What's new

Why do Muslim women wear veils?

Well but we are not happy for that. You sure have your right to be happy for that, but I also have my right for not being happy for that, I have not only right in my pocket but also a reason. I read several of your post Thor, and I remember one of your post, you sayyed on that post, The Europe should be thankful to the Muslim because their contribution on the age of enlightment, especially at science, further you add, you find those fact by googling and googling is quite enough for you. I must say your statement was quite fair and true, none of (pos)modern philosopher, historian, sciencetis, able to deny that solid fact. While the chruch forbiding the quest of knowledge because indeed the two fruit that Adam (peace be upon him) ate are fruit of immortality and fruit of knowledge (different then muslim according to that event). And in Chirstian or Catholic understanding on that time, I repeat again on that time, knowledge is the sign of rebelion toward God.

Go from that believes, the Catholic institution form a list of book that forbiden to be read. Even reading Aristotle is forbiden at that time. While we muslim, contradictively, the act of thinking, observation, deep thought (include there research), it is not just allowed, it is count as a form of good deeds and being order by God, that is the key for us to know the magnificient of God creation, that is the gate of understanding. So at that time many of western scholar and jesuit (who have more permition to read books etc, read Umberto Ecco) go studying at Damascus, Cairo (Al-Azhar), and many Muslim Madrash and school to becoming The knowledgable one or Al-Alim, now we know it as Alumni or Alumnus.

The conclusion, the turning point of western monarchs and feodal system at that time are follow by several event, first, the seperation between goverment and church or secularism, because of what? because under the church authority the activity of research, and other fields are being line and limited. Second, the journey to the orient, or east continent, to conquest, defeat, and took off spices, gold, and all of the commodity to cure the monetary problem within the europe (with war and conquest, remember that), and they simplify their slogan with, Gold (control the eastern wealth to be transfer into europe), Glory (conquest strategic territory, perform both imperialism and colonialization) and Gospel (bring christian mission/religion and converting the native).

But Muslim don't need secularism, because they already at that state from the very begining and education never appear as something contra religion in our terms and understanding, it even part of our religion, and the fact Islam is the only reason that we able to build kind of society that happend backthen at Cordoba, Andalus, Tharce, Islambul, Madinah etc. And what you are doing right know is you try to mix up the history and context upon two different matters and dimention, like you are using moscow map to walk arround London, no wonder you get lost and falling in the pit of generalization.

If you look up the history of the Old God, the most old concept of God in Africa, in American Native, in Old Babylon, always appear as a monotheistic form of God. Be my guest read Karen Armstrong History of God, proove me if I'm wrong about that. But later it being corrupted into polytheism. And Judaism, Christianity or Nasharn, Islam are come from God, the very same God. But in the road there are ocnum made some of this monotheistic belives more into polytheistic or unitarian, and Islam come as a finalization and perfection. The Quran toward The Bible is like The Bible toward the Torah. A continuation and a perfection of God message.

The problem is, you try to read my previous post as I force you to apply shariah unto you, and that is the paranoia attitude that being spread by the media causing all this war and EDL and all of that riot and killing between men. No one want to restore caliphate in USA or England, we want to restore it in our own region where we are the majority population and we done it not by force but by syura (musyawarah, or massive discussion within our own peoples), and peoples strive for that. You can hold what you think is right, and so do we. The main problem of imperialism terror is they are trying to "civilize" nation or system that they claim to be "barbaric" by force. Backthen like how they "civilize" the Indian, or native Indian, not native America but native Indian, yeah right. The imperialism claim them as a uncivilize tribe because of that they need to be civilize by gospel (they make God and christianity as blackgoat to backup their real motive, oh right) so they go to Africa enslaving peoples, to America conquering Indian tribe, to asia, everywhere. And now they want to civilize us with democrazy, our new gospel, our new global religion, just like what happen in the past now they go here and there messing up every place they go, blackgoating the human right, to further thrown carpet bomb unto the population, occupy country, sucking up oil and commodity, controling the market, establishing puppet presiden (in the colonilization era puppet ruler and king), and all of that done behind the human right reason, while the truth is, they are the one who spit upon the human right. Just like the old day, nothing has change really, and some peoples still can't understand.

And my previous post is appear to answer Tokis Phoenix why those rapist goes unpunish, I said to her that is because those Islamic majority monarch don't applying proper Islamic law to govern their governor. Look at arround you Thor, and read back to the history, and contemplate, this is nothing but a repetition. The Imperialism are still as barbaric, aggresive, greed as they were 100 years ago. But singing the same song, but in different tunes, the one who listen carefully can catch the similiarity, easily.

