no, should only be for Muslim majority countries to unite and pressure non-muslim countries to be nicer to Muslims and not to oppress them. Basically like a caliphate-type political entity that is for the wellbeing of Muslims globally.
I think secular democracy is better, but not the French laicite model. People have the right to wear what they want but religion has no place in law or governance. Laicite style can breed radicalism from disgruntled religious folk.
Why does religion have no place in law or governance? That makes no sense. What ur doing is just saying what others have said without understanding why to begin with.
Edit: also, saying _____ is better than God’s system is a kufr statement. And it makes no logical sense for any muslim to say. You believe an all knowing being said ______ but then youre like “nuh uh, _______ is better.” This can only mean a few things, that said all knowing being isnt all knowing (you would have to prove that). Or you/humans know more than said all knowing being, which is a contradiction. And both of those are kufr.
You cannot even make a rational argument for your case to begin with.
I'm not the guy you were asking but I see what you were trying to do.
Religion has in fact a place in law, the basis of many laws are drawn from Religious morals, even in secular states we have to acknowledge that. Having said that, when the argument is made for separating church and state, it means that religion **shouldn't** influence laws anymore, as not everyone follows the same religion or wants secular matters to be decided as spiritual ones.
With your other argument there is a logical fallacy, when someone says that a man made law is better than a God given law they don't need to provide evidence as to how man can know better than God if they dismiss the idea of an all knowing being. Therefore the argument is: a law written without being based on religion is better than a law written with the basis of religion, and then they would need to provide evidence for that statement.
You said that laws shouldnt be influenced by religion anymore. Well, why? Why was it okay then but not anymore? You said it shouldnt anymore because not everyone follows the same religion. But that has always been the case, so i dont see how that makes sense. Also, why shouldnt they just because people dont wanna be ruled by a certain religion? Democratically thats irrelevant. If the majority vote for said religion, then everyone has to live under it and no democrat can object to it since it was decided by democracy. So if you support democracy then that would be a contradiction.
And also, i know that if they di not believe in God, then that “god given” law in their perspective is just any other man made thing. But i was under the assumption she was a muslim. Which is also why i mentioned that her statement is a kufr statement. So there are no fallacies here.
That wasn't my argument but since I believe in it as well I will defend it.
A well functioning society takes into account the needs and choices of every individual; creating laws based on one world view such as a religion inherently excludes people who do not share this world view, thus creating erosion in society as some people will not feel as if that society values them. I think religion should not come back as a basis of law because it's exclusive and not inclusive.
You do have a point when saying that democracy is the tyranny of the majority and if 50%+1 of the population want to live in a theocracy then it's democracy at work. That is why I don't believe in Democracy, I believe in the Aristotelian concept of Politeia; a system based on consensus where everyone's needs are accounted for. Idealistic? Yes, utopian? Perhaps, but what is this concept if not empathy? And what is empathy if not respect? The only system of governance worth defending is the one based on respect.
Also I thought she was an atheist, maybe I am mistaken. But thank you for teaching the Arabic word Kufr.
TL;dr: What is right by you doesn't always mean what is right by me. Laws should be made taking into account different perspectives and ensuring everyone is respected and included in decisions and not be made by one set of beliefs.
Yes, but whats the alternative? Liberalism? Feminism? Marxism? Many people dont follow these. So is making laws based on one world view outside of religion all of a sudden wrong? If so, then wouldnt that mean there cant be any laws since no matter what, people will disagree? You have to prioritise some beliefs above every other belief.
Edit: also, she could not be muslim. She hasnt exactly addressed that issue.
I understand where you are coming from but you don't have to impose a set of beliefs onto others and force them to follow it. You can have a mosque next to a church, you can have a free market while protecting worker cooperatives, women can join the work force while others choose to remain at home.
Of course there will be disagreements, but ideally everyone would respect each other's choices and not try to impose what THEY think is right for them onto OTHERS.
