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

[Sahansahiye Iran]

And if they refuse to leave, just shoot them all or put them in special showers, right?

Hey, comparing people to Hitler just makes you loose the argument. Please refrain.

It completely works here, though. There's a majority who want to ethnically cleanse the minority. That's what Hitler exactly did. If someone is doing nearly exactly what Hitler wanted to do, then I'm going to compare them to Hitler. That's how logic works.

[United States of Oceania]

They can seek asylum in the West.

Yeah... no. You're not being very reasonable. All you're doing is proving the right's fears of what Muslims wish to do to their countries. Especially in places like Burma where there are political movements of Buddhists murdering Muslims for this exact reason, because they fear they'll be kicked out of their own country.

Burma is a whole different situation. Muslims are a persecuted minority there, they are not the majority.

[United States of Oceania]

Hey, comparing people to Hitler just makes you loose the argument. Please refrain.

It completely works here, though. There's a majority who want to ethnically cleanse the minority. That's what Hitler exactly did. If someone is doing nearly exactly what Hitler wanted to do, then I'm going to compare them to Hitler. That's how logic works.

Hitler actually wanted to kill ethno-religious minorities, while I would like to give them the opportunity to go live in a place where they would be free and tolerated. So the comparison is wrong.

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

Hey, comparing people to Hitler just makes you loose the argument. Please refrain.

It completely works here, though. There's a majority who want to ethnically cleanse the minority. That's what Hitler exactly did. If someone is doing nearly exactly what Hitler wanted to do, then I'm going to compare them to Hitler. That's how logic works.

Myeah, alright. I just won't do so myself because I consider it poor taste. But I can understand. You know Strauss, Hitler's political rival in the movement, called for mass deportations as the solution? Humorous.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Yeah... no. You're not being very reasonable. All you're doing is proving the right's fears of what Muslims wish to do to their countries. Especially in places like Burma where there are political movements of Buddhists murdering Muslims for this exact reason, because they fear they'll be kicked out of their own country.

Burma is a whole different situation. Muslims are a persecuted minority there, they are not the majority.

And under your unicorn-esque Muslim superstate, we'd have tenfold the amount of persecuted minorities, and some MUSLIMS would also oppose the Caliphate.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

It completely works here, though. There's a majority who want to ethnically cleanse the minority. That's what Hitler exactly did. If someone is doing nearly exactly what Hitler wanted to do, then I'm going to compare them to Hitler. That's how logic works.

Hitler actually wanted to kill ethno-religious minorities, while I would like to give them the opportunity to go live in a place where they would be free and tolerated. So the comparison is wrong.

Not really. Initially, Hitler simply wanted to deport the Jews. This proved unfeasible so he resorted to killing them instead. Hence why I asked if you would resort to killing them if it proved unfeasible to deport them.

[Pilarcraft]

Hitler actually wanted to kill ethno-religious minorities, while I would like to give them the opportunity to go live in a place where they would be free and tolerated. So the comparison is wrong.

Not really. Initially, Hitler simply wanted to deport the Jews. This proved unfeasible so he resorted to killing them instead. Hence why I asked if you would resort to killing them if it proved unfeasible to deport them.

Honestly I can't wait see him defend Hitler too. Heaven knows Shurjah used to.

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

Yeah... no. You're not being very reasonable. All you're doing is proving the right's fears of what Muslims wish to do to their countries. Especially in places like Burma where there are political movements of Buddhists murdering Muslims for this exact reason, because they fear they'll be kicked out of their own country.

Burma is a whole different situation. Muslims are a persecuted minority there, they are not the majority.

But you would wish the parts that are predominately Muslim to join your pan-Islamic state, would you not? You would wish for them to subject the majority to the will of the minority, as the persecutors themselves fear.

[United States of Oceania]

Except the fact that Jews lived for a long time in the Ottoman Empire and actually fled to there due to said state being most tolerant towards the Jews. Only during the 19th century did this change.

Suggesting The Ottoman Empire, especially After Suleiman the Lawful, was theocratic in any way other than the name. (You want to see how Jews get treated under actual Islamic Governments? See Jews in Abbasid, Umawid, and Rashidun Caliphates. It's not pretty.

