Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[New haven america]

Kubumba obviously wishes the exception to he unto whom peace is always wished upon by his followers, God, and the Host of Angels until the Day of Judgment. Though asserting that all violence is bad is pretty stupid, so it's not like I can blame him.

I'm not asking for any exceptions, I'm pointing out that Napkiraly's taking Netherlands' words out of proportion.

You do understand what the word "All" means, right?

[Kubumba Tribe]

I'm not asking for any exceptions, I'm pointing out that Napkiraly's taking Netherlands' words out of proportion.

You do understand what the word "All" means, right?

Yes. Do you know what a hyperbole is?

[Conserative Morality]

So, you're taking his words out of context to fit your stance?

His words are perfectly in context. It's the lack of clarification from the original post that's the problem.

[Arachno-Satinism]

You do understand what the word "All" means, right?

Yes. Do you know what a hyperbole is?

Precisely, so "All violences originate from Shaytan" do not literally mean all violence, violence committed by Muhammad is discounted. Why is accepting this simple explanation so difficult? Although it's maybe you who don't understand hyperbole, considering that's not really hyperbole (more like lacking further elaboration). I'm terrible at English, but at least I'm not lecturing other people for terms I don't really understand.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Yes. Do you know what a hyperbole is?

Precisely, so "All violences originate from Shaytan" do not literally mean all violence, violence committed by Muhammad is discounted. Why is accepting this simple explanation so difficult? Although it's maybe you who don't understand hyperbole, considering that's not really hyperbole (more like lacking further elaboration). I'm terrible at English, but at least I'm not lecturing other people for terms I don't really understand.

1: Violence does not come from ShayTan.
2: You assume stuff, you know. You'll almost always be wrong making baseless assumptions.

[Arachno-Satinism]

Precisely, so "All violences originate from Shaytan" do not literally mean all violence, violence committed by Muhammad is discounted. Why is accepting this simple explanation so difficult? Although it's maybe you who don't understand hyperbole, considering that's not really hyperbole (more like lacking further elaboration). I'm terrible at English, but at least I'm not lecturing other people for terms I don't really understand.

1: Violence does not come from ShayTan.
2: You assume stuff, you know. You'll almost always be wrong making baseless assumptions.

What? I'm not saying it does, I'm merely quoting Caliphate of the Netherlands' post.

[Kubumba Tribe]

1: Violence does not come from ShayTan.
2: You assume stuff, you know. You'll almost always be wrong making baseless assumptions.

What? I'm not saying it does, I'm merely quoting Caliphate of the Netherlands' post.

My apologies.

[Herskerstad]

What? I'm not saying it does, I'm merely quoting Caliphate of the Netherlands' post.

My apologies.

Question, do you think seventh century Arabian civics are, in their purity, a perfect judicially for modern nations?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

My apologies.

Question, do you think seventh century Arabian civics are, in their purity, a perfect judicially for modern nations?

No...why?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I'm going to go to bed soon, so good night and Assalamu 'Alaikum wa RaHmatullahi wa Barakatihuh.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

Let it be clear, in my believe Muhammed is not ineffable, therefore yes his actions can be subdued by Shaytan.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Question, do you think seventh century Arabian civics are, in their purity, a perfect judicially for modern nations?

No...why?

I think he's referring to Shariah law.

[Jochizyd Republic]

My apologies.

Question, do you think seventh century Arabian civics are, in their purity, a perfect judicially for modern nations?

Wow.

Reminds me of the "muh bronze age tribalist" arguement that atheists like to make.

And what do you mean in their purity? The Literalist Puritan Revisionist one? No.

The authentic traditional way of the Prophet (SAW) and the Salaf as studied and built upon by over a thousand years of scholarship into many different approaches and movements?
Depends. But at least one large group of them are ideal judicially for a nation.

Aplying it in Modernity, I dom't know if it would work. As applying it in modernity has not ended well.
Islamism being the result of toying with the idea.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Let it be clear, in my believe Muhammed is not ineffable, therefore yes his actions can be subdued by Shaytan.

Agreed. There's ahadith about this.

[Magna Singulorum]

I sincerely hope the 10 people who proclaimed that they are Salafists in the poll are on somekind of watchlist somewhere.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I sincerely hope the 10 people who proclaimed that they are Salafists in the poll are on somekind of watchlist somewhere.

They probably are. You know how NSA is >w<

[Herskerstad]

Question, do you think seventh century Arabian civics are, in their purity, a perfect judicially for modern nations?

