The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[A m e n r i a]

1. It doesn't. I'm just telling you the difference between an Islamic theocracy and other ones.
2. Yes, you can.
3.
a) You can't force people into Islam
b) "Allah has a lot to answer from" lol to whom? The ruler of the omniverse, the omnipotent being that has existed before anything else doesn't have to explain Himself to anyone.
c) The notion that you think otherwise is laughable. Do I need to explain you about the verses that teach feeding the poor and orphaned? Or about the prohibition of murder, theft and robbery?

1. It will. Islamic theocracy are like all others. Ruled by religious leaders who are biased to their own religions and eventually more intolerant ones will do things to restrict religious tolerance and religious freedom.
2. Not really. These laws will intersect and just create confusion for everyone as people lie about their religion to get out of punishments.
3.
a). By making Islamic beliefs into laws your force people to do things they do want to do based on their beliefs.
b) If Allah is going to judge leaders on what their followers did he is a hypocrite plain and simple.
c). And do I need to explain to you that Islam is not morality and that having a purely Islamic government does not mean it would be benevolent?

1. Nope. Again, 2:256.
2. Not really. We can get creative.
3.
a) Friendly reminder that Shariah does not apply to non-Muslims. We can punish a Muslim for eating pork but not a Taoist.
b) You're a human, who knows little about the multiverse, and you dare call the ruler of the omniverse, creator of everything a hypocrite? That's just silly.
c) "Islam is not moral" lmao. Another friendly reminder that the angels to your sides record your actions and thus morality by Allah's standards, which will be used for or against you (depends on how nice you are) in the afterlife.

[Andsed]

1. It will. Islamic theocracy are like all others. Ruled by religious leaders who are biased to their own religions and eventually more intolerant ones will do things to restrict religious tolerance and religious freedom.
2. Not really. These laws will intersect and just create confusion for everyone as people lie about their religion to get out of punishments.
3.
a). By making Islamic beliefs into laws your force people to do things they do want to do based on their beliefs.
b) If Allah is going to judge leaders on what their followers did he is a hypocrite plain and simple.
c). And do I need to explain to you that Islam is not morality and that having a purely Islamic government does not mean it would be benevolent?

1. Nope. Again, 2:256.
2. Not really. We can get creative.
3.
a) Friendly reminder that Shariah does not apply to non-Muslims. We can punish a Muslim for eating pork but not a Taoist.
b) You're a human, who knows little about the multiverse, and you dare call the ruler of the omniverse, creator of everything a hypocrite? That's just silly.
c) "Islam is not moral" lmao. Another friendly reminder that the angels to your sides record your actions and thus morality by Allah's standards, which will be used for or against you (depends on how nice you are) in the afterlife.

1. And again religious leaders don´t tend to be the most tolerant to other religions despite what their religion may saw.
2. It is just unnecessary to have multiple sets of laws when one secular form of laws works fine.
3.
a). Your still forcing Muslims to follow parts of Islam they don´t want to follow. This also applies to everyone else other than Atheist.
b). I don´t need to be all knowing to know that judging leaders off their followers but then ignoring all the fucked up shit those who claimed to follow you did is hypocritical.
c). Ah religious threats. Nice. I am an Atheist I don´t give a shit what Allah thinks of me. Also if Allah is going to get mad because I said Islam is not pure morality then I don´t respect him.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Akhi A m e n r i a spittin the Haqq out here

[Alvecia]

1. It will. Islamic theocracy are like all others. Ruled by religious leaders who are biased to their own religions and eventually more intolerant ones will do things to restrict religious tolerance and religious freedom.
2. Not really. These laws will intersect and just create confusion for everyone as people lie about their religion to get out of punishments.
3.
a). By making Islamic beliefs into laws your force people to do things they do want to do based on their beliefs.
b) If Allah is going to judge leaders on what their followers did he is a hypocrite plain and simple.
c). And do I need to explain to you that Islam is not morality and that having a purely Islamic government does not mean it would be benevolent?

1. Nope. Again, 2:256.

This may shock you, but just because the holy books say to do or not do something doesn't mean that the average Muslim will follow that rule.
It happens with Christians and, despite how much you don't want to believe it, it happens with Muslims too.

