Religion Islam is extremely compatible with Libertarianism

[Foidkiller]

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of God against those who attack you, but do not aggress. God does not love the aggressors.
[22:39] Permission is granted to those who are being persecuted, since injustice has befallen them, and God is certainly able to support them.
[5:2] O you who believe, do not violate the rites instituted by God, nor the Sacred Months, nor the animals to be offered, nor the garlands marking them, nor the people who head for the Sacred Shrine (Ka`bah) seeking blessings from their Lord and approval. Once you complete the pilgrimage, you may hunt. Do not be provoked into aggression by your hatred of people who once prevented you from going to the Sacred Masjid. You shall cooperate in matters of righteousness and piety; do not cooperate in matters that are sinful and evil. You shall observe God. God is strict in enforcing retribution.

Islam and Libertarianism are a Good Fit

by Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. Libertarian Candidate for US Senate, Maryland When the Maryland libertarian party asked me to be its candidate for the United States Senate in the 2012 election, I asked them are you sure you want a Muslim to represent you? Their response was that they were glad to have a...

muslimmatters.org

Aggression is forbidden.
Self-defense is supported.
Cooperation in wrongdoings is prohibited.

It aligns with the NAP's core idea of prohibiting initiated force but permitting defense.

Bonus - one of God's messengers, Rashad Khalifa, acknowledges some people's preference of eating raw meat: "God created the fire, you can use it to cook a steak from a raw steak to a delicious cooked steak, unless you like it raw."


@OgreLTN

 

[The Patriarchy]

Aggression is forbidden.

I dont feel like deprograming your mental illness because just being aware of it is so depressing.
I will just make the point and leave it,

Violence is encouraged.
It must be scripturally justified mind you
Because the highest path of islam is to follow the Hadith
a devout Muslim would be desperate to justify violence.

 

[Foidkiller]

I dont feel like deprograming your mental illness because just being aware of it is so depressing.
I will just make the point and leave it,

Violence is encouraged.
It must be scripturally justified mind you
Because the highest path of islam is to follow the Hadith
a devout Muslim would be desperate to justify violence.

the Hadiths aren't part of Islam.

 

[The Patriarchy]

the Hadiths aren't part of Islam.

How can you say this madness?

 

[Foidkiller]

How can you say this madness?

I'm not denying that the Arabs in these Satanic cults you see today follow the Hadiths. I'm saying the Hadiths are written by Satan, and there is evidence of this in the Quran.

 

[The Patriarchy]

I'm not denying that the Arabs in these Satanic cults you see today follow the Hadiths. I'm saying the Hadiths are written by Satan, and there is evidence of this in the Quran.

interesting take. So you believe in only one islamic book?

 

[Foidkiller]

interesting take. So you believe in only one islamic book?

I believe in all of God's scriptures (which does not include the Hadiths...) but, it also happens that the Quran is the only one that was preserved and not corrupted like the others. So I follow the Quran alone doctrine - it is complete (6:115), perfect (2:2, 10:37), and fully detailed (10:37, 6:114), which means you can also reference it while reading, for example, the Bible, or the Torah. Unlike the Quranists, I believe that the religious rituals were passed down through prophet Abraham as a practical tradition from generation to generation until today, independently of the Quran, and independently of the Hadith. However, because one can find all the details of those rituals in the Quran, that still keeps them within the Quran alone doctrine.

 

[The Patriarchy]

I believe in all of God's scriptures (which does not include the Hadiths...) but, it also happens that the Quran is the only one that was preserved and not corrupted like the others. So I follow the Quran alone doctrine - it is complete (6:115), perfect (2:2, 10:37), and fully detailed (10:37, 6:114), which means you can also reference it while reading, for example, the Bible, or the Torah. Unlike the Quranists, I believe that the religious rituals were passed down through prophet Abraham as a practical tradition from generation to generation until today, independently of the Quran, and independently of the Hadith. However, because one can find all the details of those rituals in the Quran, that still keeps them within the Quran alone doctrine.

what about the seerra and sunnah?

Do you follow one specific Quran? Theres like 2 or 4 or something like that. Or you follow all of it? One in mecca and one in medina atleast if i remember correct

 

[Foidkiller]

what about the seerra and sunnah?

Same thing, basically.

Do you follow one specific Quran? Theres like 2 or 4 or something like that. Or you follow all of it? One in mecca and one in medina atleast if i remember correct

There are no different 'versions' of the Quran. There is only one Quran. There are actually just different reading styles, Arabic is different from English so it's best to toss aside your preconceived notions about that. What I read is the Authorised English Version anyhow, which is also the same (and the only) one you should be reading for the Bible.

 

[The Patriarchy]

Same thing, basically.

same thing what? Same as Hadith or same as Quran?

 

[Foidkiller]

same thing what? Same as Hadith or same as Quran?

