There is no Islamism in Islam

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I will highly appreciate if you briefly share those examples from history where a 100% real Islamic state ever existed. Otherwise I will quote "He who orders his slave to do things that he knows him to be incapable of doing, then punishes him, is a fool" from Muhamamd al Warraq.

Well I define 100% real Islamic state as simply abiding by the requirements of Shari'ah in terms of how it operates and jurisprudence and Leadership. Not Utopia as Islam never says Islamic State needs to be Utopia.

So examples
Khilafa Rashideen
Khilafah Abbasiyah
Khilafah Uthmaniyah
Ghaznawiyah
Al-Andalus
Delhi Sultanate
Mamluks

And many minor examples

Now like I said Islamic State simply is using Shari'ah and interpretations of Shari'ah to codify or apply laws, It is not Utopia. Nor is it meant to imply Utopia.

[Badlun]

Well I define 100% real Islamic state as simply abiding by the requirements of Shari'ah in terms of how it operates and jurisprudence and Leadership. Not Utopia as Islam never says Islamic State needs to be Utopia.

So examples
Khilafa Rashideen
Khilafah Abbasiyah
Khilafah Uthmaniyah
Ghaznawiyah
Al-Andalus
Delhi Sultanate
Mamluks

And many minor examples

Now like I said Islamic State simply is using Shari'ah and interpretations of Shari'ah to codify or apply laws, It is not Utopia. Nor is it meant to imply Utopia.

If you consider those brutal caliphs and sultans to be representatives of Islamic state then God may save me from such Islamic states where brother kill brother for power and where harems are the fashion of the day. Those were Muslims by name only.

They had nothing to do with the religion of Islam. Their acts of genocides, fratricides, barbarism,extravaganza, sexual perversion, keeping slavery as an institution etc cannot be termed as Islamic. Yes they were Islamists who were using religion and so called Sharia for their power, greed and worldly success.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well firstly, not all of them were brutal at least not to Muslims, and that's the first priority of an Islamic State, to secure and protect Muslim interests; and secondly even if what you are saying is correct, You asked when has Islamic State ever existed, you didn't ask if these people are ideal representatives or not. Simply asking about EXISTENCE, then your requirement has been fulfilled. They did use Islamic Law and Shari'ah, whatever else they did is up for debate.

Just like Britain were brutal colonialists, French were Brutal colonialists and they were Secular States and Soviets were a Secular State. Just because they were brutal doesn't change that they're secular . In fact Secularism has done more wrong to Muslims than even the "Brutal Muslims" you speak of. After all it was Secuilarists who forced our Muslim brothers from their homelands in Chechnia and Crimea to the Gulags. It was Secularists who massacred our Algerian brothers who wanted their independence.So an Islamic State would be better for Muslim interests regardless.

You're mixing up your questions, This is called Changing Goal Posts in Logical Debate.

[کیش]

You said there is no dictionary word as Islamism and I gave you few links where Islamism was defined by dictionaries.

You gave the meaning from an English dictionary created during the brutal British imperial empire. The word doesn't exist in Arabic or Islamic text. It's purely made to denigrate the name of Islam. And your propagating it.

It means the Prophet was committing sin of not implementing Islamism in Makkah if Islamism is part of Islam?

This sentence does t make sense. How many times are you going to use a made up word in a sentence.

In Madinah Muhammad was a prophet of the religion of Islam but at the same time an Arab leader. Many things he did cannot be part of the religion of Islam like killing or banishing Jews, having more than 4 wives, marrying a child, marrying wife of an adopted son,offensive and defensive wars etc

Do you think such verses can be part of a religion or an Arab political system

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Quran 8.12: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Those verses are no different than your European masters declaring war on "terrorism" If you don't have a problem when NATO kills "militants" in the name of fighting terrorism, their shouldn't be a problem if a Muslim kills a "kafir"in the battlefield.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You said there is no dictionary word as Islamism and I gave you few links where Islamism was defined by dictionaries.

It means the Prophet was committing sin of not implementing Islamism in Makkah if Islamism is part of Islam?

What Kais is saying is that there is no distinguished concept called Islamism in Islam, the term as a concept separate from Islam IS made up; but Political Process and Activity is already apart of Islam and in fact if you look at the definition of Islamism in the Dictionary it means Islam itself too.

Do you think such verses can be part of a religion or an Arab political system

Well that's the thing; you present a red herring here of an "Arab Political System". I'm assuming what you're trying to do by suggesting this is to create an Emotional Stigma to imply conformity to Arab dominance.
But Your narrative is errant because the Jews of Madinah were allied with the Makkan Pagan Arabs. The Pagan Arabs were the Status Quo of Arabs of that time. Thereby it couldn't be an "Arab Political System" since it was against the Arab establishment. Also reinforcing that was the presence of Non-Arabs, like Bilal, Salman and Suhayb amongst the Muslims. Which reinforces that the assertion is incorrect.This means that the verses are apart of the religious doctrine not an Arab Establishment System.