[A m e n r i a]

1. Nope. Again, 2:256.
2. Not really. We can get creative.
3.
a) Friendly reminder that Shariah does not apply to non-Muslims. We can punish a Muslim for eating pork but not a Taoist.
b) You're a human, who knows little about the multiverse, and you dare call the ruler of the omniverse, creator of everything a hypocrite? That's just silly.
c) "Islam is not moral" lmao. Another friendly reminder that the angels to your sides record your actions and thus morality by Allah's standards, which will be used for or against you (depends on how nice you are) in the afterlife.

1. And again religious leaders don´t tend to be the most tolerant to other religions despite what their religion may saw.
2. It is just unnecessary to have multiple sets of laws when one secular form of laws works fine.
3.
a). Your still forcing Muslims to follow parts of Islam they don´t want to follow. This also applies to everyone else other than Atheist.
b). I don´t need to be all knowing to know that judging leaders off their followers but then ignoring all the fucked up shit those who claimed to follow you did is hypocritical.
c). Ah religious threats. Nice. I am an Atheist I don´t give a shit what Allah thinks of me. Also if Allah is going to get mad because I said Islam is not pure morality then I don´t respect him.

1. That's irrelevant. I'm just speakin' the truth.
2. But it doesn't.
3.
a) That's what Ijma and modernism is for. Keep what's relevant, archive what's not. Some Muslims might disagree with me, and you'll probably wonder which is relevant and which isn't, but that'll take another time to discuss.
b) Well, your thoughts are flawed. No, it's not just because you're atheist, but that's just human nature. We make mistakes, God doesn't.
c) I'm not threatening you, I'm informing you. Sorry if my bluntness makes you feel uncomfortable.

[A m e n r i a]

1. Nope. Again, 2:256.

This may shock you, but just because the holy books say to do or not do something doesn't mean that the average Muslim will follow that rule.
It happens with Christians and, despite how much you don't want to believe it, it happens with Muslims too.

Well yea,I swear all the fuckin' time. But I'm not a politician (yet), so the bar's lower for me. A sultan, on the other hand..

[Alvecia]

This may shock you, but just because the holy books say to do or not do something doesn't mean that the average Muslim will follow that rule.
It happens with Christians and, despite how much you don't want to believe it, it happens with Muslims too.

Well yea,I swear all the fuckin' time. But I'm not a politician (yet), so the bar's lower for me. A sultan, on the other hand..

Is no less imperfect than the average Muslim.

[Andsed]

1. And again religious leaders don´t tend to be the most tolerant to other religions despite what their religion may saw.
2. It is just unnecessary to have multiple sets of laws when one secular form of laws works fine.
3.
a). Your still forcing Muslims to follow parts of Islam they don´t want to follow. This also applies to everyone else other than Atheist.
b). I don´t need to be all knowing to know that judging leaders off their followers but then ignoring all the fucked up shit those who claimed to follow you did is hypocritical.
c). Ah religious threats. Nice. I am an Atheist I don´t give a shit what Allah thinks of me. Also if Allah is going to get mad because I said Islam is not pure morality then I don´t respect him.

1. That's irrelevant. I'm just speakin' the truth.
2. But it doesn't.
3.
a) That's what Ijma and modernism is for. Keep what's relevant, archive what's not. Some Muslims might disagree with me, and you'll probably wonder which is relevant and which isn't, but that'll take another time to discuss.
b) Well, your thoughts are flawed. No, it's not just because you're atheist, but that's just human nature. We make mistakes, God doesn't.
c) I'm not threatening you, I'm informing you. Sorry if my bluntness makes you feel uncomfortable.

1. Sure your book may otherwise but I am stating the fact that theocracy lead to restricted freedom
2. But it does. One set of secular laws treats everyone of different religions fairly.
3.
a). If a Muslim does not want follow a part of Islam that is their business not the states..
b). Oh really? So how is Allah judging leaders off their followers even though his followers have done awful things not hypercritical.
c.) I am not uncomfortable buddy. I just find it hilarious that you are now resorting to saying Allah is going to punish me in the afterlife instead of actually addressing my argument.

