Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Redeemed Britannia]

So what's the process behind the mainstream consensus of the Muslim states after Muhammad that death penalty is to be applied as an ultimate punishment for apostasy?

Partially Europeans, as they did impose blasphemy laws and the like on their colonies.

Oddly enough, Sahih Narrations talk about the consensus between the Prophet's Companions on death being apostasy's punishment (the only difference in opinion being how, i.e. Ali believing it can't be by fire because punishment by fire belongs to god) long before Europeans built their colonies.

[Resilient Acceleration]

that everything is determined by their party or their thoughts instead of coalition, because i really thought that indonesia's flawed democracy is so fragmented that there are multiple parties associated with islamism instead of just one.

What I'm describing is about Indonesian society, not the ruling elite. The ruling elite may claim that they subscribe to certain ideas, but at the end of the day interests always take the front seat and there's very little difference between them. Religion is thus just a mere matter of dividing up the populace into blocs, compete for said blocs in the elections using religious rhetorics, and then immediately forget about the debated religious questions after the elections are over in favor of things like legislative agendas or cabinet distribution. The most hardline Islamist party in the parliament for example isn't the opposition PKS, but the government-aligned PPP (who historically have ties with the genocidal Islamist millitias at the 1999 Ambon conflict). Despite being ultra-conservative, PPP now sits very comfortably in ruling nationalist Jokowi administration, in exchange for cabinet seats.

speaking of the liberal pro american islamist, who is that? i think i missed something very interesting from the 2019 elections

I don't remember saying "liberal" or "Islamist", in fact I said "wine-drinking pro-american secular-nationalist general", but I'm obviously talking about Prabowo. As the leader of the Islamist bloc during the 2019 election, Prabowo is literally the farthest guy possible from a "fundamentalist Muslim" and had he won in place of Jokowi, we'll still be quite far away from falling into an Islamic state and thus civil war, since according to him, Islam is just a tool to manipulate the masses that can be immediately discarded after. Which, I mean it's actually great, since my worst fear now is for an Erdogan-like populist Islamist that actually believe in radical Islamist teachings to seize leadership of the Islamists.

Luckily, the most likely candidate to replace Prabowo's position is Jakarta governor Anies, a moderate who (like Prabowo) manipulates the hardliner population into supporting him using Islam as tool to increase his power, not because he actually believe in radical Islamism. However, unlike Prabowo (an ex general businessman with strong political backing), Anies don't really have a coherent political base to speak of, meaning that an Anies administration might be forced to rely more on the Islamists to further his agenda—which is worrying.

and the "religion is tool" statement is correct, in the bible it is very clear that people should not misuse god's names for personal gains like in politics but im not sure about the quran,

I'm sure that Muhammad obviously won't condone "exploit Islam to increase your political powers", but that's just politics. People has been doing this for thousands of years.

another side note to consider is that this "60% of the youth identifies as puritan and ultra conservative" may have been inflated by societal pressure,

Nah, it's actually based on a survey where your answer is anonymous and you are thus able to answer whatever you want without societal pressure.

i think pancasila is really overlooked by the fact that islamist parties still exist, these islamist parties (some are not as fundamental as FPI but still) potrays an opposition against pancasila but still got away with it. and the new order dictatorship broke many of the constitution like equality and other stuff so yeah, pancasila is basically unenforcable and it is a badly designed ideology because you cant just make an ideology based off of 5 simple stances.
so it is basically like this: to the leftists, the 5th stance of pancasila (Social justice for all the people of Indonesia) is interpreted as forced wealth equality at all cost but to the rights it is interpreted as equal rights based on merits. i believe that pancasila is nothing more than the indonesian version of socialist nationalism when it was written by the founding fathers.

I think the modern incarnation of Pancasila is quite good as a guiding principle, in that it's not actually an ideology, but a restriction of ideologies. E.g. sharia law across the land is bad because it leads to civil war, Kemalist secularism is bad because it leads to civil war, communism is bad because it leads to civil war. Pancasila thus provide the means to check on these things if they become too powerful.

[Ansarullah]

What do you all think of Ba'athism from an Islamic perspective? I've been looking into it recently and it's interesting, though I'm unsure as to how it would fit into Islam seeing that it's secular and based off of nationalism.

