Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Muslims are becoming highly irreligious

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Keep in mind that the masses who revolted against the Shah did not at all anticipate what Khomeini's vision for the country would be. They found out the hard way. Khomeini exterminated all political dissent shortly after he consolidated control of power. He wiped out the Tudeh Party, and I'm sure you know what happened with Abolhassan Banisadr and later Montazeri. The majority of the Iranian people who revolted against the Shah did not do so in the name of Wilayat al Faqih, but in the name of freedom from the Shah. It was a huge miscalculation to impose Wilayat al Faqih on the Iranian people who were not expecting that and were certainly not prepared for it. That Saddam attacked Iran in 1980 was actually a Godsend for Khomeini, it allowed him to consolidate power and silence all political dissent, as wars are the perfect opportunity to do so in the name of national security and national unity.

You are right, only God can truly guide a people. But once a people have been guided, it is only then possible to impose Islamic governance upon them. When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم established his community of Sahabah رضى الله عنه in Madinat al-Munawwarah, he imposed the Shari'ah upon them. It is futile to impose Islamic governance on a people who reject it in their hearts, it will only create a society of hypocrisy and superficial observance of the Divine Law.

I think 80% is a monumental exaggeration, especially at present. Perhaps only the seminary and shrine cities of Qom and Mashhad respectively are highly religious, but the other urban centers, including Tehran, are not so crazy about the Mullas. A huge indication of this is mosque attendance, which is extremely low in Iran.

I disagree. But before I speak about restrictions on freedom of religion in Iran, what do you say about the undeniable lack of freedom of political dissent in Iran? In my understanding of an Islamic state, there will always be total freedom of political dissent. If we take the Prophetic state in Madinah as an example, we see that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم never restricted the freedom of his opponents, the Munafiqin. He never violated their individual liberty. He never had them imprisoned or executed. Yes, at most it can be said that he demolished and burnt to the ground Masjid al-Dirar. My analysis of that event reveals that the burning was justified because those who built the mosque and even invited the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to bless it by praying in it, had voluntarily accepted the Prophet's authority to destroy it. I believe if they objected to the Prophet's burning of the mosque, he would not have burnt it, but in doing so they would have revealed their hypocrisy and the fact that they did not consider themselves subject to the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم authority.

At any rate, the so-called Islamic Republic's authoritarian tendencies are extremely off-putting and does great damage to the reputation of our Religion and what an Islamic government is suppose to look like. The imprisoning of political dissidents, including women, journalists and foreigners, is opposed to Islamic principles which guarantee individual liberty and civil rights.

In the realm of religion, Sunnis are not allowed to propagate our understanding of Islam because they will be accused of challenging the writ of the State. If there is any freedom of religion for Sunnis, it is merely on paper, and not in practice.

Tell me, if there is full religious freedom in Iran, is there permission for private mosques that are outside State control and surveillance?

Khomeini never hide his intention to create an Islamic state. Some people didn't 100% understood what he meant by that but most were agree with it. There were also communists or nationalists groups but they were in minorities in comparison to Khomeini popularity. Your analysis of Islamic revolution is just completely wrong. 

As for political dissent I also completely disagree with you. There are different legal political groups in Iran but they must obey Islamic principles. It is logic that anti-Islamic groups can't be authorized. You talked about the life of the Prophet (saws) then did you forget what happened to those who commited blasphemy or commited unlawful acts against Islam? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

I hate communism and the ideology of the Tudeh Party, but that does not justify persecuting communists and liquidating them. As Voltaire famously said: ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

This is a tiresome refrain that everything you can't answer is simply "American & Wahhabi propaganda"

Thanks for proving my point, which was: "In the realm of religion, Sunnis are not allowed to propagate our understanding of Islam because they will be accused of challenging the writ of the State."

Since when voltaire which was a kafir should be a source for Muslims? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

The principle of freedom of religion does not distinguish between different religions and denominations of a religion. You can't claim that Iran affords full religious freedom to all its citizens while simultaneously declaring that certain sects are tolerated and others are not.

Islam (both sunni and Shia) is against complete freedom of religion and this is a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
37 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

The principle of freedom of religion does not distinguish between different religions and denominations of a religion. You can't claim that Iran affords full religious freedom to all its citizens while simultaneously declaring that certain sects are tolerated and others are not.

Salaam bro even in sunni Islam non-ahle kitab needs to convert or leave after a country has become run by Islam, or am I wrong?

But the definition of ahle kitab may include other religions like Buddhism when Jesus (عليه السلام) and Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
52 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Propagating a version of Islam is different then opposing the state, in that statement you have raised the presupposition that the State was formed to favor Shias over Sunnis - please share with me where in the edicts of the state such an idea is supported, and please refrain from anecdotes. 

Obviously the State was formed to favour Shias over Sunnis, at least at its apex, since at the highest level the State is based on one of the major Shia currents. All ruling classes maintain at least some form of ideological hegemony. Iran is no exception in this regard. Of course, this does not mean that Sunnis and other Muslims are barred from some form of representation and protection in Iran, but they are certainly not the favoured group(s). I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the current arrangement in Iran, but it’s a bit disingenuous—and inconsistent—to argue that there is no ideological hegemony, especially when you support ideological enforcement elsewhere on this forum, including in this thread.

