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

[Democratic Communist Federation]

What is the Sharifian Caliphate? Never heard of it. Though I'll give an answer anyway. In Ahmadiyya doctrine, when a khalifa is elected, it is entirely the will of God. So basically god chosing a Khalifa.

خِلَافَة شَرِيفِيَّة, H̲ilāfaẗ Šarīfiyyaẗ. It is not a recognized Caliphate, but it ran between 1924–1925. On the other hand, there were some overlaps between recognized Caliphates and the Ahmadi Caliphate, as well.

We believe Muawiddya (probably spelt that terribly wrong) of the founder of the Umayyad Caliphate to be a political khalifa along with the Khalifas that came after him. Nevertheless, he was a righteous manike the other companions of Muhammad.

Okay, ty.

[The Eternal Aulus]

I'd say that the Medinan Constitution would be a good starting point for any pluralistic society with Muslims in it.

Furthermore any political party, movement or state based on Quran and Sunnah, by whatever means, is considered Islamic in my opinion. That includes the most ''democratic'' to the most ''extremist'' in my opinion. That said, violence I do condemn. The thing is that I'll not be a hypocrite calling the only things I consider Islamic due to my interpretation of said Quran and Sunnah as unislamic.

And God knows best. We should strive to apply Shari'a in our daily lives with or without an Islamic state. In the end, we are responsible for our own judgement. You don't need an Islamic state to keep things halal between you and the opposite sex, or in financial transactions, oaths, marriages divorces (granted Shari'a courts exist) and so forth.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

For the irreligious, yes.

Secularism does not mean an absence of religion. The concept was developed by William of Ockham who argued, in a Roman Catholic context (since he was a devout Roman Catholic priest), that the Papacy should not interfere in affairs of state or the sciences. Ockham's views were predecessors to the non-establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, i.e., Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. However, many, though not all, of the founding fathers of the U.S. were deeply religious.

[Jolthig]

I'd say that the Medinan Constitution would be a good starting point for any pluralistic society with Muslims in it.

Furthermore any political party, movement or state based on Quran and Sunnah, by whatever means, is considered Islamic in my opinion. That includes the most ''democratic'' to the most ''extremist'' in my opinion. That said, violence I do condemn. The thing is that I'll not be a hypocrite calling the only things I consider Islamic due to my interpretation of said Quran and Sunnah as unislamic.

And God knows best. We should strive to apply Shari'a in our daily lives with or without an Islamic state. In the end, we are responsible for our own judgement. You don't need an Islamic state to keep things halal between you and the opposite sex, or in financial transactions, oaths, marriages divorces (granted Shari'a courts exist) and so forth.

Ameen.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I'd say that the Medinan Constitution would be a good starting point for any pluralistic society with Muslims in it.

Furthermore any political party, movement or state based on Quran and Sunnah, by whatever means, is considered Islamic in my opinion. That includes the most ''democratic'' to the most ''extremist'' in my opinion. That said, violence I do condemn. The thing is that I'll not be a hypocrite calling the only things I consider Islamic due to my interpretation of said Quran and Sunnah as unislamic.

And God knows best. We should strive to apply Shari'a in our daily lives with or without an Islamic state. In the end, we are responsible for our own judgement. You don't need an Islamic state to keep things halal between you and the opposite sex, or in financial transactions, oaths, marriages divorces (granted Shari'a courts exist) and so forth.

True, but you're only talking about personal Shari'ah. You're correct in that Muslims don't need an Islamic government to follow said things your post, but we do need an Islamic government to establish criminal Shari'ah (theft, zina, lying, etc). Also, just because an Islamic political party says there obeying the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah doesn't mean they actually are.

For the irreligious, yes.

Secularism does not mean an absence of religion. The concept was developed by William of Ockham who argued, in a Roman Catholic context (since he was a devout Roman Catholic priest), that the Papacy should not interfere in affairs of state or the sciences. Ockham's views were predecessors to the non-establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, i.e., Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. However, many, though not all, of the founding fathers of the U.S. were deeply religious.

Ok. That's still haram if you're applying it to Muslims.

[New haven america]

Of course. I agree with you that secularism in the Western sense, is not Islamic, but it allows us to freely practice our faith just like the First Amendment says. There are plenty of things I disprove of the Western countries, yet I still advocate for secularism.

There is no secularism in Al-Islam. Except for the irreligious.

Then Allah favors semi-secularism for an Islamic government then. Especially historically.

Here's a definition of secularism (there are two but I'm focusing on one):

From Google:
sec·u·lar·ism
ˈsekyələˌrizəm/
noun
noun: secularism
the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
"he believes that secularism means no discrimination against anybody in the name of religion"

The holy Quran says (2:256):

"There is no compulsion in religion."

So you believe in secularism to a certain extent for non Muslims.

For the irreligious, yes.

Secularism isn't the absence of religion, it's the freedom to believe whatever you want and not be beholden to state religions.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

There is no secularism in Al-Islam. Except for the irreligious.

For the irreligious, yes.

Secularism isn't the absence of religion, it's the freedom to believe whatever you want and not be beholden to state religions.

Ok. That's still haram if you're applying it to Muslims.

[The Eternal Aulus]

True, but you're only talking about personal Shari'ah. You're correct in that Muslims don't need an Islamic government to follow said things your post, but we do need an Islamic government to establish criminal Shari'ah (theft, zina, lying, etc).

Which falls under public shari'a that is including financial transactions, marriages etc. You're thinking of hudud and while hudud is part of Shari' a it's so, so, so magnificently small compared to other things. Again I do support Shari'a courts in Western countries, just like there are Jewish courts, but I accept that hudud will not be accepted in the West. And that's fine, forgiving is more appropriate than committing hudud anyway.