[A m e n r i a]

The difference between secularism and Shariah is the former forces it's citizens to follow the same laws regardless of their values and beliefs and the latter to non-Muslims is just "go make your own religious laws, but pay your taxes and we're good".

Yeah, that's an outright lie.

Under Sharia non-Muslims can't even publicly practice their religion. Can't wear symbols of their religion in public, men can't marry Muslim women, can't proselytize their religion, can't even teach their kids their religion or stop them from converting to Islam. In the past they couldn't even own Muslim slaves and historically most often they had to pay much more through jizya than Muslims did through zakat. Among many other restrictions that basically made it impossible to actually practice their true faith. Non-Muslim families spent centuries pretending to be Muslim just so they could have normal lives while practicing their true religion in secret and many of the lands conquered by the Caliphate remained largely non-Muslim until the 16th and 17th centuries saw Muslim rulers cracking down on false converts.

Stop trying to whitewash history because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Wrong. You do realize Shariah doesn't apply to non-Muslims, right? Which verses are you referring to?

that everything is determined by their party or their thoughts instead of coalition, because i really thought that indonesia's flawed democracy is so fragmented that there are multiple parties associated with islamism instead of just one.

What I'm describing is about Indonesian society, not the ruling elite. The ruling elite may claim that they subscribe to certain ideas, but at the end of the day interests always take the front seat and there's very little difference between them. Religion is thus just a mere matter of dividing up the populace into blocs, compete for said blocs in the elections using religious rhetorics, and then immediately forget about the debated religious questions after the elections are over in favor of things like legislative agendas or cabinet distribution. The most hardline Islamist party in the parliament for example isn't the opposition PKS, but the government-aligned PPP (who historically have ties with the genocidal Islamist millitias at the 1999 Ambon conflict). Despite being ultra-conservative, PPP now sits very comfortably in ruling nationalist Jokowi administration, in exchange for cabinet seats.

speaking of the liberal pro american islamist, who is that? i think i missed something very interesting from the 2019 elections

I don't remember saying "liberal" or "Islamist", in fact I said "wine-drinking pro-american secular-nationalist general", but I'm obviously talking about Prabowo. As the leader of the Islamist bloc during the 2019 election, Prabowo is literally the farthest guy possible from a "fundamentalist Muslim" and had he won in place of Jokowi, we'll still be quite far away from falling into an Islamic state and thus civil war, since according to him, Islam is just a tool to manipulate the masses that can be immediately discarded after. Which, I mean it's actually great, since my worst fear now is for an Erdogan-like populist Islamist that actually believe in radical Islamist teachings to seize leadership of the Islamists.

Luckily, the most likely candidate to replace Prabowo's position is Jakarta governor Anies, a moderate who (like Prabowo) manipulates the hardliner population into supporting him using Islam as tool to increase his power, not because he actually believe in radical Islamism. However, unlike Prabowo (an ex general businessman with strong political backing), Anies don't really have a coherent political base to speak of, meaning that an Anies administration might be forced to rely more on the Islamists to further his agenda—which is worrying.

and the "religion is tool" statement is correct, in the bible it is very clear that people should not misuse god's names for personal gains like in politics but im not sure about the quran,

I'm sure that Muhammad obviously won't condone "exploit Islam to increase your political powers", but that's just politics. People has been doing this for thousands of years.

another side note to consider is that this "60% of the youth identifies as puritan and ultra conservative" may have been inflated by societal pressure,

Nah, it's actually based on a survey where your answer is anonymous and you are thus able to answer whatever you want without societal pressure.

i think pancasila is really overlooked by the fact that islamist parties still exist, these islamist parties (some are not as fundamental as FPI but still) potrays an opposition against pancasila but still got away with it. and the new order dictatorship broke many of the constitution like equality and other stuff so yeah, pancasila is basically unenforcable and it is a badly designed ideology because you cant just make an ideology based off of 5 simple stances.
so it is basically like this: to the leftists, the 5th stance of pancasila (Social justice for all the people of Indonesia) is interpreted as forced wealth equality at all cost but to the rights it is interpreted as equal rights based on merits. i believe that pancasila is nothing more than the indonesian version of socialist nationalism when it was written by the founding fathers.

