Theocracy Discussion Thread

[Flawless Walruses]

I detest theocracy in theory and in practise, but the prohibition on interest is something I've been warming to ever since the bailouts, and I realised how much risk (and more so, fragility) the government-backed "financial industry" externalizes onto the people.

Mohammed was a merchant before he entered the government business, and a free market fanatic even by modern American standards ("prices rise and fall in accordance with the will of God"), but he drew the line at state-subsidised usury.

If you're an entrepreneur in need of capital, find investors willing to take shares, was his system. If you can't find investors, your business probably sucks. Yes, Arabia and East Africa were doing the whole share-market thing a millennium before the West.

If you have capital to invest, find a business to take a share in (risks as well as rewards). If you're not willing to wear some of the risks, you don't deserve the rewards.

Either way, don't come howling to the government asking for a taxpayer-funded service, be it a bailout after a popular loss of confidence, or state-violence-backed enforcement on a compound-interest scam gone wrong.

Interest-bearing financial instruments make money and pay taxes in the short term, but the medium-term costs in enforcement costs, economic instability and political instability are not worth it (similiar to gambling and pyramid selling schemes). The only reason usury was legalised in early modern Europe (and its imitators since) is a combination of lack of foresight with massive political corruption.

My apologies for the slightly late reply, but I haven't checked the forums in a couple days.

By banning interest, we're not talking about the government, the government barely charges it. We're talking about banning banks from charging interests on loans. Not just to businesses, which , as you say, can make capital in other ways, but also to people. So no more mortgages. No more loans for hospital bills. It gets worse from there. You are welcome to argue that interest should be banned, but everyone who wants to buy a house isn't going to than you for it.

Its very simple - if you have a mortgage, you don't own the house. The bank does.
If you rent a house, you don't own it, the landlord does.

Why should governments spend money, take on unquantifiable risks, and accept systemic economic fragility just to favour the bank over the landlord?

IRL, as someone looking at buying property in the near future, I can tell you I don't thank the banking system for inflating the market with loans.

If one debtor can't pay, for whatever reason, the moneylender can use the government to repossess the asset. If all the debtors can't pay, the bank runs howling to the government for a taxpayer-funded bailout. And if the bailout doesn't suffice, the country slides into economic chaos.

At every step, risk and fragility is externalised from the bank onto somebody else - debtor or taxpayer or both.

Usury was illegal in the Western world for centuries longer than it has been legal. Our ancestors were quite familiar with the systemic problems it creates. And so was Mohammed.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Muslim-majority countries that are astray from the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah are not Islamic.

Ah, the no true Scotsman Islamic fallacy that you and Kubumba keep trotting out when confronted with proof of the existence of Islamic countries.

You haven't proved that.

The Constitution of Iran isn't the holy book of Muslims.

Yet they derived their constitution and many of their laws from it. A country doesn’t need to be use the Quran itself as it’s law book to be an Islamic country, deriving their laws and governance from it is enough.

Actually it does.
But besides that, there's a bunch of other things that Iran does that kicks it out of the "Islamic Republic".

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Ah, the no true Scotsman Islamic fallacy that you and Kubumba keep trotting out when confronted with proof of the existence of Islamic countries.

You haven't proved that.

It's very easy to prove when their laws are derived directly from the Quran.

Yet they derived their constitution and many of their laws from it. A country doesn’t need to be use the Quran itself as it’s law book to be an Islamic country, deriving their laws and governance from it is enough.

Actually it does.
But besides that, there's a bunch of other things that Iran does that kicks it out of the "Islamic Republic".

Like being a secular nation where all religions are equal under the law?

No wait, they don't do that. They're a nation by Muslims of Muslims for Muslims, down to their institutions. When your nation's leader is an Islamic scholar, and is required to be an Islamic scholar, you are beyond all doubt in an Islamic nation.

[Frievolk]

You haven't proved that.

It's very easy to prove when their laws are derived directly from the Quran.

Actually it does.
But besides that, there's a bunch of other things that Iran does that kicks it out of the "Islamic Republic".

Like being a secular nation where all religions are equal under the law?

No wait, they don't do that. They're a nation by Muslims of Muslims for Muslims, down to their institutions. When your nation's leader is an Islamic scholar, and is required to be an Islamic scholar, you are beyond all doubt in an Islamic nation.