You can happy for what ever you want to be happy with, I have nothing to do with it, we are resonsible for our ownselves and community. Your affair really out from my concern and right. So do our ummah affair and believes.

abdalrasyid: Sure, I guess there isn't any pure Islamic country around today. But in all honesty? I'm happy about that! I'm happy that religion is being pushed away from politics. Religion and education do not go hand in hand. Religion is the great evil that mankind let grow unchecked. Polytheism was used in ancient times to explain the many forces at work in our world. A god for storms, a god of the hunt, a god for war, a god for love, a god for the setting & rising of the sun, and so many more! This is what monotheism is based off of! Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions, and their one true God is based off the Canaanite god, El.
The fact that we impose laws and restrictions on ourselves is great! We cannot flail about endlessly, there must be order. That was religion's purpose. To give us structure, meaning, and to ease the horrible pain of being aware that we are all to die one day. But to take it so far, and in this day and age? There is no point to accepting it. If you want to believe in your God(s), so be it, but there are women and men who do not want to live according to Sharia law. It's up to the women to decide if they want to adhere to Hijab, not for society or any one person to tell them what to do. You say they can take it off when they go into their homes, but what sort of freedom is that?
We all know what happens when someone doesn't adhere to Hijab, don't we? Yes, yes we do! It doesn't seem very fair to me. :<
Last edited:
Yo buddy :)
So there's a guy from the same land as me eh

Well, from what i know, Moslem women wear hijab because they're ordered to do so, it's written in hadiths, and the source of law in Islam is not only from Quran, but also from hadith.
I don't think anyone is attempting to impose Sharia law onto me. I don't pay attention to the major news networks because of how they sensationalize the truth. Don't think of me in that way, okay? I don't believe in terror mosques or any such insanity! I honestly believe the role of religion in government, scientific discovery, literature, and as a controlling force in society needs to be put to an end. That doesn't just apply to Islam, abdalrasyid. I'm also a fan of modesty, believe it or not. I don't think people should be running around naked or anything like that, but it gets to a point where you're forcing someone to think the way you want them to, and that's when it needs to end. There are women who don't want to adhere to hijab in the Middle East. Some of them have been horribly abused for it, which is that I point I mentioned where you need to take a step back and see what's wrong with the picture.

The Middle East suffered and stagnated at the hands of the British Empire. I know that very well! My ancestors did as well. The family on my dad's side came over to the USA from Ireland when the great potato famine struck in the mid-1800s. We were second class citizens in our own country due to the British Empire. We were finally given a part of our country back through our struggle against the British. You have no idea how much I relate to you. The realization of Ireland as a free state was an incredibly long and difficult process. Former powers in the Middle East were given free reign to do what they wanted unless it conflicted with the interests of their benefactors. That's not much of a life for the people under their dominion, you understand what I mean? It's up to the Middle East to forge a future for itself. It's gonna get to a point where you have to separate religion from matters of state, abdalrasyid. I don't think Islam is inherently evil, but how long is the unification of the Middle East through religious similarity going to last? When do you think you'll have to say enough is enough and put religion and spirituality in it's proper place?
Last edited:
Even we have things that different from our point of view, but I see we have something in common, not in action, but maybe more in moral intention :

1. We both are disagree in any form of exploitation by human to human by the capitalism, in many spread form and varieties, one of the solid form is imperialism.

2. We believes there are something call morality and ethichs, which you call it as modesty. Even we have within ourselves a free will to choose and act, but that must not goes beyond the line. Because we are not just an individual being, but also a social being. Our freedom of action, must not harm, or come out of a preasure to other individual right and also to community (comunal).

3. Both of us agree, science, knowledge, can be appear as useful tools to the society. It also make peoples more understand and closer to the truth.

Now drop off your self defence mechanism and let us speak in more open mind manners, the goal is not to make us agree on spessific issue, because that is never be my goal, but to make us understand one and another even if it mean we come out dissagreeing. Lets just go straight to the root of the problem, I will quote your statement :

"I honestly believe the role of religion in government, scientific discovery, literature, and as a controlling force in society needs to be put to an end. That doesn't just apply to Islam, abdalrasyid."

I never question your honesty on this subject, but you must know the main reason why the secualirsm emerge at europe in the first place. You can't put off the historical context behind those event, and conclude because the Europe need to be secular so the rest of world need it also. The first you must know, why the europe need it? The second thing you must know, do we need it also and why?

Secularism being apply to europe because at the middle age, The Church, forbid the activity of research and the freedom of exploration on literature and text, why? they take it as something opposite or appear to be oppsiting to the way of God or the main teaching of God. Knowledge or intellectual activity, on that time, being treat as an act of arrogance and further it can bring one to ash-tray. That is why they need to separate religion in literature and science, in this context of religion we are not talking about all religion that exist within the world, we are talking about christianity, not Islam, not Budha, but christianity, in more fairly manners I must say, the context is about the Church interpretation of Christianity at that time. I repeat, at that time.

When Europe goes under the supremacy of the Papal and East Byzantium, they entering what so called, the dark age. But after they separating religious matters/affair from science, literature and goverment, they can expand themselves on those fields without being limited and being lined by the Church. But in other hand, Islam doesn't forbid or line The Muslim or other religious believer under their (which is Islam) region/daulah/darul (darul Islam) on the field of research, science, and litterature. In other hand, our religion look at it as a good deed and enforce us to do so, it is make us closer to God message and to the truth. And if Europe enter the dark age under the theocracy form of government, and enter the golden age when they separate religion within the fields of government and research. We the Muslim goes in opposite manners, we enter our golden age when we holding Islam as our law, and entering our dark period of history when we put off shariah within our socio-political system. THis is not an abstraction, not even an argument, but this is a historical fact. That is why we want to establish it, no one will be harm, except the tyrant and the corrupted government, and also, their master who think they are the one who own this worlds.

Now allow me to answer your question,

"but how long is the unification of the Middle East through religious similarity going to last?"

