accepts all kinds of confessions, beliefs and religions (unless they are extremistic or fatalistic, like Aum Senriquo in Japan).
And what I like most about secularism is that it gives much more freedom for people.

Religions, on the other hand, almost always try to impose moral rules and norms. Of course these rules seem to be very right from a religious point of view. But I personally don't need religion to be able myself to distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong, accepted and unaccepted.

If you think that this point of view is the one of a non-believer (i.e., Kufr), you are probably right, but if God exists it is up to him to decide. You are not the one to judge people in this world, especially people of the ohter nation whom you hardly now. I'm sure if the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan came to power in Uzbekistan they would instantly rush to organise their own "judgement day", totally forgetting about humanity and justifying themselves by jihad. I'm sure it would also lead to the establishment of Shariat in the state, whose punishment methods can hardly be called humanistic and fair.

Besides, this should not lead you to think that whtatever I say is initially wrong because of my being a non-believer.
Our state has chosen to be secular, and that was the choice of the people living in Uzbekistan.

The principal "discrepancy" between the two systems (secular and religious) is apparantly in their underlying assumptions:

Religion (in your case Islam) assumes that men are created by God to serve the God, and this is indisputable according to religion; any other purpose is deemed to be wrong and unacceptable.

Secularism, on the contrary, presupposes that people, whoever they are created by - God or Nature, are born to be happy, which means that they are free to chose any religion or confession, or even to chose not to believe at all, but at least try their own way to reach happiness. (And if God exists he and only he will judge the people, not you with your teachings and not IMU)
Also, by doing this secularism does not give up some basics of humanity and common morale (e.g., Do Not Kill, Do not steal, do not Lie,...).
...
(I guess I'll have to continue the discussion)

Keep it Sober

[Me again]

Oops I did it again, sorry...

[Freestyler]

This is concerning the message of <NotUmidie>:


In my opinion it is Islam which rejects secularism, but not secularism which rejects Islam!

Secularism is a much more democratic a system then any rule of the religion be that Islam, Christianity or any other. It accepts all kinds of confessions, beliefs and religions (unless they are extremistic or fatalistic, like Aum Senriquo in Japan).
And what I like most about secularism is that it gives much more freedom for people.

Religions, on the other hand, almost always try to impose moral rules and norms. Of course these rules seem to be very right from a religious point of view. But I personally don't need religion to be able myself to distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong, accepted and unaccepted.

If you think that this point of view is the one of a non-believer (i.e., Kufr), you are probably right, but if God exists it is up to him to decide. You are not the one to judge people in this world, especially people of the ohter nation whom you hardly now. I'm sure if the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan came to power in Uzbekistan they would instantly rush to organise their own "judgement day", totally forgetting about humanity and justifying themselves by jihad. I'm sure it would also lead to the establishment of Shariat in the state, whose punishment methods can hardly be called humanistic and fair.

Besides, this should not lead you to think that whtatever I say is initially wrong because of my being a non-believer.
Our state has chosen to be secular, and that was the choice of the people living in Uzbekistan.

The principal "discrepancy" between the two systems (secular and religious) is apparantly in their underlying assumptions:

Religion (in your case Islam) assumes that men are created by God to serve the God, and this is indisputable according to religion; any other purpose is deemed to be wrong and unacceptable.

Secularism, on the contrary, presupposes that people, whoever they are created by - God or Nature, are born to be happy, which means that they are free to chose any religion or confession, or even to chose not to believe at all, but at least try their own way to reach happiness. (And if God exists he and only he will judge the people, not you with your teachings and not IMU)
Also, by doing this secularism does not give up some basics of humanity and common morale (e.g., Do Not Kill, Do not steal, do not Lie,...).
...
(I guess I'll have to continue the discussion)

Keep it Sober

[Clear]

Freestyler,

you said quoting "our state has chosen to be secular, and that was the choice of the people living in Uzbekistan."

Are sure this statement reflects the reality?
To my view the "State" does not, in all cases, correspond to the "People". Moreover, what do you think what percentage of people of Uzb would know what the secularism is?

regards,

[Freestyler]

<Clear>, was that the only point you were complaining about?

First:
Frankly, I know that not all people want to see a secular government in Uzbekistan and by saying "the choice of the people living in Uzbekistan" I meant the majority of people living in Uzbekistan.
If you still doubt that this reflects the reality, I advise you to refer to our Constitution, which legislates the formation of a secular government and which has been voted FOR on a referendum.

Second:
I think the percentage of people knowing what true secularism is very small but I'm also sure that the percentage of people knowing what true Islam is is even smaller. In other words the fact that very few people understand the principles of secularism, does not mean that the state should chose another way (true means authentic).
I should also note that in my discussion I equate secularism to democracy not necessarily as rule of people, but as a rule of democratic law, in our case - the rule of constitution.

Respectfully

[Lucky]

Hey wassup guys sorry for intruding in your discussion, just wanted to clarify couple of things:
<In my opinion it is Islam which rejects secularism, but not secularism which rejects Islam!> not a quite accurate statement,it is true that islam rejects secularism and at the same token secularism for sure rejects islam,otherwise it would not separate the church from the reigion.
<Religions, on the other hand, almost always try to impose moral rules and norms. Secularism, on the contrary, presupposes that people, whoever they are created by - God or Nature, are born to be happy, which means that they are free to chose any religion or confession, or even to chose not to believe at all, but at least try their own way to reach happiness.> "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."(chapter2,verse56,Quran) You can see in islam none is forced to practice the religion.If a person is nonmuslim all he/she has to do is to follow cerain rules, the same applies to the secular state like you one will go to jail if rejects to pay the state tax.To support my point I'd like to cite the article on secualrism by Dr.Yusuf Al Qaradawi and two other related articles:
"Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: "Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God" (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience. Furthermore, Westerners, especially Christians, have good reasons to prefer a secular regime to a religious one. Their experience with "religious regimes" - as they knew them - meant the rule of the clergy, the despotic authority of the Church, and the resulting decrees of excommunication and the deeds of forgiveness, i.e. letters of indulgence.

For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different; i.e. as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions; It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: "Say! Do you know better than Allah?" (2:140).

For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah. The silence of the masses in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance of disobedience which have produces a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because such deviation lacks legality. Secularism is compatible with the Western concept of God which maintains that after God had created the world, He left it to look after itself. In this sense, God’s relationship with the world is like that of a watchmaker with a watch: he makes it then leaves it to function without any need for him. This concept is inherited from Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle who argued that God neither controls nor knows anything about this world. This is a helpless God as described by Will Durant. There is no wonder that such a God leaves people to look after their own affairs. How can He legislate for them when He is ignorant of their affairs? This concept is totally different from that of Muslims. We Muslims believe that Allah (SWT) is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. One Who "…takes account of every single thing) (72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Allah (SWT) revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they do not do so, then they commit kufr, aggression, and transgression."
Islam is not a stranger to civilization and innovation. For over a thousand years, Islam was the launch pad of a great civilization and scientific breakthroughs and co-existed peacefully with other world religions in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East. However, in the last four or five centuries, Muslims and the Islamic civilization have stagnated and suffered major setbacks. In the 20th century, Muslims have started to regain their awareness after decades of colonization and centuries of stagnation. Due to the lack of democracy and freedom in most of the Muslim world, movements and individuals that have tried to revive Islamic thought were often seen as a threat to the status quo and to the existing political and social order. They were severely repressed and driven into secrecy, and often became violent themselves due to oppression.

