Irfan wrote;

'Religion and state separated after the Prophet Muhammad's passing.'

And

'In orthodox Sunni jurisprudence, the unification of religious and political authority will not take place until Christ returns to establish the Kingdom of God.'

You really should learn some more about your own religion Irfan. Mainstream Islamic theology has NEVER condoned the partition of Islam and the State. When partition does occur it is begrudgingly accepted until the appropriate time when Islamic political power is strong enough to assert itself.

This we are now seeing in Malaysia as evidenced by the infamous Lina Joy case. The fact that an ex-Muslim is forced to defer to a Sharia Court in order to get her marriage recognised under the law is an abuse of human rights. The fact that this Court legally opposes the marriage of female Muslims to male non-Muslims compounds Lina Joy's predicament and is an even greater abuse of human rights.

You cannot bluff us Irfan. The whole purpose of the Islamic 'meme' is to make itself the focal point of society rather than remain a religious subsiduary. In Islamic states the individual soon finds out that his private life is the public concern of the state via a battery of moralising legislature.

I don't believe that you are that simple or naive Irfan. And you cannot trick us with some slight-of-hand theology about the second-coming of Jesus - peace be upon him

.....The Islamic state was established on the basis of the Islamic system, which covers all aspects of life, religious and worldly. We also see that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a conductor of the Divine Revelation, a legislator, a leader in prayer, a judge, and the commander of the army, and so were the Caliphs after him. With such integrity the Islamic nation was the greatest of all nations.

So, the notion of separating politics from religion and vice versa does not belong to Islam. It is taken from non-Muslim sources, i.e. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God’s”, as the famous quote goes."

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543762

Irfan, would you care to re-write your previous post for us. I think this forum needs some clarification or we will think that you are telling lies.

Irfan called Ayaan Hirsi Ali an ‘ex-Muslim’ just because she spoke out against the practices of some Muslims e.g. wife beating, female genital mutilation, honor killings. However, Catholics remain Catholics (e.g. keith) even though they disagree with the Pope on some issues.

So if a Muslim is not tolerant of fellow Muslims, how can they be tolerant of non-Muslims

TR...so glad to see you quoting the Lord Jesus Christ... "Give to Caesar..." etc..
He was asked that question to try to trick him into self condemnation... as you surely know.
The principle is consistent with his other saying "My kingdom is NOT 'of' this world" (not worldly in nature)

Sadly, the Catholic Church is closer to the Islamic approach, due basically to their interpetation of "Upon this rock... I will build my Church" understanding this to mean Peter...the first 'Pope' (shudder) but the morphing of Christendom into something resembling a Caliphate occurred purely by weight of numbers. When the society was predominantly Christian/(catholic) then it stood to reason for the Church to have a lotttt of say in public affairs. The Emperor or King would have secular power, but the Church was right behind, sniping or advising and holding the ultimate sanction of "If you don't obey the King of kings, its a longggg stint pergatory for you" kind of thing.

Fortunately, we have the Bible in its fullness today, and one and all can see that the Kingdom of God, in Christ is not of that nature.
Yes, we can advise, encourage, discourgage, plead, exhort our politicians.. very much so if they have been elected on the basis of a known Christian committment, to honour Christ in all things, including political decisions, but we have no earthly sanction except 'social/spiritual exclusion' if they take down a path of moral degradation of economic greed for a select few.

TR you are spot on about Islam, Irfy is playing the shell game with us but I don't think he is consciously or maliciously doing so, he is just struggling for his own bit of 'identity turf' :)

Nice one Steph,

However you forgot about the part played by Walid Wilbeforce and Ibrahim Lincoln in stamping out slavery. Thanks to their efforts there is no more slavery in Dar ul Islam.

Remember, it was at the urging of Walid Wilberforce that the Ottoman navy, that part of it that was not annihilated at Lepanto, was used to stop the Brits continuing with the slave trade.

IRFAN says the founders of the 4 major schools of Sunni jurisprudence avoided patronage of kings.

But they reserved to themselves the right to dictate the law. Having religious bodies set the law is not secularism and it is certainly not secular DEMOCRACY. Your argument is to say the least disingenuous. There is no separation of religion and state in Islam so long as religious jurisprudential bodies, not the people's elected representatives, set the law and appoint the judges.

Pell is not dictating the law. He is not threatening anybody with death. He is simply saying that if certain members of parliament are no longer able to agree with core teachings of his church they may not participate in some of his church's rituals.

The affected members of parliament are free to ignore Pell if they choose. Unlike Ayaan Hirsi Ali they need not fear death threats.

Just to make something clear, I have been an atheist for over 50 years. I am not and have never been a Catholic

Pell remains quite wrong, he and any leader of any faith has no right to tell people how to vote.
Man must not let his invented faiths divide him from other men.