Same as Hadith.

 

[The Patriarchy]

The tone and content are radically different between the Mecca and Medinan revelations. (I assumed based on other information that it was written in separate locations literally seperate books but thats a confusion on my part. There were different editions written though) So you accept both.

 

[Foidkiller]

The tone and content are radically different between the Mecca and Medinan revelations. (I assumed based on other information that it was written in separate locations literally seperate books but thats a confusion on my part. There were different editions written though) So you accept both.

I don't get it. Are you simply referring to the different timing of the revelations of the chapters? All of the chapters of the Quran are in their intended order in The Final Testament. The chronological order of the chapters is different, in part because God intended to disturb the disbelievers and strengthen the faith of the believers, by showing something which only He is capable of, for example:
No human beings could have kept track of 2698 occurrences of the word “God,” and the numbers of verses where they occur. This is especially impossible in view of (1) the age of ignorance during which the Quran was revealed, and (2) the fact that the suras and verses were widely separated in time and place of revelation. The chronological order of revelation was vastly different from the final format.

 

[The Patriarchy]

Are you simply referring to the different timing of the revelations of the chapters?

yes

 

[OgreLTN]

I don't get it. Are you simply referring to the different timing of the revelations of the chapters? All of the chapters of the Quran are in their intended order in The Final Testament. The chronological order of the chapters is different, in part because God intended to disturb the disbelievers and strengthen the faith of the believers, by showing something which only He is capable of, for example:
No human beings could have kept track of 2698 occurrences of the word “God,” and the numbers of verses where they occur. This is especially impossible in view of (1) the age of ignorance during which the Quran was revealed, and (2) the fact that the suras and verses were widely separated in time and place of revelation. The chronological order of revelation was vastly different from the final format.

Intended to disrupt the disbelievers? Why would a just, all-loving god do that?

You're denying the hadith makes you a heretic, and all the rituals are gone with them. If you simply just want to pick and choose... You are doing that, pick and choose. The Quran not being corrupted is another lie too.

 

[OgreLTN]

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of God against those who attack you, but do not aggress. God does not love the aggressors.

In Islam, aggression can be interpreted as the mere act of not believing in the religion. Criticizing it is also aggression and so on. Easily debunkable and classical use of verses without context.

The Table Spread (5:32)

That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land.

Here, the verse cites a previous law sent to the Israelites, reminding Muslims of it. At first glance, it might seem as it's forbidding all violence, but that's not the case. It allows it as a punishment for murder, tooth for a tooth, and for spreading corruption in the land, or in this version, mischief. This means that killing for inciting others to leave the religion is justified. Inciting others to leave in Islam can be something as simple as identifying as an atheist, eating in public during Ramadan, not practicing rituals... So every non-Muslim can be justifiedly killed under Islam

The verse of the sword further confirms this notion

The Repentance (9:5)

But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ˹who violated their treaties˺ wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Here it's simply authorizing believers to prosecute and kill non-believers after the sacred months have passed.

[22:39] Permission is granted to those who are being persecuted, since injustice has befallen them, and God is certainly able to support them.

Agree, but still, with the prior definition for aggression, you can justify jihad, which is indeed what terrorist groups do. I'm not quite sure if this is libertarian, I'm sure you will agree. For a Muslim, persecution might be someone presenting solid arguments against the faith, reducing the number of Muslims.

[5:2] O you who believe, do not violate the rites instituted by God, nor the Sacred Months, nor the animals to be offered, nor the garlands marking them, nor the people who head for the Sacred Shrine (Ka`bah) seeking blessings from their Lord and approval. Once you complete the pilgrimage, you may hunt. Do not be provoked into aggression by your hatred of people who once prevented you from going to the Sacred Masjid. You shall cooperate in matters of righteousness and piety; do not cooperate in matters that are sinful and evil. You shall observe God. God is strict in enforcing retribution.

Wrongdoing in Islam is eating pork or simply having a glass of wine with friends. That is forbidden, and you might pay with your life.

Islam and Libertarianism are a Good Fit

by Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. Libertarian Candidate for US Senate, Maryland When the Maryland libertarian party asked me to be its candidate for the United States Senate in the 2012 election, I asked them are you sure you want a Muslim to represent you? Their response was that they were glad to have a...

muslimmatters.org

Aggression is forbidden.
Self-defense is supported.
Cooperation in wrongdoings is prohibited.

It aligns with the NAP's core idea of prohibiting initiated force but permitting defense.

Wrong because of what I said earlier

Bonus - one of God's messengers, Rashad Khalifa, acknowledges some people's preference of eating raw meat: "God created the fire, you can use it to cook a steak from a raw steak to a delicious cooked steak, unless you like it raw."

I know you like it raw.