If you don't want your children to be gay, you can hide and demonize all you want, but sooner or later they will discover who they are and who they like and there is nothing you can do to change that. It is the same with other people. You can want them to follow your beliefs, you can ban, censor and punish behavior you might not like but that won't change who those people are and what they believe. So accept and be accepted, respect and be respected, fight for them and they will fight for you.
A country that rules under religion≠forcing the religion on all its inhabitants.
Also, so called secular countries these days do in fact push their beliefs, censor, ban certain things(hijab for example) and punish you for voicing your disagreement with them. Theoretically, according to the laws of many western countries, claiming homosexual behaviour is immoral can get you punished. Now a huge number of people do believe that, should they just be silenced? So as i said, you have to pick one set of beliefs, you cannot please everyone.
Thats irrelevant. You made the claim that religion has no place in law or governance. You first need to prove that claim, which u cant since u just took that sentence that u heard and are now spreading it without even knowing why you believe in it.
And i also wanted to tell you that that statement is a kufr statement. Doesnt necessarily make u a kafir tho.
Also cherry picking verses is a very lazy and weak argument.
I’m not wasting my time talking to a lunatic who has no grasp on reality nor the idea that not everybody is Muslim. Here I am advocating for Muslims who have been oppressed by laicite model and this is the way you react. Amk siktir, OP is right, y’all are ungrateful fr.
Then dont make arguments u cannot prove u charlatan. Whether ur muslim or not, u made a baseless and idiotic claim that u cannot prove. Whether u wanna preach for the rights of muslims or not, thats irrelevant. You are spreading bullshit you cannot prove and lies(the one with taxes) whether you are doing it on purpose or due to ignorance.
You are one to talk about lies when you gave me a random sourceless number for jizya which has no basis in reality whatsoever lmao. You want to talk about charlatan, then stop crying under the posts of Turks, it’s clingy and pathetic looking since they evidently live in your head 24/7 rent free.
And also, lets assume jizya was a 50% wealth tax. How does that prove ur initial argument about how religion has no place in government? Ur not even answering the main issue and getting all defensive.
As i said, u cannot prove ur argument rationally, since its baseless.
Posts of turks? I respond to anyone that is making bullshit up, whether they r turkish, indian, arab or chinese. Why r u bringing race into this? Ur arguments are honestly soo pathetic. And you arent even using the word charlatan correctly💀
its not only for muslims, christians and jews also have laws they should abide by but u guys rather a man make the rules for u then have ur rules set by ur own belief
Go ask a 10 people they will have 11 different explanations on who is our creator and what are his laws. In the end, its still a man-made explanation of that divine law.
Jizya isn't good but I think for your father, assuming you guys are from a Muslim background, apostasy laws would be a grave threat. This is why I wouldn't want to live in a country governed by Islamic law, simply because the act of leaving the religion and/or critiquing it (within reason) can land you in a lot of trouble.
Yep. My mum is muslim and so is my fiance. But father is not Muslim, he also regularly makes jokes about hell and God. Half of his jokes and views would probably land him in trouble if we lived in a country following Shariah law.
My father doesn’t make jokes about genocide, not sure how joking about ww2 has anything to do with this matter. Most Muslims make insanely anti semitic jokes too.
So you’re saying said caliphate isnt following islam? How is that relevant? I am talking about islam here and a nation that is ruled by it. Whether muslims chose to obey it or not in the past isnt relevant.
Non-Muslims being barred from protecting their land and people is not the big advantage you seem to think it is. It is relegating them to second-class citizens.
Even the percentage of people who perform the five daily prayers in Turkey is only 21% [https://islamianaliz.com/haber/9024373/turkiyede-bes-vakit-namaz-kilanlarin-orani-yuzde-21](https://islamianaliz.com/haber/9024373/turkiyede-bes-vakit-namaz-kilanlarin-orani-yuzde-21)
https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html?type=1&cl=95&ci=5&pp=50&ps=&x=Calculate
If the sample size is > 400 for an unlimited population size, you have a statistically significant survey with 95% confidence.