First, what I know, in Islam we don't recognize nationality or nationalism, further ancestor supremacy, race or other. Islam is not a tools of unification, is not a middle-east ideology, Islam in Al-Quran being mention as a deen. What is deen? Deen is something goes beyond religion, Deen mean The Way. Islam is not depend by building (or place to worship, we can establish salat or 5 time prayer everywhere in every form of condition, collective or individually), by institution, by region, or community. When some-one make Islam as they way of life, that way, they hold Islam as their deen. And who-ever hold this deen, be him male or female, black or white, yellow or red, old or young, they are appear as one body. And our brother in Peninsula, only share less then 18 percent of muslim population around the world. So Islam is not about unification of middle-east, but it is a way of life. And who-ever walk on those path, are brother and sister to one and another as one-body. Islam is not tools of unification, but unification is something that included inside Islam. We are not flag, or religious institution, we are way of life that cosmopolite. As long as there are muslim in this worlds, the brotherhood will still appear and exist.

"When do you think you'll have to say enough is enough and put religion and spirituality in it's proper place?"

As I say, Islam is more then religion institution or spirituality. This is a way of life Thor. This is something that exist and "happen" in every form of our act. The way is consisting from how we should took care our elder, how we should act to our neighbhour, to the poor, to the orphan, how we should give charity to those who need, to be simplify it goes to the very detail or minor matters into the most major, like how to govern the population, how to govern the economical system. This is a way of life. This is not a flag or institution, this is a moral system, a teaching, and the existence is not count by how many peoples converting to Islam, but it is count by how many peoples practicing it and how deep is the application.
About the modesty and hijab. We have a clear definition for both men and women private part, I already repeat it several time. And if you believes in modesty and appear as a big fan of it, that is good, so do I, but we maybe difference on our definition which should be cover and which is not. And what happen if a man found naked on the street? The same thing will also happen in Muslim society if I go out to my house only with my pants and jean without any upper clothes, or if our sister don't wear their hijab. The difference is not under our understanding but in our definition which is proper which is not.

Ok, now I ask you a simple question. Do you understand Thor? Because the difference between debate and discussion, debate they reject to understand their opponent intention and motive, they only care to proove their wrong and there must be a winner one way or another. But discussion, the goal is to make us understand one and another, and the goal is exchanging information and better understanding on matters, and to anticipate misconception and understanding. If you go for debate, I don't have time and that just wasting of my time really, if you on discussion, let us discuss.
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying, abdalrasyid. I've even understood what Hezam has said in the past, even if I disagreed with him on what is being discussed. I don't think of this as a debate either. All we're doing is having a discussion! After all, there is no way I can prove you "wrong".

What you're attributing to Islam isn't uncommon in the western world. We also believe we should help people who are in need, those who are orphaned, treat our neighbors with respect, and treat our elderly well. The difference is that we don't typically attribute the aforementioned to religion. Yes, they're also mentioned in the Bible or Torah, but are they are a byproduct of the religion itself or the innate compassion we humans have for one another? Don't you think people that are Muslim, Christian, or Jewish would be as charitable as they are to one another even without the religion they follow?

I for one think people should cover themselves up while in public, yet the situation changes depending on what you're doing and where you are. Is a bathing suit to be looked down upon? Should it be frowned upon to make yourself look good(including your hair?). The fact that women have to cover their heads up is questionable to me. I'm sure there are many Muslim women who don't mind it, but as I said in my previous post, there are those who do not want to. Shouldn't it be a matter of choice, and not influenced by fear of punishment? To repeat myself, I get that there are Muslim women who don't mind or even like adhering to hijab. I don't think there is anything wrong with it if they want to. There's this thing called self-control and I am a practitioner of it. Covering something up won't reduce the lust one might feel towards another, y'know?
Well sure it is not un-common to the western worlds ;) they even use to forbid "riba" or interest in economy, remember what Dante sayed at Italy, those who take benefit in interest will get themselves to the hell fire while those who choose to not take benefit from it will went broke. If look how the European dress their women back then and how the American citizen back then 60-70 years ago on their wearing ethics, they even not dare not wearing their white veil to cover their head before go outside their house. Look how the Nun in the catholic wear their dress, why do they do that? if they want to immitate Maria(m) (May Allah please with her) why Mariam wearing the Hijab? because she use the same terminology like us the muslim on which part of her body should be cover at her time, and what the muslimah women do is exactly like Mother Of Isa (PBUH) or Jesus (PBUH) Maria(m) (May Allah please with her) do. We will see very connection and similiarity while the muslim still preserve it while other not. Because Judaism, Christianity and Islam are come from The Same God, we have the same moral foundation, but there is a different indeed and to avoid make the topic spread and uncontrol, I encourage you to read the Quran itself to understand the different.

I do believes in self control, but it come after peoples understand why they must obey the law, so they not do it because they affraid of the punishment, they do it because they know all of it apply only for their own good. I once read that there are nudist tourist (I don't want to mention their nationality) who frequently goes on trip at one of the european mountain, not until the local goverment catch them for what they did. We can't wait until the nudist realize what they had done was wrong, because it can be never happen at all. And Justice is not all about punishment, it is also about socialization of the justice itself and to make sure the "cause" before we begining to implemented the law on what happend. It is not all about "what had happen?" but also "why that happen?".

Let me qoute one of the Hadist

"A Bedouin came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and pledged allegiance to him in the mosque. Then he went away and started to urinate. The people wanted to stop him, but the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, 'Do not stop a man when he is urinating.' Then he asked him, 'Are you not a Muslim?' He said, 'Of course.' He said, 'What made you urinate in our mosque?' He said, 'By the One Who sent you with the truth, I thought it was just like any other place so I urinated in it.' The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called for a bucket of water and poured it over the urine." (Reported by al-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer, no. 11552, vol. 11, p.220. Al-Haythami said in al-Majma': its men are the men of saheeh, 2/10).

