In this question asking if a Muslim living in a democracy should turn it into an Islamic state, most of the answers seem to agree that the answer is yes, they should. But my question is, why is this preferable to simply emigrating to an already established Islamic state? Doesn't this allow the Muslim to live in an Islamic state as they desire, without having to impose it onto others?

I ask from a secular or historical-critical perspective. Did Muhammad conflate Saint Joseph and Saint Joachim? Did Muhammad conflate Saint Joseph and God the Father? Did Muhammad only have access to Mathew and Apocrypha? How did this end up happening?

Are Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries required to turn their countries into Islamic governments with enforced Sharia law? Or are they allowed to have secular governments even in Muslim-majority countries?

I will try to be as short as possible in looking for an answer as I asked so many people but got no clear answer. I’m a Christian and my fiancé is Muslim. We want to do the Islamic wedding. We are currently living in a Muslim country, but we don’t want to do it here. We want to have the Islamic wedding first, but we are not officially, legally married yet. Is it this possible, to have the blessing from an imam first ? I’m from Romania, but we could travel anywhere to do it! We both know each other’s family’s (if that matters) and everyone is supporting our beautiful story. We have been together for 5 years, but only now we are 100% of this step. **Which countries would give as this blessing without having the official papers ?** Thank you so much everyone! Edit: The woman (me) I’m Christian , my fiancé (the man) is Muslim. No, in romania “Islam” is not our official religion therefore what I understood is that they do give a document but without any official value. I have moved out of my country for 6 years. My fiancé’s works for the army in the country we are now, and marriage with another nationality is not allowed. We have requested so many times, and we always been declined. Now, none of us wants to live like this forever, and we want to be legal in the eyes of God, and in our hearts, and we could make the civil documents, once he can find another job, or after 2 years when he could retire. I know the story is long and complicated, I’m looking for answers to find the right step. And I need help from someone who can understand this complicated situation.

I have been reading a book about Muhammad (pbuh) and have learnt, I am sure only a little, about Islam and the culture and times back then. It seems to an unlearned man like myself that the laws were highly relevant given the nature of society and culture of the day. My question is, are the laws still relevant in the culture and society of the modern day, and as I can only talk for UK I will direct it with this culture and society in mind. I am aware of the obvious cultural/tradition heritage of the Middle-east versus the UK but that aside please could someone elaborate or at least ask some further questions so that I can refine this question further into the format required for this forum. The specific laws that for me personally are hard to grapple with are those of corporal punishment etc. Update: Both cultural and Islamic claims are played to win over whether a law is to be adhered to or not, that is partly why I asked the question. On the face of it this question can seem obvious to answer, but on a closer consideration there are complications that arise, especially for people that do not have a great knowledge on the subject and the answers are found only through further research. My problem is laws have been and can be determined by interpretation through the lens of culture and some are considered truly universal but how can you know and if knowledge is there to aid discernment, how can it be distilled from scripture that has been written possibly for a different audience in a different era and being no scholar on Arabic how can one be sure the meaning in the language still has the same meaning today, I am sure it is not only English that suffers from loss of meaning through language evolution? Actually, on second thought, justice is justice and that is universal, but the prescription for certain crimes such as theft where the offender loses limbs seem unnecessary, I am not saying they are wrong although to me that kind of punishment seems to me to be unnecessary for the culture I live in but in that case I would be using my own culture as a means to interpret the rewards for such crimes. I think my question is difficult to answer when attempting to discern what are cultural and what are Islamic precepts, so I will ask another question more specific to certain laws that have already been suggested in answers to this question.

I am from a secular country; our constitution has no element of sharia law in it. Sometimes I see that our brothers do not respect and do not follow the laws of our country. Usually these brothers belong to groups who do not like to be called "Wahabi". I disagree with them when they said 'we do not want to pay VAT(taxes)', or 'We do not want to vote on elections', or 'We do not want to pass driving test', claiming that they do not admit to a government or the laws of unbelievers. So, I am looking for the Quran's explanation or Hadith or an event in history form the time of our Messenger (Peace be upon him), which would help prove that they are wrong.

***[The answer is critical for me and really I need help]*** For years I almost had Mumin/Believer's signs cited in Quran. But after a while I found out that this makes life for me hard and, for others easy. I had to decide if I can do *X* or *Y*. I have to had stress to keep God satisfied. I had to force myself to worship and to avoid sins. I had to keep in my mind that I'm Muslim for the whole of the day and night. I had to force myself to do what my mind did not understand. Specially I always had to be careful about prayer times to not miss a prayer! Nowadays, I know more about ***liberal** and **secular** societies and people*. They're free. They have not to think if something is a sin or not. They can do what they think is right and the law will protect them. As a result they're more happy than we are because they feel the free. They have not to think if they can have this music or how they should pray in Alaska or Norway when the length of the day time is abnormally long. They can try things and learn. I know there are problems with them too. But I mean **on average**. On average they are better than us in Science, Technology, Societies, Successfulness and even Morality! They're more serious to doing their job well than us, on average. My question is, **when a non-Muslim who does not accept Islam, can be good, successful and a university scientist, why should I force myself to be a Muslim?** I know the Quran's provided advantages and punishments but all of them are after death. A death after a hard life. **What's the problem with non-Muslim guys in Liberal or Secular societies who are good and respectful that I should force myself to be a Muslim?** and **so, with what motivation should I be a Muslim and keep this until my death?!!** Please help!

> **Possible Duplicate:** > [Are all of the laws in the Quran/Haddith/Islam relevant to modern (western) society?](https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/4115/are-all-of-the-laws-in-the-quran-haddith-islam-relevant-to-modern-western-soci) This question was spawned from: https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/4115/are-all-of-the-laws-in-the-quran-haddith-islam-relevant-to-modern-western-soci I would like to know more specifically whether or not the punishments such as amputation for theft should still stand in modern societies? Practical speaking, I can understand that when initiating communities, there is a need for law and order and the punishments need to be effective. I believe that not all the punishments prescribed are no longer necessary in established societies to maintain order. Capital punishment can be seen as a deterrent but crimes that would warrant such punishments still occur, so it seems to me that they aren't as effective a deterrent as they are supposed to be. Are these kind of considerations examined by religious leaders to be sure that they are being applied properly and are truly universal or are the punishments considered infallible and universal and therefore not under any scrutiny. When I ask this question there are many thoughts flying around in my head just like what I have written so for my it is not clear what the Islamic stance is on such questions. Update: I will delete this question if it is not different sufficiently, but I thought this question is different because there is a distinction between a judgement and the sentence, and I think the first question was more about the judgement, i.e., has a law been transgressed and this question where the law has been transgressed and a sentence should be passed and should the sentencing be equivalent to that of 1400 years ago where law and order was in the process of being established.