[A m e n r i a]

Well yea,I swear all the fuckin' time. But I'm not a politician (yet), so the bar's lower for me. A sultan, on the other hand..

Is no less imperfect than the average Muslim.

Well, to be a leader in Islam, one should be Siddiq (true), Amanah (trustworthy), Tabligh (informing?), and Fatonah (wise). Don't even get me started on standards for each of the above principle. So no, a Muslim leader is better than the average Muslim man.

1. That's irrelevant. I'm just speakin' the truth.
2. But it doesn't.
3.
a) That's what Ijma and modernism is for. Keep what's relevant, archive what's not. Some Muslims might disagree with me, and you'll probably wonder which is relevant and which isn't, but that'll take another time to discuss.
b) Well, your thoughts are flawed. No, it's not just because you're atheist, but that's just human nature. We make mistakes, God doesn't.
c) I'm not threatening you, I'm informing you. Sorry if my bluntness makes you feel uncomfortable.

1. Sure your book may otherwise but I am stating the fact that theocracy lead to restricted freedom
2. But it does. One set of secular laws treats everyone of different religions fairly.
3.
a). If a Muslim does not want follow a part of Islam that is their business not the states..
b). Oh really? So how is Allah judging leaders off their followers even though his followers have done awful things not hypercritical.
c.) I am not uncomfortable buddy. I just find it hilarious that you are now resorting to saying Allah is going to punish me in the afterlife instead of actually addressing my argument.

1. It's not a fact because it's not true.
2. Nope. It ignores the fact that God gave a set of rules for Muslims and ignores the afterlife. It forces everyone to follow the same (degenerate) laws regardless of their beleif. Not cool.
3.
a) We won't go anywhere with that attitude. The state is responsible for its people's well-being, both in this life and the next.
b) God is absolute and only He gets to say what is wrong amd what is right.
c) To be fair, God punishes everyone who hasn't earned His forgiveness (which isn't all that hard, considering that He is all merciful). Some get a slap on the wrist, others get damnation. Some take their punishment in this life, others in the next. To be fair, I've been on the receiving end of divine wrath (probably still am tbh).

[Alvecia]

Is no less imperfect than the average Muslim.

Well, to be a leader in Islam, one should be Siddiq (true), Amanah (trustworthy), Tabligh (informing?), and Fatonah (wise). Don't even get me started on standards for each of the above principle. So no, a Muslim leader is better than the average Muslim man.

That assumes that the leader in question followed those principles in the first place.

If a muslim leader fears the people, they will do what the people want, even if that is contrary to the holy books. If a muslim leader does not fear the people, then they can do whatever they want, even if it contradicts the holy books.

If anything, a muslim leader is more likely to deviate from the rules, because their positions as a leader is inherently more corruptible.

[A m e n r i a]

Well, to be a leader in Islam, one should be Siddiq (true), Amanah (trustworthy), Tabligh (informing?), and Fatonah (wise). Don't even get me started on standards for each of the above principle. So no, a Muslim leader is better than the average Muslim man.

That assumes that the leader in question followed those principles in the first place.

If a muslim leader fears the people, they will do what the people want, even if that is contrary to the holy books. If a muslim leader does not fear the people, then they can do whatever they want, even if it contradicts the holy books.

If anything, a muslim leader is more likely to deviate from the rules, because their positions as a leader is inherently more corruptible.

If said leader doesn't follow aforementioned rules, they wouldn't even get to be a candidate for leadership in the first place. *dabs

[Sahansahiye Iran]

And what exactly is the difference? The literal dictionary definition of a cult is "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious" (Merriam-Webster) or "a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people" (Cambridge). Public perception.

Christianity worships a man who claimed to be God and kneels before a representation of the torture device on which he was killed before eating bread and wine that represent his blood and body.

And worship of anything demonic is a cult? Define demonic. To a Muslim, wouldn't it all else be demonic? To me, Islam is demonic. Is it a cult now?

Hell, if you want to take the Oxford definition, basically any religion is a cult: "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."