Andalusia was the place where Jews were treated the best in the entire world history, and Andalusia was a theocratic islamic state.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

It completely works here, though. There's a majority who want to ethnically cleanse the minority. That's what Hitler exactly did. If someone is doing nearly exactly what Hitler wanted to do, then I'm going to compare them to Hitler. That's how logic works.

Myeah, alright. I just won't do so myself because I consider it poor taste. But I can understand. You know Strauss, Hitler's political rival in the movement, called for mass deportations as the solution? Humorous.

Hitler did, too. He encouraged Jewish emigration and when that didn't work, he looked at a plan to deport them all to Madagascar. When that proved unfeasible, he resorted to killing them. Hence my question to Oceania.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Suggesting The Ottoman Empire, especially After Suleiman the Lawful, was theocratic in any way other than the name. (You want to see how Jews get treated under actual Islamic Governments? See Jews in Abbasid, Umawid, and Rashidun Caliphates. It's not pretty.

Andalusia was the place where Jews were treated the best in the entire world history, and Andalusia was a theocratic islamic state.

So, no comment on the Pact of Umar? Cool.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Suggesting The Ottoman Empire, especially After Suleiman the Lawful, was theocratic in any way other than the name. (You want to see how Jews get treated under actual Islamic Governments? See Jews in Abbasid, Umawid, and Rashidun Caliphates. It's not pretty.

Andalusia was the place where Jews were treated the best in the entire world history, and Andalusia was a theocratic islamic state.

That's because the Christian and Jewish minorities in Al-Andalus were so substantial (I'd even argue that they were a majority pre-Taifa period) that its Muslim rulers knew that if they attempted ANYTHING that would frustrate those groups, they'd get booted out in an instant.

[Pilarcraft]

Andalusia was the place where Jews were treated the best in the entire world history, and Andalusia was a theocratic islamic state.

That's because the Christian and Jewish minorities in Al-Andalus were so substantial (I'd even argue that they were a majority pre-Taifa period) that its Muslim rulers knew that if they attempted ANYTHING that would frustrate those groups, they'd get booted out in an instant.

(I mean, technically they did get booted in the end anyway)

[Aulus Maximus]

Except the fact that Jews lived for a long time in the Ottoman Empire and actually fled to there due to said state being most tolerant towards the Jews. Only during the 19th century did this change.

Suggesting The Ottoman Empire, especially After Suleiman the Lawful, was theocratic in any way other than the name. (You want to see how Jews get treated under actual Islamic Governments? See Jews in Abbasid, Umawid, and Rashidun Caliphates. It's not pretty.

It's true that it was not always good and that churches and synagogues were seized at some points. However I doubt the Islamic basis for seizing churches and synagogues as, if jizyah is payed, that they (christians and jews) are allowed to worship in their churches or synagogues and are allowed to follow their law. Actions committed by Muslims do not always reflect Islamic law as I cannot see Islamic basis for seizing churches and synagogues.

Jews and Christians would have the right to worship their religion freely under an Islamic state

And what about... Sikhs, Hindus, Semitic Pagans, Buddhists, followers Tengri, Eastern Animists / Shamanists, African Fetishist religions, Atheists, Deists, etc. I feel like those may not be so welcome in your nice and pretty state.

From Islamqa

Based on that, if one of the polytheists (non-Ahlul Kitab) asks us to accept the jizyah from him and allow him to continue to follow his religion, and we see that there is a purpose to be served by that, then we may do that.

This is the view favoured by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him). Ash-Sharh al-Mumti‘ (8/58)

For more information, please see: al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Kuwaitiyyah (15/166)

This means that any non-Muslim must pay jizyah in order to live in Muslim lands. In return they can live in accordance to their law, are protected and are excluded from military service (ie conscription). And;

Jizyah is only to be accepted from adult men who are able to work.

Jizyah is not taken from boys who have not yet reached the age of puberty, or women, or from the insane. There is no difference of scholarly opinion on this point.

It is also not taken from very old men, the blind or the chronically sick.

And it is not taken from the poor who are unable to pay it.

For more information, please see: al-Mughni (13/216-221) and al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Kuwaitiyyah (15/149 ff)

And Allah knows best.

[United States of Oceania]

Hey, comparing people to Hitler just makes you loose the argument. Please refrain.

The Idea of a state based on anything other than civic nationality is by default something that will inevitably lead to being compared to Hitler though. Because Non-Nation States are necessarily going to do that. Some Nation-states too.

