The Origin of the Shia - Part Two : Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shariah

» Binte - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shariah

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Shariah posted by Pinky102:

That is a question that is on most minds. Ending up like Iran would not be a bad thing in the eyes of the Shia, and also for many Sunnis. Iran has had plenty of bad publicity so that it comes out looking like some fanatical state, when in fact it's quite a normal country - just with different rules.

Sure, non-Muslims find it difficult to adjust to some of the laws, but no more than Muslims find it difficult to live in a non-Muslim state - and they do. They just don't voice it.

I think that's one of the biggest problems in the Islamic community (Shia or Sunni) - the fact that people don't speak up and present their point of view. The few who do are usually the 'liberals', whose opinions are acceptable to the rest of the world simply because they are familiar.

Within Islamic Shariah, there is also a place for non-Muslims who live under the Islamic state. Few people seem to know that the Shariah has no clause specifying that a non-Muslim must convert or that they are forbidden to practice their own faith.

During the Early Islamic Era, non-Muslims actually preferred living under the Muslims than other colonial powers, because they were treated fairly and justly.

The best example I can find is closest to home (my home, that is) Arabs came to the coast of East Africa years before the British, but they never interfered with the people or tried to change them forcibly. They traded, they made friends and some settled there, creating a new culture from a mix of Arab and local tribes. Those who wanted to convert to Islam did, those who didn't, didn't.

By contrast, the coming of the British and their method of conversion / civilisation of the locals is available in any history book.

I'm curious though - why did the state and religion split come up in Christianity to begin with?

-- posted by Binte