10 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

You will always find hypocrites and stupid people in every places and every times. If you refuse to apply religion because some people don't like that you will never apply religion then. 

You rightly criticise Wahhabi–Salafi regimes for imposing their ideology on people and quote the Qur’ān’s maxim that there is “no compulsion in religion,” but seemingly voice the opposite in reference to the enforcement of Shia Islam. I must conclude that it is a bit inconsistent to argue for religious toleration when one is a persecuted minority and then support the exact opposite approach when one’s ideology as officially regnant, as it is in the IRI. Of course, this is typical of all ideological groupings: publicly support “tolerance” when one is persecuted and then adopt the opposite approach when in power. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, of course, but denying its reality is disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Northwest said:

Obviously the State was formed to favour Shias over Sunnis, at least at its apex, since at the highest level the State is based on one of the major Shia currents. All ruling classes maintain at least some form of ideological hegemony. Iran is no exception in this regard. Of course, this does not mean that Sunnis and other Muslims are barred from some form of representation and protection in Iran, but they are certainly not the favoured group(s). I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the current arrangement in Iran, but it’s a bit disingenuous—and inconsistent—to argue that there is no ideological hegemony, especially when you support ideological enforcement elsewhere on this forum, including in this thread.

By favor I meant in the social sphere, as for the political realm I agree with your assessment, as the WF is based upon the principles of Islam through the interpretation of the Shia sect.

2 minutes ago, Northwest said:

“no compulsion in religion,”

No compulsion when it comes to reaching an ideological conclusion on theocracy, however, there will be enforcement when it comes to matters which are against the precepts of enjoining good and forbidding evil as defined by Islam. 

4 minutes ago, Northwest said:

I must conclude that it is a bit inconsistent to argue for religious toleration when one is a persecuted minority and then support the exact opposite approach when one’s ideology as officially regnant, as it is in the IRI. Of course, this is typical of all ideological groupings: publicly support “tolerance” when one is persecuted and then adopt the opposite approach when in power. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, of course, but denying its reality is disingenuous.

Regardless of the group being a minority or not, I think it is best to throw out titles and use of certain terminologies as they can create straw man arguments. In the end any group that is fundamentally rooted on the idea of disunity, or murder cannot be tolerated, there are Salafis who are not extremists, however, those Salafis addressed are the ones who believe the blood of the Shia is lawful to shed and in many cases encouraged. 

An example can be the KKK, although they claim to be Christians their deviated beliefs encourage them to one way or another support their persecution of Black people. Is the KKK a minority group which is facing injustice by the state and not allowed to exercise their freedom of religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

By favor I meant in the social sphere, as for the political realm I agree with your assessment, as the WF is based upon the principles of Islam through the interpretation of the Shia sect.

Well, Islam is a complete system in which there is no separation of spheres, whether social, political, economic, etc. Even in non-Islamic societies, conclusions reached in relation to one sphere affect all the others, even if only indirectly at times. Ideological hegemony in the political sphere automatically presupposes certain relations, preferences, and orders in relation to the social spheres. For example, Shia Islam, as formulated in the context of the IRI, allows some degree of autonomy for the followers of Abrahamic monotheism, that is, faiths linked to a revealed Scripture or Text, whether oral or written or both, but does not grant the same privileges to, say, Hindus or Buddhists as it does to Sunnis, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians residing in Iran.

11 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

No compulsion when it comes to reaching an ideological conclusion on theocracy, however, there will be enforcement when it comes to matters which are against the precepts of enjoining good and forbidding evil as defined by Islam.

But one cannot enforce Islamic precepts without a theocracy of some sort, so the latter part of your statement seems to contradict the former. Obviously, enforcement of Islamic precepts is itself based on certain ideological conclusions rooted in theology. I don’t think you can separately claim two contradictory things in relation to something that is fundamentally linked and viewed holistically in Islam. Any enforcement of Islamic precepts will require some sort of theocratic governance, though some of the details may or may not be subject to debate, even though the general framework is theocratic, that is, rooted in and based on Islam.

11 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Regardless of the group being a minority or not, I think it is best to throw out titles and use of certain terminologies as they can create straw man arguments. In the end any group that is fundamentally rooted on the idea of disunity, or murder cannot be tolerated, there are Salafis who are not extremists, however, those Salafis addressed are the ones who believe the blood of the Shia is lawful to shed and in many cases encouraged.

I don’t think one can separate one’s ideology from one’s behaviour. Any group that attains hegemony is bound to enforce its ideology on society, and enforcement ultimately rests on some degree of coercion, just as all institutions and societies rely on rewards and punishments to maintain cohesion. Salafi ideology is inherently anti-Shia, rooted in Sunni revivalism, and is hegemonic in its ambitions, so the fact that some Salafi adherents are politically quiescent and/or nonviolent, at least in public, does not detract in the least from the dangers inherent in the ideology itself. For the same reason Islam, like all other faiths, enjoins its followers not to rely on its rivals for close friendship, patronage, truth on core matters of ideological disagreement and/or deviation, etc. So it is contradictory to tolerant something that one’s ideology is fundamentally opposed to. Salafi ideology, in particular, is anathema to the fundamental tenets of Shia Islam, especially in regard to the leadership and status of the Imams.