The Reign of Terror in France was based upon Civic Nationalism, but it doesn't seem less violent than Hitler to me.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

That's because the Christian and Jewish minorities in Al-Andalus were so substantial (I'd even argue that they were a majority pre-Taifa period) that its Muslim rulers knew that if they attempted ANYTHING that would frustrate those groups, they'd get booted out in an instant.

(I mean, technically they did get booted in the end anyway)

Well, yeah, but it took hundreds of years, and the further south the Christian kingdoms moved, the higher the percentage of the population being Muslim was (kind of understandable after hundreds of years of Islamic rule).

[Pilarcraft]

The Idea of a state based on anything other than civic nationality is by default something that will inevitably lead to being compared to Hitler though. Because Non-Nation States are necessarily going to do that. Some Nation-states too.

The Reign of Terror in France was based upon Civic Nationalism, but it doesn't seem less violent than Hitler to me.

Bolded for you, since you are incapable of reading by yourself.
Also. Suggesting The Reign of Terror is even remotely close to the form of violence Hitler pulled is dumb beyond relief.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

The Idea of a state based on anything other than civic nationality is by default something that will inevitably lead to being compared to Hitler though. Because Non-Nation States are necessarily going to do that. Some Nation-states too.

The Reign of Terror in France was based upon Civic Nationalism, but it doesn't seem less violent than Hitler to me.

There ya go, Pilar.

The Reign of Terror killed 16,594 over a 2 year period. Hitler launched a war that killed millions and conducted a campaign of genocide that killed 11 million over a less than 10 year period.

[Pilarcraft]

The Reign of Terror in France was based upon Civic Nationalism, but it doesn't seem less violent than Hitler to me.

There ya go, Pilar.

The Reign of Terror killed 16,594 over a 2 year period. Hitler launched a war that killed millions and conducted a campaign of genocide that killed 11 million over a less than 10 year period.

I mean, he's still not defending Hitler, right? right?

[United States of Oceania]

Burma is a whole different situation. Muslims are a persecuted minority there, they are not the majority.

But you would wish the parts that are predominately Muslim to join your pan-Islamic state, would you not? You would wish for them to subject the majority to the will of the minority, as the persecutors themselves fear.

Burma is not a Muslim majority country, so it would not be included in a Muslim State.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Suggesting The Ottoman Empire, especially After Suleiman the Lawful, was theocratic in any way other than the name. (You want to see how Jews get treated under actual Islamic Governments? See Jews in Abbasid, Umawid, and Rashidun Caliphates. It's not pretty.

Andalusia was the place where Jews were treated the best in the entire world history, and Andalusia was a theocratic islamic state.

I'll ask again: what if the "kuffar" refuse to leave when you attempt to force them?

[Sahansahiye Iran]

There ya go, Pilar.

The Reign of Terror killed 16,594 over a 2 year period. Hitler launched a war that killed millions and conducted a campaign of genocide that killed 11 million over a less than 10 year period.

I mean, he's still not defending Hitler, right? right?

Eh. That one was pretty damn close, my dude.

[United States of Oceania]

The Reign of Terror in France was based upon Civic Nationalism, but it doesn't seem less violent than Hitler to me.

There ya go, Pilar.

The Reign of Terror killed 16,594 over a 2 year period. Hitler launched a war that killed millions and conducted a campaign of genocide that killed 11 million over a less than 10 year period.

Robespierre and Hitler were both criminals.

[Pilarcraft]

There ya go, Pilar.

The Reign of Terror killed 16,594 over a 2 year period. Hitler launched a war that killed millions and conducted a campaign of genocide that killed 11 million over a less than 10 year period.

Robespierre and Hitler were both criminals.

A Thief and an Axe Murderer are both criminals. Comparing Hitler's 15+ Direct Millions to The Terror's 15,000 is hilariously disproportional.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

There ya go, Pilar.

The Reign of Terror killed 16,594 over a 2 year period. Hitler launched a war that killed millions and conducted a campaign of genocide that killed 11 million over a less than 10 year period.

Robespierre and Hitler were both criminals.

We're not arguing that. We're arguing your assertion that the Reign of Terror was as violent as Hitler's regime. I know. Basic logic is hard. It's alright. You'll get it eventually.