Theocracy Discussion Thread

[Kaggeceria]

All of them.

Are you recognising the differences while saying this?

Yes.

Any government which is dictated by religion is terrible.

[Crysuko]

Isn't there the death penalty for leaving the religion, though?

There's difference of opinion. The majority is yes, but some Muslims believe there isn't (like me)

So I won't be executed, only oppressed and ostracised. Splendid.

[The Batorys]

And if you have to obey their religion's laws as well? How would you feel about that? Because that is the reality of a typical theocracy.

Wouldn't Islamic theocracies be typical as well?

In most theocracies, non-believers are subject to the dominant religion's rules, whether they want to be or not.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Wouldn't Islamic theocracies be typical as well?

In most theocracies, non-believers are subject to the dominant religion's rules, whether they want to be or not.

Unfortunately true.

[The Batorys]

It really doesn't. When you fuse religion and politics, it's bad for both. The usual nastiness of politics inevitably creeps into the religion just as surely as the religion dictates the politics.

So religions already have political aspects about them.

And such political aspects are a corrupting influence. The less political power a religion has, the less corrupt.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

There's difference of opinion. The majority is yes, but some Muslims believe there isn't (like me)

So I won't be executed, only oppressed and ostracised. Splendid.

Who said that?

[The Batorys]

You've mentioned this "something else" several times now but haven't specified what it actually is

Idk about the Christian ones, but you actually wouldn't be persecuted in an Islamic theocracy. Al-Islam supports freedom of religion.

I wanted to talk about theocracy according to Al-Islam. Or we could talk about that Democratic Theocracy that I brought up to you.

Well, we want to talk about theocracy in general.

And the hypocrisy of theocrats.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I wanted to talk about theocracy according to Al-Islam. Or we could talk about that Democratic Theocracy that I brought up to you.

Well, we want to talk about theocracy in general.

And the hypocrisy of theocrats.

Oh ok.

[The Batorys]

Well, we want to talk about theocracy in general.

And the hypocrisy of theocrats.

Oh ok.

The problem is that how you want a theocracy to work, how you think it should work, is not historically how theocracies actually work in practice.

[Kowani]

All of them.

Are you recognising the differences while saying this?

Any theocracy is shit.
All theocracies have been shit.
All current theocracies are shit.

Is this clear enough?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Oh ok.

The problem is that how you want a theocracy to work, how you think it should work, is not historically how theocracies actually work in practice.

Not all theocracies are the same though.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Are you recognising the differences while saying this?

Any theocracy is poop.
All theocracies have been poop.
All current theocracies are poop.

Is this clear enough?

The 2nd sentence is incorrect, but yes.

[Crysuko]

Any theocracy is poop.
All theocracies have been poop.
All current theocracies are poop.

Is this clear enough?

The 2nd sentence is incorrect, but yes.

Then provide an example of a theocracy that wasn't a backwards dumpster fire of a nation

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The 2nd sentence is incorrect, but yes.

Then provide an example of a theocracy that wasn't a backwards dumpster fire of a nation

Rashidun, Al-Andalus*, Islamic Sicily* I think, Mughal Empire (probs would depend on the ruler, but they are known for their religious tolerance)*

*I'll have to reread my stuff to refresh my memory

[Kowani]

Then provide an example of a theocracy that wasn't a backwards dumpster fire of a nation

Rashidun, Al-Andalus*, Islamic Sicily* I think, Mughal Empire (probs would depend on the ruler, but they are known for their religious tolerance)*

*I'll have to reread my stuff to refresh my memory

Rashudin was deubunked pretty well for you earlier in this thread.
A;-Andalus (Hey, we finally got a mention), was, although better than most of Medieval Europe, still not exactly a great place to live, and I don't know about the other two. I'll have to read up on them.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

-snip-

Seriously, do you ever argue with your own words? It's always just links with you, dude.

Anyways, yeah. That source addresses a single one of the points made in the Pact. And then the rest of it is just the same horseshit about "tHeIr OwN cOuRtS" which makes no bloody sense when you look at provisions like non-Muslims have to bloody move when a Muslim wants to sit where they're fuckin sitting or that they can't even wear a cross if they want to. What exactly does independent legal systems have to do with that?

As for the disputed authenticity of it, yes, it is disputed. That tends to happen in academics. That's how it works.

[Hakons]

States derive their authority from God, so they should govern according to His will. That doesn't equate to theocracy, however. Most pre-secular states were not theocracies, since they were not ruled by clergy.

[Vsyerossiya]

Depends on what is meant by theocracy.

Here is my preferred definition, based on Christianity. Theocracy is rule by religion, which can imply the Patriarch/pope ruling over saecular authorities, or not having any saecular authorities, and instead having the Church (Patriarch/pope) and his clergy constitute the sole authority of a state.
As such, I strongly disagree with theocracy.

I believe in the Byzantine symphonia, where Church and State are separate, but equal corresponding entities, with the Church being a society’s sole spiritual authority and the State being a society’s sole saecular authority.

If people consider symphonia to be a form of theocracy, then yes, I agree with theocracy. But if applying the first definition, then no.

