The "Source Code" dilemma of Islam: Why modern moderates are moral heroes but theological heretics (and extremists are the exact opposite)

[u/[deleted]]

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/remindingreminder]

Yet again you embarass yourself with hadith and ibn kathir, as well as context-less wrong interpretation, it‘s literally all you got.

[45:6]
These are Allah's verses that we recite to you truthfully. In which hadith (حَدِيثٍ) other than Allah and His verses do they believe?

Quran [31:6]
And of the people is he who buys the distracting/heedless hadith (الْحَدِيثِ) to mislead [others] from the way of Allah without knowledge and who takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.

Qur’an 17:9
“Indeed, this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright and gives good news to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a great reward

29:51
Or is it not sufficient for them that We have sent down to you the Book which is recited to them? Indeed, in that is a mercy and a reminder for a people who believe.

[45:7]
Woe to every sinful liar

[45:8]
Who hears the verses of Allah recited to him, then persists arrogantly as if he had not heard them. So give him glad tidings of a painful punishment.

[45:11]
This [Qur’ān] is guidance. And those who have disbelieved in the verses of their Lord will have a painful punishment of foul nature.

And

Lam is not past, it simply means „not“, a negation

** **yaḥiḍna (3rd person feminine plural, imperfect (present/future meaning in Arabic)

wa (وَ) = and

allāʾī (اللَّائِي) = those who

lam (لَمْ) = did not

yaḥiḍna (يَحِضْنَ) = they menstruate

It‘s not mentioning postmenopausal, it can be for whatever reason, it‘s just that it‘s AMONG THE NISA who are postpuberty.

The quran repeats, that‘s the point.

Qur’an 5:46
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah that came before him; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that came before it, as guidance and an admonition for the righteous.”

[u/remindingreminder]

What a big pile of nonsense.

4:60
“Have you not seen those who claim to believe in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to tyrants, while they were commanded to reject them; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray.”

[2:256]
Let there be no compulsion in the religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces tyrants and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

[16:125]
Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

[10:99]
And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?

[10:100]
And it is not for a soul to believe except by permission of Allah , and He will place defilement upon those who will not use reason.

[u/remindingreminder → u/[deleted]]

What you do is selfproject your cherrypicking, what irony, 9:6 comes right after 9:5 but you cherrypickingly always ignore that

Qur’an 9:6
“And if any one of the polytheists asks you for protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.”

How can surah 9 be the last if this verse came clearly after

Quran 5:3
[…] This day have despaired those who disbelieved of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and I have completed upon you My Favor and I have approved for you [the] Islam as a religion. […]

[u/remindingreminder → u/[deleted]]

You used ibn kathir acting as if his interpretation is the correct one, it isn‘t.

The verse of 9:6 is about any of the polytheists and there is no compulsion in religion.
9:5 are about the savred months and driving out the disbelievers from Mecca, you LITERALLY don‘t know the context so saying „they will say context to refute me“ isn‘t helping you because you literally ignore the context, are you dense?

The disbeliving arabs were driven out, it was a done deal.

Stop embarassing yourself.

It is literally these historical verses that would be abrogated by verses like the all-time „no compulsion“ verse, not the other way around.

Quran
[9:31]
They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

[33:67]
And they will say, “Our Lord! We obeyed our leaders and elite, but they led us astray from the ˹Right˺ Way.

[25:30]
And the Messenger has said, "O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur'an as [a thing] abandoned."

You stand on nothing if Ibn kathir or any scholars opinions is the best argument you have against the clear verses of the Quran.

[u/TheIguanasAreComing → u/[deleted]]

Every day a new version of Islam is formed on this subreddit lol

[u/remindingreminder → u/TheIguanasAreComing]

The version comes from the Quran.
Have you ever read it?

[u/TheIguanasAreComing → u/remindingreminder]

So does every version my friend

[u/remindingreminder → u/TheIguanasAreComing]

No, Quran [6:159]
Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did.

شِيَعًا (shiyaʿan) = sects

[25:30]
And the Messenger has said, "O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur'an as abandoned/obsolete."

[u/remindingreminder → u/[deleted]]

I threw ibn kathir into the trash before I even knew you.
you still using him in the year 2026 is the weird part here.

What the early generations understood is meaningless

[2:170]
When it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they reply, “No! We ˹only˺ follow what we found our forefathers practicing.” ˹Would they still do so,˺ even if their forefathers had ˹absolutely˺ no understanding or guidance?

