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

[Dahyan]

I've got a news flash for you. The Caliphates were founded after the Prophet Muhammad died. Muhammad is about as guilty to the Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman slave trade as Jesus is guilty of the genocide on the Aztec Empire.

>Umayyad founded by guy who personally knew Muhammad
>Spanish.conquest of the Americas 1,500 years after Jesus lived

Mkay. Sure. Accurate comparison.

Founded by a guy who was an enemy of Muhammad for most of his life, was known for his corruption and launched a Fitna urpising against the legitimate Caliph, yes.

What's your point?

[Frievolk]

Yeah, and I stand by my statement. The fact you think that's not true is just hilarious on many levels (especially since it's essentially the basic reason why the Caliphates went into conquering sprees)

I've got a news flash for you. The Caliphates were founded after the Prophet Muhammad died. Muhammad is about as guilty to the Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman slave trade as Jesus is guilty of the genocide on the Aztec Empire.

What is hilarious is, of course, your lack of knowledge about the history of post-Islamic Arabia. Muhammad's caliphate (or whatever you want to call it) started the slave trade upon uniting Arabia into a single state. Rashidun, Ummayad, and Abbasid Caliphates only increased the "pool of resources" for the trade by their extensive conquests, the slave trade itself was started by Muhammad, and before the conquest of Mecca.
(Of course, slavery itself existed before Muhammad, but never in the form of a massive trade system)

[Dahyan]

A lot of them already like the community where I come from.

Though I also suppose it doesn't help that there are right wing ultranationalists and then left wing really liberal secularists on here as well. Both are heavily opposed to Islam.

True, but what MOSTLY does not help is that the average muslim is perceived to be a pathetic parasitic piece of violent shit - and that muslims have done their utmost best to confirm that said stereotype is completely accurate and true.

Which of course leads to people pointing at Islam as being the cause.

Show the world that muslims are good and useful people who strongly condemn bad things done by their brethren and aid them to return to the right path - and people will stop associating Islam and shittyness with eachother. People might even try to read to Quran without bias.

Or not.

There have been thousands of fatwas, demonstrations, condemnations and activities by Muslims against terrorism and takfiri extremism.

Not to mention that the majority of the people fighting those groups are Muslim.

Not that it makes any difference to those who have already decided that they want to hate Islam.

[New haven america]

Let's just ignore the fact that he conquered Mecca and most of the Arabian Peninsula, or the fact that the Caliphates started almost immediately after his death.

1. What does conquering Mecca have to do with slave trade? 2. The city wasn't even taken militarily.

3. It's irrelevant when the Caliphate started.

1. IDK, maybe because he himself was a slave owner/trader and conquerors are known for taking slaves when they conquer.
2. Yeah, so that's why he marched into the city with over 10000 soldiers and did participate in fighting in the city.
3. No it's not, because they were simply continuing his military expansion after his death. Or did you forget the fact that he took over most of Arabia militarily?

[Dahyan]

1. What does conquering Mecca have to do with slave trade? 2. The city wasn't even taken militarily.

3. It's irrelevant when the Caliphate started.

1. IDK, maybe because he himself was a slave owner/trader and conquerors are known for taking slaves when they conquer.
2. Yeah, so that's why he marched into the city with over 10000 soldiers and did participate in fighting in the city.
3. No it's not, because they were simply continuing his military expansion after his death. Or did you forget the fact that he took over most of Arabia militarily?

1) He wasn't, and there are no sources documenting the enslaving of the Meccan population. On the contrary, even people like Abu Sufyan and Hind were forgiven for their crimes.

2) That is objectively wrong. Mecca was taken without a fight aftee a negotiated treaty. This is well documented by both scholars and historians.

3) Muhammad never even conquered all of the Peninsula. There wasn't even any major expansion after Mecca was taken up until the Prophet's death. And even the expansion under the four "Caliphs" succeeding Muhammad had nothing to do with slavery as such.

[Herskerstad]

True, but what MOSTLY does not help is that the average muslim is perceived to be a pathetic parasitic piece of violent shit - and that muslims have done their utmost best to confirm that said stereotype is completely accurate and true.

Which of course leads to people pointing at Islam as being the cause.

Show the world that muslims are good and useful people who strongly condemn bad things done by their brethren and aid them to return to the right path - and people will stop associating Islam and shittyness with eachother. People might even try to read to Quran without bias.

Or not.

There have been thousands of fatwas, demonstrations, condemnations and activities by Muslims against terrorism and takfiri extremism.

Not to mention that the majority of the people fighting those groups are Muslim.

Not that it makes any difference to those who have already decided that they want to hate Islam.