The Islamic world today is in a state of disarray and confrontation between extremist religious movements that see themselves as the "defenders of Islam" and authoritarian political regimes that claim to be "defenders of modernity". Yet, neither Islam nor modernity can be imposed on the people. This dichotomy warns of terrible consequences if the voices of reason and moderation _ on both sides _ are not allowed to prevail. Democracy offers a practical solution, and, possibly, the only way out of this dangerous situation.

Democracy is not an alien concept to Islam. When the Prophet of Islam died, he did not appoint any person or group of people to lead the Muslim society. The companions of the Prophet (pbuh) were asked to convene in a house and elect a new leader, Abu Bakr. By not appointing a successor, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) clearly wanted to teach his followers that it is up to them to choose their leader. Therefore it is clear that the ruler in a Muslim society does not represent God Almighty but represents and serves the people who elect him. He serves at their pleasure and can be removed from office if he does not do a good job. Although Islam does not specify how these elections are to take place or the mechanism by which the ruler is made accountable to the people, Islam clearly forbids repression and oppression and advocates justice, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the freedom to criticize, or even oppose, the ruler. Islam is inherently democratic because it does not have a religious hierarchy or spokesperson. What Islam has is generations of religious scholars (Ulama), and Muslims are in effect free to choose whom to follow or not to follow."

What is an Islamic State?
Many movements in the Islamic world today aspire for an Islamic state, however, there is no clear definition or consensus on what an Islamic state is. There is disagreement among the various scholars and schools of thought on how the government should function and how laws should be made. The so-called `Islamic' state in Afghanistan illustrates how various Islamic groups can fight each other to death simply because they cannot agree on how to elect the leader or how to make and enforce laws. There are two ways to resolve these differences of opinion: violent confrontation or peaceful dialogue. Clearly, peaceful dialogue is preferable both from an Islamic and from a rational perspective. However, peaceful debates do not always lead to consensus and the question becomes how should Muslims resolve their differences when dialogue has been tried and no consensus has emerged? Some Muslims will say we follow the opinion of the religious scholars (Ulama), but there is no consensus on who the scholars are and there is no consensus among the scholars themselves. This is the dilemma that threatens to pit Muslim groups and individuals against each other and has already pitted Islamist movements (with few exceptions) against their governments. Furthermore, the scholars should not only possess religious knowledge (from the Qur'an and the Sunna) but must also have knowledge of the society and its needs. Thus, they will be able to perform the critical function of Ijtihad (coming up with innovative solutions to modern day problems) and their representation of the people is essential.

Since Islam does not have a final authoritative spokesperson, there is no easy answer or solution to this question. The only plausible solution is to follow the majority in the hope and expectation that the majority has more chances of being right and correct than does the minority. Some Muslim groups or individuals are bound to believe that they and they alone are right and those who disagree with them are wrong, however they have no religious basis to this claim other than their own convictions

What is Democracy?
Democracy means that the majority rules and that the rights of the minority are protected. One chooses to follow the majority, in a democracy, even when he/she holds a minority opinion, because a democracy guarantees respect for minority opinions even as the majority rules. Therefore a holder of a minority opinion does not feel threatened on account of his or her opinion, and each minority opinion has hopes of becoming the majority using open dialogue and persuasion. Democracy is not a perfect system but it offers the best type of government that can solve the real problems and address the real needs of the people. Democracy is not an ideal, it is an instrument to achieve a higher goal which is justice, peace, equality, and rule of law.

Democracy is an old concept. It was not invented in the West nor is it tied to any particular civilization or culture. The concept is at least 3,000 years old, and has evolved in several stages to become what it is today. Islam itself has made significant contributions to the evolution of democracy by protecting freedom of religion, by promoting the ideals of consultation (Shura), and by banning compulsion or oppression.

The Qur'an has made it clear that "there is no compulsion in religion". Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists lived and prospered under Islamic rule for almost 14 centuries in North Africa, Spain, the Middle East, central and southeast Asia. Even in Europe, until a few hundred years ago, if the King changes his religion from Protestant to Catholic, everyone had to follow or face persecution. Yet, the concept that people should be free to choose their religion had been practiced in the Muslim world for more than a thousand years. Significant Christian and Jewish minorities lived for centuries, and continue to live and practice their religion, in many Muslim countries. Some of the oldest churches and synagogues in the world today are in the Muslim world in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. While things were not always perfect for these minorities (they were not perfect for the Muslim majority either), Islam has a proud history of tolerance and co-existence with other religions.

also chech out this site if you wanna increase your understanding in this matter.http://www.muslim-canada.org/ch19hakim.html
I wish successes in your finals,take care you all:)

[Mahmud]

Once upon a time there was a Republic by the name of Rome.

Anyone know what happened to it?

[Republican]

Secular states are based on the idea of atheism, which is itself wrong, so you cann't approve the the idea of secular state as well. By the way, our goverment in no way wants our state to be secular, they just wanna create a good state, that's it. (they have announced their willigness to do so for many times in media). Although some radical islamic movements blame our country to be secular, it might be rather their tricks to gain more supportes, so their opinion about our system could not be taken in account in our disscusion. If you look at the states, which themselves acknowledged to be secular (USSR, China, Turkey, Cuba, Mongolia and so on), I wonder which of them was a democratic one? Turkey, during Otaturk( in Turkmen language it will be "Turkbashi")? He killed his opposision, was againist teaching of religion at schools just because he sought that God didn't exist, ruled country until he died, and yet, his country is a only NATO country, which is not so developed as other members. Is it real democracy? Or, may be it is in Cuba, which is so democratic? Or USSR was so nice a country, that all his fomer allies want now just to cut all their relationships with that era? Another aurgument for our country not being secular is that that secular states are usually untolerant to any kind of religion and they tend to be against mosques, church and ect. ( if remmber, USSR closed almost all mosques and churchs, and so on. In Turkey, there where lots of attempts to do so.) Besides it, If you remmeber, USSR was blamed to be athist by Western countlries during its invasion of Afghanistan in early of 90s. That points to the fact that that developed countries didn't have a desire to be secular or aithistic. The number of aithist in West have also increased since last century. But it only means that those people decided no longer to follow Christanity, that's it. {by the way, during midle ages, people in west used to follow their religions blindly, but now, because of athism, if you ask them to follow Christinaty they would reply: "A na kakoy fi* ya doljen soblyudat' etu religiyu?". So they tend to think more before following any kind of ideas. Because athism in no way is able to compete with Islam in truth, God Will, it will lead to increasing the number of Muslims in the wolrd.} As for athism, it is just an stupid idea, with some very negative consequences for humanity. For example, athist thinks that it is his only life he will die and don't be asked for what he did(that's why you can find many unresponseble people amongst aithists). So he wants to enjoy it as much as possible and of course, there is no reason for him to take care of others and moreover, he thinks that this life is a strugle to survive so it's his right to do whatever he wants to do. So, because of it, the country of athist will be either anarchy or dictatorship. In fact, USSR, Turkey, Cuba were a dictatorship countries. If you look at the idea of aithism, in general, it states that the world has been created either chaotically (the probablity of which is ZERO) or by something called nuture (it's very stupid as well, because nature is a part of the world. If someone thinks the thing cannot create itself, why does he think that its part can creat the thing?). Some of them also think that it was not created at all, there is no beginng for this world, but it is not only stupid & contradictory to scientific facts, but also copletely unreseanoble. Just think, one thing causes another to happen. I am sending this message to this board just because some smart guys managed to construct such a good website. In turn, they constracted it, because they had ability to do so. The ability came after years of studing this subject, searching for right books and so on. So if this boys didn't work hard at the begining, I could not send my message for disscusion now. The same applies to whole chain of events in the world- if there were not a first action, or the first action was in infinity, then, it could not reach me and I won't be able to do anything. That's it. So there should be the beging. In fact, you are familar or have heard about the Big Bang Theory, for example. It states that there was Big Bang at first!!! Pay attention on it. :). So, in this message I've just stated that our system is not secular, as described by some fundamentals, and proved it. Besides it, I've stated that because secularism lies on athism and it can not be good at all. I've proved it by giving some examples of "acievemnets" of secular states and by proving that the idea of athism itself is nothing more than bolsh*t. That's it.
I wish you all to have a good life in this world and in Hereafeter.
GOOD LUCK! :)

Regards,
Republican

[Cute]

Agree Republican
But I didn't read it all, guys try to write shorter.
Thanx

[Republican]

To Cute
You are right. I'll try to write shorter. Thanks for your critics.

