Islam Does (Not) Encourage Authoritarianism

I Preface

‘Islam' & ‘Authoritarian’ originate from two distinct paradigms of thought; one traditional Islamic & the other modern Western. It is absurd to inject one in the other without proper framework. In contrast to the case with the latter, most here are unfamiliar with the former. Before I proceed with my opening argument, some background work is necessary.


II Introduction

It is evident that any real political system is predicated on a state, those under which are, by definition, subject to its authority by force. This is not our contention here. Rather, it is the special type of political system predicated on overexertion of authority to the determinant of personal freedom. Encouraging Authoritarianism is, hence, exerting greater authority at the expense of individual agency than expected –by western modern standards. I shall, henceforth, show that Islam, in fact, seeks to preserve & maximize human agency –at least in comparison to western modern standards. – It should also be noted that this debate is not about wether authoritarianism is bad. It might well be the best thing, that is irrelevant.

Islam is essentially the teachings of the beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). ‘Sunni’ -mainstream- Islam deems prophetic only those teachings acquired through Isnad (chains of authority). That is: permission to teach, advise or judge inherited from one generation to the next all the way back to the source: the beloved Prophet (pbuh) himself. 

The prophetic teachings are expressed in the Quran, the revelation, & Sunnah, the normative practices & directives of the beloved Prophet (pbuh) collected in Hadiths. The sum of Quran & Sunnah constitute the Islamic scriptures. These are addressed to the human being in all his 3 dimensions, namely:
Morality, teachings on right actions for the body. Later crystallizing in the ethical/legal/political Fiqh tradition (aka Islamic Law, Sharia Law…).
Rationality, teachings on right convictions/beliefs for the mind. Later crystallizing  in the theological/philosophical Kalam tradition (aka Islamic Theology, Islamic Philosophy…).
Spirituality, teachings on right intentions/emotions for the soul. Later crystallizing in the spiritual/mystical Tasawwuf tradition (aka Sufism, Islamic Mysticism).

II.3 God’s Will

To ascertain the importance of human agency in Islam, we must first understand its basis. The Islamic conception of human agency stems from the conception of God. According to the Quran, God is the transcendent, absolute, singular, necessary being. All things are entirely contingent on God’s Will, for God’s Will is absolute. The world, therefore, not contingent on human will. 

The Quran affirms human will yet asserts its dependence on God’s Will: “you do not will except by the Will of Allah”. This relates to the very concept of ‘Islam’ (from the root 'aslama': to surrender, to prompt peace…). Islam is to surrender to & be at peace with God's Will. Human agency is not in the action independently from God, for all things (the world, human will, & human action) are, in truth, in submission to God’s Will. Human agency is in the volition to recognize or deny this truth, to be at peace with God’s Will or be in delusion otherwise. This recognition is predicated on Reason as the means to seek God, & on Revelation as the means to know Him.

To make sense of the above some background is necessary. According to the Quran, God created human souls with whom He established a covenant of Islam (Ahd) in the Thar realm. Then He brought them into life as cognitive beings to settle in the Earthly realm as delegates (agents acting on God’s behalf). The memory of that covenant is our innate state Fitrah manifested in the faculty of Reason (Aql) entrusted to us. This life, hence, a test to fulfill the covenant in preserving said trust (Amana) until the souls return to their Lord. In fact, ‘Religion’ in the Quran is ‘Deen’ from the root ‘dana’, meaning: to be indebted, to resign. Religion is in essence recognizing indebtedness to God. Hence, human will -or Reason- as the faculty which facilitates such recognition or otherwise denial.

II.4 Human Agency

The notion of human agency evokes other notions such as: action, reason, thought, choice, right, & liability. According to the Islamic Tradition (particularly Sunni):

Reason (Aql) is three kinds: necessary reason, demonstrative reason & preferential reason. Necessary reason is axiomatic knowledge; such that knowing a thing is itself, or knowing universals from particulars, or knowing that two ones is one & one, or having awareness of what we sense… etc. Demonstrative reason is knowledge of what is, constructed from axiomatic knowledge; such as knowing the truth of a statement, or the reality of a perception… Preferential reason is knowledge of what ought to be, derived from familiarity; such as knowing grammar rules, beauty standards, musical harmony, moral values & axiological statements.

Thought (Fikr) is the cognition of one thing in relation to another. It's two kinds: Reflection is when said relation is ascertained, Imagination is when it isn’t. That is, Reflection entails judgement or justification whereas Imagination does not. Delusion is when Imagination is expressed in terms of Reflection.