Wow.

Reminds me of the "muh bronze age tribalist" arguement that atheists like to make.

And what do you mean in their purity? The Literalist Puritan Revisionist one? No.

The authentic traditional way of the Prophet (SAW) and the Salaf as studied and built upon by over a thousand years of scholarship into many different approaches and movements?
Depends. But at least one large group of them are ideal judicially for a nation.

Aplying it in Modernity, I dom't know if it would work. As applying it in modernity has not ended well.
Islamism being the result of toying with the idea.

In fairness, given earlier responses, the idea of the question was not to project a simplification of the general debate, but to see to which degree said poster identified out of the book applications for the modern judicial system would stand applicable.

That being said, which large group and which iteration from said group do you say are ideal judicially for a nation?

[Yaramaqui]

לק״י

Forgive me for the late and lengthy response, busyness has came upon me.

לק״י

And why is that so, if I may ask?

He made such a beautiful world; proceeded to place the cruelest of things on Earth and then killed billions (estimate)of people through the way of natural disaster and finally placed us here and expected us to love him, while granting us free will.

I personally believe that God exists and Jesus existed; I also believe that the Big Bang, Evolution and countless other things that God in his accursed holy book said didn't happened, happened. I believe that we are nothing but his experiment, an plaything for God.
I won't worship such a being, not even if I face eternal damnation, something of which secures my belief that he is a cruel and malicious being that deserves no respect.

And yet, I still love him in some way.

You are referring to the Flood, yes? If you are referring to the Flood, it is argued by some that it isn't supposed to be taken literally per se, although it depends on the person. There are many who say that whether what is written happened or not does not matter as much as what it has to teach us.

If you are referring to natural disasters in general, then the only thing I will say is that natural disaster do occur, but not as an act of G-d. Why? Well, I will formulate it in the following way: It is required for human life that there be an Earth which is comprised of soil, and different elevations. We humans need water, so G-d designed the Earth's system to include rain and oceans. We humans also need at atmosphere. With these things, it shall happen by definition, that rains may come to mountainous regions, where some people might live, and mud slides will result killing many. Should we call this an evil thing? While it is very discouraging, we must come to the realisation that we need, soil, rain, and elevations for creating rivers and the like, the better good for the Earth as a whole is to have these ingredients which will occasionally result in the deaths of the few, as compared to the death of all mankind had there been no rains. It should be noted here that even in such circumstances where many die, one who is totally righteous will be spared. If it is your time to die, it is your time to die. As unfortunate as it is, the laws of nature have been constructed in such a way, that such things will happen.

If you are referring to the idea that you are discouraged with the fact that Haqadosh Barukh Hu, has allowed for much suffering, then think of it as follows: There are some people who say that G-d is not responsible for evil, but something else is. Now I am not going to delve in the specifics of this detail, but in how I see it at least, that is a theological view that allows for cowardice. If G-d is G-d is omnipotent, omniscient, the creator of everything, and so on, then why would G-d not control nature? And if He doesn't, then who does? There are many who say that G-d is a vicious tyrant who plays with all of the cards for His own joy to see our suffering (ח״ו) however, it was written in the Tanakh that the righteous of the biblical flood were spared.