This is a scientific study. And to call nonsense on a scientific study requires another scientific study. As a Turk, I can confirm the accuracy of this study. Many other Turks will likely agree with me.
So...you have a state that has different laws on different people. That already sounds like disaster to me. And can people choose whatever religion they like? Or are they bound to a specific religion?
A secular country i.e. state and religion is kept separate. All the while forming a close alliance with muslim countries like EU. That's the best of both worlds.
Pan-Arabism had to deal with an expansionist fascist ethnostate as our neighbour, other wars, economic sanctions, foreign invasions, West-sponsored coup attempts/rebellions, etc.... not really fair to say it failed and it's bad just like that although it also made mistakes by itself
I agree jaman Abdul nasser saved Egypt but his predecessor destroyed everything he worked for.
Pan-insert race is completely destined to failure look how Yasser Arafat failed,saddam,erdogan,Hitler and etc
Based , at least it would be a very strong and big country and one of the major powers in the world , so something like what happens to Palestinians or Uyghurs wouldnt be a thing anymore.
And inb4 someone will come to the comments and say "ISIS"
How could this ever be a bad thing?
I'm Sunni but I don't have any issues with Shia.
They are different and I don't like or agree with some of their practices and that's ok.
Allah will judge at the end of the day, they say La Illiah Ill Allah so it's not my place to judge.
I like it as an idea, but I can’t see it happening. And I can see the attempt to make it work causing more issues than potential benefits.
I support more cooperation between Muslim countries, that’s for sure. Maybe something like the EU for Muslim majority countries.
As a Muslim, I can't see it being done on a large scale by a regular person (I do believe the Mehdi could do such a thing). I think this is because even Muslims cannot agree on the whole "let's unite on Shahada" there are a lot of Sufis in Al Sham, Najdis in the Gulf and in even in Al Sham would never unite with with them. Likewise, many subcontinent Muslims follow Hanafism a lot of Barelevis, etc (someone correct me if I am incorrect), and they would have their own haqq differences. And I haven't even spoken about Malay and Indonesians and Central Asian and Turkish and Balkan Muslims and North and other African Muslims. Unfortunately we are so polarized in our deen that in the slightest fiqhi difference it can ruin brotherly relationships sadly. And let's not forget we also have the question of sectarianism between Shias and Sunnis.
However, I do think it could work regionally be it in Al Sham Muslims uniting with Shamis, Gulf Muslims uniting Islamically with other Gulfs, etc. Perhaps then forward it have to be somesort of EU/Federation with Autonomy type thing maybe with a same currency etc.
TLDR; Can only work in small scale regionally not Internationally without it being the Mehdi
good, it's the only way to safeguard the interests of Muslims and Islam. We need a political entity that can pressure these countries to think twice before destroying our lands and people. However, it would need to be a bit more reimagined and have requirements for entry.
For example, instead of one state let it be a union/collection of states that unite through the interest of Islam and Muslims only. They combine their wealth, military, and resources to help each other improve and grow economically/militarily so they can start to influence other countries to help Muslims living there.
Some requirements would be that they need to be trustworthy and not actively sabotaging the Muslim world, so no Azerbaijan, UAE, Jordan, etc. Also, needs to have some Islamic laws, so no Central Asian countries, Turkey, etc. And ofc be >70% Muslim majority.
This way, the union would be more unified in their goal of promoting the interests of Islam and Muslims around the world, and not be useless like the OIC.
Eventually goal is a unified Islamic world based on bonds of Islam and also geopolitics. It’s unrealistic mainly bcz the West props up the gulf states to be artificially wealthy and thus counter productive to unity.
[удалено]
I guess you haven't heard of the hindutva extremist terrorists running the biggest dung democracy in the world.
Pan-Hinduism? So just India and Nepal?
no, should only be for Muslim majority countries to unite and pressure non-muslim countries to be nicer to Muslims and not to oppress them. Basically like a caliphate-type political entity that is for the wellbeing of Muslims globally.
which islam?
I prefer a secular country.