While I won't give credence to the third point, as it often is never quite as easy at that. And the second part exists largely from well, muslims more often have to deal with muslims than the world does in the same way China has to deal with the Chinese. It is entirely true that the more virtuous parts of the collective goes ignored.

I am talking of the likes of the early Afghan voters who defied the Taliban to go into elections at enormous personal risk. Or the various people fighting against repressive laws and increasing human rights despite the dangers of so in various parts of the middle east. The volunteers that went to fight against Isis and the like. Also the people that, while they have no obligation to protest terrorism in the west, often do in very reassuring displays. People ranging from kind to heroic by any metric. Few of them even get the social pass they should be more than entitled towards and that's awful. Of course it does not help when you have terror against this community that often reveals how ill thought out and shallow it is in the likes of say, random people strangling Sikhs and abominable things like that.

That being said, there are significant problems in the Muslim community. Extremism and we are not just talking about that which rubs the poor, but also the wealthy and educated exists and has become a thing to fear globally. Parts of the muslim community has responded less than desirable (including parts of the nonmuslim media I'd add) in regards to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of comedy, ect. The rather umbrella term of Sunnism also makes it hard to find established factions that condemn violent means, and there's some trends historically that are just not good. The reform-ability of Islamic ethics is also in question given it's origins which at the very least have strong interpretative lines that are dubious towards western standards.

Essentially, both sides clambering to ultimates at times has forgotten the nuance in between.

[Al-Zalaam]

salaam brothers

[Herskerstad]

salaam brothers

Welcome to the thread.

[Al-Zalaam]

salaam brothers

Welcome to the thread.

Shukran

[Kubumba Tribe]

salaam brothers

Wa'Alaikum Assalam

[Al-Zalaam]

To rely on Satanic nations is shirk and is disbelief in al-Islam.

If apostasy is necessary for flourishing then al-Islam is an affront to order and civilization, it's that simple.

No it is not.

An Islamic Caliphate is the closest thing to a civilized society.

[Al-Zalaam]

If apostasy is necessary for flourishing then al-Islam is an affront to order and civilization, it's that simple.

No it is not.

An Islamic Caliphate is the closest thing to a civilized society.

If we can unite all the middle east into a single entity and stop relying on the evil West, we'd be better off. They've contributed to much chaos in the middle east. The Muslims should restore khalifat

[Darussalam]

If apostasy is necessary for flourishing then al-Islam is an affront to order and civilization, it's that simple.

No it is not.

An Islamic Caliphate is the closest thing to a civilized society.

Somewhat, only if it apostatized, like the Umayyads, Abbasids, etc. etc. Its predecessors, the Righteous Caliphs, were notable for nothing but as apocalyptic heralds that wiped out two great civilizations at that time.

Considering that you believe that a caliphate should always prioritize "al-Islam" and therefore solidarity with the wretched, the vile, the incompetent, and the corrupt of the earth over Satanic material concerns of well-being and flourishing, obviously that means supporting civilization and human flourishing is a shirk.

[Al-Zalaam]

No it is not.

An Islamic Caliphate is the closest thing to a civilized society.

Somewhat, only if it apostatized, like the Umayyads, Abbasids, etc. etc. Its predecessors, the Righteous Caliphs, were notable for nothing but as apocalyptic heralds that wiped out two great civilizations at that time.

Considering that you believe that a caliphate should always prioritize "al-Islam" and therefore solidarity with the wretched, the vile, the incompetent, and the corrupt of the earth over Satanic material concerns of well-being and flourishing, obviously that means supporting civilization and human flourishing is a shirk.

No. It's shirk to rely on evil.

Allah is the provider to the middle east. I mean, after all, he gave us oil.

[Darussalam]

No it is not.

An Islamic Caliphate is the closest thing to a civilized society.

If we can unite all the middle east into a single entity and stop relying on the evil West, we'd be better off. They've contributed to much chaos in the middle east. The Muslims should restore khalifat

I'm not even opposed to the idea of restoration of a multiethnic theocratic regime of sort that united the Middle East. It's just that once it consolidated power, it must choose between embarking on suicidal millenarian apocalyptism, or focused on the present and the long-term future as if the Mahdi will never come and humanity can flourish for the next ten thousand years. If it emphasized the former, then it is not civilized - it is not different from communism, and must be eradicated.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Az-Zalaam, you just made a new friend

[Herskerstad]

No it is not.

An Islamic Caliphate is the closest thing to a civilized society.

If we can unite all the middle east into a single entity and stop relying on the evil West, we'd be better off. They've contributed to much chaos in the middle east. The Muslims should restore khalifat

The obstacles of that are too numerous to count.

