NationStates

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:15 pm**

Fatimida wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:What happens to majority non-Muslim areas within majority Islam areas however? Eg there are towns and villages in places like Pakistan that are majority Christian.

Are there entire regions that aren't Muslim in Pakistan, like there is in Indonesia? No. Exceptions shouldn't be made on the basis of towns/villages but on the basis of region, be it a political one or a historical one (like Sham)

So these villages and towns will have to suffer?

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:17 pm**

Immortan Khan wrote:
Fatimida wrote:Are there entire regions that aren't Muslim in Pakistan, like there is in Indonesia? No. Exceptions shouldn't be made on the basis of towns/villages but on the basis of region, be it a political one or a historical one (like Sham)

So these villages and towns will have to suffer?

Suffer under what? Pakistan is not an example of how a Caliphate would function. Pakistan is a state ran by apostates who abuse Islam for their own purposes, much like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The very worst they would have to endure, under the most fundamentalist, theocratic system possible, is the Jizya being made compulsory.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:17 pm**

Immortan Khan wrote:
Insaanistan wrote:For those that are not, the best way is the ideals of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Qaid-e-Azam: a state under Muslim rule where all are tolerated.

Abso-fucking-lutely not. Pakistan is one of the worst countries to live in as a non-Muslim. Just last year their putrid God forsaken court system legitimized the abduction and forced conversion of a 13 year old Christian girl and just a month ago turned a blind eye towards Christian shrines that were meant for Christian healthcare workers and patients being taken over by Muslim healthcare workers and forced to become Muslim sites.

Letting Pakistan be its own country was a mistake and it’s unfortunate it was not partitioned. The ignorance of the Raj and Empire as a whole when it came to the Indian subcontinent has been a disaster.

Ideally I’d see Pakistan partitioned between a Zoroastrian Greater Iran/Iranzamin, Khalistan and India but that’s as likely as a caliphate emerging lmao.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:20 pm**

Immortan Khan wrote:
Insaanistan wrote:For those that are not, the best way is the ideals of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Qaid-e-Azam: a state under Muslim rule where all are tolerated.

Abso-fucking-lutely not. Pakistan is one of the worst countries to live in as a non-Muslim. Just last year their putrid God forsaken court system legitimized the abduction and forced conversion of a 13 year old Christian girl and just a month ago turned a blind eye towards Christian shrines that were meant for Christian healthcare workers and patients being taken over by Muslim healthcare workers and forced to become Muslim sites.

It's apparently not much fun for Ahmadi Muslims, or for Shi'ite ones in Sunni-majority areas, either.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:20 pm**

Fatimida wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:So these villages and towns will have to suffer?

Suffer under what? Pakistan is not an example of how a Caliphate would function. Pakistan is a state ran by apostates who abuse Islam for their own purposes, much like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The very worst they would have to endure, under the most fundamentalist, theocratic system possible, is the Jizya being made compulsory.

Christians still haven't fared particularly well under Caliphates. Would you tolerate living under a state that prohibited Muslims from seeking converts, discriminated in regards to inheritance based off of religion (eg lets say four siblings are to receive equal share but one converts to, say, Christianity and therefore gets all of it), have your mosques taken over and turned into cathedrals etc?

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:21 pm**

Bears Armed wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:Abso-fucking-lutely not. Pakistan is one of the worst countries to live in as a non-Muslim. Just last year their putrid God forsaken court system legitimized the abduction and forced conversion of a 13 year old Christian girl and just a month ago turned a blind eye towards Christian shrines that were meant for Christian healthcare workers and patients being taken over by Muslim healthcare workers and forced to become Muslim sites.
It's apparently not much fun for Ahmadi Muslims, or for Shi'ite ones in Sunni-majority areas, either.

That is true, especially for Ahmadis.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:24 pm**

Fuck no. There should be a very distinct line between state and religion and it should never be crossed.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:25 pm**

Immortan Khan wrote:
Fatimida wrote:Suffer under what? Pakistan is not an example of how a Caliphate would function. Pakistan is a state ran by apostates who abuse Islam for their own purposes, much like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The very worst they would have to endure, under the most fundamentalist, theocratic system possible, is the Jizya being made compulsory.

Christians still haven't fared particularly well under Caliphates. Would you tolerate living under a state that prohibited Muslims from seeking converts, discriminated in regards to inheritance based off of religion (eg lets say four siblings are to receive equal share but one converts to, say, Christianity and therefore gets all of it), have your mosques taken over and turned into cathedrals etc?

The conversion part affects noone except for the ones attempting conversion, so I see no problem with that. I have no clue where you got the inheritance part from, and I can again only assume you got the cathedral part from ISIS. Did the Rashiduns convert every Christian church to mosques after they defeated the Romans? Did the Abbasids? Umayyads?

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:26 pm**

Immortan Khan wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:It's apparently not much fun for Ahmadi Muslims, or for Shi'ite ones in Sunni-majority areas, either.

That is true, especially for Ahmadis.

Ahmadis are prosecuted everywhere in the Islamic world. It's sad given they're often wonderful people with the same core beliefs as any other Muslim.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:27 pm**

Fatimida wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:That is true, especially for Ahmadis.

Ahmadis are prosecuted everywhere in the Islamic world. It's sad given they're often wonderful people with the same core beliefs as any other Muslim.