Not very relevant, but fun Fact, the person in charge of the Office of "Rahbar" (Leader) doesn't need to be a citizen of Iran. Only a "cleric that fits the criteria" as accepted by a assembly of experts.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's very easy to prove when their laws are derived directly from the Quran.

Like being a secular nation where all religions are equal under the law?

No wait, they don't do that. They're a nation by Muslims of Muslims for Muslims, down to their institutions. When your nation's leader is an Islamic scholar, and is required to be an Islamic scholar, you are beyond all doubt in an Islamic nation.

Not very relevant, but fun Fact, the person in charge of the Office of "Rahbar" (Leader) doesn't need to be a citizen of Iran. Only a "cleric that fits the criteria" as accepted by a assembly of experts.

This is how Spain got coopted by the Habsburgs.

[Frievolk]

Not very relevant, but fun Fact, the person in charge of the Office of "Rahbar" (Leader) doesn't need to be a citizen of Iran. Only a "cleric that fits the criteria" as accepted by a assembly of experts.

This is how Spain got coopted by the Habsburgs.

And how Iran got a Hindi (I mean Indian, not Hindu) and an Iraqi as its two most recent heads of state, one of which is the incumbent.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Ah, the no true Scotsman Islamic fallacy that you and Kubumba keep trotting out when confronted with proof of the existence of Islamic countries.

You haven't proved that.

I have, you just don’t like the answer.

Yet they derived their constitution and many of their laws from it. A country doesn’t need to be use the Quran itself as it’s law book to be an Islamic country, deriving their laws and governance from it is enough.

Actually it does.
But besides that, there's a bunch of other things that Iran does that kicks it out of the "Islamic Republic".

Again, the “No True Scotsman Islamic” fallacy, just because they don’t fit your idealistic view on what an Islamic nation is doesn’t mean that they aren’t Islamic countries. Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Mauritania are still Islamic nations and are internationally and self recognized as such and run themselves as such. You can stick your fingers in your ears and keep your eyes closed all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter that Islamic nations do exist.

[Kubumba Tribe]

You haven't proved that.

I have, you just don’t like the answer.

Actually it does.
But besides that, there's a bunch of other things that Iran does that kicks it out of the "Islamic Republic".

Again, the “No True Scotsman Islamic” fallacy, just because they don’t fit your idealistic view on what an Islamic nation is doesn’t mean that they aren’t Islamic countries. Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Mauritania are still Islamic nations and are internationally and self recognized as such and run themselves as such. You can stick your fingers in your ears and keep your eyes closed all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter that Islamic nations do exist.

If they don't follow the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah they aren't Islamic. Since no Muslim-majority countries follow the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah (at least not 100%), they aren't Islamic. Just because they call themselves Islamic doesn't mean that they are. By that logic North Korea is a Democracy because it calls itself democratic.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If they don't follow the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah they aren't Islamic.

Says you and only you.

Since no Muslim-majority countries follow the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah (at least not 100%), they aren't Islamic.

Like any religious belief, you don’t have to follow your holy book 100% to be considered a member of that religion or belief, and in the same vein, Islamic countries don’t have to follow the Quran with 100% exactness to be an Islamic nation. Your view of what an Islamic nation is or has to be to be considered one is idealistic and not representative of reality.

Also, a line of Pakistan’s constitution would like to have a word with you: “All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions”

Not to mention Iran’s constitution would also like a word with you.

Just because they call themselves Islamic doesn't mean that they are.

Says you, but reality says otherwise.

By that logic North Korea is a Democracy because it calls itself democratic.

Their democracy may be a complete and utter sham, but they could still be considered a democracy, garbage though it is.

[Saranidia]

If they don't follow the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah they aren't Islamic.

Says you and only you.

Since no Muslim-majority countries follow the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah (at least not 100%), they aren't Islamic.

Like any religious belief, you don’t have to follow your holy book 100% to be considered a member of that religion or belief, and in the same vein, Islamic countries don’t have to follow the Quran with 100% exactness to be an Islamic nation. Your view of what an Islamic nation is or has to be to be considered one is idealistic and not representative of reality.