Although that raises another question. Why would Haqadosh Barukh Hu allow for so much suffering in this world? Is He not a G-d who is just? One well known Jewish philosopher known as Sa'adiah ben Yosef Ga'on say that the reasoning that He allows suffering is for the sake of education, punishment and testing. Suffering can assist in disciplining us and point us in the correct direction in which we shall ultimately benefit the most out of it. Sa'adia says that through our suffering, it helps to clear our guilt due to past actions but at the same it also makes us motivated to avoid the actions which led to the pain, and thus help improve mankind. In the case of testing people, one may look at the book of Iyyob. While Iyyov may have been a righteous person, he dealt with the times of suffering and as a result, he received his rewards and blessings. Yes, that may be a strange idea. If the master knows that the servant will bear the sufferings, why subject the servant to them? One thing that Sa'adia pointed out was that it is just for a creator to kill a person during his normal time of life provided that he gets his own re-compensation in the future. Such sufferings are indeed a sign of divine benevolence, since the future reward is greater than the span of person's own life. Despite the fact that we as people accustom ourselves to a certain form of existence, a lot of us may simply dislike moving to a different form or way even if it benefits us. Why? Well there are many reasons, such as that it is too difficult, too much work, they are living just fine, we'd suffer a lot, and so on. But ultimately, it can all be justified by the benefits that one receives in the end. Although it seems rather strange to brush it all of on a supposed "next" life, yes? Instead of saying that if we deserve to benefit, we shall benefit in our next life, Ultimately, G-d’s wisdom is superior to that of his creatures, and he knows best for ultimately all of us. This may be not much of an argument, but a mere excuse to simply end any discussion. We may not understand how we are to be compensated in the next life for our undeserved sufferings that we have had or are having in our current life, and we might expect notified of what possible things we can look forward to when we face death. However, appealing to some source of wisdom is not enough. It may be for some, but for many no. There are three benefits that G-d gives upon the world. The first is our creation, the second is G-d giving the promise of re-compensating for our actions, and the third is that He will recompense us for our tribulations which he has caused and which we have had to deal with for many years. It is not because of our transgressions, but for a future benefit someday, whether that be in our lifetime or not. If we were to truly understand the future, we would understand how much better off we are as people due to our own sufferings compared with how we would be without such things. G-d ultimately does everything for the good; despite how difficult it may seem to realise such things, it is like so. But even if we see it like this, we have every right to be disappointed, question, or even criticise G-d. According to the Torah, even the most righteous of people have objected to this that G-d has done such as Moses negotiating for the Jewish people after the whole issue of the golden calf or Abraham Avinu trying to defend people of Sodom despite the fact G‑d wanted to destroy them. That doesn't change anything. Although it can be allowed for such a supposed paradox of a completely just deity allowing for countless years of suffering, notice how it creates the urge and desire of a better world in which it is filled with the goodness and peace like how described in Jewish tradition in accordance to the Messianic Age. Since the suffering of innocent people who have done nothing wrong does not fit into my own worldview, I desire for it to end. Even if the reality of the matter is that I accept G-d to be the True Judge, our communication with Him and our screaming for it to end to Him, also helps us become better people. Through following what he demands of me which includes trying to be a good person not just for His sake but for the sake of our brothers and sisters, the intense questioning and demands for the suffering and trials to end, a passion of a desire to do something good for ourselves and the world comes out from it.

It is common belief that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims will only accept a young earth theory that it is only a few thousand years old, but Jewish tradition has a long tradition that scientific findings do not necessarily contradict the Torah per se, as the Torah was written in the language of man for there to be understanding. For example, the sun does literally rise, but the earth rotates in a certain orbit around the sun. Does the Torah mentioning the sun rising mean that it is wrong and outdated? Absolutely not. Why? Well think of it like this, from our vantage point thousands of years ago, and even today, the sun seems to rise and set. We even have terms that refer to the rising and setting of the sun (sunrise and sunset), although technically, that is not the case. What are we going to do, completely change everything because in absolute technicality, it is not exactly how it seems? In my opinion, scientific findings help us understand the world we created and are essential for the betterment of mankind, provided that we remain within our own respectable limits.

[Kubumba Tribe]

לק״י

Forgive me for the late and lengthy response, busyness has came upon me.

He made such a beautiful world; proceeded to place the cruelest of things on Earth and then killed billions (estimate)of people through the way of natural disaster and finally placed us here and expected us to love him, while granting us free will.

I personally believe that God exists and Jesus existed; I also believe that the Big Bang, Evolution and countless other things that God in his accursed holy book said didn't happened, happened. I believe that we are nothing but his experiment, an plaything for God.
I won't worship such a being, not even if I face eternal damnation, something of which secures my belief that he is a cruel and malicious being that deserves no respect.

And yet, I still love him in some way.

You are referring to the Flood, yes? If you are referring to the Flood, it is argued by some that it isn't supposed to be taken literally per se, although it depends on the person. There are many who say that whether what is written happened or not does not matter as much as what it has to teach us.

If you are referring to natural disasters in general, then the only thing I will say is that natural disaster do occur, but not as an act of G-d. Why? Well, I will formulate it in the following way: It is required for human life that there be an Earth which is comprised of soil, and different elevations. We humans need water, so G-d designed the Earth's system to include rain and oceans. We humans also need at atmosphere. With these things, it shall happen by definition, that rains may come to mountainous regions, where some people might live, and mud slides will result killing many. Should we call this an evil thing? While it is very discouraging, we must come to the realisation that we need, soil, rain, and elevations for creating rivers and the like, the better good for the Earth as a whole is to have these ingredients which will occasionally result in the deaths of the few, as compared to the death of all mankind had there been no rains. It should be noted here that even in such circumstances where many die, one who is totally righteous will be spared. If it is your time to die, it is your time to die. As unfortunate as it is, the laws of nature have been constructed in such a way, that such things will happen.