Choice (Ikhtiyar) is positive judgement followed by intent. When a subconscious thought (hajis) is recurrent (waswas), it imprints on our consciousness (khatira). That awareness evokes our rational reflection (fikra), which may turn into intent. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) mentioned that Man is not accountable for the first three (hajis, waswas, khatira), & may only be accountable for reflections when it comes to beliefs & choices when it comes to actions.

Intent (Niyya) is the cumulation of rational resolve & instinctive desire. The lack in resolve or in desire may weaken intent. In the Islamic Sunni Tradition human intentions do not cause actions, for actions are predetermined: “He created you and what you do”. Rather, intention meets action when there is ability. Ability being latent competence & circumstantial feasibility, both of which are beyond human agency.

Action (Fi'l), in general, is predicted on the presence of its causes & the absence of its impediments. A human action is further predicted on purpose, i.e. a final cause. However, causes & impediments are outside factors beyond human power. There lies agency: purpose. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) said: “actions are but with intentions”, meaning: what counts in actions are the intentions, the purpose.

Right (Haq) is intrinsic to choice, for to chose is to discriminate, to recognize boundaries. Transgression is to violate boundaries. This Earthy realm -& all things- is God’s dominion, any exercise of human will therein is, therefore, transgressive except by God’s permission. As delegates on Earth by proxy, humans may act within God’s boundaries lest they transgress.

Liability (Taklif) is the state of being responsible & accountable for one’s choices within one’s rights. The justifiability of Liability rests on the autonomy of choice & the cognizance of rights. One must have the knowledge of what is right & the ability to opt for what is right to be liable for choosing right or otherwise. Accordingly, several prerequisites to Liability are mentioned in the Quran or by the beloved Prophet (pbuh) in regards to both intention -to be independent, & ability -to be attainable. Namely:
Personhood (that), excluding other than the one making the choice & the dead, no soul shall bear the sin of another.
Sanity (aql), excluding the insane until they regain their mind or the confused until they discern.
Consciousness (wa’i), excluding the unconscious until their regain their consciousness & the sleeping until they wake
Maturity (bulugh), excluding the child until they grow.
Awareness (‘ilm), excluding the ignorant until they know & the forgetting until they remember.
Soundness (sihha), excluding the handicapped & those with chronic or special conditions beyond their competence, until otherwise the case.
Autonomy (ikhtiyar), excluding the coerced & those under duress until their circumstances change.

As mentioned priorly, in the Islamic paradigm, this life is a test realm for souls to maintain their covenant with their Lord until they return to Him. For that purpose, God set up boundaries in this Earthy realm such that souls have a chance to seek & find Him. Hence, the sacred rights of Sharia, the transgression against which is penalized:
Deen = religion or faith. ‘Deen’ literally means ‘way to resign to’ or ‘indebtedness to be paid’. This to preserve the covenant itself, thus enabling the soul the choice to maintain it. In practice, this sacred right is set to protect Truth; which is why coercion in faith & also apostasy are penalized [we’ll get back to this later]. – Faith is predicated on Reason, without which agency is nonexistent.
Aql = reason, for only in preserving reason that a soul may find its memory of God. E.g. intoxication is penalized to preserve reason as it undermines our ability to make choices. Although it may cause confusion, intoxication does not revoke liability for it is self-inflicted. – Reason is also predicted on Life. One must be living first to be able to reason.
Nafs = life & bodily integrity. ‘Nafs’ means ‘self’. That is, the self: body, mind & soul is sacred. Thus, taking life or causing injury is penalized in Sharia. – Life, likewise, is predicated on progeny, for the continuation of the individual requires the continuation of the species.
Nasl = progeny & family integrity. ‘Nasl’ means: progeny, lineage, procreation, family legacy… This is a sacred right, for only with continual & stable progeny that souls may get a chance to settle on Earth & find God. Hence, practices which sabotage family integrity such as adultery & sodomy are penalized. – The survival of the species as settlers on Earth is, therefore, predicated on property. 
Mal = property or material wealth, for only in securing settlement on Earth does a soul have a chance in finding its purpose. Private ownership is a sacred right, thus practices such as theft & property damage are penalized in Sharia. – Material wealth, similarly, predicated on moral wealth.
Ird = honor or moral wealth. This, because social cohesion, communal trust & mutual respect are necessary to establish relationships & conduct transactions. 