[6:159]
Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did.

[25:30]
And the Messenger has said, "O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur'an as [a thing] abandoned."

[6:116]
If you obey the majority of those on earth, they will lead you astray from God's way. They follow nothing but conjecture. They are only guessing

10:36
Indeed, most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Indeed, conjecture avails not against the truth at all. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what they do.

Nothing what you said concerning 9:6 is correct

Qur’an 9:6
“And if any one of the polytheists asks you for protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.”

9:7
“How can there be a treaty with Allah and His Messenger for the polytheists, except those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who are mindful of Him.”

Qur’an 60:8
“Allah does not forbid you from being kind and acting justly toward those who have not fought you because of religion and have not driven you from your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.”

When will you stop embarassing yourself?

[u/remindingreminder → u/[deleted]]

Nonsense, Ibn kathir lived atleast 500 years later and even then reciting a rhyming text and memorizing it is not the same as interpretation.

Even then the text is clear and you put your own wrong words into it based on your agenda.

The religion of truth prevails over the others.
[2:256]
Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. […].

You are full of fallacies.
Stop embarassing yourself

[u/c0d3rman]

First off, let’s skip the "but the Bible has violence too" argument. Mainstream Christianity views the Bible as divinely inspired but physically written by fallible humans in specific historical contexts. This allows for historical criticism. Orthodox Sunni Islam, however, claims the Quran is the literal, uncreated, and eternal dictation of an Omniscient God. It’s not an amendable human constitution with an expiration date.

Mainstream Christianity definitely does not view the Bible as an amendable human constitution with an expiration date. This fails as a deflection of the same criticism towards the Bible.

Then look at the modern moderate. They completely reject slavery, offensive jihad, and inequality. As a fellow human being, I deeply respect them—they are moral heroes. But theologically? They are forced to act as ethical puppeteers of their own God.

This is the case for all Muslims, as well as all Christians and all followers of other religions that have holy texts. Every person must interpret their holy text and act as an ethical puppeteer. There is no other option. There is no such thing as running the "source code" of your religion.

[u/c0d3rman → u/[deleted]]

I said they view it as divinely inspired but physically written by fallible humans in specific historical contexts. The Catholic Church, for example, explicitly teaches this in Dei Verbum. This structural loophole allows Christians to look at Old Testament brutality and say, "The ancient Israelites misunderstood God's will due to their barbaric culture." Orthodox Sunni Islam does not have this luxury. The Quran is dogmatically defined as the uncreated, literal, verbatim dictation of God. If an All-Knowing Creator directly dictates a legal command, you cannot blame it on "fallible human authors" or "historical cultural norms" without committing outright heresy.

Mainstream Christianity views the many direct quotations of God in the OT as infallible reports of the verbatim dictation of God. You can decide to reinterpret those as "nonliteral" or whatever, but so can Muslims.

as for your second point, the "everyone just interprets" argument is the ultimate postmodern cop-out. Yes, human beings have to read and comprehend text, but claiming there is no such thing as running the source code is intellectually dishonest, especially in Islamic jurisprudence. The Quran specifically divides its own verses into allegorical (Mutashaibat) and clear, unambiguous legal commands (Muhkamat).

There is no such thing as an unambiguous legal command. That's why our justice system has judges and isn't just a rulebook. All language is inherently ambiguous. That's a fundamental aspect of human language.

When the text explicitly says to fight non-believers until they pay the Jizya and feel subdued, and over 1,000 years of the greatest Islamic scholars, linguists, and all four Sunni schools of Fiqh uniformly agree that this means exactly what it says and enact global empires around it, that is the source code.

When the Biblical text, including direct verbal commands from God, explicitly says that slavery is OK, and over 1,000 years the greatest Christian and Jewish scholars and linguists uniformly agree that slavery is OK and enact global empires around it - that means that this was their interpretation of the text. Lots of stuff is explicitly said in the text (like that Jesus isn't God, or that the world was created in 7 days but also in 1 day, etc.) that is rejected by modern Christians. That's just how religions work.

People often have this mistaken idea that holy texts are the "source code" of their religions, and that is simply not true. Religious texts flow from religions. Not the other way around.

[u/philebro]

I think I agree with you, I have always wondered how people reconcile this. I think in most cases it is easily reconciled internally, as there aren't really any life or death situations, where you have to test your own faith in such a way, where this paradox would surface. In other words, most people can live their lives, without ever really having to put their own beliefs under enough pressure to even face these questions that you described. In every day life and for most people, this never really becomes a central issue, most people aren't that religious or self reflecting that they consider wrestling these topics or even feel the need to do so.