I mean aside from the region being thoroughly powerpoliticked. How would you reconsile Iran and Saudi Arabia? How about Iraq and the Kurdic people? Egypt and Palestine? Turkey and Syria? Are you expanding into India as well? Is this the all areas that have once identified as Islamic by the ruler kind of Kalifa?

[Dahyan]

No it is not.

An Islamic Caliphate is the closest thing to a civilized society.

Somewhat, only if it apostatized, like the Umayyads, Abbasids, etc. etc. Its predecessors, the Righteous Caliphs, were notable for nothing but as apocalyptic heralds that wiped out two great civilizations at that time.

Considering that you believe that a caliphate should always prioritize "al-Islam" and therefore solidarity with the wretched, the vile, the incompetent, and the corrupt of the earth over Satanic material concerns of well-being and flourishing, obviously that means supporting civilization and human flourishing is a shirk.

Are you actually implying the damn Umayyads were better than the Rashidun?

[Dahyan]

If we can unite all the middle east into a single entity and stop relying on the evil West, we'd be better off. They've contributed to much chaos in the middle east. The Muslims should restore khalifat

I'm not even opposed to the idea of restoration of a multiethnic theocratic regime of sort that united the Middle East. It's just that once it consolidated power, it must choose between embarking on suicidal millenarian apocalyptism, or focused on the present and the long-term future as if the Mahdi will never come and humanity can flourish for the next ten thousand years. If it emphasized the former, then it is not civilized - it is not different from communism, and must be eradicated.

There is no necessary contradiction between the two. We can focus on the present and do our best for now while still expecting the coming of the Mahdi.

[Izaakia]

Somewhat, only if it apostatized, like the Umayyads, Abbasids, etc. etc. Its predecessors, the Righteous Caliphs, were notable for nothing but as apocalyptic heralds that wiped out two great civilizations at that time.

Considering that you believe that a caliphate should always prioritize "al-Islam" and therefore solidarity with the wretched, the vile, the incompetent, and the corrupt of the earth over Satanic material concerns of well-being and flourishing, obviously that means supporting civilization and human flourishing is a shirk.

No. It's shirk to rely on evil.

Allah is the provider to the middle east. I mean, after all, he gave us oil.

Woo, oil! A resource that’s going to become useless before you extract it all. That’s gonna cause unrest when taxes have to be raised and people have to actually do a job for once.

[Saranidia]

If we can unite all the middle east into a single entity and stop relying on the evil West, we'd be better off. They've contributed to much chaos in the middle east. The Muslims should restore khalifat

The obstacles of that are too numerous to count.

I mean aside from the region being thoroughly powerpoliticked. How would you reconsile Iran and Saudi Arabia? How about Iraq and the Kurdic people? Egypt and Palestine? Turkey and Syria? Are you expanding into India as well? Is this the all areas that have once identified as Islamic by the ruler kind of Kalifa?

There is power politicking and divisions but everyone would benefit from being an unstoppable unified block.

It would be the biggest country,
the biggest oil producer, have the biggest army
and also no ethnic
group would be the majority so it would be hard to be racist.

Furthermore It wouldn't mean a Calpih
made each and every decision.

I would have it like the USA in one sense at least:
The Caliph being the President, the
Majilis E Shura Al Khalifah
being the House of Representatives,
a group of Ulema
acting as the Supreme Court
but also various states like Palestine, Libya,
Egypt and Syria
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan(including Kashmir, Pakistan basically meaning the Muslim majority nations of the Indian sub-continent with the exception of nations I mention elsewhere)
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran,
Yemen, Emirati Arabia, Oman, Morocco, Algeria,
Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Lebanon,
Somalia, Nigeria, the Maldives, Brunei, Rohingya State(
Land taken from the Burmese government and /or army used to establish a state)
and Marituania.

Each state will have it's own Shurta(police) and military regiments. They may also have their own official languages with Arabic as the Caliphate lingua franca/

They will all pledge allegiance to the Office of the Caliph.
They will share wealth and
the glory and burdens of war.

They would be a super-power under this model at least in about 20 years.

[Herskerstad]

The obstacles of that are too numerous to count.

I mean aside from the region being thoroughly powerpoliticked. How would you reconsile Iran and Saudi Arabia? How about Iraq and the Kurdic people? Egypt and Palestine? Turkey and Syria? Are you expanding into India as well? Is this the all areas that have once identified as Islamic by the ruler kind of Kalifa?

There is power politicking and divisions but everyone would benefit from being an unstoppable unified block.

It would be the biggest country,
the biggest oil producer, have the biggest army
and also no ethnic
group would be the majority so it would be hard to be racist.