Also, a line of Pakistan’s constitution would like to have a word with you: “All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions”

Not to mention Iran’s constitution would also like a word with you.

Just because they call themselves Islamic doesn't mean that they are.

Says you, but reality says otherwise.

By that logic North Korea is a Democracy because it calls itself democratic.

Their democracy may be a complete and utter sham, but they could still be considered a democracy, garbage though it is.

And Pakistan had a female head of government(unlike the USA) and has the death penalty for rape, I believe Iran has the death penalty for rapists and more women go to university than men but I also believe they kill gay people which is bad.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Says you and only you.


Like any religious belief, you don’t have to follow your holy book 100% to be considered a member of that religion or belief, and in the same vein, Islamic countries don’t have to follow the Quran with 100% exactness to be an Islamic nation. Your view of what an Islamic nation is or has to be to be considered one is idealistic and not representative of reality.

Also, a line of Pakistan’s constitution would like to have a word with you: “All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions”

Not to mention Iran’s constitution would also like a word with you.


Says you, but reality says otherwise.


Their democracy may be a complete and utter sham, but they could still be considered a democracy, garbage though it is.

And Pakistan had a female head of government(unlike the USA) and has the death penalty for rape, I believe Iran has the death penalty for rapists and more women go to university than men but I also believe they kill gay people which is bad.

But they're Islamic because they say so. /s

[Saranidia]

And Pakistan had a female head of government(unlike the USA) and has the death penalty for rape, I believe Iran has the death penalty for rapists and more women go to university than men but I also believe they kill gay people which is bad.

I'm saying they support women's rights.

[Saranidia]

And Pakistan had a female head of government(unlike the USA) and has the death penalty for rape, I believe Iran has the death penalty for rapists and more women go to university than men but I also believe they kill gay people which is bad.

But they're Islamic because they say so. /s

The thing about killing gay people for being gay is unislamic though in my interpretation.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Says you and only you.


Like any religious belief, you don’t have to follow your holy book 100% to be considered a member of that religion or belief, and in the same vein, Islamic countries don’t have to follow the Quran with 100% exactness to be an Islamic nation. Your view of what an Islamic nation is or has to be to be considered one is idealistic and not representative of reality.

Also, a line of Pakistan’s constitution would like to have a word with you: “All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions”

Not to mention Iran’s constitution would also like a word with you.


Says you, but reality says otherwise.


Their democracy may be a complete and utter sham, but they could still be considered a democracy, garbage though it is.

And Pakistan had a female head of government(unlike the USA) and has the death penalty for rape, I believe Iran has the death penalty for rapists and more women go to university than men but I also believe they kill gay people which is bad.

Yeah, more women go to university. And then after university, they can't find a job because no one hires women due to societal sexism and the woman is again forced to be a housewife or homeless. As of 2017, women are only 19% of the workforce. That's barely a 7% increase since 1990. Just 21% of all women are employed, as of 2009. As of 2001, just 17.3% of professors were female. It's a lot more complicated than just "there's more women in college".

[Hurdergaryp]

And Pakistan had a female head of government(unlike the USA) and has the death penalty for rape, I believe Iran has the death penalty for rapists and more women go to university than men but I also believe they kill gay people which is bad.

Yeah, more women go to university. And then after university, they can't find a job because no one hires women due to societal sexism and the woman is again forced to be a housewife or homeless. As of 2017, women are only 19% of the workforce. That's barely a 7% increase since 1990. Just 21% of all women are employed, as of 2009. As of 2001, just 17.3% of professors were female. It's a lot more complicated than just "there's more women in college".

A higher education for women in such a society is little more than added value as a potential spouse, which seems like a waste of potential in my opinion.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

And Pakistan had a female head of government(unlike the USA) and has the death penalty for rape, I believe Iran has the death penalty for rapists and more women go to university than men but I also believe they kill gay people which is bad.

But they're Islamic because they say so. /s

“But they’re not Islamic because I say so!”

[Kubumba Tribe]

But they're Islamic because they say so. /s

“But they’re not Islamic because I say so!”

Not what I said.

[Frievolk]

“But they’re not Islamic because I say so!”

Not what I said.