You must think it is something ridicoulus what the Bedouin had done, but we must know, The Bedouin at that time is a very simple mountainus peoples. So his done it innocently, because he don't know what he had done was wrong. Instead of directly punishing him, the Prophet salallah alayhi wassalam ask him why he done such thing? do he know it is an act of disgrace and un-appropiate? And so do implementation of the Hijab, there are socilization, also the "why she not wearing the Hijab?" appear before judging the fact that "she not wearing the hijab". This is something that is so lack within our sociality and law system, what is that? Understanding. If there is punishment in law there must be also opposite manner in application, which is mercy. I think that will answer your question Thor. Inshallah..
Mohammad didn't punish the bedouin(gypsy/nomad for our less knowledgeable members) because he didn't know that it was wrong by our standards to do so. Your comparison between fashion from 60-70 years ago, Catholic nuns, and a modern Middle Eastern woman wanting to express herself through her hair(body in general, but hair for the sake of the discussion) is pointless. You can't compare the two. To attempt to turn back the clock and live by the standards of that day and age would be folly.

We must maintain a standard of dress, that much is certain! It would be weird by the standards you and I have to run around naked. It shouldn't be socially and culturally offensive/frowned upon for women or men to express themselves through their physical body. I'm not suggesting lewdity, but we have to let people do as they will. Who are we to judge others? It's still wrong to do so if by holy mandate or social pressure, which is the case with Hijab. And I have to repeat myself again, but I have no problem with Hijab when those who live by it are happy to do so, we cannot impose our beliefs on others that want to live differently than we do.

You are upset that Muslim women might be asked to remove their veil before entering western schools, businesses, or what have you, right? They too are upset that they are being asked to remove it if they don't want to, right? So why doesn't the same apply for Middle Eastern women who want to follow Islam but want to express themselves through their hair and thus not adhere to Hijab? It's wrong to ask them to comply with what you are imposing upon them.
abdalrasyid: We all know what happens when someone doesn't adhere to Hijab, don't we? Yes, yes we do! It doesn't seem very fair to me. :<
look brother , we are human , some time we do something right and we always do many things wrong cuz we are human , we are not angels , but muslims have approach in their actions , this approach come from 2 things 1-quran 2-sona .
so if some one did something wrong , that dosn't mean they are all wrong
let us see what quran said about personal freedom in anything.
AS THE QURAN SAID(the words of muslim god)​
Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, (21) Thou art not at all a warder over them. (22)
It was by the mercy of Allah that thou wast lenient with them (O Muhammad), for if thou hadst been stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from round about thee. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And when thou art resolved, then put thy trust in Allah. Lo! Allah loveth those who put their trust (in Him). (159)
look brother , we are human , some time we do something right and we always do many things wrong cuz we are human

I know not all Muslims are madmen. I get that Islam is inherently peaceful, and it is through the misconstruing of the message within the Quran that certain psychos get it in their heads to do what they do. I just don't see a crackdown occurring on people who abuse women throughout the Middle East. There are some really strict, if not insane punishments awaiting women who disobey! There has been plenty of coverage where Middle Eastern women have had their genitals sewn shut, were stoned to death, whipped, had acid thrown in their face, hanged, and so forth. I could go on and on, but do you see the point I'm getting at?

There is something inherently wrong in the Middle East. It may be very well because of the British messing the region up for a couple hundred years, but it's up to denizens of the Middle East to get it together and join the world community.
"So now, warn Cheney and Co., Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is the re-establishment of the caliphate, with calamitous consequences for the United States. As Cheney put it in Lake Elmo, referring to Osama bin Laden and his followers: "They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the seventh-century caliphate," to be "governed by Shariahlaw, the most rigid interpretation of the Koran."

"Or as Rumsfeld put it on Monday: "Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia.""

White House Letter: Watchword of the day - Beware the caliphate (Published 2005)

"But Dick Cheney says if the US and its allies are defeated in Baghdad, the consequences would be a victory for jihadists who would spread out to the rest of Iraq and then to Afghanistan.

"The Vice President says terrorists aim to create a caliphate stretching from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, to Indonesia and beyond."

PM - Cheney warns of terrorist caliphate stretching to Indonesia

1. Are you and Dick Cheney talking about the same caliphate?

2. Why do you prefer a caliphate to a democracy, as practiced in the West and Japan

3. How would non-Muslims fare while living under this caliphate?
Last edited:
as for Thor, I think the answer that I given for him it's already sufficient. And it don't need to keep on to cycle arround the same question and answer. But I will answer Rolland about this subject, because this is come as new issue and topic.

First question,

There is always one caliphate of Islam. And since the fall of the Ottoman, or Osmani, most of the muslim waiting and trying to settle the Caliphate once more. They work in many fashion and method, you can't generalize those who want the same Caliphate as Al-Qaeda, as I can't generalize who want Democrazy to be settle must have the same fashion as G.W Bush. Or can I do that?

THere also Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwanul Muslimin), Hizbut Tahrir, and many other muslim community who have the same goal on their basic community foundation.

Second question, how is the non-muslim under the Islamic Caliphate?