Regards,
Republican. :)

[Freestyler]

Hey, guys, it is very tiresome and boring to read your "dissertations". May I please, too, call for concise replies.

Now concerning the reply of <Lucky> and the <Republican>

Lucky, if you re-read your reply again you will see that indeed it is Religion (Islam) which rejects secularism but not secularism which rejects religion(s). (I guess you disagreed with only the second part of this statement)

I think you guys think wrong if you think that every secular government is essentially atheistic. I suspected that you would think so and I intentionally put a note saying that one should equate secularism with the democracy and the rule of Law (The Constitution).
But it seems as if you've dropped that part.

Lucky, this is an extract from your reply:
"Democracy means that the majority rules and that the rights of the minority are protected. One chooses to follow the majority, in a democracy, even when he/she holds a minority opinion, because a democracy guarantees respect for minority opinions even as the majority rules. Therefore a holder of a minority opinion does not feel threatened on account of his or her opinion, and each minority opinion has hopes of becoming the majority using open dialogue and persuasion".

Republican, your examples of secular states are not quite correct in the sense that they were all totalitarian with presupposed atheistic ideology and propoganda.

Hence, putting it simply:

i) Atheism means essenatially that the state is secular;

ii) Secularism does not necessarily mean that the state is secular, it may choose to be based on Shariat or whatever religious framework if the majority wishes to do so (but still the rights of the minorities should be respected)

In the light of the above, Uzbekistan does have a secular government, <Republican>. Or at least tries to build one

Besides, <Republican>, you forgot to mension such secular governments as Japan, Western European states and, I'm not quite sure, USA. This, I think, totally changes the picture and impression about secular governments.

(Note #2):
The question of arguably deteriorating morale and cultural values have nothing to do with secularism in these countries. Or else it could be argued that religious states and rules have, too, failed to maintain good morale. One of you has mentioned Afghanistan, and I could add flourishing corruption in Islamic states.
Also the growing population of muslims in the world is not due to more people accepting Islam, but due to the highest rate of birth in muslim states.

(Wow, it looks as if my reply is long too. Anyway it is hard to give short answers to loooong arguements. Besides, Lucky, did you intentionally abstained from making any conclusions? I mostly disagree with the first part of your reply and support the part starting with democracy.)

Respectfully

[Freestyler]

A small but crucial correction:

ii)Secularism does not necessarily mean that the state is secular,

Read as

ii) Secularism does not necessarily mean that the state is ATHEISTIC,...

[Republican]

to Freestyler

Almost all my arguments against secularism were based on considering secularism and atheism to be more or less the same. If you think that there is much difference between them, than, could you give me the precise defenition of "secularism"? I hope, if you clarify you point of view it will help us to avoid useless misunderstandings later on. Another question, do you consider former USSR to be secular?

Regards,
Republican. :)

[Mahmud Ghaznevi]

<it is Religion (Islam) which rejects secularism but not secularism which rejects religion(s).>

Neither rights of minorities nor rights of majorities are respected in Secularism. It is whoever wishes to brown nose to whoever the current powerholder is at the moment is the one who benefits from this system.

There are many examples I can give you. You can ask me more for later if you want, and I will also spit those out at you too.

For now......

Lets take Turkey and Uzbekistan for example:
Both countries have Muslim majorities. In both countries many Muslim practices are suppressed because it supposedly creates a "threat" for the government.

In Uzbekistan, you have to pray namaz in the "government-sponsered" way or face persecution by the government. Many men and women who did not confirm to a university's anti-islamic dress code are expelled from there. You are arrested and thrown into prison if you have a beard. Sometimes people are afraid to go to a public mosque in fear of being branded a "terrorist" by someone. If you are a pious Muslim, ur chances are higher that u will go to jail and die from torture.

As for minorities, the Uzbek powers try to surpress Tajik culture and language through media and other means.

In Turkey, we all know who really runs their democracy: The brainwashed military who pretty much hold Ata-turkiye's sayings and actions as their "Sunnah". Which pretty much crushing the Muslims. Im sure we all know what Mustafa Kemal did to Muslims who protested against his ways.

As for minorities, look at what they are doing to the Kurds.

Turkiye like Uzbekistan has no respect for minorities or their traditions. And neither represent the Muslim majority either.
___________________________________________
In the United States its MUCH MORE subtle. And more cunning. Throughout its history, pretty much every ethnic group has been recieved its share of abuse in America. First it was the natives. then the blacks. then the chinese. and still the blacks. the latest are Muslims and more specifically Arabs. Ever heard of the secret evidence act? They are going to be launching another one against Muslims too. Now you too can be a terrorist if you disagree with America or Israel, or speak out against their imperialism. And i can share from personal experiences that you will get treated a bit more differently by authorities than others because you are a muslim.
_____________________________________
America, which is losing its Majority, is fighting to survive by playing off different ethnic groups against one another and creating scapegoats to unite against.

To me, this is an indication of a sick country that knows that its going to die if it doesnt find new devious tricks to keep itself alive. America is going to just kill itself one day, because everyone is going to end up hating one another and it will die like Rome died 1600 years ago.

To me, this is no way to live.

[Mahmud Ghaznevi]

To sum it up, Secularism is an enemy of humanity.

[Lucky]

Hey wassup Dudes?!!! Not much over here in San Jose,CA.
Intersiting and ispiring replies,I really liked your replies. Now,I am convinced that we can make, for sure, an open minded,respectful discussion without cursing and offending others.
Freestyler re-read the articles that I posted and the definiton of secularism given by, i guess,nonumidie,based on the webster dictionary.
My conclusion was "Democracy is not alien to Islam, indeed Islam is a perfect example of Democracy, like the rights given to our respected and beloved mothers, sisters and aunts, 1400 years ago,which include: The right to vote,the right to inherit and many others which did not exist in any western country even 100 years ago.
Successes in the finals,Cheers :)

[Student]

Secularism is the only way for the development, Islamic culture got it's peak in the era of secularism - mu'tazila school, and got for obsession with kalamists - Imam Ghazali forming dogmatic Islam.

Someone has brought the example of Turkey with Ataturk (who is believed to be the half Turk and greek), Turks managed to arise again and develop, because they got free from these islamic dogmas, it’s not pure democracy, but it is necessary even in forcible way. In modern societies we don’t have any Islamic model that could be a good example for others.

