The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Proctopeo]

Yeah, that's... poor form.
What's wrong with opposing domestic abuse or the killing of apostates?


Like..?

Following Shariah.

Shariah deserves to be criticized, though. Come on, it has the removing the criminal's hands as the punishment for theft. It's hardly better than the Code of Hammurabi, from over two millennia prior.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Following Shariah.

Shariah deserves to be criticized, though. Come on, it has the removing the criminal's hands as the punishment for theft. It's hardly better than the Code of Hammurabi, from over two millennia prior.

Even so, it's a fundamental part of Islam.

[Proctopeo]

Shariah deserves to be criticized, though. Come on, it has the removing the criminal's hands as the punishment for theft. It's hardly better than the Code of Hammurabi, from over two millennia prior.

Even so, it's a fundamental part of Islam.

One that deserves criticism. What exactly is wrong with criticizing the fundamentals of a religion, if they're fundamentally wrong? And how does it pander to "Islamophobes"?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Even so, it's a fundamental part of Islam.

One that deserves criticism. What exactly is wrong with criticizing the fundamentals of a religion, if they're fundamentally wrong? And how does it pander to "Islamophobes"?

If you criticize the fundamentals of your religion, you can't really claim to be a respected figure in your religion. That's why "Imam" Tahwidi is an outright fraud, because he's pretending to be someone he's not because he wants to appeal to people who don't like his religion as a "good Muslim."

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Following Shariah.

Shariah deserves to be criticized, though. Come on, it has the removing the criminal's hands as the punishment for theft. It's hardly better than the Code of Hammurabi, from over two millennia prior.

Still better than kufr law.

[Saranidia]

Following Shariah.

Shariah deserves to be criticized, though. Come on, it has the removing the criminal's hands as the punishment for theft. It's hardly better than the Code of Hammurabi, from over two millennia prior.

What if someone stole your computer to buy drugs or stole your car to look "cool"?

I am not saying i like that punishment it is just a question

[El-Amin Caliphate]

One that deserves criticism. What exactly is wrong with criticizing the fundamentals of a religion, if they're fundamentally wrong? And how does it pander to "Islamophobes"?

If you criticize the fundamentals of your religion, you can't really claim to be a respected figure in your religion. That's why "Imam" Tahwidi is an outright fraud, because he's pretending to be someone he's not because he wants to appeal to people who don't like his religion as a "good Muslim."

He should just apostasize already, and that's assuming what he's saying isn't grounds for takfir (and I don't doubt it is).

[Proctopeo]

One that deserves criticism. What exactly is wrong with criticizing the fundamentals of a religion, if they're fundamentally wrong? And how does it pander to "Islamophobes"?

If you criticize the fundamentals of your religion, you can't really claim to be a respected figure in your religion.

Only to the fundamentalists. Granted, when your religion is chock full of them, it can be difficult.
Being a reformist is not a bad thing.

That's why "Imam" Tahwidi is an outright fraud, because he's pretending to be someone he's not because he wants to appeal to people who don't like his religion as a "good Muslim."

Shariah deserves to be criticized, though. Come on, it has the removing the criminal's hands as the punishment for theft. It's hardly better than the Code of Hammurabi, from over two millennia prior.

Still better than kufr law.

"cutting off someone's hands is better than, like, trying them then maybe giving them a bit of time in a jail, or just community service"
Lmao.

Shariah deserves to be criticized, though. Come on, it has the removing the criminal's hands as the punishment for theft. It's hardly better than the Code of Hammurabi, from over two millennia prior.

What if someone stole your computer to buy drugs or stole your car to look "cool"?

I am not saying i like that punishment it is just a question

Still nowhere near justified.

If you criticize the fundamentals of your religion, you can't really claim to be a respected figure in your religion. That's why "Imam" Tahwidi is an outright fraud, because he's pretending to be someone he's not because he wants to appeal to people who don't like his religion as a "good Muslim."

He should just apostasize already, and that's assuming what he's saying isn't grounds for takfir (and I don't doubt it is).

How about he doesn't?

[United Muscovite Nations]

If you criticize the fundamentals of your religion, you can't really claim to be a respected figure in your religion.