11 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

An example can be the KKK, although they claim to be Christians their deviated beliefs encourage them to one way or another support their persecution of Black people. Is the KKK a minority group which is facing injustice by the state and not allowed to exercise their freedom of religion?

However extreme and/or aberrant its actions, I don’t think one can claim that the KKK’s beliefs were entirely deviant, given the fact that racism goes back to some of the earliest Church Fathers, including those of some Eastern churches, e.g., the Syriac, based on the notion of Ham being cursed for insulting the Prophet Noah and being smitten in his skin in turn. Racism is peculiarly a Christian phenomenon in the ancient world, since there isn’t much, if any, evidence of systematic racism among the Jews or pagans prior to the advent of Trinitarian Christianity, given that only some of the Christians began to lend disproportionate emphasis to their peculiar interpretation of the narrative in Genesis. (The Indian caste system only took on racial overtones due to the influence of British imperialism and Western Orientalist “scholarship.”) The Jews, like Muslims and even rationalistic pagans, e.g., Stoics, tended to place emphasis on virtue and piety, whereas the institutional Church was more feudalistic and dualistic. So I think racism is at least somewhat rooted in Trinitarian formulations of Christianity as early as some of the Church Fathers. Since Muslims believe that Christians are deviant to begin with, I’m not entirely sure as to why you are using this particular example.

Also, there are some Islamic narrations that point to blacks being subordinated (I’m uncertain as to how reliable they are, but they’ve been largely ignored):

Quote

By authentic traditions, it is related from ‘Abd al-‘Azim that Imam ‘Ali al-Naqi said that Nuh lived for two thousand five hundred years. One day while he was sleeping on the Ark, a strong wind blew and uncovered him. Ham and Yafith saw this and started laughing. Sam scolded them and covered Nuh. Nuh woke up and saw the two of them laughing and inquired the reason for that. Sam narrated what had happened. Nuh raised his hands towards the heavens and said, “O God, change the seed of Ham and al-Yasa‘ so that they beget dark-skinned children.” Nuh told them: “God has made your children the slaves of the children of Sam because he did good to me. You both are disinherited and your disinheritance will manifest itself in your children and the signs of notoriety will remain distinguishable in the progeny of Sam until the time the world will last. Therefore, all dark-skinned people are children of Ham and all the Turks, Saqaleyeh, Gog and Magog are the descendants of Yafith.

Apart from this, those who are reddish and fair, are the children of Sam.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northwest said:

 

You rightly criticise Wahhabi–Salafi regimes for imposing their ideology on people and quote the Qur’ān’s maxim that there is “no compulsion in religion,” but seemingly voice the opposite in reference to the enforcement of Shia Islam. I must conclude that it is a bit inconsistent to argue for religious toleration when one is a persecuted minority and then support the exact opposite approach when one’s ideology as officially regnant, as it is in the IRI. Of course, this is typical of all ideological groupings: publicly support “tolerance” when one is persecuted and then adopt the opposite approach when in power. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, of course, but denying its reality is disingenuous.

I don't criticize so much such "salafi wahabi regime" and when I do that it is not so much about their treatment of Shia Muslims. By the way I am not particularly for what you call "religious toleration" or at least not in the western sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Indeed. The dilemma today is that we are hard pressed to find a contemporary society where one can practice Islam fully without obstruction.

This is an interesting point which has since led to a discussion on Iran as a suitable place to practice Islam.

I wonder if we have a real true relationship with God in our hearts, one which has transformed us from the inside out, then wherever we live; whether it is a deprived secular, materilistic society like many in the west or a strict theocratic regiem, or a comunist / athistic dictatorship, then we will have God's strength to be his representitives for truth, righteousness and justice.

A transformed godly life will be attractive and draw people to their creator.  Our young people will see the difference and it will make them want to join.

It is very easy to blame something outside us like the regiem or Netflix when the real issue is that we haven't got a transformational relationship with God.

If our religion is superficial then our young people will soon see that and reject it.  But if it is internal and spiritually transformational and lived out in all our actions and attitudes then it will offer an alternative reality which our young people will have to seriously consider.

20 hours ago, THREE1THREE said:

Matthew 23:23-28

A really relevent quote - Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The principle of freedom of religion does not distinguish between different religions and denominations of a religion. You can't claim that Iran affords full religious freedom to all its citizens while simultaneously declaring that certain sects are tolerated and others are not.

We had a discussion on this maybe just a month or two ago. Iran and Saudi Arabia also have laws in place for the killing of apostates. 

