NationStates

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:1 time, to which a Sahabi (RA) rebuked.

So, they were not a perfect Islamic theocracy? What happened to "rightly guided"?

They were rightly guided. Why you think that means they were infallible idk.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:So, they were not a perfect Islamic theocracy? What happened to "rightly guided"?

They were rightly guided. Why you think that means they were infallible idk.

Why would Allah guide them to sin? Hm? Or were they not "rightly guided"?

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:They were rightly guided. Why you think that means they were infallible idk.

Why would Allah guide them to sin? Hm? Or were they not "rightly guided"?

Who said that they were guided to sin?

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:Why would Allah guide them to sin? Hm? Or were they not "rightly guided"?

Who said that they were guided to sin?

Them burning someone alive is sin, correct? They are "rightly-guided", correct? Therefore, he was "rightly-guided" to burn him alive, right? Or is the "rightly-guided" bit just something that only counts when it happens with things you agree with?

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Who said that they were guided to sin?

Them burning someone alive is sin, correct? They are "rightly-guided", correct? Therefore, he was "rightly-guided" to burn him alive, right? Or is the "rightly-guided" bit just something that only counts when it happens with things you agree with?

Do you know what the term "rightly guided" means? Because it's not the same as the definition for "infallible".

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:Them burning someone alive is sin, correct? They are "rightly-guided", correct? Therefore, he was "rightly-guided" to burn him alive, right? Or is the "rightly-guided" bit just something that only counts when it happens with things you agree with?

Do you know what the term "rightly guided" means? Because it's not the same as the definition for "infallible".

Yes, I fucking know what it means. I was Muslim for almost 2 decades, mate. You just apparently can't seem to follow the basic train of logic even when I split it up into easy to comprehend questions. Here. I'll make it really simple for you: What makes them more rightly-guided than others if they ruled in an un-Islamic way? Just that they ruled in an un-Islamic way a bit less?

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Do you know what the term "rightly guided" means? Because it's not the same as the definition for "infallible".

Yes, I know what it means. I was Muslim for almost 2 decades, mate. You just apparently can't seem to follow the basic train of logic even when I split it up into easy to comprehend questions. Here. I'll make it really simple for you: What makes them more rightly-guided than others if they ruled in an un-Islamic way? Just that they ruled in an un-Islamic way a bit less?

Making mistakes =/= ruling un-Islamically

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:Yes, I know what it means. I was Muslim for almost 2 decades, mate. You just apparently can't seem to follow the basic train of logic even when I split it up into easy to comprehend questions. Here. I'll make it really simple for you: What makes them more rightly-guided than others if they ruled in an un-Islamic way? Just that they ruled in an un-Islamic way a bit less?

Making mistakes =/= ruling un-Islamically

Lol that's absolutely false. Would you say he ruled Islamically when he burned a man alive? If not, then he ruled un-Islamically. At least in that instance. It's really not that hard.

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Making mistakes =/= ruling un-Islamically

Lol that's absolutely false. Would you say he ruled Islamically when he burned a man alive? If not, then he ruled un-Islamically. At least in that instance. It's really not that hard.

Yeah, he made a mistake. That's not ruling un-Islamically, and citing 1 un-Islamic thing isn't reflective of his (RA) whole rule.

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote: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.

So then you should have no qualms with places like Pakistan and Iran calling themselves Islamic countries when their constitutions, legal systems and their leaders are all saying “the Quran and Sunnah are totally cool and our laws and traditions are being derived from that” and then doing just that and basing their laws on what’s set forth in the Quran.

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote: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.

see, the problem with having a highly mystical book intervined with religious mythologies and day-to-day orders in a language that has changed impressively, but no "BOOK for dummies: A Guide" guidebook is that literally any average Joe can, and does, claim to know the "right" interpretation of that book. That's why literally any country to claim to be Islamic is Islamic. Because your "Holy Qur'an and Sunnah" do jack-shit in the context of telling us what they mean.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:Lol that's absolutely false. Would you say he ruled Islamically when he burned a man alive? If not, then he ruled un-Islamically. At least in that instance. It's really not that hard.

Yeah, he made a mistake. That's not ruling un-Islamically, and citing 1 un-Islamic thing isn't reflective of his (RA) whole rule.

I never said he ruled entirely un-Islamically, now did I? I said he ruled un-Islamically in that one instance. Come on, Amin. This whole "selective reading" thing is gonna keep biting you.

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:
^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 literally is. You think they have to follow the Quran 100% to be Islamic.
We (and they, judging by Iran calling itself an Islamic Republic) don't.

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote: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.

Then you shouldn't be complaining when Iran et al. calls itself Islamic as it believes that, by the definition provided by the Quran, it is Islamic.

Estanglia wrote:

Kubumba Tribe wrote:It's not based on what I think

It literally is. You think they have to follow the Quran 100% to be Islamic.
We (and they, judging by Iran calling itself an Islamic Republic) don't.