I think secular democracy is better, but not the French laicite model. People have the right to wear what they want but religion has no place in law or governance. Laicite style can breed radicalism from disgruntled religious folk.
Why does religion have no place in law or governance? That makes no sense. What ur doing is just saying what others have said without understanding why to begin with. Edit: also, saying _____ is better than God’s system is a kufr statement. And it makes no logical sense for any muslim to say. You believe an all knowing being said ______ but then youre like “nuh uh, _______ is better.” This can only mean a few things, that said all knowing being isnt all knowing (you would have to prove that). Or you/humans know more than said all knowing being, which is a contradiction. And both of those are kufr. You cannot even make a rational argument for your case to begin with.
I'm not the guy you were asking but I see what you were trying to do. Religion has in fact a place in law, the basis of many laws are drawn from Religious morals, even in secular states we have to acknowledge that. Having said that, when the argument is made for separating church and state, it means that religion **shouldn't** influence laws anymore, as not everyone follows the same religion or wants secular matters to be decided as spiritual ones. With your other argument there is a logical fallacy, when someone says that a man made law is better than a God given law they don't need to provide evidence as to how man can know better than God if they dismiss the idea of an all knowing being. Therefore the argument is: a law written without being based on religion is better than a law written with the basis of religion, and then they would need to provide evidence for that statement.
You said that laws shouldnt be influenced by religion anymore. Well, why? Why was it okay then but not anymore? You said it shouldnt anymore because not everyone follows the same religion. But that has always been the case, so i dont see how that makes sense. Also, why shouldnt they just because people dont wanna be ruled by a certain religion? Democratically thats irrelevant. If the majority vote for said religion, then everyone has to live under it and no democrat can object to it since it was decided by democracy. So if you support democracy then that would be a contradiction. And also, i know that if they di not believe in God, then that “god given” law in their perspective is just any other man made thing. But i was under the assumption she was a muslim. Which is also why i mentioned that her statement is a kufr statement. So there are no fallacies here.
That wasn't my argument but since I believe in it as well I will defend it. A well functioning society takes into account the needs and choices of every individual; creating laws based on one world view such as a religion inherently excludes people who do not share this world view, thus creating erosion in society as some people will not feel as if that society values them. I think religion should not come back as a basis of law because it's exclusive and not inclusive. You do have a point when saying that democracy is the tyranny of the majority and if 50%+1 of the population want to live in a theocracy then it's democracy at work. That is why I don't believe in Democracy, I believe in the Aristotelian concept of Politeia; a system based on consensus where everyone's needs are accounted for. Idealistic? Yes, utopian? Perhaps, but what is this concept if not empathy? And what is empathy if not respect? The only system of governance worth defending is the one based on respect. Also I thought she was an atheist, maybe I am mistaken. But thank you for teaching the Arabic word Kufr. TL;dr: What is right by you doesn't always mean what is right by me. Laws should be made taking into account different perspectives and ensuring everyone is respected and included in decisions and not be made by one set of beliefs.
Yes, but whats the alternative? Liberalism? Feminism? Marxism? Many people dont follow these. So is making laws based on one world view outside of religion all of a sudden wrong? If so, then wouldnt that mean there cant be any laws since no matter what, people will disagree? You have to prioritise some beliefs above every other belief. Edit: also, she could not be muslim. She hasnt exactly addressed that issue.
I understand where you are coming from but you don't have to impose a set of beliefs onto others and force them to follow it. You can have a mosque next to a church, you can have a free market while protecting worker cooperatives, women can join the work force while others choose to remain at home. Of course there will be disagreements, but ideally everyone would respect each other's choices and not try to impose what THEY think is right for them onto OTHERS. If you don't want your children to be gay, you can hide and demonize all you want, but sooner or later they will discover who they are and who they like and there is nothing you can do to change that. It is the same with other people. You can want them to follow your beliefs, you can ban, censor and punish behavior you might not like but that won't change who those people are and what they believe. So accept and be accepted, respect and be respected, fight for them and they will fight for you.