Also, just because an Islamic political party says there obeying the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah doesn't mean they actually are.

Your point is? You're strawmanning. I said that if a party follows their viewpoints based on Quran and Sunnah then that party is Islamic for me. No matter how the interpretation.

For the irreligious, yes.

Ok. That's still haram if you're applying it to Muslims.

It's not. Actually it's very conform to Islam considering the terms like ikraa fid deen in the Quran (ie no compulsion in religion, or rather lifestyle).

[El-Amin Caliphate]

True, but you're only talking about personal Shari'ah. You're correct in that Muslims don't need an Islamic government to follow said things your post, but we do need an Islamic government to establish criminal Shari'ah (theft, zina, lying, etc).

Which falls under public shari'a that is including financial transactions, marriages etc. You're thinking of hudud and while hudud is part of Shari' a it's so, so, so magnificently small compared to other things. Again I do support Shari'a courts in Western countries, just like there are Jewish courts, but I accept that hudud will not be accepted in the West. And that's fine, forgiving is more appropriate than committing hudud anyway.

Hudud is just as much a part of Shari'ah as divorce is, and everything about it must be implemented.

Your point is? You're strawmanning. I said that if a party follows their viewpoints based on Quran and Sunnah then that party is Islamic for me. No matter how the interpretation.

"Islamic for me" =/= "Islamic according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.

Actually it's very conform to Islam considering the terms like ikraa fid deen in the Quran (ie no compulsion in religion, or rather lifestyle).

Like I told Jolthig, that has nothing to do with "Shari'ah (hudud particularly, since that's the topic right now) shouldn't be enforced on Muslims"

[Jolthig]

Amin, as I promised yesterday, we will have a scholarly discussion on that verse in al-Nisa. I will prerpare my response for why we don't need physical Sharia in the West.

[New haven america]

Secularism isn't the absence of religion, it's the freedom to believe whatever you want and not be beholden to state religions.

Ok. That's still haram if you're applying it to Muslims.

Fucking breathing the wrong way could be considered haram.

That's not an argument anymore, come up with something better.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Breathing the wrong way could be considered haram.

Daleel (evidence)?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So, I have a question:

Of the people here, who doesn't support Sharia Law in the west being enforced/put in by immigrants, and who does, and why so?

I do, because the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah lay out the way for Muslims to live our lives, and to deliberately and knowingly go against that is sinful.

[Jolthig]

So, I have a question:

Of the people here, who doesn't support Sharia Law in the west being enforced/put in by immigrants, and who does, and why so?

Not me.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So, I have a question:

Of the people here, who doesn't support Sharia Law in the west being enforced/put in by immigrants, and who does, and why so?

Not me.

You have to say why.

[New haven america]

Not me.

You have to say why.

No they don't

[New haven america]

Breathing the wrong way could be considered haram.

Daleel (evidence)?

It was a joke. My try and do better part still stands though.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

You have to say why.

No they don't

Well, that was the question in EL's post, soooooo....

[Kowani]

So, I have a question:

Of the people here, who doesn't support Sharia Law in the west being enforced/put in by immigrants, and who does, and why so?

Absolutely not. Sharia is, frankly, a brutal and quite often, misogynistic system. Things like human rights? Yeah, not under Sharia. So no, I’m quite good, thank you.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I do, because the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah lay out the way for Muslims to live our lives, and to deliberately and knowingly go against that is sinful.

So say a Muslim doesn't want to do it, do they deserve to be killed or harmed, etc. in that country.

They don't have a choice in the matter. The law is the law. As for the punishment, that depends. Is the Muslim actively, publicly speaking out against Shari'ah? Are they holding protests, holding seminars, writing books, etc. against it?

Does the religion deserve to supercede the laws of a secular majority Christian nation?

Yes, only for Muslims, tho.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So, I have a question:

Of the people here, who doesn't support Sharia Law in the west being enforced/put in by immigrants, and who does, and why so?

Absolutely not. Sharia is, frankly, a brutal and quite often, misogynistic system. Things like human rights? Yeah, not under Sharia. So no, I’m quite good, thank you.

And you don't know Shari'ah.

[Proctopeo]

Absolutely not. Sharia is, frankly, a brutal and quite often, misogynistic system. Things like human rights? Yeah, not under Sharia. So no, I’m quite good, thank you.

And you don't know Shari'ah.

At this point, it's more clear that you don't know Sharia law.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

But that is a complex law code that would feel unfair to many, people would begin demanding christian law

Correct, and under an Islamic government, the Christians would be required to follow Biblical law.

and would create a messy, inefficient, and corrupt law code.
It's impractical and unfeasible at best.

It happened once, it can happen again.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Correct, and under an Islamic government, the Christians would be required to follow Biblical law.

It happened once, it can happen again.

1: I'm talking about the tons of legal subsystems, it'd be a nightmare to manage and logistically unfeasible, and far too prone to judicial and human rights abuses.
2: Under a fully Muslim state, yes. But society's legal system has evolved, as has population, etc.

For example 19th century economics aren't applicable to the modern world and is a disaster based on uneducated folk.

They'd lead us to disaster, as this system also would.

I repeat, if it happened once, it can happen again. Give me an example.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

1: I'm talking about the tons of legal subsystems, it'd be a nightmare to manage and logistically unfeasible, and far too prone to judicial and human rights abuses.
2: Under a fully Muslim state, yes. But society's legal system has evolved, as has population, etc.

For example 19th century economics aren't applicable to the modern world and is a disaster based on uneducated folk.

They'd lead us to disaster, as this system also would.

I repeat, if it happened once, it can happen again. Give me an example.

I'm still waiting for your example of a successful application of Sharia where it did not apply to non-Muslims in the last thousand years.