I think we should develop democracy and respect for human rights, which will help to build up a secular state, neither authoritarian nor islamic both having little respect for human's freedoms.

We need a democratic society with respect for human rights and freedoms national self awareness and prosperity.


P.S. shall we keep our messages as abovesaid in brief!

[Republican]

to Student

If you keep in mind that anything related to atheism is just bolsh*t, than it would be easer for you to make up any descions. I'd like also to know what you understand by secularism. I hope your understanding of democracy is correct, but I prefer you to clarify it as well. And don't wanna anyone here to use the common words like "I am for freedom", "lets build progressive society in our country and so on", because everyone wants it. So if somebody uses this kind of common words, let him to explain what he means by "freedom". May be he means "sitting in confined and durty place" by that...?
So, I would be grateful for your soon reply.

Regards,
Republican.

[Kho'ja+Nasriddin]

So far I agree with NotUmidie, Lucky, Republican and Mahmud Gheznevi, and disagree with Freestyle and Student.

Dear Student, don't you think that you are confounding mutazilits’ rationalism (emphasis on reason) with secularism. As for Al-Ghazzali, he was a reformer who tried to restore Islam to its original pristine state by reuniting the three aspects of Islam, the mystic, philosophic and legal. Everything else you wrote is only a demonstration of your little knowledge of Islamic conceptions on matters of God, government, society, and individual, and relations between them. Please, don’t be upset, but your arguments are so invalid that it will take too long to dismantle them piece by piece.

Regards.

[Student]

Dear republican, I really appreciate your interest of my understandings of secularism and democracy and the way I think. In my understanding secularism means that laws, education, etc. should be based on reality - facts, science, rather then believe in orthodox religious dogmas. The encyclopaedia Britannica gives the explanation of Secularism as “any movement in society directed away from otherworldliness to life on earth”. If you consult this reference book you will find the definition od democracy as well.

democracy - literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The term has three basic senses in contemporary usage:
(1) a form of government in which the right to make political decisions is exercised directly by the whole body of citizens, acting under procedures of majority rule, usually known as direct democracy;
(2) a form of government in which the citizens exercise the same right not in person but through representatives chosen by and responsible to them, known as representative democracy; and
(3) a form of government, usually a representative democracy, in which the powers of the majority are exercised within a framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee all citizens the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, known as liberal, or constitutional, democracy

Next time if you want to ask to clarify the term “love”, “believe” please feel free to consult me, I will be happy to find some information about.

Thanks for attention

[Student]

Dear Ho'ja Nasriddin,

I respect your right to have personal view on problems based on your believes, understandings and way of perceiving the world. There is a term called "religious secularism", since secularism does not necessarily mean atheism. As far as I know Khalif Ma'mun used Mu'tazila as a state dogma, he established "Baytul-Hikma" where books of hellenist philosphers like Aristotel, Socratus, Platon etc were translated. Baytul-Hikma gave strong impetus to the development of islamic philosophie. Farabiy, Avicenna, razi were influenced by the school of hellenistic philosophie due to the Mu'tazila school.
Mu'tazilits stressed the absolute unity or oneness (tawhid) of God. From this it was logically concluded that the Qur'an could not be technically considered the word of God (the orthodox view), as God has no separable parts, and so had to be created and was not coeternal with God. The doctrine of a created Qur'an states God's absolute Oneness, where God's principal attributes were identical with His Divine Essence, God's justice and man's free will, and an allegorical attitude towards the physical attributes of God mentioned in the Qur'an.

Imam al-Gazali (not al-GaZZali, as you wrote:)) confronted the neoplatonist philosophers like Farabiy, Avicenna in his book "Tahofutul-Falasifa". He was mystic, in his great work, Ihya ulum ad-din ("The Revival of the Religious Sciences") he made Sufism an acceptable part of orthodox Islam.

It will be useful to read about the works of Ibn Rushd (Averroлs) "Tahofut ul-Tahoful", the book criticising al-Gazali's "Tahofutul-falasifa".

It's not correct to make a conclusion reading just a couple of books, it would be very usuful to research deep in this area, if you are committed to islamic philosophie.

Regards,

[Kho'ja Nasriddiin]

Dear Student, the following are laconic clarifications to two of the basic philosophical tenets of Mutazilas followed by main criticisms about those beliefs.

1. Mutazilas’ dogma of Tawhid (the Absolute Unity and immateriality of Allah) holds that Allah is completely distinct from His creations and cannot not, therefore, be known by the senses in this world or the next, but His creations can be known through Aql (Reason) given to man by Him. His attributes are divided into (a) the Eternal or Unchanging such as knowledge, power, life which were part of Him, and (b) those of Action such as willing, hearing, seeing and speech which are not Eternal but temporal. The Quran, being the speech of God, is not, therefore, Eternal but created.

Criticism: It is true, that the emphasis on reason allowed the Mutazilas to contribute to the development of ethics, law, politics, administration, commentaries on the Quran and Hadith, and to many sciences. But reason (aql) is not the only human faculty. Mutazilas ignored observation and inspiration as well as the requirement of consultation and consensus. Moreover, reason can only function correctly if it was purified so that prejudice, fantasy, self-interest etc. did not introduce errors into it. It yields correct results if all relevant data is admitted without a selective process and it could not be guaranteed that the advocate of the teaching had considered all the facts or, indeed, that he knew them or could even perceive them. The doctrine of Unity (Tawhid) is correct. But if Allah is unknowable, how do we know that He exists? Obviously, because He reveals Himself. Indeed, the Universe itself must be regarded as a self-revelation of Allah. Reason and experience must be regarded as lower forms of revelation. If Allah is completely separate from creation why would He be concerned about His creatures and how could He influence events in the Universe and human societies. The Quran tells us that His spirit is in man.

2. According to another Mutazilah conviction, man had been given free will, otherwise he could not be held responsible for his action and could not be judged, nor could he exercise reason. Allah’s Justice, reward and punishment, Paradise and Hell, were, therefore, logically necessary consequences of man’s own actions, not a punishment by Allah, who wanted only the best for man.

Criticism: Again, it is true, of course, that if human thought and action were determined by external causes then it cannot be said that they can find the truth or be responsible and judged. But if man has free will then Allah must be limited and the individual can do anything without causes or reasons. He cannot adjust to the environment nor obtain the power to do so. This is neither rational nor in conformity with facts. When a ball is in a container is it free or not? It can certainly move in a great many different ways but each requires appropriate impulses. Or when you lift your arm are there physical, physiological, social, or psychological causes for this? The Quran tells us that all power comes from Allah. Human beings have an inherent urge for happiness, adjustment to Reality, self-perfection, and return to Unity, but there are forces which obstruct this. It is necessary to espouse those causal forces which will remove these obstructions. It is, therefore, much more likely that all things, including man can be regarded as organs, limbs or instruments, at different levels, of the Universe through which its processes proceed. It is, however, possible for man to change his level of functioning, to climb up or down the ladder, as it were.

I will comment on al-Ghazali later on.

Regards.

P.S. if I wrote al-Ghazali, with two ‘z’s, then you made a mistake there too by not putting an ‘h’ after ‘g’; also, you forgot to put a ‘k’ in front of my nick (Kho’ja, not Ho'ja, as you wrote), I hope you got the message.

[Lucky]

I hate to paste the long articles. However,I think it would of great benefit for the likes as "Student" who take almost all their islamic knowledge from the nonmuslim sources or the antiislamic sorces.