The best way you can answer your question is by reading history book. You can start by Reading Karen Armstrong opening at one of his book "Muhammad". I'm not fully agree with her, but she is more neutral on her oppinion. Or you can read Nietzsche commentary about Andalus civilization or Goethe. How the non-muslim treat under the Islamic caliphate. But the best attitude is you read from our reference. You can read Ibnu Kathir on "The Rightoes Caliphate" or other classic scholar.

The non-muslim gain their freedom to practice their own religion. They have their own courthouse to settle their own issue with their own law. The Jews have Jewish Court (you can read I Max Dammont) the Christian have Christian Court. The Muslim pay dzakat (charity) to be transfer to the poor and to the Baitumal (the cash of the believer). While the non-muslim pay Jiziyah (taxes) to be further trasnfer into Baitumal.

About how do the non-muslim fate under the Islamic Caliphate. Machiavelli, on his book "The Prince" or "Ill prince" wrote, what is the reason that the Islamic Caliphate don't build so many castle to protect their far territory? because the peoples love them, that what his wrote to Prince Borgia, when the village or city being re-taken, the peoples will open the gate for the muslim troops to come in, even the non-muslim.

This is exactly what happen when Egypt fall from the Hand of Umar Ibn Al-Khatab ra. to the rome. The Coptic christian open the gate for Amr Ibn Ash ra. troops to come in and retaken the city. Because they being chase by the Roman as Heretic (ecleticism form of Christian-Arianus root).

3. Why do we choose Khilafah?

Many reason. There are no goverment in this world through out history that can match the score that Khilafah Islam have achieve. Under Umar Ibn Abdul Azeez ra. on the area, spread from Africa to Europe, there are no charity to be given, this is not only writen by Islamic scholar, but also western scholar, no one find poor, no body hold debt, no one able to be given the charity.

Islamic caliphate also forbid interest. And have a better law system then modern jail system. Michel Focault say 50 percent of those who being held in prison at french are residivis, mean they once being held to prison before. Modern prison do not stop one from commiting crime, further it becoming crime academy that further raise the probability of the criminal to go back to jail. Sometimes common bandit can be transfrom into robber after they went to jail. In prison, prisoner suffer robbery, threat, drugs, dangerous virus threaten, rapery, transfering information of more major crime then the one had done, and many other. After they out from the prison there are huge possibilty for them to gather with their old jail community, which is criminal, and commiting other crime.

For the rest, feel free to learn yourselves about Islam history, like I do educated myself well with western history. I used to adore Rosseau how he struggle inside the prison, Danton, Volataire, Abraham Lincoln how his decency and symphaty toward other, I do being inspire by US struggle for freedom by England imperialist. Now I suggest you to learn about our history on our point of view, with good intention and fair attitude.

As a closure let me quote something that come from Prince Charless of England.

"if there is much misunderstanding in the West about the nature of Islam, there is also much ignorance about the debt our own culture and civilisation owe to the Islamic world. It is a failure which stems, I think, from the straitjacket of history which we have inherited. The medieval Islamic world, from Central Asia to the shores of... the Atlantic, was a world where scholars and men of learning flourished. But because we have tended to see Islam as the enemy of the West, as an alien culture, society and system of belief, we have tended to ignore or erase its great relevance to our own history."

Prince Charles
or you can watch and download this documentary by Ben Kingsley, made at 2000. Containing the historical explanation and documentary from the era of Muhammad saw to Ottoman Empire. If you really meant your question for real, then you want to watch this.

Islam : Empire Of Faith

Part 1

part 2

part 3

I'm not agree with whole content of this documentary how-ever, this is somewhat neutral. If you want to read Ibn Kathiir, Muslim Scholar wrote about the Biography of Muslim Caliphate, you can read this : http://www.islamhouse.com/pr/236034

as you see, I love learning from the first hand. Like when I want to learn about Hindust, I go buy "Bhadgavatgita" a conversation between Kresna and Arjuna wrote by Narayan. If I want to learn about the west culture, I read Bentrand Russel, The History Of Western Philosophy. If I want to learn about Communism, I read Das Capital, Leon Trotsky Essay, Lenin Article (not just by reading Gulag by Solzhestein). So I dismiss myself by tendency and prejudice writing that come from political tendecy.

I found things not as bad as other describe about them.
1. I asked: "Are you and Dick Cheney talking about the same caliphate?"

You answered: "There is always one caliphate of Islam. . . ." Perhaps I wasn't clear. Cheney was using the word "caliphate" to scare Americans and Australians. Obviously, the word has a negative connotation in the West. I'm curious about why a caliphate is a good thing in your mind.

Is the caliph like the pope of the Catholic church? Please understand that even Catholic Americans would not want the pope running our country. We in the West mostly feel it's critical to the functioning of a modern, heterogeneous state that religion be kept separate from government.

3. (You reversed my second and third questions, but that's okay.) "How would non-Muslims fare while living under this caliphate?"

Freedom to practice other religions is a good thing. But I don't like the idea of there being religious courts. If I make a contract with a Jew, and he breaches it, do I sue him in a Christian court, Muslim court, or Jewish court? What if I'm an atheist -- is there an atheist court too? Modern commerce could not operate if there are different legal rules for different people, based on religion.

Western history has left us deeply distrustful of religious courts. I do not see any benefit in them. I believe in secular courts, and one law for everyone. Religion belongs in church, mosque, or temple, not in the institutions of government.