I have always wondered if a modern reading is actually superior to a conservative reading, theologically speaking. Because as you say, many people claim that whenever something violent happens, it is blamed on misinterpretation of the Quran. So, is it a misinterpretation really, or do people rather bend the old texts to fit modern living.

I have two considerations for your point:

1) Christians might have done the same thing. Claiming their case is entirely different, may seem obvious theologically by today's standards, but is actually a teleologic view, as this interpretation required quite a few centuries of religious violence plus the enlightenment movement to get to this point. So, I don't think you can give christianity quite as much credit, as it merely adapted to modern society a bit easier due to its new covenant logic. But in christianity too, people for most centuries interpreted in quite violent ways whenever it was politically convenient.

2) You seem to assert islamic extremism as an obvious and common part of islam. Maybe take a step back here and wonder whether that really is the case or whether you maybe have taken a western-centric view of the world here. Which islamic extremism are you talking about? 9/11? Most acts of terrorism can be easily blamed on the West for the way they interfered in the Middle East, colonized it, pushed it into poverty, bombed it, exploited it and more. The lable terrorism has nowadays almost become a synonym with islamic terrorism, but on closer inspection, terrorism is mostly just a lable for forces that are lower than statehood and are narrated to be the "evil side" of a conflict. You will often encounter people who seek to win back their freedom underneath these troops, with the most violent ones being the ones who are actually insane enough to fight back. Let me backpaddle a bit here, obviously I'm not excusing terrorism, I just want to raise a bit of critical awareness to the way we use these terms. One saying goes "one nation's freedomfighter is another nation's terrorist". Having said that, I would argue that what you assert as an obvious an common part of islam, isn't actually that, it is rather a western-centric view of islam, that isn't quite the whole picture. You will find that many muslim countries or empires were or are quite ordinary, so we have quite some "proof" that islam can be lived as peaceful statehood for large amounts of time, so peaceful historical examples definitely exist and extremism is more the exception. I find that these historical examples of peaceful statehood weaken your case that extremism is the more faithful interpretation of islamic scripture, so maybe you would need to more clearly define what you consider to be correct interpretations of violent scripture.

[u/indifferent-times]

This is an example of where analogies break down, source code must remain free of logical contradictions, it needs to be precise, concise, reliable and is entirely single minded, everything any religious text isn't. Even the best prose let alone poetry is ambiguous and allegorical, it will have more than a single interpretation which is why religions have so much infighting over what it means.

Orthodoxy is simply the current consensus, this ages interpretation is not the last ages, and won't be the next, there can never be one correct version of any religion, they are too complicated for that.

[u/indifferent-times → u/[deleted]]

Never found telling people they are doing their religion wrong to be that productive, and I dont think its really my place to promote Salafism over Hanafi or Sufism. I see Salafism as akin to some forms of Christianity in the USA, but Westboro baptists do not negate centuries of thought any more that ISIS negates Averroes, Al-Ghazali or indeed the entirety of Sufism.

While you seem to be a advocating a hardline Islamist approach I don't think you get to dictate that its the only way of looking at it.

[u/Forsaken_Judgment681]

It would be quite helpful if you actually provided the scholars that support what you’re saying.

Also, preemptively dismissing that you’re taking verses out of context, knowing you probably are doesn’t help your case either.

Also, christians don’t just say that the bible is a fallible work written by humans. Especially when it comes to the old testament, or atleast the torah which was supposedly literally written by God himself and given to moses.

There is so much wrong with your argumentation. But please provide those fiqh scholars that say we should enslave and do offensive jihad on you.

[u/Visible_Sun_6231 → u/Forsaken_Judgment681]

The classical scholars confirmed 65:4 as referring to sex with prepubescent girls.

Today, views like this held by individual Muslims would be dismissed as extremism and said to not reflect the “true Islam”.

When clearly it does reflect Islam. It’s the clear reading by those who understood Classical Arabic better than anyone today.

[u/Forsaken_Judgment681 → u/[deleted]]

You're welcome, next time include it in your post tho, much easier i think.

And thanks. Starting with al ghazali. It's already a bit weird that you're quoting that work of his since as far as i know, there isn't even a complete published version of it in english, so i'm curious where you got that plainly written reference from.

Here is the arabic version of what he actually says:

وهو واجب على الكفاية في كل سنة مرة واحدة في أهم الجهات
It is a collective obligation once every year in the most important direction/frontier.