Although I despise Islam in general, I think it has some good things, especially when it comes to governance of local communities. Classically, Islam has a history of freely associated local communities, promoting decentralization and the interests of the locals. Such organs might provide security, resolve small trade disputes and other things. Of course, as long as they don't claim independence or authority. This is the thing you can say aligns with libertarianism, not your other points.

 

[Foidkiller]

In Islam, aggression can be interpreted as the mere act of not believing in the religion. Criticizing it is also aggression and so on. Easily debunkable and classical use of verses without context.

that's not quite accurate, today we live with Globally Forced behavior, which means the disbelievers of today are not as bad as the disbelievers a thousand years ago, and the believers of today are not as good as the believers a thousand years ago. When democracy falls down near the end of the world, the disbelievers will start killing the believers openly. This is a law.

The Table Spread (5:32)

That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land.

don't forget to use the Authorised English version.
[5:32] Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.

Here, the verse cites a previous law sent to the Israelites, reminding Muslims of it. At first glance, it might seem as it's forbidding all violence, but that's not the case. It allows it as a punishment for murder, tooth for a tooth, and for spreading corruption in the land, or in this version, mischief. This means that killing for inciting others to leave the religion is justified. Inciting others to leave in Islam can be something as simple as identifying as an atheist, eating in public during Ramadan, not practicing rituals... So every non-Muslim can be justifiedly killed under Islam

Marge
It clearly says "a life for a life" = you do not kill someone unless they are a murderer.
[5:45] And we decreed for them in it that: the life for the life, the eye for the eye, the nose for the nose, the ear for the ear, the tooth for the tooth, and an equivalent injury for any injury. If one forfeits what is due to him as a charity, it will atone for his sins. Those who do not rule in accordance with God’s revelations are the unjust.
"Equivalent injury for any injury" = identifying as an atheist, eating in public, not doing the contact prayer or whatever, does not justify killing them.
[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in God has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. God is Hearer, Omniscient.
There shall be no compulsion in religion <- this verse prohibits things like beating your children for not doing the contact prayer.

The verse of the sword further confirms this notion

The Repentance (9:5)

But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ˹who violated their treaties˺ wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

Here it's simply authorizing believers to prosecute and kill non-believers after the sacred months have passed.

The sacred months is the democratic peace treaty between believers and disbelievers, again, like I already said, the globally forced behavior... This means when the peace treaty is over the disbelievers start killing the believers.

Agree, but still, with the prior definition for aggression, you can justify jihad, which is indeed what terrorist groups do. I'm not quite sure if this is libertarian, I'm sure you will agree. For a Muslim, persecution might be someone presenting solid arguments against the faith, reducing the number of Muslims.

Wrongdoing in Islam is eating pork or simply having a glass of wine with friends. That is forbidden, and you might pay with your life.

Wrong because of what I said earlier

I know you like it raw.

Although I despise Islam in general, I think it has some good things, especially when it comes to governance of local communities. Classically, Islam has a history of freely associated local communities, promoting decentralization and the interests of the locals. Such organs might provide security, resolve small trade disputes and other things. Of course, as long as they don't claim independence or authority. This is the thing you can say aligns with libertarianism, not your other points.

Whatever you say, man.

 

[Foidkiller]

@OgreLTN Why do you 'Disagree' react me, it's not like this is my opinion, or conjecture, I'm explaining what God really meant in the Quran to you.

 

[OgreLTN]

@OgreLTN Why do you 'Disagree' react me, it's not like this is my opinion, or conjecture, I'm explaining what God really meant in the Quran to you.

This is you twisting meaning to suit your bias, and this is a waste of my time and yours. You literally dismiss and don't address my points so no need to continue.

 

[Foidkiller]

This is you twisting meaning to suit your bias, and this is a waste of my time and yours. You literally dismiss and don't address my points so no need to continue.

Keep it simple, you're committing the halfwit nitpick fallacy where a pseudo-intellectual thinks they can topple a great point by finding countless tiny flaws in it instead of addressing the big issue, you've also already shown yourself to be incapable of grasping insanely basic concepts, instead completely overlooking them so you should just make it as short as possible that I can actually give meaningful answers...

 

[OgreLTN]

Keep it simple, you're committing the halfwit nitpick fallacy where a pseudo-intellectual thinks they can topple a great point by finding countless tiny flaws in it instead of addressing the big issue, you've also already shown yourself to be incapable of grasping insanely basic concepts, instead completely overlooking them so you should just make it as short as possible that I can actually give meaningful answers...

Allah really failed at making a compelling book, I see. You know, I really tried to be a Christian once, then a Muslim. But nothing is satisfying. You think I'm actively trying to overlook things for my world view to remain unchallenged, but that is simply not true. I've seen your kind dozens of times, you use the same arguments over and over. And frankly, I'm just tired of it. Go on, worship a polytheistic Arab created god.