Can you elaborate on the symphonia part please?

Here is a brief overview of the church-state relations in three major Christian traditions, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism (my comments about Protestantism are very general and based mostly on Anglican/Lutheran systems found in Europe, so please, if there are things I omit, don’t think that I’m doing so in bad faith).

Orthodoxy: Patriarch and Emperor (Church and State) are separate, equal, and co-operative.
Catholicism: Pope is higher than the Emperor(s), as demonstrated in Investure Controversy, and other developments
Protestantism: Emperor over Patriarch (see England, Sweden, and Denmark), with the Church acting as state “morality ministry”. Side note: Russian Emperor Peter I adopted that model when he abolished the Moscow Patriarchate.

Symphonia has been described in the English language (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) as happening when “a distinction is drawn between the imperial authority and the priesthood, the former being concerned with human affairs and the latter with things divine; the two are regarded as closely interdependent, but, at least in theory, neither is subordinated to the other”.

[Kowani]

Can you elaborate on the symphonia part please?

Here is a brief overview of the church-state relations in three major Christian traditions, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism (my comments about Protestantism are very general and based mostly on Anglican/Lutheran systems found in Europe, so please, if there are things I omit, don’t think that I’m doing so in bad faith).

Orthodoxy: Patriarch and Emperor (Church and State) are separate, equal, and co-operative.
Catholicism: Pope is higher than the Emperor(s), as demonstrated in Investure Controversy, and other developments
Protestantism: Emperor over Patriarch (see England, Sweden, and Denmark), with the Church acting as state “morality ministry”. Side note: Russian Emperor Peter I adopted that model when he abolished the Moscow Patriarchate.

Symphonia has been described in the English language (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) as happening when “a distinction is drawn between the imperial authority and the priesthood, the former being concerned with human affairs and the latter with things divine; the two are regarded as closely interdependent, but, at least in theory, neither is subordinated to the other”.

That's only Anglicanism and some forms of Lutheranism though. Most Protestant denominations don't have an overlapping leader.

[Vsyerossiya]

Here is a brief overview of the church-state relations in three major Christian traditions, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism (my comments about Protestantism are very general and based mostly on Anglican/Lutheran systems found in Europe, so please, if there are things I omit, don’t think that I’m doing so in bad faith).

Orthodoxy: Patriarch and Emperor (Church and State) are separate, equal, and co-operative.
Catholicism: Pope is higher than the Emperor(s), as demonstrated in Investure Controversy, and other developments
Protestantism: Emperor over Patriarch (see England, Sweden, and Denmark), with the Church acting as state “morality ministry”. Side note: Russian Emperor Peter I adopted that model when he abolished the Moscow Patriarchate.

Symphonia has been described in the English language (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) as happening when “a distinction is drawn between the imperial authority and the priesthood, the former being concerned with human affairs and the latter with things divine; the two are regarded as closely interdependent, but, at least in theory, neither is subordinated to the other”.

That's only Anglicanism and some forms of Lutheranism though. Most Protestant denominations don't have an overlapping leader.

I agree, which is why I made that point in my post. I called their system “Protestant” only because 1) Lutheranism is generally acknowledged as the first significant Reformation movement 2) there haven’t been any real state systems created by other denominations.

But you’re quite right that Anglicanism and Lutheranism aren’t the only options.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Then provide an example of a theocracy that wasn't a backwards dumpster fire of a nation

Rashidun, Al-Andalus*, Islamic Sicily* I think, Mughal Empire (probs would depend on the ruler, but they are known for their religious tolerance)*

*I'll have to reread my stuff to refresh my memory

1. Rashidun was not some haven for religious minorities as you keep trying to preach.

2. Under the Caliphate of Cordoba, Mozarabs were not permitted to build new churches or ring church bells and Christians were actually killing themselves in protest of the Caliphate's rule. Or how about the tale of Pelagius of Cordoba who was tortured and executed by Abd ar-Rahman for rejecting his advances? Or the less brutal but still fucked up narrative of how Pelagius was tortured and executed for refusing to convert to Islam? al-Andalus was better than many other places but it was not the perfect, "all people are protected" theocracy you would like.

3. Idk much about Sicily anyways so not gonna dispute that one.

4. Oh yeah. Mughals often were hella tolerant lol. So much so that you'd probably wanna invoke takfir against many of them. Hell, one of them (Akbar the Great) straight had the right idea and apostasized after abolishing jizya. He even made his own religion. If that's the theocracy you want, I'm a bit more open, my dude.

[Kubumba Tribe]

-snip-

Seriously, do you ever argue with your own words? It's always just links with you, dude.

Yes, I use stuff that can answer questions better than. I can.

Anyways, yeah. That source addresses a single one of the points made in the Pact. And then the rest of it is just the same horse about "tHeIr OwN cOuRtS" which makes no bloody sense when you look at provisions like non-Muslims have to bloody move when a Muslim wants to sit where they're sitting or that they can't even wear a cross if they want to. What exactly does independent legal systems have to do with that?

Idk, but that's messed up if true.