People wonder why societies are becoming more secular, or are hiding their faith while opposing these ideals covertly, it's because these hardliner theocracies have oppressive laws. Nothing says intolerance like laws for execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Northwest said:

Well, Islam is a complete system in which there is no separation of spheres, whether social, political, economic, etc. Even in non-Islamic societies, conclusions reached in relation to one sphere affect all the others, even if only indirectly at times. Ideological hegemony in the political sphere automatically presupposes certain relations, preferences, and orders in relation to the social spheres.

Conclusions reached are in conformity with Islam, I don't see the issue, as on a fundamental level when it comes to societal affairs Shias and Sunnis share the same interests within their respective nation, as for matters domestically both share the same freedoms.

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

For example, Shia Islam, as formulated in the context of the IRI, allows some degree of autonomy for the followers of Abrahamic monotheism, that is, faiths linked to a revealed Scripture or Text, whether oral or written or both, but does not grant the same privileges to, say, Hindus or Buddhists as it does to Sunnis, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians residing in Iran.

The ideological hegemony in Iran is Islam, like the hegemony in the west is liberalism and religions cannot influence utilitarians with their objective values, therefore in Iran all actions would presuppose the benefit of Islam and the Muslims, hence the idea that Abrahamic faiths are favored over other faiths - firstly other faiths are a minority and secondly they share ideals and beliefs which are antithetical to their system of governance.

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

For example, Shia Islam, as formulated in the context of the IRI, allows some degree of autonomy for the followers of Abrahamic monotheism, that is, faiths linked to a revealed Scripture or Text, whether oral or written or both, but does not grant the same privileges to, say, Hindus or Buddhists as it does to Sunnis, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians residing in Iran.

The Islamic precepts that will be enforced are those of a general nature and a matter of consensus between the Muslims, for example the Islamic dress code that is to be maintained (hijab) the impermissibility of certain area of 'entertainment' to be held legally and so on so forth. 

Show me one example where Iran is enforcing an ideological precept that is not favored by the Muslims collectively and I will concede to your point and even then it will just tie back to the Islamic governance being one that is paving the way for the arrival of the twelfth Imam - so if it were to lean on a side when need be, it will lean on a Shia position, but never to an extent which would be against the interest of our Sunni brothers when it comes to their health, wealth, and happiness. 

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

I don’t think one can separate one’s ideology from one’s behaviour. Any group that attains hegemony is bound to enforce its ideology on society, and enforcement ultimately rests on some degree of coercion, just as all institutions and societies rely on rewards and punishments to maintain cohesion. Salafi ideology is inherently anti-Shia, rooted in Sunni revivalism, and is hegemonic in its ambitions, so the fact that some Salafi adherents are politically quiescent and/or nonviolent, at least in public, does not detract in the least from the dangers inherent in the ideology itself.

This can be said about any faith or belief system which contradicts that within the west, for example communists who reside within the U.S and other such individuals who are fundamentally against the free market enterprise and or western democracy.

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

For the same reason Islam, like all other faiths, enjoins its followers not to rely on its rivals for close friendship, patronage, truth on core matters of ideological disagreement and/or deviation, etc. So it is contradictory to tolerant something that one’s ideology is fundamentally opposed to. Salafi ideology, in particular, is anathema to the fundamental tenets of Shia Islam, especially in regard to the leadership and status of the Imams.

Salafis that do not adhere to the teachings of ibn abdul wahab don't hold the same extreme ideas that those who do believe in his teachings carry, in the end all such Salafis are a minority within a minority and they can never carry a true threat to the Iranian people, as their ideology there is not funded and any hate or violent preaching like in any nation would be halted. 

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

 I’m not entirely sure as to why you are using this particular example.

The example of the KKK was once I shared to highlight the issue of religious extremism, fundamentalism, etc, not being condoned by the government, due to their violence and acts of persecution not against fundamental Christian teachings perhaps, but the edicts of a Liberal society.

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

there are some Islamic narrations that point to blacks being subordinated (I’m uncertain as to how reliable they are, but they’ve been largely ignored):

The Prophet in his famous Hadith said that there is no superiority of a white man over a black, nor an Arab over a non-Arab except by piety; likewise the Quran affirms that the most righteous of the people are those who are God-conciousness.

The way the arabic words Black and White in arabic are understood today are modern constructs (by accident or design) for example the actual europeans were called Banu-Asfar or the 'Yellow People' and to this day when a person is pale that individual is referred to as 'Musfar' i.e their 'yellowed' or in other words have lost their color.

When the Arab says that a man or woman is 'white' they mean that the individual has a pure or clear appearance (they don't mean that the person has a white complexion) - individuals with a black skin tone can be referred to as what it is in modern times understood as white in Arabic - it is pivotal that classical and modern arabic is differentiated.

Lasan Al-arab states: For the Arabs white does not mean the whiteness of skin tone, rather an individual's purity and freedom from vice, for contrast refer to the Quran when it is translated as the people having their faces whitened, this isn't whitening in the sense of having your complexion become lighter, rather as understood by the Arabs and defined by the Quran - whiteness that denotes purity and freedom from vice, regardless whether you were Banu-Asfar (European) or Banu-Asmar (Dark) you could be Abyadh - White.