> Islam
> Demonic



Mate, it doesn't take a guy who has poked around schools and hospitals built in the Colonial era just to find out if there are actually ghosts there to tell divine from demonic apart. Yes, I've done that, my teenage years were colourful.

Yes, demonic. If you consider my faith to be demonic, why is yours any different? But yes. The fact that you went into some old buildings makes you a demonologist or some shit.

But nice job ignoring literally every point, too. You've got the whole selective reading thing mastered.

[Andsed]

Is no less imperfect than the average Muslim.

Well, to be a leader in Islam, one should be Siddiq (true), Amanah (trustworthy), Tabligh (informing?), and Fatonah (wise). Don't even get me started on standards for each of the above principle. So no, a Muslim leader is better than the average Muslim man.

1. Sure your book may otherwise but I am stating the fact that theocracy lead to restricted freedom
2. But it does. One set of secular laws treats everyone of different religions fairly.
3.
a). If a Muslim does not want follow a part of Islam that is their business not the states..
b). Oh really? So how is Allah judging leaders off their followers even though his followers have done awful things not hypercritical.
c.) I am not uncomfortable buddy. I just find it hilarious that you are now resorting to saying Allah is going to punish me in the afterlife instead of actually addressing my argument.

1. It's not a fact because it's not true.
2. Nope. It ignores the fact that God gave a set of rules for Muslims and ignores the afterlife. It forces everyone to follow the same (degenerate) laws regardless of their beleif. Not cool.
3.
a) We won't go anywhere with that attitude. The state is responsible for its people's well-being, both in this life and the next.
b) God is absolute and only He gets to say what is wrong amd what is right.
c) To be fair, God punishes everyone who hasn't earned His forgiveness (which isn't all that hard, considering that He is all merciful). Some get a slap on the wrist, others get damnation. Some take their punishment in this life, others in the next. To be fair, I've been on the receiving end of divine wrath (probably still am tbh).

1. Theocracy makes way to easy to restrict religious freedom which is why it is not a good form of government.
2. Secular laws makes it so that things are equal for all religion which is why it works. If you want follow your religion in private you can do so as long as you don’t break the law.
3.
a.) no it’s not. The state is not responsible for personal beliefs and should not be forcing anyone to follow any part of their religion if they don’t want to.
b.) that is a cop out
c.) I don’t think your god even exist so why the hell did you bring up the fact my statement might anger a deity who may or may not exist?

[Andsed]

That assumes that the leader in question followed those principles in the first place.

If a muslim leader fears the people, they will do what the people want, even if that is contrary to the holy books. If a muslim leader does not fear the people, then they can do whatever they want, even if it contradicts the holy books.

If anything, a muslim leader is more likely to deviate from the rules, because their positions as a leader is inherently more corruptible.

If said leader doesn't follow aforementioned rules, they wouldn't even get to be a candidate for leadership in the first place. *dabs

First off dabbing really? Now as for your argument this is historically untrue. People can easily hide things and can break the rules once they are in power.

[Alvecia]

That assumes that the leader in question followed those principles in the first place.

If a muslim leader fears the people, they will do what the people want, even if that is contrary to the holy books. If a muslim leader does not fear the people, then they can do whatever they want, even if it contradicts the holy books.

If anything, a muslim leader is more likely to deviate from the rules, because their positions as a leader is inherently more corruptible.

If said leader doesn't follow aforementioned rules, they wouldn't even get to be a candidate for leadership in the first place. *dabs

In a world where people don't follow rules I see no reason why not.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

That assumes that the leader in question followed those principles in the first place.

If a muslim leader fears the people, they will do what the people want, even if that is contrary to the holy books. If a muslim leader does not fear the people, then they can do whatever they want, even if it contradicts the holy books.

If anything, a muslim leader is more likely to deviate from the rules, because their positions as a leader is inherently more corruptible.

If said leader doesn't follow aforementioned rules, they wouldn't even get to be a candidate for leadership in the first place. *dabs

Ever considered moving to Iran? Guardian Council would love you.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This may shock you, but just because the holy books say to do or not do something doesn't mean that the average Muslim will follow that rule.
It happens with Christians and, despite how much you don't want to believe it, it happens with Muslims too.