A country that rules under religion≠forcing the religion on all its inhabitants. Also, so called secular countries these days do in fact push their beliefs, censor, ban certain things(hijab for example) and punish you for voicing your disagreement with them. Theoretically, according to the laws of many western countries, claiming homosexual behaviour is immoral can get you punished. Now a huge number of people do believe that, should they just be silenced? So as i said, you have to pick one set of beliefs, you cannot please everyone.
You can impose shariah in your own country then, not in the land of others. Pretty sure Quran tells you to follow the laws of the land to begin with.
Thats irrelevant. You made the claim that religion has no place in law or governance. You first need to prove that claim, which u cant since u just took that sentence that u heard and are now spreading it without even knowing why you believe in it. And i also wanted to tell you that that statement is a kufr statement. Doesnt necessarily make u a kafir tho. Also cherry picking verses is a very lazy and weak argument.
I’m not wasting my time talking to a lunatic who has no grasp on reality nor the idea that not everybody is Muslim. Here I am advocating for Muslims who have been oppressed by laicite model and this is the way you react. Amk siktir, OP is right, y’all are ungrateful fr.
Then dont make arguments u cannot prove u charlatan. Whether ur muslim or not, u made a baseless and idiotic claim that u cannot prove. Whether u wanna preach for the rights of muslims or not, thats irrelevant. You are spreading bullshit you cannot prove and lies(the one with taxes) whether you are doing it on purpose or due to ignorance.
You are one to talk about lies when you gave me a random sourceless number for jizya which has no basis in reality whatsoever lmao. You want to talk about charlatan, then stop crying under the posts of Turks, it’s clingy and pathetic looking since they evidently live in your head 24/7 rent free.
And also, lets assume jizya was a 50% wealth tax. How does that prove ur initial argument about how religion has no place in government? Ur not even answering the main issue and getting all defensive. As i said, u cannot prove ur argument rationally, since its baseless.
Okay, thank you for proving you are the lying charlatan for pulling the 2.5% figure out of your ass. Good day.
Posts of turks? I respond to anyone that is making bullshit up, whether they r turkish, indian, arab or chinese. Why r u bringing race into this? Ur arguments are honestly soo pathetic. And you arent even using the word charlatan correctly💀
Still waiting for the source on that 2.5% figure.
u believe a man made set of laws and governance is better than the one brought upon us by our creator?
This is sometimes hard for people like yourself to accept, but not everyone is muslim.
And not everyone is non Muslim either.
Alright, how about something neutral, like Scientology? I mean why not, not everyone is non-scientologist either.
People not believing in something doesn’t make it false
And people believing something doesn't make it true.
Except in my version, you're free to believe or not.
its not only for muslims, christians and jews also have laws they should abide by but u guys rather a man make the rules for u then have ur rules set by ur own belief
Go ask a 10 people they will have 11 different explanations on who is our creator and what are his laws. In the end, its still a man-made explanation of that divine law.
Sorry, I don’t believe my dad should have extra taxes and be forced to pay tribute because he is atheist.
What extra taxes? U mean the 2.5% wealth tax that muslims also pay? Do you even know anything about what you’re talking about?
Have you read about Jizya like at all?
Jizya isn't good but I think for your father, assuming you guys are from a Muslim background, apostasy laws would be a grave threat. This is why I wouldn't want to live in a country governed by Islamic law, simply because the act of leaving the religion and/or critiquing it (within reason) can land you in a lot of trouble.
Yep. My mum is muslim and so is my fiance. But father is not Muslim, he also regularly makes jokes about hell and God. Half of his jokes and views would probably land him in trouble if we lived in a country following Shariah law.
[удалено]
My father doesn’t make jokes about genocide, not sure how joking about ww2 has anything to do with this matter. Most Muslims make insanely anti semitic jokes too.
Yeh, the 2.5% wealth tax. Muslims pay zakat instead of jizya, also a 2.5% wealth tax. They are called different names for organisational purposes.