Only to the fundamentalists. Granted, when your religion is chock full of them, it can be difficult.
Being a reformist is not a bad thing.

Not everyone who believes what a religion says is a fundamentalist. By that logic, any Christian who believes in God is a fundamentalist.

[Proctopeo]

Only to the fundamentalists. Granted, when your religion is chock full of them, it can be difficult.
Being a reformist is not a bad thing.

Not everyone who believes what a religion says is a fundamentalist. By that logic, any Christian who believes in God is a fundamentalist.

Believing in God isn't anywhere near wanting Shariah Law without any changes and disavowing anyone who woke up on the wrong side of the millennium.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not everyone who believes what a religion says is a fundamentalist. By that logic, any Christian who believes in God is a fundamentalist.

Believing in God isn't anywhere near wanting Shariah Law without any changes and disavowing anyone who woke up on the wrong side of the millennium.

If you're a Muslim and believe in God, Shariah is obligatory, it's literally God telling you explicitly what to do and what not to do. How could you "reform" that?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Not everyone who believes what a religion says is a fundamentalist. By that logic, any Christian who believes in God is a fundamentalist.

Believing in God isn't anywhere near wanting Shariah Law without any changes and disavowing anyone who woke up on the wrong side of the millennium.

Belief in Allah SWT is still as a fundamental trait as believing in Shari'ah. Iirc not believing in Shari'ah/being against it is an act of kufr. So yes, Islamically speaking, belief in Allah SWT and belief in Shari'ah are on/close to the same fundamental level.

Idk what you mean by "disavowing anyone who woke up on the wrong side of the millennium".

[Old Tyrannia]

Believing in God isn't anywhere near wanting Shariah Law without any changes and disavowing anyone who woke up on the wrong side of the millennium.

If you're a Muslim and believe in God, Shariah is obligatory, it's literally God telling you explicitly what to do and what not to do. How could you "reform" that?

So would you say that it is impossible for a sincere believing Muslim to live in a non-Muslim country that did not enforce Shariah?

[Proctopeo]

Believing in God isn't anywhere near wanting Shariah Law without any changes and disavowing anyone who woke up on the wrong side of the millennium.

If you're a Muslim and believe in God, Shariah is obligatory, it's literally God telling you explicitly what to do and what not to do. How could you "reform" that?

Sounds like Islam needs a New Testament, then, so it can have the capacity to progress.
However, if you must know, you "reform" this by taking the really bad stuff as either non-literal, or only instructions for founding the religious law, not what they should be for eternity.

Believing in God isn't anywhere near wanting Shariah Law without any changes and disavowing anyone who woke up on the wrong side of the millennium.

Belief in Allah SWT is still as a fundamental trait as believing in Shari'ah. Iirc not believing in Shari'ah/being against it is an act of kufr. So yes, Islamically speaking, belief in Allah SWT and belief in Shari'ah are on/close to the same fundamental level.

Idk what you mean by "disavowing anyone who woke up on the wrong side of the millennium".

"Hey, guys, some of this shit in our religious lawbooks is really fucking gross. Can we not do some of them? It's a moral concern."

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If you're a Muslim and believe in God, Shariah is obligatory, it's literally God telling you explicitly what to do and what not to do. How could you "reform" that?

Sounds like Islam needs a New Testament, then, so it can have the capacity to progress.
However, if you must know, you "reform" this by taking the really bad stuff as either non-literal, or only instructions for founding the religious law, not what they should be for eternity.

You can't

"Hey, guys, some of this sh*t in our religious lawbooks is really f*cking gross. Can we not do some of them? It's a moral concern."

It's not a moral concern. If it then the Holy Qur'an wasn't created by Allah.
Also saying "I don't like this" is a bad reason when it comes to obeying Allah SWT.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If you're a Muslim and believe in God, Shariah is obligatory, it's literally God telling you explicitly what to do and what not to do. How could you "reform" that?

So would you say that it is impossible for a sincere believing Muslim to live in a non-Muslim country that did not enforce Shariah?