Inshallah this helps lift any doubts you had regarding Islam and its fairness and brings you one step closer :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
28 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:
5 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

 

We had a discussion on this maybe just a month or two ago. Iran and Saudi Arabia also have laws in place for the killing of apostates.

Hudud laws are present within any Islamic society and the way apostasy is defined is when a person leaves the religion and then begins to slander it and sow the seeds of disunity and corruption.

29 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

People wonder why societies are becoming more secular, or are hiding their faith while opposing these ideals covertly, it's because these hardliner theocracies have oppressive laws. Nothing says intolerance like laws for execution.

Oppressive laws to some are liberating to others (there needs to be objectivity something secularists tend to lack), in the end those who are subject to capital punishment are for reasons of transgressing against the sacred law of God on earth and in the end seeking to corrupt society and mankind, this matter is very convoluted and it is not in place to simply raise it as your objection to Iran, because you find Hudud laws to be distasteful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Hudud laws are present within any Islamic society and the way apostasy is defined is when a person leaves the religion and then begins to slander it and sow the seeds of disunity and corruption.

Oppressive laws to some are liberating to others (there needs to be objectivity something secularists tend to lack), in the end those who are subject to capital punishment are for reasons of transgressing against the sacred law of God on earth and in the end seeking to corrupt society and mankind, this matter is very convoluted and it is not in place to simply raise it as your objection to Iran, because you find Hudud laws to be distasteful.

Transgression against a sacred law of those implementing the executions of course. 

You're simply affirming my statements. In which case, I could only say thank you for agreeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Transgression against a sacred law of those implementing the executions of course.

I know it is difficult to come to terms with these matters, however, in reality apostasy laws are issues which are very convoluted and in the end when conceptualized through an unbiased lens that is not policed by secularism a person can understand these laws.

Please give this a read, an interesting article by: @Ibn al-Hussain regarding apostasy laws 

https://www.al-islam.org/apostasy-ruling-and-its-justification-twelver-shii-jurisprudence-syed-ali-imran

 

Edited by Mohammad313Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
20 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I know it is difficult to come to terms with these matters, however, in reality apostasy laws are issues which are very convoluted and in the end when conceptualized through an unbiased lens that is not policed by secularism a person can understand these laws.

Please give this a read, an interesting article by: @Ibn al-Hussain regarding apostasy laws 

https://www.al-islam.org/apostasy-ruling-and-its-justification-twelver-shii-jurisprudence-syed-ali-imran

 

And what, in the above link, do you feel is significant to this discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

And what, in the above link, do you feel is significant to this discussion?

I can say the same about your interjection within the discussion :) 

We are discussing an Islamic form of governance and how it relates to Sunnis and then you come up with this Hudud law objection that has no relation to the topic of discussion respectively.

Even then I apologize for considering your objection which has been addressed countless of times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I can say the same about your interjection within the discussion :) 

We are discussing an Islamic form of governance and how it relates to Sunnis and then you come up with this Hudud law objection that has no relation to the topic of discussion respectively.

Even then I apologize for considering your objection which has been addressed countless of times.

We're discussion these trends of people, Muslims in particular, becoming irreligious. And in that, religious persecution has come up. I'm just playing the hand that was pre-dealt.

Part of the reason people are walking away from religion, is because of oppressive (and overall just divisive) religious practices, which includes execution for apostates.

Nothing shouts "leave this religion", like, "if you publicly announce leaving, you may be executed".

But this is just 1 item of a number of items that follow these same tendencies.

And everyone can come up with excuses or can try to deny this. I'm just telling it like it is. Nothing drive irreligious tendencies like persecution of minorities, that includes every minority, including atheists.

This same conversation is occuring in the politics section with everything happening in Lebanon. Why are people getting fed up with each other in Lebanon? Part of the reason is this religious divisiveness, which walks hand-in-hand with religiously based legal mistreatment of others. And it's not just in Iran, it's in every theocracy.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, iCenozoic said:

Part of the reason people are walking away from religion, is because of oppressive religious practices, which includes execution for apostates.

Very concise answer - apostasy is not simply differing theologically it is treason that will lead to death of Muslims or heavy corruption of society, the article I linked addresses this idea and shares this point, I thought you read it and then still objected to how it was “significant” to the discussion.

3 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

And everyone can come up with excuses or can try to deny this. I'm just telling it like it is. Nothing drive irreligious tendencies like persecution of minorities, that includes every minority, including atheists.

Nobody is coming up with excuses, every point raised is either from the history of the Prophet, the Quran, and or the Hadith.

in the end we see the Prophet never ever in any circumstance ordered the death of an individual simply because they left the religion. E.g I don’t recall the name of the man, but he left Islam and became Christian, because he loved a Christian women - when news came to the Prophet about this from the apostates own father and the father said he wanted to kill his son for his betrayal, the messenger responded to “let him be”.

Brother apostasy is becoming a combatant against Islam in the purest since, how does any nation treat combatants? Not combatants from other nations, but a combatant who has risen from your fold. 

Now I’ll say this if apostasy laws in Iran are supposedly, a big supposedly, because really how much of the media can we trust when conveying these executions. For example I remember one hanging that occurred where there was outcry and people said it was an innocent homosexual when it turned out to be someone who had raped and killed. 