THE QUR`AAN AS THE SPEECH OF ALLAAH
The detailed discussions of the Qur`aan as the Speech (kalaam) of Allaah are typically not found in the books of 'uloom al-Qur`aan, but rather in the books of 'aqeedah (faith). However, it was felt that this topic deserved greater attention in this work for a number of reasons: Firstly, due to the importance of this topic, since it deals with some of the Characteristics (sifaat) of Allaah, and of the Qur`aan; secondly, this topic has been the subject of great controversy during the history of Islaam, and great scholars have been persecuted because of it, therefore it deserves some discussion and elaboration; thirdly, there still exist incorrect concepts and ideas concerning the meaning of the kalaam of Allaah, primarily amongst innovated sects which claim to be in the fold of Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa'ah ; and, lastly, there does not exist any discussion of this topic in English.
Before discussing the Qur`aan in particular as the kalaam of Allaah, it is necessary to understand the concept of the kalaam of Allaah.

I. THE CONCEPT OF THE KALAAM OF ALLAAH
The topic of the kalaam of Allaah deals with one of the Attributes that Allaah has described Himself with, namely, that of Speech (kalaam). When dealing with the topic of the Names and Attributes of Allaah, two basic principles must be understood.
The first principle is that Allaah has described Himself with the Best and Most Perfect Names and Attributes; Names and Attributes of Beauty, Majesty, Grandeur, Perfection and Excellence; in other words, all Names and Attributes that befit Him. Allaah says in the Qur`aan, "And to Allaah belongs (all) the Most Beautiful Names, so call on Him with them" (7:180). In addition to affirming these Names and Attributes, Allaah has also negated all attributes of imperfection from Himself, such as sleep and tiredness (2:255), forgetfulness and error (20:52) and other attributes that do not befit His Glory.

The second principle is that Allaah's Names and Attributes are Unique, and do not resemble the attributes of His creation. Allaah says, "There is nothing that is similar to Him, and He is the All-Hearer, All-Seer" (42:11). Therefore, since Allaah's Attributes are unique, it is not possible for mankind to understand the exact nature of Allaah's Names and Attributes, even though it is possible to understand the concept that any Name or Attribute refers to. For example, Allaah has described Himself in the Qur`aan as al-Hayy, which means, 'The Ever-Living.' Mankind understands that Allaah is Ever-Living; that He was always with life, and will always be with life. He also understands that, even though he himself is 'alive' (hayy), the life that he has is very different from the one that Allaah describes Himself as having, for man's life was given to him, and it shall be taken away from him, in contrast to the characteristic of life that Allaah describes Himself with. In addition, man does not have the power to create life, unlike Allaah. So man has the characteristic of life, and Allaah describes Himself as having the characteristic of Life, but the actuality of the two characteristics differ as much as man differs from the Creator. Therefore, mankind understands the concept of Allaah's name al-Hayy, but can never understand the actuality of it. The same analogy applies for the other Names and Attributes of Allaah.

It is essential, therefore, when dealing with the Names and Attributes of Allaah, not to deny or distort the meanings of these Names and Attributes, since Allaah has described Himself with these Names and Attributes. Likewise, it is not allowed to try to make these attributes similar to those of the Creation, nor try to delve into the 'how-ness' of His Attributes, since the attributes of the creation are imperfect, whereas the Attributes of Allaah are Perfect and Unique. With these two basic principles in mind, we now proceed to the concept of the kalaam of Allaah.

Allaah, all Praise and Glory be to Him, has described Himself as having the Characteristic of kalaam in over two dozen verses in the Qur`aan. Amongst these verses are the following: "And Allaah spoke directly (kallama) to Moosaa" (4:164); "And the Word (kalaam) of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice" (6:115); "Say, 'If the oceans were ink wherewith to write the kalaam of my Lord, the oceans would be exhausted before the kalaam of my Lord would finish, even if We brought (another ocean) like it for its aid,'" (16:109) "And the Word of Allaah (kalima) is the uppermost" (9:40), and, "(It will be said to the people in the Heavens) 'Peace be on you,' a Word from a Lord who is Most Merciful" (36:58).

Therefore, we affirm what Allaah has affirmed for Himself, namely, that He Speaks when He wishes, and to whomever He wishes. As Allaah says, "These are the prophets, some of them We have honoured and blessed over others, (and) some of them Allaah spoke to" (2:253).

In addition, the kalaam of Allaah is heard by His creation, and consists of words and letters. The fact that the kalaam of Allaah can be heard is clearly proven in the Qur`aan and sunnah. For example, in the story of Moosaa, the Qur`aan mentions that Allaah spoke to Moosaa and addressed him: "And when he (Moosaa) came (to the fire), he was called, 'O Moosaa, Verily, I am your Lord...and I have chosen you, therefore listen to that which is inspired to you'"(20:12). In another verse, the Qur`aan says, "Have you heard the story of Moosaa? When his Lord called him in the sacred valley of Toowa"(79:15-16). These verses are clear that Allaah spoke to Moosaa and Moosaa heard this speech. The Prophet (e) also described a meeting between Adam and Moosaa, in which Adam asked Moosaa, "Are you the one whom Allaah spoke to, from behind a veil, and there was no interpreter between you, nor was their any messenger?" Moosaa answered, "Yes." The hadeeth is explicit in that Allaah's kalaam to Moosaa was without any intermediary. In another authentic hadeeth, the Prophet (e) clearly stated that Allaah's kalaam is with sound, for he said, "When Allaah decrees a matter in the skies, the angels move their wings in humility for His speech, which sounds like a chain over a rock..." In this hadeeth, the Prophet (e) gave a description of the sound of the kalaam of Allaah, which clearly proves that Allaah's kalaam is with sound.

This was also the belief of the salaf. Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 A.H.) was asked by his son Abdullaah (d. 290 A.H.), "When Allaah spoke to Moosa, did He speak with a sound (that was heard by Moosaa)?" Imaam Ahmad answered, "Yes, indeed! Your Lord speaks with sound, and all of these hadeeth (of the kalaam of Allaah), we narrate them as we heard them." Imaam al-Bukhaaree (d. 256 A.H.) narrated in his book al-Adab al-Mufrad the hadeeth of the Prophet (e) referring to the Day of Judgement, and the reckoning that will occur, and in it is: "...and their Lord will call them with a voice, the one who is close can hear it just as the one who is far can, and He will say, 'I am the King...'". After narrating the entire hadeeth, which is also explicit in the fact that Allaah speaks in a kalaam that can be heard, Imaam al-Bukhaaree said, "Allaah, all Praise and Glory be to Him, speaks with sound. Those who are close can hear it just as those who are far can, and this is only so for Allaah. And in this is proof that the sound of Allaah does not resemble the sound of mankind."

It is, of course, essential to keep in mind that the Speech of Allaah does not resemble that of His creation, and therefore it is impermissible to ask how Allaah speaks, for Allaah says, "There is nothing similar to Him, and He is the All-Hearer, All-Seer"(42:11).

The fact that the kalaam of Allaah consists of words and letters is something that does not require proof, and can be seen even by the most ignorant person. The Qur`aan (and it is part of the kalaam of Allaah, as shall be proven in the next section) consist of words and letters. For example, every Muslim knows that the verse, "Qul hoowa Allaahu ahad" (112:1) consists of four words, each word of which consists of a number of letters. It therefore follows that the kalaam of Allaah consists of words and letters. The Prophet (e) himself mentioned that the Qur`aan is composed of words and letters, for he (e) stated, "Whoever recites one word from the Book of Allaah will have ten rewards. And I do not say the Alif Laam Meem is (counted as) a word, but rather Alif is a word, and Laam is a word, and Meem is a word." Therefore, the Prophet (e) divided the Qur`aan into words and letters.