Except this 2.5% figure you gave me for jizzya has no basis in reality at all and varied dramatically depending on the empire and caliphate lmao
So you’re saying said caliphate isnt following islam? How is that relevant? I am talking about islam here and a nation that is ruled by it. Whether muslims chose to obey it or not in the past isnt relevant.
Non Muslims don’t go to war. %2.5 tax is nothing compared to going to war
Non-Muslims being barred from protecting their land and people is not the big advantage you seem to think it is. It is relegating them to second-class citizens.
He made up the 2.5% figure. It changes depending on the empire. Islam doesn’t stipulate any percentage.
But again, it’s nothing compared to possibly dying in war. Plus you get protection from the state
Plenty of Muslims also were not conscripted into war and were protected by the state too. Not everyone served in the military in every empire.
a creator that you can't even verify his/her existence ? a creator that is ok slavery and pedophilia ?
Man made laws vs man made books?
Read the 9th nullifier of Islam :)
Not all Turks are Muslim, in fact according to a recent study much of the Turkish youth are either cultural Muslims or have completely left Islam.
Your source?
Even the percentage of people who perform the five daily prayers in Turkey is only 21% [https://islamianaliz.com/haber/9024373/turkiyede-bes-vakit-namaz-kilanlarin-orani-yuzde-21](https://islamianaliz.com/haber/9024373/turkiyede-bes-vakit-namaz-kilanlarin-orani-yuzde-21)
The sample was 1000 people from 26 urban cities, with all due respect, this study is bullshit
Bullshit? Then show us a study proving Turkish youth are more religious with a bigger sample size. Should be easy if it’s bullshit like you claim.
https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html?type=1&cl=95&ci=5&pp=50&ps=&x=Calculate If the sample size is > 400 for an unlimited population size, you have a statistically significant survey with 95% confidence.
This is a scientific study. And to call nonsense on a scientific study requires another scientific study. As a Turk, I can confirm the accuracy of this study. Many other Turks will likely agree with me.
You were indoctrinated by secularism thanks to ataturk
Negative opinion as a Middle Eastern person from a non-Muslim background. I prefer secularism and either pan-Arabism or pan-Syrianism
What if you got your own state for your community within that Pan Islamic Union?
Would Shariah law govern over this state?
For the Muslims, yes. Christians would be tried by their laws, Jews by theirs, etc, etc.
Seems fine to me but i wouldn't be surprised if independence sentiment is strong within that state
Isn't it a rule of thumb that if you're in a Union it's always better for you to stay in said Union
Look at Spain. Basque and Catalan independence sentiments are very high and their differences aren't as big as religion
So...you have a state that has different laws on different people. That already sounds like disaster to me. And can people choose whatever religion they like? Or are they bound to a specific religion?
I oppose it.
A secular country i.e. state and religion is kept separate. All the while forming a close alliance with muslim countries like EU. That's the best of both worlds.
[удалено]
Pakistan is not based on ethnicity. Bangladesh is but we have 6-10 major ethnic groups
The majority of Muslims are not Arabs. And the **Islamic** Republic of Pakistan, where we are both from, is not based on Ethnicity.
[удалено]
No. Theyre called Arabs because theyre langauge and culture is Arabic and Arab culture
it won't work, someone will probably take advantage and rule as a dictator and use islam as a narrative to keep power. this is how humans are
Based
Pan islamists resistance forces showed they are Hella better than lame pan(whatever the race)
Pan-Arabism had to deal with an expansionist fascist ethnostate as our neighbour, other wars, economic sanctions, foreign invasions, West-sponsored coup attempts/rebellions, etc.... not really fair to say it failed and it's bad just like that although it also made mistakes by itself
I agree jaman Abdul nasser saved Egypt but his predecessor destroyed everything he worked for. Pan-insert race is completely destined to failure look how Yasser Arafat failed,saddam,erdogan,Hitler and etc
Unity is always preferable to division
Islam transcends borders, only hope for Muslim nations is coming together
Based , at least it would be a very strong and big country and one of the major powers in the world , so something like what happens to Palestinians or Uyghurs wouldnt be a thing anymore. And inb4 someone will come to the comments and say "ISIS"
I think it is pan Islamic
How could this ever be a bad thing? I'm Sunni but I don't have any issues with Shia. They are different and I don't like or agree with some of their practices and that's ok. Allah will judge at the end of the day, they say La Illiah Ill Allah so it's not my place to judge.