Back to the supposedly - why can’t we have discussions of reform? Why can’t we seek reform in regards to these matters, why do we have to throw away the entire government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
36 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Very concise answer - apostasy is not simply differing theologically it is treason that will lead to death of Muslims or heavy corruption of society, the article I linked addresses this idea and shares this point, I thought you read it and then still objected to how it was “significant” to the discussion.

Nobody is coming up with excuses, every point raised is either from the history of the Prophet, the Quran, and or the Hadith.

in the end we see the Prophet never ever in any circumstance ordered the death of an individual simply because they left the religion. E.g I don’t recall the name of the man, but he left Islam and became Christian, because he loved a Christian women - when news came to the Prophet about this from the apostates own father and the father said he wanted to kill his son for his betrayal, the messenger responded to “let him be”.

Brother apostasy is becoming a combatant against Islam in the purest since, how does any nation treat combatants? Not combatants from other nations, but a combatant who has risen from your fold. 

Now I’ll say this if apostasy laws in Iran are supposedly, a big supposedly, because really how much of the media can we trust when conveying these executions. For example I remember one hanging that occurred where there was outcry and people said it was an innocent homosexual when it turned out to be someone who had raped and killed. 

Back to the supposedly - why can’t we have discussions of reform? Why can’t we seek reform in regards to these matters, why do we have to throw away the entire government.

I agree that reform should be considered and I'm sure it is being considered by many, even right now, in these countries.

But of course reform that involves equal rights among faiths, is going to be more difficult in a theocracy than say, a secular government, and really full equality may never be possible in a theocracy. People of the theocracy of course won't see anything wrong with this because it matches their perspective. But of course anyone outside of this fold is going to be of a second class.

That Daniel haqiqatjou guy on YouTube argued that secular or liberal societies have a similar attitude where religious people may be viewed as second class citizens, which is also true, however there is a difference in that secular nation's don't have regulations operating against people based on faith.  Indeed, secular nation's were founded, because of religious oppression experienced in theocracy.

Secular views were born out of broken theocracy in the past, and they still are being born, covertly, in theocracies today. Which is why there are no laws for executing apostates (or anti apostates) in secular nation's. Are there laws against sabotage of the government? Sure. But these are dissociated from religious faith or lack thereof, as it should be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

But of course reform that involves equal rights among faiths, is going to be more difficult in a theocracy

This is because it defeats the purpose of said theocracy, the Quran says (paraphrasing) can truth and falsehood be considered equal?

in the end reform is always great when it fits the Quran and is also considerate of the time and era, however, ideas of equality between religions in a theocracy are problematic for reasons you yourself denoted quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

This is because it defeats the purpose of said theocracy, the Quran says (paraphrasing) can truth and falsehood be considered equal?

in the end reform is always great when it fits the Quran and is also considerate of the time and era, however, ideas of equality between religions in a theocracy are problematic for reasons you yourself denoted quite well.

Oh yea, I agree. And this drags us back to the fundamental nature of religion.

In an extreme sense, can a religious body be so confident in their beliefs, that they may have the right to kill outsiders, if their religion permits?

I would say, no. ISIS would obviously be an extreme case of this, where people felt as though their faith gave them the right to kill others.

And so there's this question of how they know if their beliefs are ultimate truth.

And I'd say that, beliefs are generally faith based. Nobody is outside with a tape measure measuring God. We aren't sitting around the campfire having a long in-depth discussion with Jesus or Muhammad. We are basing our understanding of ultimate truth, on experiences that are second or third or fourth hand, In ways that we really just can't confirm. 

I don't think we have the evidence necessary to go the length of assaulting the lively-hood of others over subjective matters. Or even just to treat them in any legally unequal way.

And I think that this above understanding, will inevitably lead to struggles and even ultimate failure of probably every theocracy. Unless a theocracy can truly reform itself to have legal equality in every avenue.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The problem with the western world that I have been observing in my classes and in their discussions, is that, they equate their bad experiences with the whole worlds experiences, let me explain:

Historically, the beleif in Christianity has been about faith alone, you can even see this today where christians say "you have to have faith!", what happens here is secularists say all religions are like this, when they mean Christianity and I have seen this first hand especially in my philosophy courses I even had discussions with the teacher and he realised how wrong some of these notions being thought are.

Another area is theocracy, the Christian church had been suppressing science and ideas for centuries even here in quebec until the 1950's the church was suppressing novels and censoring them, now what happens is seculars try to make it as if all theocracies are like this, I have seen this first hand in my french and history classes where the teachers would generalise by saying "religion was supressing science and ideas"  or "the darkness of religion and the enlightment of secularism" when in reality they mean Christianity or the Church.

 

I am not here to debate tho, just wanted to tell people to just have an open mind and look at this indepth, not just look at what some failed theocracy states did, people need to read books look at the whole picture.