As for the disputed authenticity of it, yes, it is disputed. That tends to happen in academics. That's how it works.

Yeah, so it can't be used as 100% proof of something.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Rashidun, Al-Andalus*, Islamic Sicily* I think, Mughal Empire (probs would depend on the ruler, but they are known for their religious tolerance)*

*I'll have to reread my stuff to refresh my memory

1. Rashidun was not some haven for religious minorities as you keep trying to preach.

Prove it.

2. Under the Caliphate of Cordoba, Mozarabs were not permitted to build new churches or ring church bells and Christians were actually killing themselves in protest of the Caliphate's rule. Or how about the tale of Pelagius of Cordoba who was tortured and executed by Abd ar-Rahman for rejecting his advances? Or the less brutal but still fucked up narrative of how Pelagius was tortured and executed for refusing to convert to Islam? al-Andalus was better than many other places but it was not the perfect, "all people are protected" theocracy you would like.

Sources?

4. Oh yeah. Mughals often were tolerant lol. So much so that you'd probably wanna invoke takfir against many of them. One of them (Akbar the Great) straight had the right idea and apostasized after abolishing jizya. He even made his own religion. If that's the theocracy you want, I'm a bit more open, my dude.

Like I said, depends on the ruler. The Mughals were cool, but some leaders got astray. Also, about Akbar the Great, some historians say that he wasn't trying to create a new religion, rather that he was creating a new philosophy of religious tolerance between Muslims and Hindus. Hopefully this is true.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Rashidun, Al-Andalus*, Islamic Sicily* I think, Mughal Empire (probs would depend on the ruler, but they are known for their religious tolerance)*

*I'll have to reread my stuff to refresh my memory

Rashudin was deubunked pretty well for you earlier in this thread.

No it wasn't.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Seriously, do you ever argue with your own words? It's always just links with you, dude.

Yes, I use stuff that can answer questions better than. I can.

Anyways, yeah. That source addresses a single one of the points made in the Pact. And then the rest of it is just the same horse about "tHeIr OwN cOuRtS" which makes no bloody sense when you look at provisions like non-Muslims have to bloody move when a Muslim wants to sit where they're sitting or that they can't even wear a cross if they want to. What exactly does independent legal systems have to do with that?

Idk, but that's messed up if true.

As for the disputed authenticity of it, yes, it is disputed. That tends to happen in academics. That's how it works.

Yeah, so it can't be used as 100% proof of something.

Nothing is undisputed in academics. Look at you own fuckin ahadith. Even you dispute the authenticity of some of the ones your own scholars call sahih.

1. Rashidun was not some haven for religious minorities as you keep trying to preach.

Prove it.

2. Under the Caliphate of Cordoba, Mozarabs were not permitted to build new churches or ring church bells and Christians were actually killing themselves in protest of the Caliphate's rule. Or how about the tale of Pelagius of Cordoba who was tortured and executed by Abd ar-Rahman for rejecting his advances? Or the less brutal but still fucked up narrative of how Pelagius was tortured and executed for refusing to convert to Islam? al-Andalus was better than many other places but it was not the perfect, "all people are protected" theocracy you would like.

Sources?

4. Oh yeah. Mughals often were tolerant lol. So much so that you'd probably wanna invoke takfir against many of them. One of them (Akbar the Great) straight had the right idea and apostasized after abolishing jizya. He even made his own religion. If that's the theocracy you want, I'm a bit more open, my dude.

Like I said, depends on the ruler. The Mughals were cool, but some leaders got astray. Also, about Akbar the Great, some historians say that he wasn't trying to create a new religion, rather that he was creating a new philosophy of religious tolerance between Muslims and Hindus. Hopefully this is true.

1. I already did lol.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius_of_Córdoba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozarabs#Restrictions

3. We'll go through some of the Mughal emperors:

Babur, the first emperor - heavy drinker and user of opiates.

Humayun - actually fairly religious. In fact, he died because he tried to kneel on a staircase during the adhan and then fell down the stairs. Allah sure loved him apparently.

Akbar - we already went over him. And as for your thing about maybe he didn't form a new religion because some historians say so, that's hypocritical, no? Mr. "Yeah, so it can't be used as 100% proof of something." Considering several prominents of the time declared him blasphemous, I'd say you're standing on weak ground

Jahangir - This guy was fuckin weird, man. Roe, England's first ambassador to the Mughals and an individual close to the Emperor, even considered him to be atheist. Further, he was Jahangir's drinking partner. Man, these Mughals sure are a holy bunch. How is this a good theocracy from your view again?

Aurangzeb - another complicated one and probably the odd man out. He is quoted as having said that secular decrees can surpass sharia ones. However, he also gave Muslims many more benefits. Namely, the tax on Hindu merchants compared to Muslim ones was 5% compared to 2.5%. Hindus paid double what Muslims did. Then there was Tegh Bahadur who was executed for objecting to Aurangzeb's forced conversions.

So on and so on. Anyways, yeah. My point is that the Mughals were definitely not an Islamic theocracy and no, they did not respect religious minorities all the time.