Well yea,I swear all the f*ckin' time. But I'm not a politician (yet), so the bar's lower for me. A sultan, on the other hand..

https://sunnah.com/urn/2212700

Well, to be a leader in Islam, one should be Siddiq (true), Amanah (trustworthy), Tabligh (informing?), and Fatonah (wise). Don't even get me started on standards for each of the above principle. So no, a Muslim leader is better than the average Muslim man.

That assumes that the leader in question followed those principles in the first place.

If a muslim leader fears the people, they will do what the people want, even if that is contrary to the holy books. If a muslim leader does not fear the people, then they can do whatever they want, even if it contradicts the holy books.

If anything, a muslim leader is more likely to deviate from the rules, because their positions as a leader is inherently more corruptible.

A Muslim leader is supposed to follow Allah SWT, not the people. So those scenarios don't really fit. As for the 2nd scenario (and the 1st scenario too kinda sorta), if the Muslim leader is acting contrary to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah and doesn't correct himself, he should step down.

If said leader doesn't follow aforementioned rules, they wouldn't even get to be a candidate for leadership in the first place. *dabs

In a world where people don't follow rules I see no reason why not.

People in this world don't follow the rules? Like at all?

[Andsed]

Well yea,I swear all the f*ckin' time. But I'm not a politician (yet), so the bar's lower for me. A sultan, on the other hand..

https://sunnah.com/urn/2212700

That assumes that the leader in question followed those principles in the first place.

If a muslim leader fears the people, they will do what the people want, even if that is contrary to the holy books. If a muslim leader does not fear the people, then they can do whatever they want, even if it contradicts the holy books.

If anything, a muslim leader is more likely to deviate from the rules, because their positions as a leader is inherently more corruptible.

A Muslim leader is supposed to follow Allah SWT, not the people. So those scenarios don't really fit. As for the 2nd scenario (and the 1st scenario too kinda sorta), if the Muslim leader is acting contrary to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah and doesn't correct himself, he should step down.

In a world where people don't follow rules I see no reason why not.

People in this world don't follow the rules? Like at all?

You are very naive to think a leader would step down because they are not following their religion. Politicians don´t really care what their religions say.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Your idea of not being able to change religions while being prosecuted for a crime violates article 18 of the UDHR.

Ok

When I refer to someone being the subject of Takfir, I'm asking what would occur if other didn't consider the person muslim, but they themselves did.

Then we will find out who's telling the truth using the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.

In response to your "Ok," I feel it's worth pointing out that discrimination of any sort violates article 7 of the UDHR.

Ok

[Zizou]

Your idea of not being able to change religions while being prosecuted for a crime violates article 18 of the UDHR.

Ok

When I refer to someone being the subject of Takfir, I'm asking what would occur if other didn't consider the person muslim, but they themselves did.

Then we will find out who's telling the truth using the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.

In response to your "Ok," I feel it's worth pointing out that discrimination of any sort violates article 7 of the UDHR.

Ok

Human rights are rather important, are they not?

The problem is that the reason sects exist in the first place is a different interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Ok

Then we will find out who's telling the truth using the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.

Ok

Human rights are rather important, are they not?

God-given human rights are, yes.

The problem is that the reason sects exist in the first place is a different interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

True but like you said in that jihaad debate with Fartsniffage, just because someone thinks they're right doesn't mean they actually are.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Human rights are rather important, are they not?

God-given human rights are, yes.

The problem is that the reason sects exist in the first place is a different interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

True but like you said in that jihaad debate with Fartsniffage, just because someone thinks they're right doesn't mean they actually are.

And who decides who is right in this regard?

[Kowani]

God-given human rights are, yes.

True but like you said in that jihaad debate with Fartsniffage, just because someone thinks they're right doesn't mean they actually are.

And who decides who is right in this regard?

I’ll preempt him: “Holy Qu’ran.”

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And who decides who is right in this regard?

I’ll preempt him

Don't

[Sahansahiye Iran]

I’ll preempt him

Don't

I mean, were you going to answer differently?