Don't send your kids to full time Islamic school

[union]

You said in your post above that you were "pro-Islam in politics". I don't believe anarchy is in line with Islamic political thought. You have to pick one. Either you believe in anarchy where people are free to do whatever, or you believe in a state ruled under shariah. Both cannot co-exist.

your interpretation of anarchism is narrow, its not your fault the use of the term anarchism has too wide and interpretation but the simplest definition is oppostion to the armed state and its monopolization of power.
You are misinterpreting 2 things here.

Either you believe in anarchy where people are free to do whatever

people are free to do whatever they want in their own homes in private but they cannot do xaraam in public.
State has no right to interfere in the private houshold, so if you want to drink alcohol, watch porn, and have gay sex in your own home or in a private household the government should not have the power to stop you.
If you want to open a shop that sells alcohol this is in the public domain and the government has the right to ban this and prevent you from doing this and even punish you, the same for holding a gay pride parade.
In islam there is a difference between public and private affairs.
The job of eradicating xaraam should be from the bottom up, starting from the family and then the community through education and social pressure, this is not the governments job.

or you believe in a state ruled under shariah. Both cannot co-exist.

state and shareeca are mutually exclusive or has been since the beginning of islam, and and Islamic state is an oxymoron.
people who use the term islamic state are suffering from the confusion of trying to interpret islam through western lens.
historicaly there hasnet been an islamic state in the western sense , the ottomans were inching towards one and became a state after the tanzimat reforms of 1843 and from then on were a state in the western sense and not much of a muslim dawla.

You just said you were against government imposing religious morals on people.

I am an anarchist, i do not see much value in this government you speak of, so i would be opposed to a government infringing on the rights an liberties of people. The same way that i would oppose a religious group in government imposing their morality on the people.

[gurey25]

We aqre talking about a muslim country , we are talking about basic morality here ,
no muslim would be opposed to what i said , banning of alcohol sales, public displays of affection and activisim by gays etc etc.

only kaafirs would be opposed to it, and kaafirs are not the majority and do not have the right to impose their morality .

This is not a secular state, you cannot be secualr and muslim at the same time, the use of secular cannot even be translated to the muslim world as it is meant to describe conditions and developments in christian countries.
In Christianity because of its evolution coming under the sponsorship of the emperor , there was a need to define roles as secular and religous.
With secular power assigned tot he emperor and religous power to the church.

We have no church in islam, we never had
it is an entirely different subject here.

its the same as using the term fundamentalist muslim, when islam is by definition fundamentalist.
and fundamentalist has negative connotations because it is coming from the western experience , which does not apply to the muslim world.

[union]

Stop claiming to be an anarchist. You are just a garden variety Islamist.

[gurey25]

i dont believe in the value of a state in the western sense .
anarchism does not mean a society devoid of law or morality or religion, it just means one with the absence of state.

Islam in its original form is the closest to this ideal, most people do not know this and theirs views are influenced by the west.
Nearly every single muslim organization even the slafists/wahabis are western influenced.