There have certainly been many Islamic scholars and Muftis who have said so. I have a book written in collaboration with Malaysia's Grand Muftiate which argues that there's no place in Islam for those who don't live by Shariah, even going as far as to say that "There is no place in Allah's creation for the unwed." And this was written by a liberal Mufti.

If you're a Muslim and believe in God, Shariah is obligatory, it's literally God telling you explicitly what to do and what not to do. How could you "reform" that?

Sounds like Islam needs a New Testament, then, so it can have the capacity to progress.
However, if you must know, you "reform" this by taking the really bad stuff as either non-literal, or only instructions for founding the religious law, not what they should be for eternity.

Except the Quran states that it is the final and perfect revelation from God, so that's not possible.

[Proctopeo]

Sounds like Islam needs a New Testament, then, so it can have the capacity to progress.
However, if you must know, you "reform" this by taking the really bad stuff as either non-literal, or only instructions for founding the religious law, not what they should be for eternity.

Except the Quran states that it is the final and perfect revelation from God, so that's not possible.

Then, do the second thing.
If that's not possible, well, then just scrap the whole thing and start from scratch, I guess. Nowhere else to go if you can't leave the 7th century.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Except the Quran states that it is the final and perfect revelation from God, so that's not possible.

Then, do the second thing.
If that's not possible, well, then just scrap the whole thing and start from scratch, I guess. Nowhere else to go if you can't leave the 7th century.

Then that's just apostasy, not reform.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Except the Quran states that it is the final and perfect revelation from God, so that's not possible.

Then, do the second thing.
If that's not possible, well, then just scrap the whole thing and start from scratch, I guess. Nowhere else to go if you can't leave the 7th century.

Considering that we're in the 21st century now, we have left the 7th century. Also that's a very bad argument, saying stuff from long ago is bad. You could extend that to everything that was created long ago.

[Proctopeo]

Then, do the second thing.
If that's not possible, well, then just scrap the whole thing and start from scratch, I guess. Nowhere else to go if you can't leave the 7th century.

Then that's just apostasy, not reform.

Which? Rethinking the bad parts, or giving up and trying anew?

[North German Realm]

Except the Quran states that it is the final and perfect revelation from God, so that's not possible.

Then, do the second thing.
If that's not possible, well, then just scrap the whole thing and start from scratch, I guess. Nowhere else to go if you can't leave the 7th century.

The problem isn't the fact that Muslims collectively still live in the 7th century (Exceptions do apply), it's that as a collective, they scorn and act in a reactionary manner against any attempt at theological modernization. It's something they share across the board.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Then that's just apostasy, not reform.

Which? Rethinking the bad parts, or giving up and trying anew?

Giving up and trying anew.

And you can't get rid of the bad parts because God told you to do those.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Then that's just apostasy, not reform.

Which? Rethinking the bad parts, or giving up and trying anew?

Don't have to rethink stuff if they aren't bad.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Then, do the second thing.
If that's not possible, well, then just scrap the whole thing and start from scratch, I guess. Nowhere else to go if you can't leave the 7th century.

The problem isn't the fact that Muslims collectively still live in the 7th century (Exceptions do apply), it's that as a collective, they scorn and act in a reactionary manner against any attempt at theological modernization. It's something they share across the board.

You can't "modernize" the final and perfect revelation from God. The Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith are God's final revelation until the Qiyama in Islamic theology, there's no room for change in Islamic theology.

[Proctopeo]

Which? Rethinking the bad parts, or giving up and trying anew?

Giving up and trying anew.

And you can't get rid of the bad parts because God told you to do those.

You still can.

Which? Rethinking the bad parts, or giving up and trying anew?

Don't have to rethink stuff if they aren't bad.

Too bad they are.

The problem isn't the fact that Muslims collectively still live in the 7th century (Exceptions do apply), it's that as a collective, they scorn and act in a reactionary manner against any attempt at theological modernization. It's something they share across the board.

You can't "modernize" the final and perfect revelation from God. The Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith are God's final revelation until the Qiyama in Islamic theology, there's no room for change in Islamic theology.

Well, at that point, it's apostasy or anarchrony. Either overhaul the whole theology or stay forever trapped in the past, eventually fading away as theologies capable of adapting, or at least vaguely relevant to the modern day, take its place.