Dar al-Islam & Dar al-Kufr

The problem is really people choosing the words of men over the words of Allah(the koran).

Community wrote: Exactly centuries ago, in the time when there was no religious freedom in the west, ofcourse muslims fought the west back then, with the label of them being dar al kufr, because a muslim could not live or call to his faith in those countries and was killed for being a muslim if he decided to live in those countries. So they were fought against just like the messenger of Allah and the faithful with him fought against the pagans who killed and tortured the muslims for their faith. Once the west implemented religious freedom it ment they would be left alone, most muslims stopped fighting right there, except some states who kept on fighting while using the faith for mere geographic-political reasons.

The opinion of the classical scholars (Abu Hanfiah, Shaafi) etc was directly based on evidence which still you have not refuted whereas your drivel above is purely your opinion.

You guys have already lost the argument because firstly, Muslims will never take Islam from disbelievers and secondly, the arguments they bring are simply shallow sound-bites and are never backed by islamic evidences as not 1 single person has refuted the evidences and understanding from the original post......still waiting.

Your knowledge is obviously not based on the classical juristic understanding of Islam and hence the absence of Shariah evidences.

Shari'a is an invention of Ibn Hanlafi, it is not within the Qu'ran. Shari'a does not need to be imposed per se in order to have an Islamic state. Shari'a is logically speaking anti-thetical to the free will, and thus is against the very conception of Islam and Allah. The only law which was ever imposed on an Islamic state was the Treaty btwn the prophet Muhammed and the non-believers of Medina (who were Jews prior to the prophet). Classical fiqh's in Islam can are often contradictory, and largley today are impossible to relate to the modern world, as I have told many Muslim friends of mine a massive Ijtihad must take place to tailor Islam to 2005 not 1405 and all my Muslim friends agree.

You are so ignorant of the history of European thought it disgusts me, actually if you knew anything the begining of liberalism and secularism were not European inventions but were derieved from Islamic teachings in Spain. Liberalism is actually heavily influenced by Islam, but of course your blind hatred and ignorance of the West blinded you to this. The Social Contract is actually a Islamic idea that Muhammed had created back in Medina about 1200 years before Europe even made the term up. The only person here whom is limited is you, its to bad that Muslims don't respect their own legacy.

Fiqhs is not Islam, the Ulema is not Allah made the distinction. Don't confuse interpretation with divinity of the Qu'ran. Its seems you cannot make the distinction (the disease of Taqleed) you not I cannot see the legitimacy of Islam as the legitimacy of Islam stems from its ability to adapt and change and not stay in a stationary state of Taqleed.

Sentence makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the conversation.

Of course, you are Muslim rejectionist...you won't accept the reality. Wither away...I know Muslims who see their weakness and are actually trying to do something to stop it. And not blowing themselves up, but by understanding what their religion really means not that politicalization of Islam you seem to believe in.