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

Then you shouldn't be complaining when Iran et al. calls itself Islamic as it believes that, by the definition provided by the Quran, it is Islamic.

They don't follow the Holy Qur'an (100%), what are you talking about?

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

Estanglia wrote:It literally is. You think they have to follow the Quran 100% to be Islamic.
We (and they, judging by Iran calling itself an Islamic Republic) don't.



Then you shouldn't be complaining when Iran et al. calls itself Islamic as it believes that, by the definition provided by the Quran, it is Islamic.

They don't follow the Holy Qur'an (100%), what are you talking about?

You genuinely have no idea how a religious state and a theocratic state even function, do you?

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

Estanglia wrote:It literally is. You think they have to follow the Quran 100% to be Islamic.
We (and they, judging by Iran calling itself an Islamic Republic) don't.



Then you shouldn't be complaining when Iran et al. calls itself Islamic as it believes that, by the definition provided by the Quran, it is Islamic.

They don't follow the Holy Qur'an (100%), what are you talking about?

I'm talking about how you believe these countries aren't Islamic because of your interpretation of the Quran, and how they believe they are from their interpretation of the Quran.

You believe that the Quran must be followed 100% for a country to be Islamic. They don't, or they believe that they are following the Quran 100% (or enough to be considered Islamic).

Estanglia wrote:

Kubumba Tribe wrote:They don't follow the Holy Qur'an (100%), what are you talking about?

I'm talking about how you believe these countries aren't Islamic because of your interpretation of the Quran, and how they believe they are from their interpretation of the Quran.

No one's interpretation mattters except Allah's SWT and Prophet Muhammad's SAWS. Any thing else has to be in line with that or it's disobedience.

Estanglia wrote:You believe that the Quran must be followed 100% for a country to be Islamic.

Actually I believe a country should try to follow the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah 100% to be Islamic.

Estanglia wrote:They don't

Doesn't matter what they think.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Estanglia wrote:I'm talking about how you believe these countries aren't Islamic because of your interpretation of the Quran, and how they believe they are from their interpretation of the Quran.

No one's interpretation mattters except Allah's SWT and Prophet Muhammad's SAWS. Any thing else has to be in line with that or it's disobedience.

Estanglia wrote:You believe that the Quran must be followed 100% for a country to be Islamic.

Actually I believe a country should try to follow the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah 100% to be Islamic.

Estanglia wrote:They don't

Doesn't matter what they think.

And people know your gods thoughts on the proper way to read the quran... how? For all you know your god thinks you are not actually following the Quran.

Neutraligon wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:No one's interpretation mattters except Allah's SWT and Prophet Muhammad's SAWS. Any thing else has to be in line with that or it's disobedience.

Actually I believe a country should try to follow the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah 100% to be Islamic.

Doesn't matter what they think.

And people know your gods thoughts on the proper way to read the quran... how? For all you know your god thinks you are not actually following the Quran.

There is no "your god" in Al-Islam. Also, no one knows Allah's SWT interpretation except Allah SWT. That's why we have the Prophet Muhammad SAWS and the 'ulama.

Kubumba Tribe wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:And people know your gods thoughts on the proper way to read the quran... how? For all you know your god thinks you are not actually following the Quran.

There is no "your god" in Al-Islam. Also, no one knows Allah's SWT interpretation except Allah SWT. That's why we have the Prophet Muhammad SAWS and the 'ulama.

Nice dodging, perhaps you could answer the question.

Genivaria wrote:

Kubumba Tribe wrote:There is no "your god" in Al-Islam. Also, no one knows Allah's SWT interpretation except Allah SWT. That's why we have the Prophet Muhammad SAWS and the 'ulama.

Nice dodging, perhaps you could answer the question.

Why answer the question when he can say "My answer doesn't matter" and think that's a satisfying response?

Frievolk wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Nice dodging, perhaps you could answer the question.

Why answer the question when he can say "My answer doesn't matter" and think that's a satisfying response?

You are a skilled debater, I have to hand it to you.

but why would you be against your sister being "a fire-fighter,a cop or a lawyer"? isn't that sexist?

People on this thread keep saying that a Muslim theocracy would involve forcing people to be Muslim.
This is not the case as Quran 18:29 clarifies. There were many Christians in Almohad Spain, Pakistan has freedom of religion in the constitution alongside Islam, Egypt has a Christian church(as In branch of Christianity) which existed in the times of Saladin, Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphate, Gaddafi supported Nelson Mandela when he was Muslim and Mr Mandela was Christian.

The roles of a Muslim state are to do the following according to Islamic principles:

Fight just wars(Quran 4:71 and Quran 2:190)

Protect social justice and care for the defenceless(Quran 4:71,Quran 23:24, 8:41)

Maintain contract law(quotes coming soon)

Maintain criminal justice(Quran 23:24)

Promote knowledge and education(29:20,12:105,Quran 2:247 in that knowledge should allow this. not particularly wealthy to be king).

Regulate trade(quotes coming soon)