I think the modern incarnation of Pancasial is quite good as a guiding principle, in that it's not actually an ideology, but a restriction of ideologies. E.g. sharia law across the land is bad because it leads to civil war, Kemalist secularism is bad because it leads to civil war, communism is bad because it leads to civil war. Pancasila thus provide the means to check on these things if they become too powerful.

Can confirm. The idiots don't realize that religion is supposed to dictate politics and not the other way around. They're poster boys for how to NOT get your priorities.

What do you all think of Ba'athism from an Islamic perspective? I've been looking into it recently and it's interesting, though I'm unsure as to how it would fit into Islam seeing that it's secular and based off of nationalism.

No strong opinions yet tbh. What made you start looking into them?

[Diarcesia]

Yeah, that's an outright lie.

Under Sharia non-Muslims can't even publicly practice their religion. Can't wear symbols of their religion in public, men can't marry Muslim women, can't proselytize their religion, can't even teach their kids their religion or stop them from converting to Islam. In the past they couldn't even own Muslim slaves and historically most often they had to pay much more through jizya than Muslims did through zakat. Among many other restrictions that basically made it impossible to actually practice their true faith. Non-Muslim families spent centuries pretending to be Muslim just so they could have normal lives while practicing their true religion in secret and many of the lands conquered by the Caliphate remained largely non-Muslim until the 16th and 17th centuries saw Muslim rulers cracking down on false converts.

Stop trying to whitewash history because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Wrong. You do realize Shariah doesn't apply to non-Muslims, right? Which verses are you referring to?

They'll apply if they're forcibly converted. Yeah, it's supposed to be against the rules of Islam. That's not stopping some of them anyway.

[Ansarullah]

No strong opinions yet tbh. What made you start looking into them?

I'm a strong supporter of Bashar al Assad, but I never looked much into his actual ideology. I just knew he was far-right, like me, and a pan-Arabist and a secularist. I just had some spare time and decided to look into it further.

[Resilient Acceleration]

No strong opinions yet tbh. What made you start looking into them?

I'm a strong supporter of Bashar al Assad, but I never looked much into his actual ideology. I just knew he was far-right, like me, and a pan-Arabist and a secularist. I just had some spare time and decided to look into it further.

Baathism is only relevant in the context of trying to create a unified Arab state of an Arab identity. With that failing spectacularly, the countries of arbitrary lines in the sand becomes unnatural entities who can only exist through the use of force.

[Ansarullah]

I'm a strong supporter of Bashar al Assad, but I never looked much into his actual ideology. I just knew he was far-right, like me, and a pan-Arabist and a secularist. I just had some spare time and decided to look into it further.

Baathism is only relevant in the context of trying to create a unified Arab state of an Arab identity. With that failing spectacularly, the countries of arbitrary lines in the sand becomes unnatural entities who can only exist through the use of force.

Part of my problem with it. It's more just my general opposition to nationalism in every form though.

[Vistulange]

Wrong. You do realize Shariah doesn't apply to non-Muslims, right?

Unless said non-Muslim has been a Muslim at some point in his or her life. If that is the case, religious law—regarding apostasy—requires that non-Muslim to be killed.

So no, sharia applies to non-Muslims when it's about terrorising Muslims to stay in the faith even if they don't want to.

Sorry, you accost people on the street asking them about their religious beliefs and if they'd like to join your religion?

And, on the topic of apostasy and capital punishment...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_ ... th_penalty

Such tolerance.

From Yaqeen Institute:

The way that the early Muslim community seems to have understood apostasy differs strikingly from the decisive rulings of the later schools of law. This is most clear in the rulings of the Prophet ﷺ himself. There is no reliable evidence that the Prophet ﷺ ever executed anyone for apostasy, as was observed by the famous scholar of Cordoba, Ibn al-Ṭallāʿ (d. 1103).[30] When one of the Companions, ʿUbaydallāh bin Jaḥsh left Islam and became Christian while the Muslims were seeking refuge in Ethiopia, the Prophet ﷺ did not order him punished.[31] The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya, which the Prophet ﷺ concluded with the Quraysh, stated that if anyone decided to leave the Muslim community in Medina no harm would befall them. There was no mention of a punishment for apostasy. In fact, when a man who had come to the Prophet ﷺ just the day before to pledge his loyalty to Islam wanted to be released from his oath, the Prophet ﷺ let him go.[32] Imam al-Shāfiʿī himself notes how, during the Prophet ﷺ’s time in Medina, “Some people believed and then apostatized. Then they again took on the outer trappings of faith. But the Messenger of God did not kill them.”[33]