Furthermore It wouldn't mean a Calpih
made each and every decision.

I would have it like the USA in one sense at least:
The Caliph being the President, the
Majilis E Shura Al Khalifah
being the House of Representatives,
a group of Ulema
acting as the Supreme Court
but also various states like Palestine, Libya,
Egypt and Syria
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan(including Kashmir, Pakistan basically meaning the Muslim majority nations of the Indian sub-continent with the exception of nations I mention elsewhere)
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran,
Yemen, Emirati Arabia, Oman, Morocco, Algeria,
Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Lebanon,
Somalia, Nigeria, the Maldives, Brunei, Rohingya State(
Land taken from the Burmese government and /or army used to establish a state)
and Marituania.

Each state will have it's own Shurta(police) and military regiments. They may also have their own official languages with Arabic as the Caliphate lingua franca/

They will all pledge allegiance to the Office of the Caliph.
They will share wealth and
the glory and burdens of war.

They would be a super-power under this model at least in about 20 years.

I'll give you credit. That's a pretty detailed response with a good bit of thought into it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I have to say, this is a more interesting discussion than all the drama of the last two days.

If we could keep the level of drama down and the level of discussion up that'd be fantastic.

That said:

The obstacles of that are too numerous to count.

I mean aside from the region being thoroughly powerpoliticked. How would you reconsile Iran and Saudi Arabia? How about Iraq and the Kurdic people? Egypt and Palestine? Turkey and Syria? Are you expanding into India as well? Is this the all areas that have once identified as Islamic by the ruler kind of Kalifa?

There is power politicking and divisions but everyone would benefit from being an unstoppable unified block.

It would be the biggest country,
the biggest oil producer, have the biggest army
and also no ethnic
group would be the majority so it would be hard to be racist.

Furthermore It wouldn't mean a Calpih
made each and every decision.

I would have it like the USA in one sense at least:
The Caliph being the President, the
Majilis E Shura Al Khalifah
being the House of Representatives,
a group of Ulema
acting as the Supreme Court
but also various states like Palestine, Libya,
Egypt and Syria
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan(including Kashmir, Pakistan basically meaning the Muslim majority nations of the Indian sub-continent with the exception of nations I mention elsewhere)
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran,
Yemen, Emirati Arabia, Oman, Morocco, Algeria,
Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Lebanon,
Somalia, Nigeria, the Maldives, Brunei, Rohingya State(
Land taken from the Burmese government and /or army used to establish a state)
and Marituania.

Each state will have it's own Shurta(police) and military regiments. They may also have their own official languages with Arabic as the Caliphate lingua franca/

They will all pledge allegiance to the Office of the Caliph.
They will share wealth and
the glory and burdens of war.

They would be a super-power under this model at least in about 20 years.

While I agree with generally being a united front in the Middle East, I don't think you guys would have much luck with it. To do so would imply giving up national autonomy and sovereignty, and there's many interests in the region that are not for giving up their comfy positions, so far as I am aware.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I have to say, this is a more interesting discussion than all the drama of the last two days.

If we could keep the level of drama down and the level of discussion up that'd be fantastic.

That said:

There is power politicking and divisions but everyone would benefit from being an unstoppable unified block.

It would be the biggest country,
the biggest oil producer, have the biggest army
and also no ethnic
group would be the majority so it would be hard to be racist.

Furthermore It wouldn't mean a Calpih
made each and every decision.

I would have it like the USA in one sense at least:
The Caliph being the President, the
Majilis E Shura Al Khalifah
being the House of Representatives,
a group of Ulema
acting as the Supreme Court
but also various states like Palestine, Libya,
Egypt and Syria
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan(including Kashmir, Pakistan basically meaning the Muslim majority nations of the Indian sub-continent with the exception of nations I mention elsewhere)
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran,
Yemen, Emirati Arabia, Oman, Morocco, Algeria,
Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Lebanon,
Somalia, Nigeria, the Maldives, Brunei, Rohingya State(
Land taken from the Burmese government and /or army used to establish a state)
and Marituania.

Each state will have it's own Shurta(police) and military regiments. They may also have their own official languages with Arabic as the Caliphate lingua franca/

They will all pledge allegiance to the Office of the Caliph.
They will share wealth and
the glory and burdens of war.

They would be a super-power under this model at least in about 20 years.

While I agree with generally being a united front in the Middle East, I don't think you guys would have much luck with it. To do so would imply giving up national autonomy and sovereignty, and there's many interests in the region that are not for giving up their comfy positions, so far as I am aware.

Yes, that's an obstacle of re-establishing the Khilafah.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Btw the Khilafah isn't just for the Middle East. It's for all the Muslim World.