Okay, the persecution of them is obviously not right, but the idea that they have the "same core beliefs" as any other Muslim is just false.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:28 pm**

Only if it were limited to Mecca and Medina, like how the Pope's reign is limited to Vatican City. Even then, though, how would you choose the caliph? Different sections of Islam have different beliefs about who should qualify for the position.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:29 pm**

Fatimida wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:Christians still haven't fared particularly well under Caliphates. Would you tolerate living under a state that prohibited Muslims from seeking converts, discriminated in regards to inheritance based off of religion (eg lets say four siblings are to receive equal share but one converts to, say, Christianity and therefore gets all of it), have your mosques taken over and turned into cathedrals etc?

The conversion part affects noone except for the ones attempting conversion, so I see no problem with that. I have no clue where you got the inheritance part from, and I can again only assume you got the cathedral part from ISIS. Did the Rashiduns convert every Christian church to mosques after they defeated the Romans? Did the Abbasids? Umayyads?

Converted a lot of the very prominent ones. Inheritance discrimination was long used to pressure people to convert along with heavy taxation.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:29 pm**

A Thousand Islands wrote:Only if it were limited to Mecca and Medina, like how the Pope's reign is limited to Vatican City. Even then, though, how would you choose the caliph? Different sections of Islam have different beliefs about who should qualify for the position.

It doesn't even have to be physical. And while we do differ by sect, it is generally agreed the Caliph should be elected by a Shura or elected based off if their bloodline goes back to Muhammed (peace be upon him).

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:30 pm**

Zendonia wrote:
Zhan Dynasty wrote:If Muslims want one then okay, but the arguments made in the video are pretty poor. The idea that medieval Muslim societies treated minorities well is debateable, let alone meaningless in the discussion of a modern caliphate. I am sure you are well aware of how the last group that proclaimed a caliphate treated minorities.

"Armenian Genocide? What Armenian Genocide?"

That had more to do with Turks than Islam. Even if Islam played a role.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:30 pm**

Muzehnaya wrote:
Fatimida wrote:Ahmadis are prosecuted everywhere in the Islamic world. It's sad given they're often wonderful people with the same core beliefs as any other Muslim.

Okay, the persecution of them is obviously not right, but the idea that they have the "same core beliefs" as any other Muslim is just false.

Do they not believe in the Prophet (peace be upon him)? Tawheed? They are heretics in their reverence of the false Mahdi, so if that's what you mean, then you're right.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:32 pm**

Immortan Khan wrote:
Fatimida wrote:The conversion part affects noone except for the ones attempting conversion, so I see no problem with that. I have no clue where you got the inheritance part from, and I can again only assume you got the cathedral part from ISIS. Did the Rashiduns convert every Christian church to mosques after they defeated the Romans? Did the Abbasids? Umayyads?

Converted a lot of the very prominent ones. Inheritance discrimination was long used to pressure people to convert along with heavy taxation.

"heavy taxation", the same as every other state of the time? If you mean the Jizya, you're exempted from it if you cannot pay it. You also didn't provide an example of the inheritance thing, and I see no problem with converting the "prominent" ones. There is nothing stopping Christians or Jews from going to local ones.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:33 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:
Zendonia wrote:"Armenian Genocide? What Armenian Genocide?"

That had more to do with Turks than Islam. Even if Islam played a role.

The Armenian Genocide was purely political. They were a thorn in the side of the Turks since the 1800s and the Young Turks, Enver in particular, decided to take a page from Hitler's book even though he wasn't Fuhrer yet and just kill them all.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:34 pm**

Fatimida wrote:
Muzehnaya wrote:Okay, the persecution of them is obviously not right, but the idea that they have the "same core beliefs" as any other Muslim is just false.

Do they not believe in the Prophet (peace be upon him)? Tawheed? They are heretics in their reverence of the false Mahdi, so if that's what you mean, then you're right.

Their belief in Tawhid is debatable and they do not believe that Muhammad (SAW) was the last prophet, so yes, I would say that that is a very fundamental difference.

I suspect you want to continue this discussion further, so we should probably move to the IDT in order to avoid threadjacking.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:36 pm**

Muzehnaya wrote:
Fatimida wrote:Do they not believe in the Prophet (peace be upon him)? Tawheed? They are heretics in their reverence of the false Mahdi, so if that's what you mean, then you're right.

Their belief in Tawhid is debatable and they do not believe that Muhammad (SAW) was the last prophet, so yes, I would say that that is a very fundamental difference.

I suspect you want to continue this discussion further, so we should probably move to the IDT in order to avoid threadjacking.

Not especially. The sole reason I continue the one we're currently in is to defend Islam. I'm quite tired at the moment and I'll likely log off as soon as this thread dies down a bit. You can still leave a comment over there if you want and I'll reply in a few hours.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:37 pm**

A Muslim version of the Vatican City centered in Mecca, maybe. At most it could be a union of Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf States. Not sure if Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, or Egypt will join willingly. Any larger than that and we'll arrive into self-determination complications.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:37 pm**

Fatimida wrote:
Muzehnaya wrote:Their belief in Tawhid is debatable and they do not believe that Muhammad (SAW) was the last prophet, so yes, I would say that that is a very fundamental difference.

I suspect you want to continue this discussion further, so we should probably move to the IDT in order to avoid threadjacking.

Not especially. The sole reason I continue the one we're currently in is to defend Islam. I'm quite tired at the moment and I'll likely log off as soon as this thread dies down a bit. You can still leave a comment over there if you want and I'll reply in a few hours.

That's fair enough.

Posted: **Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:39 pm**

Ideal Britain wrote:I personally think there should be because I think a true caliphate is the best form of government possible since the death of the Seal of the Prophets (Peace be Upon Him).

Here’s a video on the subject:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sMhqbtJ02RI

NSG is not your blog. You've been around the block here, you ought to know how to frame an OP.

NationStates

Should there be a caliphate?