It's very telling that all this lovey-dovey tolerance stuff is before Islam was the dominant military and political power in the Arabian Peninsula.

Also, while I'm certain Ibn al-Talla was a very enlightened figure in his time, I'm fairly certain he made no such observation—the man lived approximately four centuries after Muhammad's death. He didn't observe, he speculated according, I hope at the very least, to the historiography left to him by Muhammad's contemporaries.

[Czervenika]

It's very telling that all this lovey-dovey tolerance stuff is before Islam was the dominant military and political power in the Arabian Peninsula.

Also, while I'm certain Ibn al-Talla was a very enlightened figure in his time, I'm fairly certain he made no such observation—the man lived approximately four centuries after Muhammad's death. He didn't observe, he speculated according, I hope at the very least, to the historiography left to him by Muhammad's contemporaries.

Islam was supposedly progressive for its time, but how much truth there is to that is widely debated. A lot of the information about pre-Islamic Arabia has been repressed and replaced by the official Islamic accounts. Religious sects do like to exaggerate the features of their enemies too.

[Redeemed Britannia]

Wrong. You do realize Shariah doesn't apply to non-Muslims, right?

Unless said non-Muslim has been a Muslim at some point in his or her life. If that is the case, religious law—regarding apostasy—requires that non-Muslim to be killed.

So no, sharia applies to non-Muslims when it's about terrorising Muslims to stay in the faith even if they don't want to.

Strictly speaking sharia also applies to non-Muslims when it's about them giving protection money and being pressed into service by the Caliph, when they can't marry a Muslim woman, when they can't "appear to be drinking" or being in possession of a drink, when they can't "appear" to proselytize and when their churches/temples are de facto under Muslim oversight and which regularly get perverted into becoming Mosques for said Dhimmis' Muslim overlords. It's almost like there's a reason literally no group of people who've had a history of Dhimmitude want to return to that or even tolerate Muslims in large numbers in their midst lmao. But I'm sure the actions of every single Caliph beginning with Muhammad and ending with Mehmed V was unislamic because their actions went against a small number of Meccan verses who themselves were later amended by Medinan verses within Muhammad's lifetime.

[Vistulange]

Unless said non-Muslim has been a Muslim at some point in his or her life. If that is the case, religious law—regarding apostasy—requires that non-Muslim to be killed.

So no, sharia applies to non-Muslims when it's about terrorising Muslims to stay in the faith even if they don't want to.

Strictly speaking sharia also applies to non-Muslims when it's about them giving protection money and being pressed into service by the Caliph, when they can't marry a Muslim woman, when they can't "appear to be drinking" or being in possession of a drink, when they can't "appear" to proselytize and when their churches/temples are de facto under Muslim oversight. It's almost like there's a reason literally no group of people who've had a history of Dhimmitude want to return to that or even tolerate Muslims in large numbers in their midst lmao. But I'm sure the actions of every single Caliph beginning with Muhammad and ending with Mehmed V was unislamic because their actions went against a small number of Meccan verses who themselves were later amended by Medinan verses within Muhammad's lifetime.

Abdulmecid II, actually. Mehmet VI was the last Ottoman Sultan, but not the last Caliph. Mehmet V, on the other hand, was Sultan during the First World War, and died shortly after it ended. Just felt like being nitpicky.

But yes, the whole "X was not Islamic" shtick has gotten terribly old.

[Suriyanakhon]

I think the modern incarnation of Pancasila is quite good as a guiding principle, in that it's not actually an ideology, but a restriction of ideologies. E.g. sharia law across the land is bad because it leads to civil war, Kemalist secularism is bad because it leads to civil war, communism is bad because it leads to civil war. Pancasila thus provide the means to check on these things if they become too powerful.