If you are referring to the idea that you are discouraged with the fact that Haqadosh Barukh Hu, has allowed for much suffering, then think of it as follows: There are some people who say that G-d is not responsible for evil, but something else is. Now I am not going to delve in the specifics of this detail, but in how I see it at least, that is a theological view that allows for cowardice. If G-d is G-d is omnipotent, omniscient, the creator of everything, and so on, then why would G-d not control nature? And if He doesn't, then who does? There are many who say that G-d is a vicious tyrant who plays with all of the cards for His own joy to see our suffering (ח״ו) however, it was written in the Tanakh that the righteous of the biblical flood were spared.

Although that raises another question. Why would Haqadosh Barukh Hu allow for so much suffering in this world? Is He not a G-d who is just? One well known Jewish philosopher known as Sa'adiah ben Yosef Ga'on say that the reasoning that He allows suffering is for the sake of education, punishment and testing. Suffering can assist in disciplining us and point us in the correct direction in which we shall ultimately benefit the most out of it. Sa'adia says that through our suffering, it helps to clear our guilt due to past actions but at the same it also makes us motivated to avoid the actions which led to the pain, and thus help improve mankind. In the case of testing people, one may look at the book of Iyyob. While Iyyov may have been a righteous person, he dealt with the times of suffering and as a result, he received his rewards and blessings. Yes, that may be a strange idea. If the master knows that the servant will bear the sufferings, why subject the servant to them? One thing that Sa'adia pointed out was that it is just for a creator to kill a person during his normal time of life provided that he gets his own re-compensation in the future. Such sufferings are indeed a sign of divine benevolence, since the future reward is greater than the span of person's own life. Despite the fact that we as people accustom ourselves to a certain form of existence, a lot of us may simply dislike moving to a different form or way even if it benefits us. Why? Well there are many reasons, such as that it is too difficult, too much work, they are living just fine, we'd suffer a lot, and so on. But ultimately, it can all be justified by the benefits that one receives in the end. Although it seems rather strange to brush it all of on a supposed "next" life, yes? Instead of saying that if we deserve to benefit, we shall benefit in our next life, Ultimately, G-d’s wisdom is superior to that of his creatures, and he knows best for ultimately all of us. This may be not much of an argument, but a mere excuse to simply end any discussion. We may not understand how we are to be compensated in the next life for our undeserved sufferings that we have had or are having in our current life, and we might expect notified of what possible things we can look forward to when we face death. However, appealing to some source of wisdom is not enough. It may be for some, but for many no. There are three benefits that G-d gives upon the world. The first is our creation, the second is G-d giving the promise of re-compensating for our actions, and the third is that He will recompense us for our tribulations which he has caused and which we have had to deal with for many years. It is not because of our transgressions, but for a future benefit someday, whether that be in our lifetime or not. If we were to truly understand the future, we would understand how much better off we are as people due to our own sufferings compared with how we would be without such things. G-d ultimately does everything for the good; despite how difficult it may seem to realise such things, it is like so. But even if we see it like this, we have every right to be disappointed, question, or even criticise G-d. According to the Torah, even the most righteous of people have objected to this that G-d has done such as Moses negotiating for the Jewish people after the whole issue of the golden calf or Abraham Avinu trying to defend people of Sodom despite the fact G‑d wanted to destroy them. That doesn't change anything. Although it can be allowed for such a supposed paradox of a completely just deity allowing for countless years of suffering, notice how it creates the urge and desire of a better world in which it is filled with the goodness and peace like how described in Jewish tradition in accordance to the Messianic Age. Since the suffering of innocent people who have done nothing wrong does not fit into my own worldview, I desire for it to end. Even if the reality of the matter is that I accept G-d to be the True Judge, our communication with Him and our screaming for it to end towards Him to ask for it to end. Through following what he demands of me which includes trying to be a good person not just for His sake but for the sake of our brothers and sisters, the intense questioning and demands for the suffering and trials to end, a passion of a desire to do something good for ourselves and the world comes out from it.