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Quran 8.12: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Well these verses themselves prove that Political and Governmental processes are apart of the Islamic system since Military activity is an extension of a Government/Political System.Furthermore it keeps saying Lord, in secular processes Lord is never invoked. This verifies Politics is enshrined in Islamyou have by quoting these verses disproved your thesis

[Khostai]

The fact there are even Islamic Parties running in elections in Turkey demonstrates that this delusion of Turkey as a bastion of secularism doesn't exist. Secular = NO church and state, not some church and state. Turkey did enforce secularism but yet now it is ruled by an Islamic party. And the reason there's no change in constitution is that Islamists are reengineering society first.

Sissi is former Mubarak brass, has worked with foreign (read as Western) intelligence and has received money from their payroll but it has nothing to do with intervention. Heck they even had to STAGE protests against Morsi.
Only people wanting secularism are European masters and their slaves.Who are you trying to fool here?

Ow first you said that it is enough for a country just to state that they are secular, and now you claim that Turkey is not really secular becuase it has Islamic parties running, if that is the case than a lot of European countries are also not secular, becuase even Geermany is ruled By CDU ( Christian Democratic Union), so Germany is also becoming christianized and is not secular lol.

The only people wanting sharia are arabs and theire brainwashed slaves.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

If someone SAYS they're an 80ft Giant with Angel Wings, that doesn't mean that is what they are. Saying they're a secular government doesn't make it so. Of course they're not completely Islamic but that is the direction they're going. I never claimed Turkey is an Islamic State, I said they're no longer TRULY secular and are RULED by an Islamic Party, the transition is clearly happening. Turkey was once ruled by repressive secularists who ENFORCED secularism. Now Ikhwanis are governing.

Well of course Syrians and Egyptians ARE Arabs, they are called Arab countries, and they want Shari'ah. You just refuted your own claim. Good job.

[Khorosani]

There are laws, rules, regulations in the penal codes, criminal procedure codes etc which make it a crime if you injure religious sentiments of others. Sacrilege and blasphemy is not allowed and laws can be enacted in a secular state because secularism is religious freedom and religious tolerance not the otherwise. Secularism does not forbade religion but separate it from politics.

you didn't answer the question, what should be done to them

[Khorosani]

But they're not an Islamic Amir since they don't rule by Shari'ah, you need that contingent as well. Taliban used Pashtunwali to determine rulings so they cannot be considered a Shari'ah state.

can you bring proof that they used pashtunwali to determine rulings?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

can you bring proof that they used pashtunwali to determine rulings?

According to local security officials in northern Kunduz province of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban leader who ordered an Afghan pair to be stoned to death last year was arrested by Afghan security forces.
Kunduz provincial police chief Samiullah Qatra told reporters, Qari Niaz Mohammad prominent Taliban leader was arrested in this province two days back.
Mr. Qatra further added the detained Taliban leader was a prominent Taliban leader who was commanding Taliban militants in four provinces of Afghanistan including Kunduz, Badakhshan, Takhar and Baghlan provinces of Afghanistan.
He said Taliban militants stoned an Afghan couple in August 2010 after they escaped from their home.
The couple fled to Pakistan and returned back to Kunduz province after their families promised to agree with their marriage however Taliban militants stoned them to death in a public execution in Dasht-e-Archi.

There is no execution of unmarried couples in Islam; this is a Pashtunwali custom

http://www.khaama.com/taliban-leader-arrested-in-brazen-execution-of-afghan-couple-174

[Khorosani]

There is no execution of unmarried couples in Islam; this is a Pashtunwali custom

http://www.khaama.com/taliban-leader...han-couple-174

:facepalm:

[49:6] Saheeh International
O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.

Besides, not applying the rule of Allah in one instance does not automatically make you a taghut.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

:facepalm:

[49:6] Saheeh International
O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.

Besides, not applying the rule of Allah in one instance does not automatically make you a taghut.

That's not a refutation; you asked for proof, you got it, it's your job to refute it. And YES it is when you're claiming to be applying Shari'ah. That's NOT Shari'ah. Good thin you face palmed because you have to prove that these people who reported this information are DISOBEDIENT before this hadith would even be remotely applicable. FACE PALM indeed

[Khorosani]

That's not a refutation; you asked for proof, you got it, it's your job to refute it. And YES it is when you're claiming to be applying Shari'ah. That's NOT Shari'ah. Good thin you face palmed because you have to prove that these people who reported this information are DISOBEDIENT before this hadith would even be remotely applicable. FACE PALM indeed

http://www.khaama.com/interview-with-ahmad-shah-massoud

Yes so promoting ahmad shah massoud who really really didn't apply the law of Allah is some how not an act of fisq. calling him an national hero and other remarks. Their bias in showing the wrong in Taliban and barely mentioning the wrong of the arbakis, government and other parties shows who they are working for.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, everyone knows that single instances of not applying sharia do not disqualify a government as not ruling by the law of Allah. This is known among the most hard line salafis who are quick on their takfir of government so the more moderate thought would of course be lower in tone.