I recently bought Machiavelli's book; your comments have renewed my interest in reading it.

2. Why do you prefer a caliphate to a democracy?

No other government can match the "score" of the Islamic caliphate? That was true at one time in the past. But honestly, in terms of military, economy, cultural and political influence, what caliphate of the past could possibly match the current record of the USA?

You can't charge interest? How would a modern economy operate like that? Modern commerce depends on the free flow of credit. Why would any bank lend you money to start a business, if they can't charge interest to cover their own lending risk and need to show profit from their own business?

You make a valid point about recidivism in Western prison systems, but I have no clue why your preferred system would be any different. Is it because you'd be cutting off hands of thieves, cutting out tongues of slanderers, and so forth?

Prince Charles is a poor choice of authority, btw. Just another useless, morally-bankrupt, philandering royal. We Americans avoided appointing a monarch and nobility for good reason. None of them are really sanctioned by God. Their crap stinks just like mine. :)
It is totaly different then Roman Pope Rolland. They being encouraging peoples to warn them if they ever commit a mistake, even an old woman stop Umar Ibn Khatab ra. on the road, and start to lecturing him how she know him when he just a little boy, now that he is a Caliph he should behave differently, and keep lecturing him about those things. When one of his companion stop the old woman and say, stop lecturing the Amirul Mukminin (leader of The believer) that way, he reply, you don't have any right or reason to stop her on what she want to say and express. There is nothing that make me not able to listen to her suggestion and oppinion. I will listen to what-ever she say and that is her rights, and I will wait untill her finish, and I will only stop when time to pray is calling, after I pray I will come back here again to listen to her if I must. Even God listen to her prayer, why I shouldn't listen to her words?

He oftenly go down to the road, hiding his identity, observing the market, the society, and what ever happen under his rule. Man can come and go openly to meet him at his house. This is something, or concept, that we hard to understand because there are no right comparation that able to fit even as a prototype. I encourage you to read it yourselves. He is simply a leader, and the Caliphate is simply a goverment that rule under the Quran and Hadist as their general law, that govern many minority law system inside it. Read it yourselves Roland. That is the best way to answer your curiousity.

About the interest system. In Islam and so do other Abrahamic religion, riba, or bank interest, is one of the major sin. We only approve sharing profit between those who have capital and production tools with those who have power, skill and ability. And thats work better then our economy today, as you notice, the total of debt and interest in world economic system are larger then ammount of money that exist. And 1 percent of the worlds population can dominate more then 90 percent money existence in the worlds. Not sound too healthy. You are like standing in the thin ice. Think about it.

About Prince Charless and Brithis Monarch. I think brithis Monarch are exist only because they preserving their culture, and appriciate their history. But they don't act as an executive or politically active in the goverment. And no need to intimidiate Prince Charless just because he say, peoples need to be more objective and more to push themselves to understand more about Islam. Just look on the context on what his talking, not on his personality or what-ever.

About matching US political influence on their third worlds country puppet, nuclear warhead, biochemical weapon, number of prison that being spread arround the worlds without permission, gun production, military campaign in this recent 50 years we never rest ourselves from the bombing of the US to civilize the un-civilize nation, sure we can't match the US. Sorry for saying this, but this late 50 years, I have no symphatic at all about US policy and military campaign. And I do aware this so called peacefull goverment, that as GW Bush say on his speech a goverment that reject Violent, reject hatred, are producing weapon larger then the quantity that being accumulate by more then 40 nation arround the worlds. Indeed, the gun are not use for curing the sick, or enlighting peoples, it is a tools that use to kill peoples. I'm not againts US citizen, because I do have brothers and sisters in US, but I definitely againts US goverment policy.
Last edited:
I miss this one

"You make a valid point about recidivism in Western prison systems, but I have no clue why your preferred system would be any different. Is it because you'd be cutting off hands of thieves, cutting out tongues of slanderers, and so forth?"

First. Not all thievery being punish by cutting their hand. And not all form of Zinah (adultery, not rapery) are punish by stoned punishment. The punishment are widely deital catagorize depend on the quality and the impact of the crime itself. For example, un-married couple who commit zinah are not being stoned. But if some-one mess up with other husband or wife, they both can be stoned. And cut hand for thievery are absolete or not being apply when there are calamity as plague. Because at that condition peoples can be push by condition to do thievery but not by their own will, because hunger, poverty, misery, etc. As I say, "understanding", and examining the "cause" before the "action" are fundamentally essential in application.

Second. The essence of law is not focusing on the "punishment" but to anticipate the crime with threatening a punishment. That is law that I believe. Modern Prison law is not a results from western peoples disatisfy or revolting againts the non-prison law. But it is a results of aritmatic system that being use in meideval western prisoner. For example, if some-one testify that Charlie are commiting murder but he not seen it with his own eyes it is count as half evidence, if there are two witness who give testimony without seeing Charlie at the first place commiting the crime, it is count as 1 solid proove that Charlie is a murder. And further the officer are being liberate to use toture and other violence method that necesary to force Charlie to testify that he commiting those crime. And he don't have any right to speak on his behalf on his trial. This is stimulate a revolts that birth the modern prison punishment, and further it evolve into modern court system.

But western society on that time is not protesting the punishment application, but more into how the regulation, that oftenly use by the noble and monarch to eliminate things that threatening them.