The kalaam of Allaah is not limited to the Arabic language. Allaah revealed the Torah and the Injeel, in Hebrew, and this was also a part of His kalaam. As Imaam ad-Daarimee (d. 288 A.H.) wrote, concerning those who deny this concept, "Woe to you! Verily...Allaah is knowledgeable of all languages, and He speaks in whichever language He wishes. If He wishes, He speaks in Arabic, and if He wishes, in Hebrew, and if He wishes, in Syriac, so He has made the Qur`aan His kalaam in Arabic, and the Torah and `Injeel in His kalaam in Hebrew, since He has sent the prophets with the language of their peoples." In other words, just as Allaah has sent every prophet to preach in the language of his nation, the kalaam of Allaah to any nation (when Allaah revealed a Book to that nations) was also in its language.

Another characteristic of the kalaam of Allaah is that it is uncreated. There are clear proofs from the Qur`aan, the sunnah, the statements of the salaf, and clear logic for this belief.

The Qur`aan says, "Verily to Him (Allaah) belongs the Creation and the Command" (7:54). In this verse, Allaah differentiates between the creation, which includes the world and all that is in it, and between the Command, which is His Speech. The Speech is in fact the cause of the creation, as Allaah says, "Verily, Our Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: 'Be!'- and it is" (16:40). Therefore the Speech of Allaah, by the Will of Allaah, is the cause of the creation, so it cannot be created, for if it were created, it would mean that a created characteristic has itself created another object, and this is not possible! In other words, a created object does not have the ability to create another object; only the Creator has this ability. Sufyaan ibn 'Uyaynah (d. 198 A.H.) said, "He has lied (who says that the Qur'aan is created)! Allaah has stated, "To Him belongs the Creation and the Command," so the creation is the creation of Allaah, and His Command is the Qur`aan." Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 A.H.) also used this verse to prove that the kalaam of Allaah is not created.

The Prophet (e) said, "Whoever dismounts at any place, and says, 'I seek refuge in the kalimaat of Allaah from the evil that is created,' nothing will harm him until he moves from his stop." This hadeeth also proves that the kalaam of Allaah is not created, since the Prophet (e) commanded the believers to seek refuge in the kalaam of Allaah from all types of evil. Refuge can only be sought from the Creator (and His Attributes), and not from the creation. Imaam al-Bukhaaree (d. 256 A.H.) stated, "In this hadeeth is proof that the kalaam of Allaah is not created," and his teacher, Nu'aym ibn Hammaad (d. 228 A.H.), stated, "It is not permissible to seek refuge in the created, nor in the speech of men, jinn or angels."

In other words, the very fact that a person seeks refuge in the kalaam of Allaah proves that it is an uncreated Attribute of Allaah, for it is not allowed to seek refuge in a created object.

A simple logical proof that the kalaam of Allaah is not created is as follows: If the kalaam of Allaah were created, it would mean that one of Allaah's attributes (that of speech) had a beginning, yet Allaah's attributes do not change with time, for the Qur'aan says, "He is the First (i.e., there is nothing before Him), and He is the Last (i.e., there is nothing after Him)..."(57:3), and His attributes are a part of Him. The kalaam of Allaah is an Attribute of Allaah, and all of Allaah's attributes are eternal and uncreated

[Freestyler]

Hey guys, I think you knew that your river-long "copy/paste" replies would run a risk of not being read at all. So I am just answering your shorter and more "tangible" replies ... kak govoritsya po-sushestvu:

To <Repoblican>: USSR had atheism as its identity for propoganda, so it was secular (repeating: every atheistic state is essentially secular).


To <Lucky>: OK, if we are to take the definition of secularism as it is in Webster's, then I should make a correction: when I say "secular government" I mean the government which is not necessarily atheistic but the one based on constitution and modern democracy. And from now on when I say "secularism" I will mean atheism. (although I strongly disagree with that, beacuse as <Student> said there is such thing as secular religion. This is just for the sake of understanding). {Also, there is no need to indent my nick}

To <Mahmud Ghaznevi>: I never said that Uzbekistan and Turkey have build democratic societies and I strongly agree with you that the rights of minorities are blatantly and cinically violated in these countries. However I should say that if our constitution really worked we could build a fine state. (I had said that Uzbekistan was just TRYING to build a secular (i.e., democratic) government (not necessarily atheistic).

To all of you:

Secularism is the enemy of humanity - RUBBISH! (Shariat I would say has nothing to do with humanity, it has to do with barbarian ways of punishment and with more than a 1000 years-away-long morality and traditions).

The idea of Atheism is itself wrong - ???!!! - RIGMAROLE! (It's just a different philosophy, different from yours, and you all think all atheists are stupid or blind (i.e., that God did not give them enough Aql (reason), as one of you pasted from somewhere).

Next, I did not say that true Islam is not democratic. Yes, it certainly has democratic principles, as do most religions. This is why they got so spread.


"...Islam is a perfect democracy..." (I think by Lucky) - Can you prove it concisely and clearly (i.e., without huge, boring, unreadable, utterly abstract extracts and links). Because I think that it cannot for example provide a constitution (i.e., the strucutre and the division of power accepted by a true democratic society)

One of you gave examples of the great empires and states which were doomed to collapse. Tell me do you really think that they collapsed because they were not Islamic states?

The Ottoman empire was Islamic, but yet it collapsed. The Khalifate was Islamic - it too collapsed. The US will eventually collapse and not because it has chosen to be secular (pardon, I meant democratic) - that's a KARMA of each state, my friend.



So my stance is: I dont' think that Islamic state is something possible and really viable in the 21 century.

[Lucky]

Freestyler, i really liked and imressed by your progressive ideas.I hope the youths like you can make a change in our dear motherland.However, I got a question concerning democracy. Is it possible for the Muslims to come to the government in a democratic way, I mean by election (cause we know that majority rules in a democratic while respecting and protecting the rights of the minority)? And to declare it Islamic State by making ammendments to the constituion? I think, I was clear last time when I made my conclusion, however,I'd like to restate it by making some additions. Uzbekistan is an islamic country, but not an islamic state. Our government is doing an excellent job concerning the rights of the muslims.For ex: Eid ul Fitr and Eid ul Adha are national holidays, you know that they are islamic, you know very well that we do not celebrate any christian or jewish holidays in the national sense. Each year, the government provides for thousands of muslims the passage and provisions to make Hajj. Juma prayer and the Jome' masjids are 99% financed and supported by the state, however not all religions get the same scale of treatnment, attention and help from the Government.I think you know the renovations going on in Bukhara these days.We do not have any christian or jewish university, but we have an Islamic University which hosts thousands of students spacilazing in many areas of Islam. You know very well, that President I.A.Karimov made an official visit to Saudi Arabia and Hajj at the same time. Among many leaders, only our President was allowed to enter the Kaaba and to perform two rakkat sunna prayer, in 1992.If you remember,in 1992, I.A.karimov made a plege by Quran and The Constitution. Do not forget,many times in his speeches,President Islam Karimov made it very clear that we were not going to build a western way of democracy, but a democratic state which suits best the interest of the Uzbeks (i inlcuded all the nationalities,"Uzbeks" in this sense is a nation like we use here in the states,"Americans").This is our model of democracy, it is an Uzbek way of Democracy which comprises and represents in itself our cultural and religious heritages. You know very well that any developed western state has its own way of democracy. Look at the UK,it is a monarchy, yet the UK is one of the examplary countries where democracy is pracriced almost in totality (we all know that there is no 100% democratic state as there is no 100% Islamic state in the world). Deomcracy in the full sense is also an utopia as some of you claim Islam to be the one, it is not practical to build "The Democracy" in the textbooks. However, we could build something similar to it based on the fundamental laws of democracy.
Cheers,:)

