There is a very clear conflict between Islamic law and civil law, and given that Islam recognizes no earthly authority and doesn’t recognize a clergy, an Islamic state cannot exist. Who would bless the monarch (or Sultan/Emir?).
There are states that have Islamic laws in place like KSA, Pak etc , but Islamic teachings do not clearly advocate for a creation of such a state because it goes back to the problem of only Allah and his prophets having authority. Not coincidentally all of these states seem to be in turmoil.
While MILFs do want to carve out such a state, I believe it is driven by the desire to withdraw from others, convert them to MILFs, and then bring more land under MILF rule rather than a notion of creation of a state.
The good countries in the world (we all know which ones they are- freedom of speech, women’s rights, no FGM, not throwing acid into girl’s faces for learning to read, not strapping bombs to kids, not killing someone for drawing a picture of the “prophet”) need to limit how many immigrants they accept from the bad countries. Otherwise the people from bad countries will bring too much of their garbage over here.
@Palantir: you are debating semantics and frankly, none of what you say makes sense. I have yet to see a state where it is mandated by law that you must wear a yamaka. However, several states have historically required hijab for women (although laws for foreigners vary). When Shariah law is used I’d say that constitutes a country with a state religion, which is what these protesters want. However, I think it is pretty unlikely that the UK is going to adopt Islam as its state religion.
Iran does have a a supreme religious leader and is a theocracy. In 1979 the position was established via the below poll:
In March 1979, shortly after Khomeini’s return from exile and the overthrow of Iran’s monarchy, a national referendum was held throughout Iran with the question “Islamic Republic, yes or no?”.
The Islamic law system is sometimes different from the normal government. For instance, there might be an independent Shariah court, in addition to the normal judicial system. So, the leaders of the Shariah system do not need to be the leaders of the normal government. In Iran (since it’s mentioned above), it’s a bit different: the official leader of the government is the Ayatollah. However, this guy rarely interferes with practical affairs, which are run by the President (previously that Ahmedinejad guy).
There also seems to be a misconception here that the quran specifically dictates the laws in Islamic states. In reality, it’s more like the government is formed in a way that addresses modern issues but does not violate Islamic law. For instance, Pakistan might have legislation on internet security - an issue that did not exist in the 7th century. The law just needs to be written in a way that is consistent with Islam.
A similar thing happens in the US, but to a lesser extent. We still have laws that ban abortion or stem cell research, and these laws are in place largely due to the religion of voters. Of course in the US, religious effects on legislation arise in the form of public support. In Islamic states, the government probably cites religion directly when writing the law.
I think that Jews in general don’t seem to be extremists comes mostly from the fact that Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion and therefore tends to stay out of other people’s affairs and concentrates only on a people who are genetically related somehow. Within Judaism there are those who apply the Torah more strictly or less strictly, as there are similar communities in Islam and Christianity, but Muslims and Christians are more likely to say that everyone in the world needs to conform to their teachings.
The issue of the State of Israel is a special case where some of Ohai’s generalizations seem to break down. I’m not sure if the Talmud urges Jews to have a state for themselves literally in Israel, or if a metaphorical community is sufficient.
My sense of Islam is not that the state must be a theocracy, but merely that religious law must be supreme to earthly law. This is a situation that lends itself to support of theocracy but does not necessarily require it.
With a Jewish state in modern Israel, the question of how much secular law should be guided by Toranic law becomes relevant and the rights and powers of non-Jews in society suddenly become much more relevant, providing fertile ground for the development of Jewish extremists who would deny non-Jews basic human rights within Israel’s borders. Given the violent backlash from the originally displaced Palestinians and their descendants, it may not look like extremism on the surface, but it is hard to look back in history and not conclude that the originally displaced Palestinians have at least some legitimate grievances.