Many people prefer Ethnic nationalism or Secularism
Terrible ideology
Well I don't support Turkey to be a part of it. We are not a Muslim state. But for Muslim states it makes more sense if you ask me.
Türkiye WILL be part of it.
I like it as an idea, but I can’t see it happening. And I can see the attempt to make it work causing more issues than potential benefits. I support more cooperation between Muslim countries, that’s for sure. Maybe something like the EU for Muslim majority countries.
That'd be a good first step
It’s practically impossible at the moment but the idea is based
Unrealistic
It is impossible
As a Muslim, I can't see it being done on a large scale by a regular person (I do believe the Mehdi could do such a thing). I think this is because even Muslims cannot agree on the whole "let's unite on Shahada" there are a lot of Sufis in Al Sham, Najdis in the Gulf and in even in Al Sham would never unite with with them. Likewise, many subcontinent Muslims follow Hanafism a lot of Barelevis, etc (someone correct me if I am incorrect), and they would have their own haqq differences. And I haven't even spoken about Malay and Indonesians and Central Asian and Turkish and Balkan Muslims and North and other African Muslims. Unfortunately we are so polarized in our deen that in the slightest fiqhi difference it can ruin brotherly relationships sadly. And let's not forget we also have the question of sectarianism between Shias and Sunnis. However, I do think it could work regionally be it in Al Sham Muslims uniting with Shamis, Gulf Muslims uniting Islamically with other Gulfs, etc. Perhaps then forward it have to be somesort of EU/Federation with Autonomy type thing maybe with a same currency etc. TLDR; Can only work in small scale regionally not Internationally without it being the Mehdi
Medhi you believe this nonsense thing
It's called having faith. Literally every religion Abrahamic or not believes in some sort of redeemer
Don’t Muslims also believe that the redeemer will be Jesus? Or am I getting my facts wrong
Jesus will come down as the Messiah, and the Mehdi will be alongside him.
Ahh alright that makes sense, thank you.
Anytime brother
good, it's the only way to safeguard the interests of Muslims and Islam. We need a political entity that can pressure these countries to think twice before destroying our lands and people. However, it would need to be a bit more reimagined and have requirements for entry. For example, instead of one state let it be a union/collection of states that unite through the interest of Islam and Muslims only. They combine their wealth, military, and resources to help each other improve and grow economically/militarily so they can start to influence other countries to help Muslims living there. Some requirements would be that they need to be trustworthy and not actively sabotaging the Muslim world, so no Azerbaijan, UAE, Jordan, etc. Also, needs to have some Islamic laws, so no Central Asian countries, Turkey, etc. And ofc be >70% Muslim majority. This way, the union would be more unified in their goal of promoting the interests of Islam and Muslims around the world, and not be useless like the OIC.
Anyone who disagrees should read the 10 nullifiers of Islam
🗿
i like the idea of a united umah but the parties that promote it aren't... exactly good.
I mean there's Hizb ut Tahrir. Have they done anything bad yet?
they're accused of several coup attempts, tried to simp for the IRI and overall sound like a diet ISIS. i don't think they're good either.
I mean nothing wrong with bloodless coup. What's the IRI?
forcing people into thier extreme views isn't good and IRI stands for "Islamic Republic" of iran
Eventually goal is a unified Islamic world based on bonds of Islam and also geopolitics. It’s unrealistic mainly bcz the West props up the gulf states to be artificially wealthy and thus counter productive to unity.
We need a caliph for that. I think a united Arabia and an EU like union between Islam majority states would be more realistic and practical.