3. In Mekkah, if the adzan are calling, peoples just leave their store open, and jeweleries, without being worried some-one to steal it from them. Because the consequences are clear. Everybody can take what-ever they like, but they now there is a responsibility for their act.

Well for me this law is best comparing to our modern prison law. Just while ago, I have a friend, he work for an NGO, he is advocating peoples. They are bit far from the Urban (tribalic society) era so indeed they are far from goverment socialization and not to mention education. And they live their life as how they father used to live their life, without any land certificate or what-ever, what they know is, this is our land, thats all. Then one day, a coorporate, I don't want this coorporate name, claim their land and making all the certificate and legal, then kick out these simple peoples just like that. So indeed, he try to stand for these peoples but the coorporate end up take him at the court and thrown him into Jail for couple of month only. (lack of understanding)

At that very short couple of month during his punishment, he tells me, he is both psychologically and physically change now, there are rapery, beating, drug dealing, criminal act, and all of those things. No wonder the prison only producing more criminal, I not dare to force him to tell me what sort of things that really happen with him inside the prison. And what kind of psychology impact that happen in his personality. I just hope it will pass on, like dirt at the stone that being wash by the rain, will leave no thrace by time passing, but what if, it will always leave the thrace inside him? Naudzubillah Min Zhalik. He is a good lad, an activist, socialist, decent and what do modern justice system give to him in return? While the real criminal can find themselves at home when they being caught again and bring back to jail, while sane person can totaly being transform into criminal by the daily social life in prison. Naudzubillah Min Zhalik.

It is far better for me the shariah law then this lunatic modern law.

only for? couple of month. Imagene a year, or years in prison. What kind of change that will inflict peoples?
Last edited:
You've convinced me that I would not want to live under a caliphate or Sharia law.

First, the criminal system is barbaric. Stoning, maiming, torture? Sorry. You may say it's not for punishment so much as deterrence of crime (if I understood you right), but that doesn't justify such savagery. Deterrence is a limited factor under any system because criminals always believe they won't be caught. Also, no legal system is perfect; mistakes are made, and how do you correct a lost hand or life?

Then again, if you cut off a guy's hand, how does he ever rehabilitate and earn a living? Must he and his family go on welfare?

Second, under the Western legal system, hearsay evidence is normally not admissible in court. A witness must have personal knowledge to testify. He must see or hear the murder, some key event leading up to the murder, or hear the defendant admit that he killed someone. A hearsay witness can never be cross-examined, so it seems silly to count such evidence as half a point. Half points must be very easy to find under that system.

Third, torture is never acceptable. ANYone will confess to ANYthing under torture. You or I could be made to admit that we're really Martians, if tortured for long enough.

As for your civil banking rules, your caliphate would have to live in isolation, I reckon. If you want to engage in international trade, you'd have to allow for credit instruments that carry interest charges. Why would any bank lend money at no interest, when they have to show a profit for their own shareholders, and given the fact that a certain percentage of borrowers won't repay their loans.

I don't know about your friend. What legal jurisdiction imprisoned him? Did he commit acts of violence? Here, you couldn't be imprisoned for mere advocacy of people with land claims.

You've convinced me that your caliphate system is a medieval one. I have no objection to your people choosing your own system of government. But you must understand that such a system would put you at a disadvantage and hamper your dealings with the rest of the modern world.
Indeed convincing you never be my goal Roland, I just want to answer your question what is my reason that I want to live under shariah law. Like I said, the first important part of law is to anticipate the crime with Punishment, and for me modern prison law can't anticipate that for certain case. Further the type of punishment resulting more crime or new crime to be commit.

My friend is just for an example, he being charge because he try to "impede" this coorporation right to dismiss this peoples, mean drag them from their home, and etc etc, common things this worlds own by bankers and crazy wealthy merchant that can be far richer then a nation itself. You can found this case almost everywhere.

THe aritmatic law that I mention is the western law at the meideval ages. You can read it at Michel Focault Book "Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison". I'm talking about the genealogy or the "why" modern prison come to existence. It is not because peoples objecting the implementation of direct punishment, it is more because the regulation. But they change the punishment before the regulation, because that way they can control and use the prisoner, sometime as political tools.

If you want to know more, reading book that I provide or watching the documentary might help your understanding about Islam. My answer is not the best answer, because there are others muslim who is more fit then me to answer this subject, those who knowledgeable in Fiqh (law) and Shirah (history).
"Indeed convincing you never be my goal Roland, I just want to answer your question what is my reason that I want to live under shariah law."

Fair enough. It is true that I am the one who asked.

I appreciate your sharing your insights. We are all human beings, but we see the world through different cultural lenses.

Although religion is one of the prime manifestations of culture, isn't it true that there are cultural differences between different Islamic countries (just like for Christian ones)? So aren't there different interpretations of Sharia law? For instance, few Muslim women in the US were full veils, and some have even dropped wearing a head scarf.

The Old Testament of the Christian Bible also calls for stoning adulterers, but modern Christian nations have abandoned this practice as culturally outdated. Perhaps it was Jesus who ended stoning though, when he stopped a mob about to stone an adulterous woman by saying, "Let you who are without sin throw the first stone."