It's literally what you said. Suggesting that none of the countries currently classified as ones with Islam as State-religion that get their laws from said religion is Islamic is merely a sign of "No true Scotsman" boosted to the max. (And of course, Any illusion of any of them not being Islamic, from their respective denominations' Point of View is merely borne out of you wanting to protect your religion from the cutting criticism it rightfully deserves. That or you being unintentionally obtuse, which is twice as worse)

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

“But they’re not Islamic because I say so!”

Not what I said.

Not what I said.

It's literally what you said. Suggesting that none of the countries currently classified as ones with Islam as State-religion that get their laws from said religion is Islamic is merely a sign of "No true Scotsman" boosted to the max. (And of course, Any illusion of any of them not being Islamic, from their respective denominations' Point of View is merely borne out of you wanting to protect your religion from the cutting criticism it rightfully deserves. That or you being unintentionally obtuse, which is twice as worse)

^Pretty much what Fievolk said, and I have to echo him in saying that it’s quite literally what you said. They aren’t Islamic because you said so, because they don’t fit precisely with how you think an Islamic nation should be.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Not what I said.

It's literally what you said. Suggesting that none of the countries currently classified as ones with Islam as State-religion that get their laws from said religion is Islamic is merely a sign of "No true Scotsman" boosted to the max. (And of course, Any illusion of any of them not being Islamic, from their respective denominations' Point of View is merely borne out of you wanting to protect your religion from the cutting criticism it rightfully deserves. That or you being unintentionally obtuse, which is twice as worse)

^Pretty much what Fievolk said, and I have to echo him in saying that it’s quite literally what you said. They aren’t Islamic because you said so, because they don’t fit precisely with how you think an Islamic nation should be.

It's not based on what I think

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

^Pretty much what Fievolk said, and I have to echo him in saying that it’s quite literally what you said. They aren’t Islamic because you said so, because they don’t fit precisely with how you think an Islamic nation should be.

It's not based on what I think

It very much is, your view on what’s Islamic is not very likely to be shared with every other Muslim out there, especially considering the Islamic nations currently out there don’t even share your views on what’s Islamic. But that’s where your “No True Scotsman” fallacy on what’s Islamic comes out where you say they’re not Islamic because they don’t fit within your own particular opinion on what an Islamic country is, the very definition of the fallacy.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It's not based on what I think

It very much is, your view on what’s Islamic is not very likely to be shared with every other Muslim out there, especially considering the Islamic nations currently out there don’t even share your views on what’s Islamic. But that’s where your “No True Scotsman” fallacy on what’s Islamic comes out where you say they’re not Islamic because they don’t fit within your own particular opinion on what an Islamic country is, the very definition of the fallacy.

I don't have a definition of what is and isn't Islamic, the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah do that for me.

[A m e n r i a]

It's not based on what I think

It very much is, your view on what’s Islamic is not very likely to be shared with every other Muslim out there, especially considering the Islamic nations currently out there don’t even share your views on what’s Islamic. But that’s where your “No True Scotsman” fallacy on what’s Islamic comes out where you say they’re not Islamic because they don’t fit within your own particular opinion on what an Islamic country is, the very definition of the fallacy.

It doesn't really matter what nations that claim to be Islamic do. What matters is reality. No matter what we Muslims do, the Quran remains the same. If we're naughty, God would punish us. If we're nice, God will reward us, just like any other person.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

No matter what we Muslims do, the Quran remains the same.

Sure. But unfortunately, the Quran is a book. With words. Words can have different meanings and connotations. That leads to different interpretations. So, the whole "Quran and Sunnah" thing is pretty much horseshit unless you absolutely, positively take every word in the Quran at its absolute face value. And even that's hard to do. As we see with Amin and his "light beating" of wives.

[A m e n r i a]

No matter what we Muslims do, the Quran remains the same.

Sure. But unfortunately, the Quran is a book. With words. Words can have different meanings and connotations. That leads to different interpretations. So, the whole "Quran and Sunnah" thing is pretty much horseshit unless you absolutely, positively take every word in the Quran at its absolute face value. And even that's hard to do. As we see with Amin and his "light beating" of wives.

Well, by "beating" your wife/wives there is so many rules to the point that you could replace the word with "light, painless tap" and not change the law. It's the spirit of the law that's more important anyways, following everything to the letter would either make you a fundamentalist or just really weird. There needs to be a balance.