It is common belief that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims will only accept a young earth theory that it is only a few thousand years old, but Jewish tradition has a long tradition that scientific findings do not necessarily contradict the Torah per se, as the Torah was written in the language of man for there to be understanding. For example, the sun does literally rise, but the earth rotates in a certain orbit around the sun. Does the Torah mentioning the sun rising mean that it is wrong and outdated? Absolutely not. Why? Well think of it like this, from our vantage point thousands of years ago, and even today, the sun seems to rise and set. We even have terms that refer to the rising and setting of the sun (sunrise and sunset), although technically, that is not the case. What are we going to do, completely change everything because in absolute technicality, it is not exactly how it seems? In my opinion, scientific findings help us understand the world we created and are essential for the betterment of mankind, provided that we remain within our own respectable limits.

You'd make a great rabbi

[Yaramaqui]

לק״י

לק״י

Forgive me for the late and lengthy response, busyness has came upon me.



You are referring to the Flood, yes? If you are referring to the Flood, it is argued by some that it isn't supposed to be taken literally per se, although it depends on the person. There are many who say that whether what is written happened or not does not matter as much as what it has to teach us.

If you are referring to natural disasters in general, then the only thing I will say is that natural disaster do occur, but not as an act of G-d. Why? Well, I will formulate it in the following way: It is required for human life that there be an Earth which is comprised of soil, and different elevations. We humans need water, so G-d designed the Earth's system to include rain and oceans. We humans also need at atmosphere. With these things, it shall happen by definition, that rains may come to mountainous regions, where some people might live, and mud slides will result killing many. Should we call this an evil thing? While it is very discouraging, we must come to the realisation that we need, soil, rain, and elevations for creating rivers and the like, the better good for the Earth as a whole is to have these ingredients which will occasionally result in the deaths of the few, as compared to the death of all mankind had there been no rains. It should be noted here that even in such circumstances where many die, one who is totally righteous will be spared. If it is your time to die, it is your time to die. As unfortunate as it is, the laws of nature have been constructed in such a way, that such things will happen.

If you are referring to the idea that you are discouraged with the fact that Haqadosh Barukh Hu, has allowed for much suffering, then think of it as follows: There are some people who say that G-d is not responsible for evil, but something else is. Now I am not going to delve in the specifics of this detail, but in how I see it at least, that is a theological view that allows for cowardice. If G-d is G-d is omnipotent, omniscient, the creator of everything, and so on, then why would G-d not control nature? And if He doesn't, then who does? There are many who say that G-d is a vicious tyrant who plays with all of the cards for His own joy to see our suffering (ח״ו) however, it was written in the Tanakh that the righteous of the biblical flood were spared.

Although that raises another question. Why would Haqadosh Barukh Hu allow for so much suffering in this world? Is He not a G-d who is just? One well known Jewish philosopher known as Sa'adiah ben Yosef Ga'on say that the reasoning that He allows suffering is for the sake of education, punishment and testing. Suffering can assist in disciplining us and point us in the correct direction in which we shall ultimately benefit the most out of it. Sa'adia says that through our suffering, it helps to clear our guilt due to past actions but at the same it also makes us motivated to avoid the actions which led to the pain, and thus help improve mankind. In the case of testing people, one may look at the book of Iyyob. While Iyyov may have been a righteous person, he dealt with the times of suffering and as a result, he received his rewards and blessings. Yes, that may be a strange idea. If the master knows that the servant will bear the sufferings, why subject the servant to them? One thing that Sa'adia pointed out was that it is just for a creator to kill a person during his normal time of life provided that he gets his own re-compensation in the future. Such sufferings are indeed a sign of divine benevolence, since the future reward is greater than the span of person's own life. Despite the fact that we as people accustom ourselves to a certain form of existence, a lot of us may simply dislike moving to a different form or way even if it benefits us. Why? Well there are many reasons, such as that it is too difficult, too much work, they are living just fine, we'd suffer a lot, and so on. But ultimately, it can all be justified by the benefits that one receives in the end. Although it seems rather strange to brush it all of on a supposed "next" life, yes? Instead of saying that if we deserve to benefit, we shall benefit in our next life, Ultimately, G-d’s wisdom is superior to that of his creatures, and he knows best for ultimately all of us. This may be not much of an argument, but a mere excuse to simply end any discussion. We may not understand how we are to be compensated in the next life for our undeserved sufferings that we have had or are having in our current life, and we might expect notified of what possible things we can look forward to when we face death. However, appealing to some source of wisdom is not enough. It may be for some, but for many no. There are three benefits that G-d gives upon the world. The first is our creation, the second is G-d giving the promise of re-compensating for our actions, and the third is that He will recompense us for our tribulations which he has caused and which we have had to deal with for many years. It is not because of our transgressions, but for a future benefit someday, whether that be in our lifetime or not. If we were to truly understand the future, we would understand how much better off we are as people due to our own sufferings compared with how we would be without such things. G-d ultimately does everything for the good; despite how difficult it may seem to realise such things, it is like so. But even if we see it like this, we have every right to be disappointed, question, or even criticise G-d. According to the Torah, even the most righteous of people have objected to this that G-d has done such as Moses negotiating for the Jewish people after the whole issue of the golden calf or Abraham Avinu trying to defend people of Sodom despite the fact G‑d wanted to destroy them. That doesn't change anything. Although it can be allowed for such a supposed paradox of a completely just deity allowing for countless years of suffering, notice how it creates the urge and desire of a better world in which it is filled with the goodness and peace like how described in Jewish tradition in accordance to the Messianic Age. Since the suffering of innocent people who have done nothing wrong does not fit into my own worldview, I desire for it to end. Even if the reality of the matter is that I accept G-d to be the True Judge, our communication with Him and our screaming for it to end towards Him to ask for it to end. Through following what he demands of me which includes trying to be a good person not just for His sake but for the sake of our brothers and sisters, the intense questioning and demands for the suffering and trials to end, a passion of a desire to do something good for ourselves and the world comes out from it.