Pancasila is pretty discriminatory religiously though, as well as being rather vague and used to crack down on political opponents.

[Insaanistan]

Wrong. You do realize Shariah doesn't apply to non-Muslims, right?

Unless said non-Muslim has been a Muslim at some point in his or her life. If that is the case, religious law—regarding apostasy—requires that non-Muslim to be killed.

So no, sharia applies to non-Muslims when it's about terrorising Muslims to stay in the faith even if they don't want to.

From Yaqeen Institute:

It's very telling that all this lovey-dovey tolerance stuff is before Islam was the dominant military and political power in the Arabian Peninsula.

Also, while I'm certain Ibn al-Talla was a very enlightened figure in his time, I'm fairly certain he made no such observation—the man lived approximately four centuries after Muhammad's death. He didn't observe, he speculated according, I hope at the very least, to the historiography left to him by Muhammad's contemporaries.

It says he observed there was a lack of credible evidence for this.

Additionally, I’d much appreciate it if you’d actually provide evidence of someone being executed simply for changing their religion away from Islam.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Tbh I don't see any real point in trying to argue against this Insaan. The great majority of Sunni scholars, at least as far as I'm aware, hold that death is the proper penalty for apostasy and the great majority of the Muslim world has at least some legal penalties for it, with 13 states having said penalty as death. It has support from sahih hadith and opposition to the idea seems to be wholly modern, which seems to be a common trend in Islam where parts of the religion come into conflict with modern morality and people try to rewrite history and the faith to conform with the modern world.

[Resilient Acceleration]

I think the modern incarnation of Pancasila is quite good as a guiding principle, in that it's not actually an ideology, but a restriction of ideologies. E.g. sharia law across the land is bad because it leads to civil war, Kemalist secularism is bad because it leads to civil war, communism is bad because it leads to civil war. Pancasila thus provide the means to check on these things if they become too powerful.

as well as being rather vague and used to crack down on political opponents.

Considering Indonesia's form as an inherently multiethnic, secular empire despite being majority Muslim (at least until technological connectivity and infrastructure advancements allows for us to move to the direction of a nation-state) and is thus always being shadowed by identitarian movements primarily Islamism fundamentalism, that's the point, but-

[Diarcesia]

Unless said non-Muslim has been a Muslim at some point in his or her life. If that is the case, religious law—regarding apostasy—requires that non-Muslim to be killed.

So no, sharia applies to non-Muslims when it's about terrorising Muslims to stay in the faith even if they don't want to.



It's very telling that all this lovey-dovey tolerance stuff is before Islam was the dominant military and political power in the Arabian Peninsula.

Also, while I'm certain Ibn al-Talla was a very enlightened figure in his time, I'm fairly certain he made no such observation—the man lived approximately four centuries after Muhammad's death. He didn't observe, he speculated according, I hope at the very least, to the historiography left to him by Muhammad's contemporaries.

It says he observed there was a lack of credible evidence for this.

Additionally, I’d much appreciate it if you’d actually provide evidence of someone being executed simply for changing their religion away from Islam.

Let's say one day, you realize that you don't subscribe to Islam anymore. How comfortable are you in saying it to people around you who you know?

[Diarcesia]

Tbh I don't see any real point in trying to argue against this Insaan. The great majority of Sunni scholars, at least as far as I'm aware, hold that death is the proper penalty for apostasy and the great majority of the Muslim world has at least some legal penalties for it, with 13 states having said penalty as death. It has support from sahih hadith and opposition to the idea seems to be wholly modern, which seems to be a common trend in Islam where parts of the religion come into conflict with modern morality and people try to rewrite history and the faith to conform with the modern world.

I won't begrudge them from debating if such punishments on apostasy is even applicable in the modern world. How Muslims interpret it with what Allah intended is their business if it will not restrict anyone's rights.

That also makes me think that the apostasy = death consensus is a thing because at the time, the Muslims are politically unified in a single state, such that to leave the religion is to desert the state, which is treason. And treason = death. Like it's a corollary of how intertwined the Islamic way of living and the political ummah (caliphate) is right at the beginning.