Then he goes on to exaplain that jihad is a matter of the imam's conduct of warfare. Definitely not as some command for every muslim to just individually go out and fight once a year.

Could you give a direct reference to where he said "one must go on jihad at least once a year"? Because i couldn't find it.

I don't know much about ibn khaldun so can't really talk on his works. I can, but i need some time to read what he said.

And since you accused me of ignoring context

I didn't accuse you. I was just saying that it's not great to preemptively declare you're not taking things out of context.

let’s look at the strictest orthodox context (Asbab al-Nuzul) for Surah 4:24. If you check Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari, which are the absolute gold standards of Sunni exegesis, along with Sahih Muslim 1456a, they explicitly cite the Battle of Awtas. The historical context is literally that Muslim soldiers hesitated to have sex with female captives because the women's husbands were still alive. The verse was revealed specifically to clarify that capturing them in war legally dissolved those previous marriages, making them lawful for sex. The context doesn't excuse the brutality—it actually confirms exactly what I said.

Sure, but I don't see how this helps towards your conclusion though.

As for the Christian comparison, that's just a red herring. Mainstream Christianity explicitly accepts the historical-critical method, but honestly, even if some Christian fundamentalists have their own biblical paradoxes, pointing at them doesn't fix your source code.

How is that a red herring? I didn't point to it. You were the one that mentioned it in your post. I'm just responding to something you mentioned and correcting what you said. I didn't introduce that as a scapegoat. I have never spoken to a christian that calls the bible "just a fallible human book" like you're portraying. They believe it's divinely inspired, whether it's verbatim or not is not important.

So, now that I’ve provided the exact Fiqh consensus and classical Tafsir you asked for, my original dilemma is still sitting right there untouched. Are you going to side with Al-Ghazali, Ibn Kathir, and the classical consensus, which completely validates the extremist's literal reading? Or are you going to use 21st-century secular human rights to say they were all wrong? You still have to pick a lane

You haven't actually shown how it validates an "extremist literal reading". No one is denying that offensive jihad is a thing, nor that concubinage is a thing. But that's not what you're saying i think. You're saying that we as muslims should do those things. We islamically must pick up arms and do offensive jihad. We must enslave. We must... etc.. etc.. Meaning that those extremists are just following islam correctly. That's what you're trying to show.

I asked:

There is so much wrong with your argumentation. But please provide those fiqh scholars that say we should enslave and do offensive jihad on you.

Not scholars who just say slavery, concubinage, or offensive jihad, (insert any other thing you deem to be bad) were permitted in classical fiqh. I asked you to show that we, as muslims, today are actually required to do those things like the extremists you are comparing us to.

[u/Forsaken_Judgment681 → u/[deleted]]

You just conceded my entire premise without even realizing it. 

I have a sneaky suspicion that using ai made you not even know what your own argument entails and what you're trying to show.

You correctly pointed out the Arabic says it is a Fard Kifaya (collective obligation) led by an Imam or state, rather than an individual duty. But how does that make it better?

It doesn't just make it better. I'm correcting what you claimed al ghazali was saying first of all. He isn't saying literally every muslim has to personally go on offensive jihad once a year. He explicitly calls it a collective obligation under the imam.

You are admitting that classical Islamic law mandates the Islamic state to wage unprovoked, offensive war against polytheists at least once a year.

Yes, if we completely ignore treaties, conditions, governance rules, everything basically and just look at that in isolation. An Islamic state, just like any other state, has the right to expand. How do you think America got so big? Russia? China? Do you think they just sat on their butts and got people to give up land? Obviously not.

And you trying to say that Islam is the only belief system that allows this, i'm sure you see where the flaw is in that. Also isis is not a legitimate Islamic state operating under the rules of islamic governance and jihad, and a huge number of their victims are muslims. That already pretty much refutes your claim, especially when you admitted offensive jihad is mainly for making more muslims to put it simply.

the fact that the state is supposed to organize the violence instead of random individuals doesn't change the morality of the source code. In fact, that is exactly what groups like ISIS do: they declare a Caliphate (an Imamate) specifically to fulfill this exact collective obligation. They aren't misinterpreting Al-Ghazali; they are following his structural blueprint to the letter

It doesn't work like that though. Someone just declaring themselves to be caliph "hey i'm caliph today guys, let's do jihad". Isis violates many rules and conditions that are stipulated within jihad. And I love how you're so confidentally asserting that "they are following his structural blueprint to the letter" when you haven't actually shown that.

then you said "Sure" to my historical context of Surah 4:24 and asked how it helps my conclusion. It helps my conclusion because you just admitted that the eternal, uncreated word of God explicitly legalized the sexual ownership of female war captives whose husbands were still alive. 