I always wondered why the woman's adulterous male partner wasn't being stoned too, but the Bible doesn't say anything about him. I guess the woman committed adultery by herself, maybe. But now I'm rambling.
Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) say, my kingdom not in this worlds. In our point of view, Jesus (PBUH) or Isa (PBUH) he is not appear as a administrative leader, or King, at his society, he only go to Israel community at that time to estabilsh and obey the law that Musa (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) already establish before. He do pray like the ancient Jew pray (Judaism), establish sabath prayer (there are no part at the bible containing Jesus (PBUH) order his community to establish sunday prayer). So that is why he is not executing the punishment. He not come to change the law, he come to fulfilling the law that Moses (PBUH) bring to the Israelis.

Nah Rolland, both apply the same punishment, if they practice otherwise, they going out from the right line and course. Both for male nor female, we are member one and another, none are differ in the eyes of law, even the Caliphate himself.

The application of hijab and the mandatory of wearing hijab it's already clear mention in the Quran, and explitictly exist in the hadist, and record in the history. Some muslimah don't wear it indeed, I'm not saying it false, that is truth, so truth. There are many reason for that. First it is hard to seek a job when you wearing a Hijab. Second, they are being force and get preasure by they own soceity (sometime even family). Third reason, because they don't know the exact law that mention about it, there are muslim who don't have any idea about Islam, this is true story btw. Fourth, they know the law but their disbelieve is greater then their faith. Common thing, there are muslim who don't practice 5 time prayer, drink alcohol, eating pork, even further, there are criminal among the muslim, law breaker, punk etc, this is the fact, and fact is fact. Just like any religous group, there are those who don't practice the law exactly as they should, and they still calling themselves Christian, or Jews, or Budha or Hindust. Or even in ideology sphere, we oftenly see peoples act counter-part from their ideology, be he who claim to be democratic but they appear to be facist. Or Anarcho, but they life like a hedonistic borjuis. Socialist that live their life like a Russian Tsar. But indeed peoples never loose a reason for their double standar behaviour. That is as far as i know Rolland.

And don't blame the doctor if he already order the patient to drink medicine 3 time a day, and he not drink it and being caught by an illness and virus, blame the patient for that who don't obey the doctor instruction. So on if we see there are muslim who being told this and that, and they don't obey it and becoming a threat to their society, don't blame it to Islam, but blame it to them. And so the same rule apply for other religous believes. As we see the christian according to Testament and Gospel, not to their practicer. And we see the modern Judaism according to Torah and Talmud. So we must judge Islam according to the Al-Quran. Not the muslim.
as for Thor, I think the answer that I given for him it's already sufficient. And it don't need to keep on to cycle arround the same question and answer. But I will answer Rolland about this subject, because this is come as new issue and topic.

You're actually dodging the question I posed, abdalrasyid. Shouldn't Middle Eastern women & men who don't want to adhere to Hijab have the same rights as Middle Eastern men and women who want to adhere to it and aren't allowed to by Western businesses, schools, and so on? To say that they do not have that right would be to invalidate outrage towards Muslim women being asked to take their veil off while in Western schools, businesses, and etc.

You should respond to questions when they are valid, abdalrasyid. It's rude to pick and choose as you just have. I'm seriously offended that you decided to ignore me. Must we comply with you and not get the same respect back?
My fault for distracting him.

It's not your fault. I stated my question clearly and using simple words. He chose to ignore my inquiry. Let's hope he answers it in his own words, and not with a quote from the Quran or a historical reference. After all, we all know we're not living in the middle ages anymore. It's a simple of matter of saying "yes" or "no". I'll even state it again so that he doesn't think the question I'm asking is why he ignored me.

Thor said:
You're actually dodging the question I posed, abdalrasyid. Shouldn't Middle Eastern women & men who don't want to adhere to Hijab have the same rights as Middle Eastern men and women who want to adhere to it and aren't allowed to by Western businesses, schools, and so on? To say that they do not have that right would be to invalidate outrage towards Muslim women being asked to take their veil off while in Western schools, businesses, and etc.

You should respond to questions when they are valid, abdalrasyid. It's rude to pick and choose as you just have. I'm seriously offended that you decided to ignore me. Must we comply with you and not get the same respect back?

For futher clarity, the question is this, "Do muslim women who do not want to adhere to Hijab have the same rights as the Muslim women who do want to adhere to Hijab?".
"yes" or "no"? with my own words withot any reference? I'm here come to discussion as a freeman and my own free-will, I reject being dictation by any-one, and there are a different between being a choosy or picky to answer a question with further not answering any of your question. And thats my rights. And not answering itself come as an answer.

I don't interest discussing with some-one who can't understand history and base their discussion with absurd abstraction not by reference. If you want to talk about Islam, we must talk about Quran. Islam is system of faith base on Quran. You even can't understand those simple things and matters.

your attitude push me further to not answering your question at all, I answer as I please and not answer as I please, because I'm not your mentor, I have no responsible on answering your question.
"yes" or "no"? with my own words withot any reference? I'm here come to discussion as a freeman and my own free-will, I reject being dictation by any-one, and there are a different between being a choosy or picky to answer a question with further not answering any of your question. And thats my rights. And not answering itself come as an answer.

I don't interest discussing with some-one who can't understand history and base their discussion with absurd abstraction not by reference. If you want to talk about Islam, we must talk about Quran. Islam is system of faith base on Quran. You even can't understand those simple things and matters.

your attitude push me further to not answering your question at all, I answer as I please and not answer as I please, because I'm not your mentor, I have no responsible on answering your question.

There's no need to get defensive! At any rate, you have spoken more clearly than you know. Thank you for finally answering my question, abdalrasyid.
Top Bottom