[Diarcesia]

Unless said non-Muslim has been a Muslim at some point in his or her life. If that is the case, religious law—regarding apostasy—requires that non-Muslim to be killed.

So no, sharia applies to non-Muslims when it's about terrorising Muslims to stay in the faith even if they don't want to.

Strictly speaking sharia also applies to non-Muslims when it's about them giving protection money and being pressed into service by the Caliph...

Taxation as theft moment right there.

[Redeemed Britannia]

Strictly speaking sharia also applies to non-Muslims when it's about them giving protection money and being pressed into service by the Caliph...

Taxation as theft moment right there.

This is less "taxation is theft" and more "Jizya and being pressed into service for war effort by the Caliph is literally the price People of the Book pay to be spared the sword and be barely tolerated as third-class citizens in their own homeland". And yes, it is protection money and nothing more, as they are almost always put under a literal apartheid regime following a conquest.

[Diarcesia]

Taxation as theft moment right there.

This is less "taxation is theft" and more "Jizya and being pressed into service for war effort by the Caliph is literally the price People of the Book pay to be spared the sword". And yes, it is theft because they are almost always put under a literal apartheid regime following a conquest.

My premise is different. If I don't pay my taxes to Caesar, I shouldn't be surprised if I will be put to the sword. What's the difference here?

[Redeemed Britannia]

This is less "taxation is theft" and more "Jizya and being pressed into service for war effort by the Caliph is literally the price People of the Book pay to be spared the sword". And yes, it is theft because they are almost always put under a literal apartheid regime following a conquest.

My premise is different. If I don't pay my taxes to Caesar, I shouldn't be surprised if I will be put to the sword. What's the difference here?

I mean, ignoring the part where you don't get the sword if you don't pay your taxes? You're not being ridiculously overtaxed while not being given any amenities or provided any services -often being limited or denied your rights by an apartheid state that views a class of invading colonists as citizens and you as third-class residents (after "right kind of Muslim" and "wrong but still tolerated kind of Muslim"), you do not run the risk of losing your place of worship arbitrarily after Muslims decided to desecrate it and make it a Mosque, being denied the practice of your religion and on a more general term existing only at the pleasure of the Caliph. At least, I hope you're not. "People pay taxes so people living in an apartheid state being forced to pay protection money to a state that actively refuses to represent them is justified" is a shitty take, all due respect.

[Diahon]

as well as being rather vague and used to crack down on political opponents.

Considering Indonesia's form as an inherently multiethnic, secular empire despite being majority Muslim (at least until technological connectivity and infrastructure advancements allows for us to move to the direction of a nation-state) and is thus always being shadowed by identitarian movements primarily Islamism fundamentalism, that's the point, but-

but?

[Diarcesia]

My premise is different. If I don't pay my taxes to Caesar, I shouldn't be surprised if I will be put to the sword. What's the difference here?

I mean, ignoring the part where you don't get the sword if you don't pay your taxes? You're not being ridiculously overtaxed while not being given any amenities or provided any services -often being limited or denied your rights by an apartheid state that views a class of invading colonists as citizens and you as third-class residents (after "right kind of Muslim" and "wrong but still tolerated kind of Muslim"), you do not run the risk of losing your place of worship arbitrarily, being denied the practice of your religion and on a more general term existing only at the pleasure of the Caliph. At least, I hope you're not. "People pay taxes so people living in an apartheid state being forced to pay protection money to a state that actively refuses to represent them is justified" is a shitty take, all due respect.

"At the pleasure of the Caliph" is the key phrase. I'm not condoning the behavior, I am saying that what they do is not unusual when compared to their peers. Imagine being a Protestant in the HRE, or a Catholic in England starting from Queen Elizabeth I's reign, or hoping that no one in your city dare kill the Mongol garrison stationed there.

The Jews of the time share your sentiment where they live, I imagine.

[Resilient Acceleration]

You know, would it fit to call a rule under the Islamic system "apartheid"? By definition, apartheid means separation or apartness, and under Islam, we have different rules for different members of society, with one group being positioned as "better" than the other, state-mandated separations that otherwise won't exist under secular systems. Even if the de-facto quality of life itself isn't actually that bad for everyone involved.