It is common belief that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims will only accept a young earth theory that it is only a few thousand years old, but Jewish tradition has a long tradition that scientific findings do not necessarily contradict the Torah per se, as the Torah was written in the language of man for there to be understanding. For example, the sun does literally rise, but the earth rotates in a certain orbit around the sun. Does the Torah mentioning the sun rising mean that it is wrong and outdated? Absolutely not. Why? Well think of it like this, from our vantage point thousands of years ago, and even today, the sun seems to rise and set. We even have terms that refer to the rising and setting of the sun (sunrise and sunset), although technically, that is not the case. What are we going to do, completely change everything because in absolute technicality, it is not exactly how it seems? In my opinion, scientific findings help us understand the world we created and are essential for the betterment of mankind, provided that we remain within our own respectable limits.

You'd make a great rabbi

As-salamu wa’alaykum, how are you?

I am not too sure about that.

[Kubumba Tribe]

לק״י

You'd make a great rabbi

As-salamu wa’alaykum, how are you?

I am not too sure about that.

Wa'aleikhem Shalom. I good, how are you?
Ey, with a speech like that, you have a chance

[Yaramaqui]

לק״י

לק״י

As-salamu wa’alaykum, how are you?

I am not too sure about that.

Wa'aleikhem Shalom. I good, how are you?
Ey, with a speech like that, you have a chance

I am doing well. I am rather tired but fine. ^_^

There are numerous grammatical mistakes I assume, and I am sure whatever I said could be improved to be more concise and stronger.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Wow.

Reminds me of the "muh bronze age tribalist" arguement that atheists like to make.

And what do you mean in their purity? The Literalist Puritan Revisionist one? No.

The authentic traditional way of the Prophet (SAW) and the Salaf as studied and built upon by over a thousand years of scholarship into many different approaches and movements?
Depends. But at least one large group of them are ideal judicially for a nation.

Aplying it in Modernity, I dom't know if it would work. As applying it in modernity has not ended well.
Islamism being the result of toying with the idea.

In fairness, given earlier responses, the idea of the question was not to project a simplification of the general debate, but to see to which degree said poster identified out of the book applications for the modern judicial system would stand applicable.

That being said, which large group and which iteration from said group do you say are ideal judicially for a nation?

Sufi. Ashari. Azhari.
That is one I'm willing to get behind that has a realistic chance of making itself manifest. Although slightly modernist.

A less likely but more appreciated preference would be the Neoplatonic Sufi Batiniyya of the Traditionalist School of Western Esotericism.

[Nusaresa]

My cousin's favorite Nasyid/Nasheed

Just wanted to share, since it is quite soothing even for me. Not to mention very catchy. Also Malay/Indonesian is very easy to speak and you'd probably be able to cover this Nasyid with ease just saying /totally not Malaysian bias here

[Jochizyd Republic]

My cousin's favorite Nasyid/Nasheed

Just wanted to share, since it is quite soothing even for me. Not to mention very catchy. Also Malay/Indonesian is very easy to speak and you'd probably be able to cover this Nasyid with ease just saying /totally not Malaysian bias here

Vey nice. Mash'allah.