You either need to bring official TALIBAN sources or stop spewing whatever garbage that comes up in your mind.

EDIT: In addition this was the source of the article

local security officials

BAH! Those are reliable sources? Everyone knows Afghan security lies!

[hk1992]

Firstly I think this applies to all the anti shariah guys out there(I still believe this process is still ongoing, so theirs hope for you yet):
The fitnah of Al-Ahlas (continuous calamity) is mass desertion and war. Then, the fitnah of As-Sarraa [meaning ‘the rich’, when some reach people use their money to hire others to fight for them] will start from under the feet of a man who claims that he is of me (of my descendants). However, he is not of me, for my loyal friends are the ones who have taqwa. Afterwards, people will unite around a man whose reign is unstable. Then, the fitnah of Ad-Duhaymaa [it is called ‘dark and black fitnah’ because of its enormity] (will start) and will not leave any member of this nation without severely touching him. When it is thought that its time has come to an end, it will be lengthened. Meanwhile (during this fitnah), a man will wake up as a believer and will meet the night as a disbeliever, until people divide into two camps: A camp of belief that contains no hypocrisy, and a camp of hypocrisy that contains no belief. If this happens, then await the Dajjal on that day or the next.”

I really think that those of you who dont know what shariah means should not be arguing about these things. What I find hilarious is you defined Islamism-v good but you didnt define shariah- this is the divine law of god-- it includes everything in Islam, shariah means islam and vice versa ie the 5 pillars of islam are the building blocks of shariah so in essence if you deny shariah you deny islam. Western nations would have you think that shariah is only islamic law and only islamic law is horrible and as time progresses and if there brainwashing is successful you will start to believe this and once you hate islamic law whats to stop you hating what its built on ie the 5 pillars. Western nations have been secular since the times of the romans they have been extremely brutal towards non natives since there earliest civilisations. I will agree that islam may have been just as brutal sometimes to non-natives but by and large it was a much safer place than most western states have ever been. at the same time till this very day western nations never make excuses for looking out for there own interest and why should they if there was only one slice of bread on the floor between us and them they would fight for it and they'd be right for one of us has to survive and according to them it may as well be them. The advent of western media they can even make the person who is unjustly being bashed around feel that its his own fault because he even tried fighting with them for that scrap of bread to begin with. Similarly if muslim states try there best to create a muslim state that will one day serve the interest of us muslims and ensure we never get kicked around by others why would i complain if a few people are killed on either side of the divide if it means one day I have a state which protects me just like the way a European state protects europeans. If on the creation of this state it decides to wage wars against others to further my best interest why would I care, its in my own interest? Even European states to reach where they are today had to go through terrible wars and conflict to achieve something truly worth having, something truly worth protecting. You must have significant upheaval and conflict as this shows the people how truly precious a state which serves there own interest is.

Again you might say does this state have to be a shariah state why cant it be " democratic/secular" the reason is simple democracy/secularism is not something that was born in our lands therefore by its very nature it was imported and if its imported the importer will always control its supply. In other words such a state will always be a puppet and will never be able to serve its people like I mentioned above. Is such a state worth having just so the Europeans will like us, just so they stop attacking us, simply put the answer is no the europeans didn't like Islam that meant they would never accept its rules and regulations even when they were being crushed by Islams armies from all sides. Why should we bow to similar pressure if we persevere Europe will one day collapse as Rome did and we will one day rise again with a glorious state built on Islamic principles that we are all proud of, that we can all call home and that will look out for all of us no matter where we go oin this earth no one will be able to pick us up and torture us in secret prisons around the world, no one will be able to bring democracy/secularism to our countries with the gift of 1million+ dead civillians. The fact that you still want secularism or any other form of government after this massive body count only spits in the faces of all our dead civillians just as the europeans treasure so greatly the lives of there soldiers spreading there cause around the world should we not treasure our soldiers trying there best to ensure whats left of our civilizations are not snuffed out and anglicized, should we not honor our civilians who were so brutally killed just so these men could spread there hateful ideology throughout the islamic world.

Again you might say Muslims are responsible for a lot of the killing in our lands today, but I say why wouldn't there be? Those who are muslims and believed in shariah; when the europeans invaded us, there innocent families were killed by the europeans and supported in this by those of us who were anti-shariah who sided with there secular regimes. As long as we have civilians like you who are anti-shariah there will be killing as those who believe in shariah will be killed by those like you. Therefore I ask you why do you complain after killing there women in children, when they come after your women and children for you supported the butchering of there family, you contributed to this civil war and now there are two sides, the question is which side are you on?, there are only two answers now "For or against Islam"

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Khorosani

An interview or even calling someone a hero not proof of wrong doing since we don't know whether they do so out of deliberate intention or just lack of awareness. You need to prove that everyone involved did wrong, Try again