[Cute]

It was very interesting to read your messages, this time I tried to ead more. I personally read messages of Student and Rfeestyler, to be honest I have a bad impression from their views, but I think as I read I understand some of their points. Particularly in this topic, I almost agree with student (his first reply, nothing to do with second about Ghazali - I don't know about this stuff). The point is that the islamic state is impossible(Freestyler) - I agree. Well about the last reply I can say that our government has to do that and it runs this policy, for me all of it is just policy. Considering jews and christians our republic shouldn't break the balance. I was in my country when christian missioners tried to encourage people be christian, I just hated it. May be I never hated someone more than that, because islam is my belief and nobody should try to change it, especially by offering colourful saying and etc. Well as you see I'm muslim and I have belief, and I know more than some people who say that they are pure muslim. Islam for me is belief, the thing which is deep somewhere. But it's not my lifestyle. It's not the thing that directs my thought and behaviour. And I don't think that islamic state could be successful, particularly in Uzbekistan. People are not yet ready to differentiate white and black(uzbek saying oqdan qorani ajrata olmaydi). And I don't think that muslim are majority in Uzbekistan, considering the strength of belief. Most of people say "musulmonmiz" and in fact this is already different word compared to "muslim". It's more culture than religion. Musulmon (musurmon sometimes) nearly means "uzbek" (maybe very good, perfect uzbek). And that's it, so there is no need to change something. If something is changed, it definitely will go wrong. Most things depend on the governments intelligency, how they treat people, how they treat beliefs culture and etc. And when I hear the word democracy I don't think about its definitions, I think about positive and negative points of it and summ it up. Definitions do not reflect the reality, because they consider the democracy to reach all of considered aims, but it never happens. Considering "This is our model of democracy, it is an Uzbek way of Democracy which comprises and represents in itself our cultural and religious heritages."(Lucky) - I agree totally, and I think it should always be like that. Of course, there should be more opportunity in politics, freedom of press(reflecting democratic state totally), but considering the hole nations spirit belief religion culture it should not change. Whoever will be in the government they should treat people in that way.

P.S.Prosto tak - "a plege by Quran and The Constitution"(Lucky)- Qoran should be kissed, not holded like the Bible.

Take care

[Freestyler]

That's what I meant: Uzbekistan is not an Islamic state, it has chosen to be secular in the sense that it wants to build modern democracy, although the majority of population are muslims from their cultural backgraound and heritage.

I think that it SHOULD be possible to build an Islamic state if the demos decides so in a democratic state, but this statement is normative, rather then positive. I think the current government in Uzbekistan will strongly oppose its happenning and I will be on its side because I don't believe that Islam can provide a democratic government structure with modern legal system and can assure the full respect of human rights.
In other words I think that government and religion should be separated. If the interests of one of them are infringed, there will inevitably be a clash and further confrontation between them. This I think happened in Uzbekistan, when such organization like Hezbit-Tahrir started its antigovernmental propaganda. The outcome was the government's persecution of all religious organistaions and praying people.

[Student]

As for idea of “Uzbek model of democracy”: Democracy has all accepted definition, that is not subject to differ from country to country; freedom of speech, fundamental freedoms are recognised in all democratic societies. The main law is the constitution, which proclaims the objectives of building a democratic society in the preamble: The people of Uzbekistan solemnly declaring their adherence to human rights,...affirming their commitment to the ideals of democracy and social justice,...recognizing priority of the generally accepted norms of the international law,…setting forth the task of creating a humane and democratic rule of law…. adopt the present Constitution ….

I think the possibility of coming of Islamist to the government is constitutionally impossible, as the Article 12 states no religion can be a national ideology.

The article 7 proclaims the people as the sole source of state power.


So there’s arises a question if there’s a possibility of building an Islamic state according to the constitution. Article 61 says Religious organizations and associations shall be separated from the state and equal before law.
The article 7 sais further: … Any seizure of powers belonging to state authority, suspension or termination of activity of the bodies of state authority contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Constitution, as well as the formation of any new or parallel bodies of state authority shall be regarded as unconstitutional and punishable by law.
Article 12 says In the Republic of Uzbekistan, public life shall develop on the basis of a diversity of political institutions, ideologies and opinions. No ideology shall be granted the status of state ideology.

So conclusion: the building a Islamic state according to the constitution is excluded.

As for the way of building an Islamic state by amending the constitution: I am not sure, if the Uzbek constitution has provisions everlasting clause of not changing some articles of the constitution(ex. Fundamental rights, government structure etc.) what for example one can see in German Basic Book, Art.79.(3) (umidies who studied law in Uzb could help here;)), but according to the Article 127 sees the possibility of amending the Constitution “by laws, passed by at least 2/3 of the deputies of the Oily Majlis of the Republic”.

I think students studying in the developed democracies should bring democratic values to our society, so that we could build a true democracy, not the one called eastern democracy or whatever.

[Lucky]

"Article 12 says In the Republic of Uzbekistan, public life shall develop on the basis of a diversity of political institutions, ideologies and opinions. No ideology shall be granted the status of state ideology"-Student what about "milliy mafkura",i.e "national ideology" do you think it is Unconstituonal? If the people can't build an islamic state by a democratic way how can we call it a democratic state? I mean if the people, majority,let's say 85%, want it,still can't they do it? i need some clarification here,
Cheers, :)

[Student]

Dear Lucky,

the last passage from the last post:
__________________________________________________ _________

As for the way of building an Islamic state by amending the constitution: I am not sure, if the Uzbek constitution has provisions everlasting clause of not changing some articles of the constitution(ex. Fundamental rights, government structure etc.) what for example one can see in German Basic Book, Art.79.(3) (umidies who studied law in Uzb could help here), but according to the Article 127 sees the possibility of amending the Constitution “by laws, passed by at least 2/3 of the deputies of the Oily Majlis of the Republic”.
__________________________________________________ _______

so by laws, passed by at least 2/3 of the deputies of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic. But I am not sure if the Art. 12 and Art. 61 can be amended.

In the German Basic Book (Grundgesetz) there is "everlasting clause" - Art. 79 (3) that can never be changed (provisions conserning human dignity and government structure(democratic, social state),right to resist(to maintain democracy)). I wonder if there is similar provision in the Uzbek constitution (Law students, pls help!;)).