People need to also realise that the reason why almost all nations on earth are secular is not necessarly because people were mad at their theocracies, it's more because the Brittish and the French took over the entire world, brought with them their languages, ideas and technology and the indegeonous people adopted it, because they looked at the european colonists as better and they felt inferior so they tried to emulate them to basically try and compete with them and prove them selves.

This is one of the reasons why they wouod have acceoted secularism.

 

 

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
19 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Oh yea, I agree. And this drags us back to the fundamental nature of religion.

In an extreme sense, can a religious body be so confident in their beliefs, that they may have the right to kill outsiders, if their religion permits?

I would say, no. ISIS would obviously be an extreme case of this, where people felt as though their faith gave them the right to kill others.

And so there's this question of how they know if their beliefs are ultimate truth.

And I'd say that, beliefs are generally faith based. Nobody is outside with a tape measure measuring God. We aren't sitting around the campfire having a long in-depth discussion with Jesus or Muhammad. We are basing our understanding of ultimate truth, on experiences that are second or third or fourth hand, In ways that we really just can't confirm. 

I don't think we have the evidence necessary to go the length of assaulting the lively-hood of others over subjective matters. Or even just to treat them in any legally unequal way.

And I think that this above understanding, will inevitably lead to struggles and even ultimate failure of probably every theocracy. Unless a theocracy can truly reform itself to have legal equality in every avenue.

These same objections can be posed to any government and any ideology, in the end what causes said theocracy to differ is that it basis its laws with God’s law. Fundamental Judeo/Christian law does not differ when it comes to these “extreme” laws and I may argue that they are more clear and in the cases of Judaism more severe. 

In the end it is quite problematic to define equality, or right and wrong through a system of thinking which is devoid of objective morality, in a sense we all believe religion has fundamentally good tenants and then others may say there are some “not so good” laws or ideas that also come with those “good” beliefs. What someone can do here is use the objective scale e.g The Quran to question or address an individuals concerns.

In the end we have what is equal to conversations with the Prophets and that is their example, the way they lived their lives, their message and books. It is our own conditioning through a secular system that has caused us to be inconsiderate of God and objectivity when in reality there is no basis without God and divine law. 

Take Liberalism for example John Locke founded it mainly through the precepts of objective morality through Christianity, Utilitarians can’t just say “everything is okay, as long as you don’t hurt anybody” this presupposition is extremely problematic and is very inconsistent not just philosophically, but with human nature as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I will even stress that thete has been theocracies that have allowed diffirent beleifs to flourish, for example, I remeber reading about the ottoman empire at one point in its history allowing christians to be judged according to a chirstian court, jews with a jewish court and etc.

They basically had their own areas whete they governed in, but all you hear about the ottoman empire nowadays is how they kidnapp christian children to be these high ranking officials and etc.

This is just something I observed not even my opinion where only the bad things are generally mentionned from theocracies because it would fit with the current mindset which is understandable, every society has it's biases I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
43 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

These same objections can be posed to any government and any ideology, in the end what causes said theocracy to differ is that it basis its laws with God’s law. Fundamental Judeo/Christian law does not differ when it comes to these “extreme” laws and I may argue that they are more clear and in the cases of Judaism more severe. 

In the end it is quite problematic to define equality, or right and wrong through a system of thinking which is devoid of objective morality, in a sense we all believe religion has fundamentally good tenants and then others may say there are some “not so good” laws or ideas that also come with those “good” beliefs. What someone can do here is use the objective scale e.g The Quran to question or address an individuals concerns.

In the end we have what is equal to conversations with the Prophets and that is their example, the way they lived their lives, their message and books. It is our own conditioning through a secular system that has caused us to be inconsiderate of God and objectivity when in reality there is no basis without God and divine law. 

Take Liberalism for example John Locke founded it mainly through the precepts of objective morality through Christianity, Utilitarians can’t just say “everything is okay, as long as you don’t hurt anybody” this presupposition is extremely problematic and is very inconsistent not just philosophically, but with human nature as well.

And yet, even what is claimed to be "God's Law" differs between faiths. I'm sure ISIS also felt as though they were unique in implementing God's Law where all others had failed. How naive they truly were.

Equality in all aspects may be complicated to achieve, but executing disbelievers, I would say is criminal because it involves something readily observable, oppression and the murder of others based on subjective perception.

And saying that some topics are complicated doesn't automatically justify any particular religions approach. Again, ISIS I'm sure would make the exact same statements. Well, the world is secular and criminal, therefore death to apostates.

It just doesn't follow.

You can't say "well it's in the Quran therefore that's that". The world just isn't so simple. Which is why we reform, and it's why we have left behind things like slavery or killing of apostates or women having half-rights. People used to use the Bible to justify slavery, and the Quran too. 

But we have stepped away from this, because we saw the pain and oppression that resulted from it. We felt empathy and sought out an alternative that is less corrupt, to the extent possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, HusseinAbbas said:

I will even stress that thete has been theocracies that have allowed diffirent beleifs to flourish, for example, I remeber reading about the ottoman empire at one point in its history allowing christians to be judged according to a chirstian court, jews with a jewish court and etc.