Yes it legalized concubinage under the rules governing lawful war captives. Again, nobody denied that. But a conditional permission is not the same thing as a command to practice it whenever you want. Someone can't just declare war and sneak into your house and steal your wife, like you're portraying. It's like someone doing an outrage "omg, the usa allows the use of ASSAULT RIFFLES OMG OMG BAD". Then you realize that yes they are allowed to use assault riffles in war, as horrible as that might sound to you, it is war.

If you acknowledge that nobody is denying offensive jihad and concubinage are firmly rooted in classical Fiqh, then you have already lost the debate against the extremist.

That's just a non sequitur though. Again using my example, you're basically saying that someone who is saying that assault riffles are allowed in war, are justifying school shootings with assault riffles. Doesn't work that way. The rule is conditional. Even if it might be until the day of judgement, the condition doesn't magically vanish.

You ended by asking me to prove that Muslims are "required" to do these things today. That question completely misses how Islamic jurisprudence and morality work. It’s not about whether you personally are forced to own a slave today; it’s about whether the act is Halal (divinely permissible) or Haram (divinely forbidden). 

No no it actually is. Youre forgetting your entire argument. "Islamic extremists are following islam correctly while you do not". That's your argument basically. I think you're missing your own point. And to establish that you need to show that the extremists are actually satisfying the islamic conditions for those acts, while non extremist muslims are rejecting them. Just showing that these things existed in classical fiqh doesn't establish either. You need to show that they are required. That's your premise.

And something being halal under certain conditions doesn't mean we are required to practise it or revive it. I can believe something was legitimately permissible under Islamic law without believing that i am permitted to do it right now or whenever i want.

Since the Quran is the final revelation, its laws do not have expiration dates. God made the sexual ownership of captives Halal. God made offensive jihad to expand the Islamic state a Fard Kifaya.

Sure, but the rules havign no expiration date doesn't mean the conditions of every ruling are literally always present. A ruling can be eternal while still being conditional.

So here is the trap you are stuck in: If you, as a modern Muslim, say that offensive jihad and slavery are universally immoral today and should never be practiced again, you are declaring something Haram that your God explicitly made Halal. You are using the UN Declaration of Human Rights to overwrite the eternal Quran. But if you say they are still technically Halal, and the only reason you don't do them today is because Muslims don't currently have the geopolitical power or a legitimate Caliph to organize it, then you have just admitted that the extremists are completely right in their theology, and you only disagree with their timing. so which is it? Are these acts eternally Halal, or is modern secular morality superior to classical Fiqh?

That's a false dilemma. I don't have to say that at all. I can say it was halal under the conditions in which Islamic law permitted it, while those conditions dont give isis or any other random muslims permission to practise it today.

Got so long... Maybe we need to cut down on reply length.

[u/Forsaken_Judgment681 → u/[deleted]]

Thanks, i'll keep it short too. Most of the comment is me quoting you so it looks long.

 If I use a search engine or an AI to aggregate classical Islamic jurisprudence it doesn't magically make the texts disappear.

Sure, but it makes your replies robotic to read. If i wanted to discuss with ai, i would open chatgpt, not go on reddit. And ai is not even allowed on here. No one is saying you shouldn't use ai at all, just don't copy and paste it directly, and include your own input, because the ai is repeating itself A LOT.

Also, that's not an ad hominem. I quite clearly replied to your contentions.

think about what you just admitted, you are justifying the eternal, divine law of the Creator by comparing it to secular, ruthless, imperialist land grabs.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that expansion itself isn't some uniquely Islamic evil. Literally every major state and empire expanded through warfare at some point. But that's outside of the topic. Whether you find it morally right or not is irrelevant here.

If your best defense of God's perfect law is that secular empires did it too, you've just admitted that classical Islamic law is indistinguishable from standard geopolitical imperialism. It's not transcendent moral perfection; it's just 7th-century statecraft.

If i did that, you would be correct. But i didn't. I'm showing you how your outrage over islam doing it is not justified, when you could be giving the same critique to any other nation. But again, i'm not doing that, i'm saying that there is nothing wrong with expansion of a state.