[Republican]

Guys, lets not talk about politics at all- I hate it. Moreover, you cann't make someone believe in advantages of Islam, if he doesn't recongnize God. At first you have to explain why God exists. I mean explain, but not disscuss because these fundamental things are for someone to understand and accept, but not to dispute. I would also like to say thanks for Student's Replies to my questions. As for your replies themselves, you wrote :" In my understanding secularism means that laws, education, etc. should be based on reality - facts, science, rather then believe in orthodox religious dogmas. The encyclopaedia Britannica gives the explanation of Secularism as ?any movement in society directed away from other worldliness to life on earth?......." From that I came to the following concluison: you think religion has nothing to do with reality- the facts and science., i.e. secularism supposes that religion is not supported by science at all. So, in this case, your ideas are wrong from the beging. (In my previous messages I have already given some examples of sciencetific fact, confirming the religioous ideas.). Besides it, I think if you mean Islam by the word "religion", you'd better use that word from time to time. Of cause, you might have the same attitude to all religions. But I hope you'd understand me, because I don't see any principal differences between atheism & paganism(i.e. religions with idea of many gods.). So, because your own deffenition of secularism contains contradictions in itself, I cann't disscuss this topic with you.
Besides it, from your deffenitons of democracy, it follows that democracy is a some form of goverment with some artributes. So, afer that, do you mean that developing of democracy is a developing of form of goverment?
to Freestyler:
You gave a very good example of secular state- USSR. Thanks a lot. I know this country very well. I don't think anyone here wants to live in countries like that. As you see, many secular goverments are authoritarian.
to Student & Freestyler :
<font color="0000FF">By the way, why do you prefer to disscuss some obscure matters related to forms of states we should live in, while it is quite easy to resolve all our questions by simply understanding the existence of God?</font>

[Student]

Dear lucky,

About "national ideology": it's an interesting issue for discussion. As far as I understand "national ideology" and "state ideology" is not the same. I think under "national ideology" one should understand a system of thoughts and values appropriate with the norms of the constitution, which include historical and cultural heritage to raise the self awareness of the nation.

Do we need a “national ideology” and if that is legally acceptable has never been discussed so far. In the meeting of Umidies with the German ambassador in Uzbekistan Mr. Binzeil in 1998, the same question was raised: - “to be a great country, the state needs a strong national ideology, how can you define the national ideology of Germany?”

He answered (I gave it in brief): “there is no national ideology in Germany, since this term will be misunderstood in Germany causing associations with the totalitarian nazy ideology. What you want to know under national ideology in Germany(i.e. what makes them strong) is democracy and variety of culture”

Personally I think, the term “national ideology” is misleading, causing different associations (ex. with the past). I would like to know opposite opinions about this problem too.

Thanks in advance.

[Lucky]

Republican, email me at uzhamza@hotmail.com
I got cool articles on scientific proofs to share with you.Cheers :)

[Mahmud Ghaznevi]

There is nothing stone age or barbaric about Islam.

Truly, will someone point out to me what is wrong with Islam that makes it unable to govern people? 1)Islam doesnt repress people. 2)People have the right to redress and petition the government in an Islamic government. 3)People can vote. 4)Minorities, their rights and their customs and laws are protected under Islamic government (perhaps even more so than democracy). 5) Islam gives people RIGHTS as well as a sense of RESPONSIBILITY that you see lacking in western, secular society.

And what makes the "Red Sultans" of Central Asia better than Islamic government? (Im not referring to an Iranian model either, and it is TOO EARLY to judge the Taliban, especially since they are still trying to establish stability)

Democracy was founded in Greece over 2000 years ago. Islamic government was founded 1400 years ago. Both are old systems. However, Islamic system provided more stability, whereas democracy was off and on in Greece and Europe, depending what the situation was at that time.

You have to understand, that first of all, Europe went to secular democracy because Christianity ended up as a nightmare for them. Islam didnt do that to the people. So what's the matter then?

Of course in Central Asia, a feudal system developed after a while, but what is to say that is Islamic?

So what is to say that democracy is better than Islamic system? And does anyone really know what is the Islamic system?

KNOW THIS, my friends: Islam was sent as a guide to live a healthly life for this world as well as preparing for the next world. Nothing in Islam you will find that isn't justified.

[Alouddin]

[8517SK]

notumidie. you do have a strong point my turkish brother. but if a coutry's regime follows secularism, it doesn't mean that it's people are kafiruns. A citizen can choose weather to drink, have sex unlawfully, and to hurt other muslims and people. That minority shall be called Kafirs. but those of us who live in a free democracy, can benefit from getting the support from the west(and we do need their money), and at the same time practice our beliefs and be good muslims. You shoudn't say that a country is bad just because the regime doesn't match the sayings of our prophet(swa). But you still do have a good point.

[Desperado]

A citizen can choose weather to drink, have sex unlawfully, and to hurt other muslims and people. That minority shall be called Kafirs..

correction,
drinking, adultery and hurting others do not necessarily make someone kafir.
the word 'kafir' is ultimately correlated with rejecting the only creator.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

WOW what a discussion 5 years ago!! Missed those days!!

[PainKiller]

why are you using the anomizer? interesting, recently we got addicted by anomizer (deeply in my heart i say that i don't use it at all). even if there is nothing "bad" about your message you wanna use it. WHY? Does it mean we don't trust each other? give me a break, we are people of the same blood, history, and culture !!!
-gs
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Wuahahahhahaahha))))
Yeah, it is hard to trust all people..especially those of ur own country:lol:

[al-quds muslim]

salamu alaikum ,

i see that our enemies , are ones beside us by there body, but there minds and works, belonged to enemies, dont think that we dont know that , ok ?????????

and any one who say about uzbek people such words, the first impression taken, is the belongation.

did u understood my words ???????

[lips]

Hi guys, Assamulaikum waramatullahi wabarakatuh
Peace be on you and and your people.
I just want to share and ask your opinion afterwards pertaining to my comments.

In Malaysia, we have learnt to blend in with the other races and cultures, as well as their religions of our forefathers and has become an example to the outside world, that Malaysia is different with its diversities.
As a whole we managed to retain the official Islam as our main religion whilst allowing the other religions to move on freely without bothering our Muslims and Malays, etc.
However, at times, there will be disputes, quarrels when the Hindus clash with the Muslims over a piece of land claiming that this is theirs, and place of worship and the muslims for their mosques. Our PM will step in and the police will detain all these people involved for disrupting the peace and may be detained for quite sometime but not in the public jail., We call it Internal Security Act.
Your situation is different because of the Russian doctrines ingrained in your minds since you were born, so the Islamic values could not be practised openly, only at home. So if your parents were not staunch believers somewhere along the line, there will be breakdown in practices.
Same too over here, the young people do not want to pray , hang out with people we don't like, have beliefs like Black Metal, Trash etc
All these will influence your Islamic beliefs and level of tolerance.
So now, I think that your people must unite to revive the Muslim way of life to each and every Muslim in Uzbek to make life easier for all.
If there is more Muslims in your Duma then you can make life easier for your people.
I also grew up w with British values and western thinking becos I studied in a convent school but later as I grew older, I realised that Islam was always in my heart so I make my family change and must practise the faith that we believe in. Now I am old and the inner peace is through the practice of Islam. We have to come back to basics. First thing make everybody read the Quran and get translations and analysis.
What say you, dear friends?

[ModenaTurk]

İf there is radical islam there will not be individual freedoms.never forget this.Of course there is no problem aboute İSLAM but there are many problems aboute MUSLUMANS.İslam is right but Muslumans are not.

[Black]

İf there is radical islam there will not be individual freedoms.never forget this.Of course there is no problem aboute İSLAM but there are many problems aboute MUSLUMANS.İslam is right but Muslumans are not.

If there are many people like you, it will not be easy for muslims to practise their religion. There is no problem with you, but there are many problems with your brain. You are all right, but your brain is not.

P.S. No offence. I am just repeating your words just changing some words.

[Demir Kağan]

It seems this guy came here for a mission: Propaganda Against Islam.

Sorry sir, we won't let it happen.