They basically had their own areas whete they governed in, but all you hear about the ottoman empire nowadays is how they kidnapp christian children to be these high ranking officials and etc.

This is just something I observed not even my opinion where only the bad things are generally mentionned from theocracies because it would fit with the current mindset which is understandable, every society has it's biases I guess.

Every theocracy is also capable of conducting just actions and reforming. But really this act of treating others in an equal manner, is an approach toward secularism. The Armenians were eventually massacred during world war 1, but if society were more secular, presumably, this massacre would not have occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well anyway, I am ok with simply letting the proof be in the pudding. We can compare morality with respect to religious freedom between countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and more secular countries such as Germany or France, and we can let reality speak for itself. Though of course no nation is perfect, I would say hands down that I would rather live in Germany or France if I were of a religious minority then I would want to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, due to laws resulting in persecution of religious minorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

I'm sure ISIS also felt as though they were unique in implementing God's Law where all others had failed. How naive they truly were.

You see God has made it to where anybody who takes a position that is antithetical to truth will reach destruction and or contradiction.

3 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Equality in all aspects may be complicated to achieve, but executing disbelievers, I would say is criminal because it involves something readily observable, oppression and the murder of others based on subjective perception.

It’s not as simple as merely “executing disbelievers” - like I said these are combatants who were treasonous.

4 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

And saying that some topics are complicated doesn't automatically justify any particular religions approach.

No, it shows that we should consider matters not through our understanding of them, because for example so many things sound just great when you explain the idea of doing what you please as long as you don’t hurt others - in the end this only appeals to the individual and not the society and even at that it can only go so far. Islam addresses the benefit of the individual and society. 

6 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

we reform

We reform back to the authentic teachings of the Quran. 

7 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

like slavery

Slavery evolved and it’s very much alive, especially within the west. 

8 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

killing of apostates

This was already addressed

Apostate - Someone who conspires against Islam and Muslims so as to wish the Muslims and the state harm through a position of treason.

9 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

women having half-rights.

I like how you slid that in there :P

10 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

People used to use the Bible to justify slavery

There isn’t one form of slavery. Plantation slavery is not similar to simply being owned and then eventually buying your freedom. Read Jonathan Browns book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

persecution of religious minorities.

What minorities are being persecuted in Iran? This is a straw man, do you want Wahhabis to freely spread their ideas of massacring Shias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, iCenozoic said:

Every theocracy is also capable of conducting just actions and reforming. But really this act of treating others in an equal manner, is an approach toward secularism. The Armenians were eventually massacred during world war 1, but if society were more secular, presumably, this massacre would not have occurred.

That is just false, as I mentionned there has been theocracies which have allowed for religious freedom and not cut someones head for their beleif.

The armenians were killed off because of a racist ideology that was present in the ottoman empire, if society was secular they would have litterally used excuses like "these people are extreem" "they are religious fundemnetalists" "they are spereatists" and the list goes on to excuse horrible behaviour, people would always find reasons to justify horrible behaviour.

Under an real theocracy that follows islam the armenian genocide would have not been possible, but you need to realise that corrupt politicians exist.

Here in Canada we live in a secular country since some time and just recently the native americans were litterally forced to be "civilised" by going to specific schools for them up until the 90s and they used religion, political ideas and everything to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Well anyway, I am ok with simply letting the proof be in the pudding. We can compare morality with respect to religious freedom between countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and more secular countries such as Germany or France, and we can let reality speak for itself. Though of course no nation is perfect, I would say hands down that I would rather live in Germany or France if I were of a religious minority then I would want to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, due to laws resulting in persecution of religious minorities.

Also this claim about religious minorities being percecuted in iran is just false, I have relatives living there I even know a familly that is half aethiest and half muslim and they live just fine, this is why I urge people to look up deeply something before commenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, HusseinAbbas said:

Also this claim about religious minorities being percecuted in iran is just false, I have relatives living there I even know a familly that is half aethiest and half muslim and they live just fine, this is why I urge people to look up deeply something before commenting.

Tell that to the Baha'is and the apostates which face threats of execution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, iCenozoic said:

threats

These people need reform through Islam if this claim is true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
40 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Tell that to the Baha'is and the apostates which face threats of execution.

 

From what I have seen the Baha'is are not persecuted for their religion but because a lot of them or their ideoligy is/are supportive of the zionist ideology which is not allowed in a lot of arab countries and iran, in SECULAR lebanon israelis are not allowed to enter the country for example. There is litterally proof to my claim.

 

Now the thing is, western media are fully supportive of the zionist ideology, so ofcourse they will try to make it out as some sort of "relligious oppression" when infact the whole thing is much more complicated then you make it out to be, they do the same with everything that happens in iran even Covid19 :hahaha: and look at how wrong they were, you guys are the same people who advocate to not be like isis and look at the world in grey and not in black and white but when it comes to specific subjects that are against what you beleive suddenly your arguments are black and white. i really beg you to not be like that.

Just an observation.

 

But again, if you want to debate about baha'is there is litterally a foroum about it made in 2016:

There is a whole debate about there and a whole set of diffirent opinionw on it so good luck with it.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...