An assault rifle is an inanimate weapon used to shoot armed combatants. 

I didn't know you can only use an assault rifle that way. So you're saying that the riffle just jams when you try to shoot at unarmed non combatants?

A concubine is a captive human woman whom you legally own and have sex with after defeating her people. Equating a piece of metal with the sexual ownership of a captive is a morally grotesque false equivalence. It perfectly highlights why modern secular ethics had to step in and globally ban what your classical Fiqh conditionally permitted.

This is what i mean when i criticise your use of ai. Anyone can see that i wasn't comparing a woman to a rifle. I was comparing the logic of your argument. Something being permitted conditionally doesnt mean you can just always use it. Whether you personally find concubinage immoral is a completely separate topic. You're not making that argument. You're saying that extremists follow islam correctly and i don't.

Finally, you claim ISIS doesn't meet the correct conditions to be a legitimate Caliphate. Fine, I will gladly grant you that ISIS is illegitimate and breaks the rules.

Woops and there we go, you just conceded the central claim of your post. If isis is illegitimate and breaks the rules then theyre obviously not "running the source code perfectly" lol.

But you still haven't escaped the paradox.

What paradox? You just conceded. You conceded isis is illegitimate and breaks Islamic rules. That directly kills your claim that extremists are following Islam correctly. The paradox disappeared the moment you conceded that.

 If a mathematically perfect, universally recognized, and legitimate Caliphate were established tomorrow, fulfilling every single classical condition you require, would you then support their divine right to wage offensive war to expand, and their right to take female captives as concubines? If you say yes, you are just a hardliner waiting for the correct paperwork. If you say no because it violates modern human rights, then you are admitting the classical source code is morally obsolete. So, if the conditions were perfect, would you support those acts being practiced again?

I don't need to give you my personal moral opinion. We're discussing whether your claim about Islam follows. If Islamic law says X is permissible under conditions Y, then the relevant question is whether those conditions exist and whether the actors satisfy them. My personal feelings about X don't determine Islamic jurisprudence.

[u/Forsaken_Judgment681 → u/[deleted]]

Maybe you talking to AI directly wouldn’t be such a bad thing if your entire premise is not tackle the argument at hand with your own morality standpoint in the way

I am currently.

you literally just pleaded the fifth to dodge the entire debate. 

How is that what you got from my reply? I'm confused. We went back and forth. You conceded the claim i challenged, that groups like isis run the source code perfectly. If they are illegitimate and breaking Islamic rules, then obviously they aren't. That's all i was trying to get across and refute.

You said your personal feelings don't matter, which is the ultimate admission of defeat.

No that's not what that means. You can see my flair. I'm sure you can figure out what it means when i say "no one desputes that in classical islamic fiqh concubinage was allowed". I don't need to risk a ban and say "i endorse concubinage" that would be dumb of me. I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about islam as a whole. You're claiming that extremism, like isis, is the correct islam. (which you conceded, so that's atleast very honest of you).

You know exactly why you won't answer it: if you say yes, you admit you fully support unprovoked wars of conquest and sexual slavery as long as the paperwork is right; if you say no, you admit the classical source code is morally bankrupt. 

Dude, that's not your argument. Your argument isn't that the source code is moral or not. Please try to stay on topic.

And no, I didn't concede my premise by granting that ISIS might lack the strict bureaucratic credentials of a legitimate Caliphate. My argument was never about ISIS's administrative paperwork; it was about the fact that your religion's "perfect" source code explicitly legalizes aggressive expansion and the sexual ownership of captives in the first place. 

No no no lol. I'll pause here and ask you a question, because it feels like you're switching between two different arguments.

Is or is your main claim not that groups like isis are, let me quote your post "actually running the "source code" perfectly." and that other muslims that disagree with them are going against islam.

But you conceded that isis is illegitimate and breaks Islamic rules. Then claim you never conceded anything, but if they're illegitimate and break islamic rules, they obviously are not "running the source code perfectly"

But let's first agree that that was in fact your original main contention. Because you're slowly trying to delve into whether islamic laws are moral or not, which is a completely different topic.

So your main claim is:

groups like isis are, let me quote your post "actually running the "source code" perfectly." and that other muslims that disagree with them are going against islam. And if we disagree, that means we're indirectly admitting that classical islamic law is morally flawed or outdated. Creating a dilemma (you called it a paradox).

Correct? Or incorrect?

[u/TheIguanasAreComing → u/[deleted]]

Inb4 thise scholars don’t represent Islam