Accordingly, the Islamic state’s purpose is to preserve these sacred rights, as divine boundaries. To be able to characterize the Islamic state, we must first know what it is. State implies jurisdiction, allegiance, leadership, government, system, sovereignty…

Jurisdiction (Wilaya) is the area of permissibility, acting beyond which is prohibited. In Sharia, jurisdiction is seen in terms of justifiability (see chart); specifically in terms of dues one has towards others & dues others have towards oneself. These dues pertain to three types of relationships:

Tab’ – Natural (from birth, predetermined & irreversible regardless of circumstance, e.g. parent to child…); 
‘Aqd – Contractual (based on mutual consent, binding upon contract & void upon annulment, e.g. ruler to subject…); 

Wad’ – Conventional (of circumstance, mandated when relevant & obsolete when not, e.g. neighbor to neighbor).
The relation state-subject, therefore, is deemed a contractual relation -of allegiance.

Leadership (Imamah) is the highest authority. The ultimate authority in Islam is none other than God, & on His behalf the beloved Prophet (pbuh). In the Sunni tradition (as opposed to the Shia) the prophetic leadership is passed on to his:
Successors in the secular realm, who must be elected by the Ummah (Muslim community). The ensuing system therefrom is known as the Caliphate (successorship), or the Islamic state.
Inheritors in the religious realm, who must have Isnad (a prophetic chain of authority). The ensuing system therefrom is known as Mathahib (traditional schools of thought).

Government (Hukuma) is, according to Islamic political theory, a dominant institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself. In that sense, there are three kinds of government:
Celestial government, which preserves all the sacred rights (religion, reason, life, progeny, property & honor) affording souls security in both this life & the next. Thus, the Islamic government.
Earthly government, which preserves earthy rights (life & property…), thus affording souls security only in this life.
Infernal government, which preserves no rights.

System of government in the Islamic tradition is a very flexible & malleable. Historically, different regions of the world adopted different systems of governments. Overall, the main aspects of these systems are:
Hukm – Authority: the authoritative branch, embodied by the head of state & the ruling dynasty, in some cases including Harem institutions. 
Wizara – Administration: the executive branch, management of state & public affairs, comprised of autonomous or affiliated ministers, high officials…
Shura – Consultation: the consultative branch, comprised of the people of convention & dissolution.
Qada – Justice: the judicial branch, comprised of jurists appointed by the state as judges, supreme judges & grand muftis.
‘Askar – Defense: the military branch, comprised of commanders & guards…
There is no legislative branch in an Islamic state, since the true sole legislator is God, thought His prophet (pbuh).

Let us circle back to the role of the Islamic state in the preservation of the sacred rights, referred to as Ismah - Inviolability, meaning: sanctity of religion, life, reason, progeny, property & honor. In practice, this means guaranteed state protection & due legal recourse. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) said: “whoever kills who has a covenant from Allah and His Messenger, then he has violated the covenant with Allah and His Messenger, so he shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise”. In Sharia, inviolability is contingent on hostility. All humans in peace with the Muslims are inviolable by divine decree, no matter their affiliation or location; hence categorized accordingly:

Abode of Peace is inclusive of the covenant of :
Faith (millah), for Muslims.
Protection (dhimmah), for non-Muslims citizens of an Islamic state.
Asylum (istiman), for non-Muslims temporary residents of an Islamic state.
Treaty (ahd), for non-Muslims in foreign territories in peace with Muslims.

Abode of War consists of:
Combatants (muharib), non-Muslims militarily fit free adult males in foreign territories at war with Muslims. These are non-inviolable.
Non-combatants (musalim), non-Muslims non-combatant women, children, elderly, slaves, disabled, insane, peasants, laborers, monks… semi-inviolable, for the Prophet (pbuh) said: "do not kill the women, the children, the elderly. Also the chronically ill, the blind, the monk, and the slave must not be killed, you must not kill a woman or a laborer”…
Prisoners of War (asir), non-Muslims captured by Muslims in battle before they convert. Also semi-inviolable. In this case, they have a right to be accommodated, exchanged, pardoned, released, ransomed, naturalized &/or emancipated.

Succinctly, Islam is in essence about the individual with God, where state plays a minor role in public security, of common good & justice. Individual agency is thus paramount & at the core of the Islamic paradigm. It is itself the divine gift that God decreed to be protected & set sacred boundaries to preserve it. I shall illustrate this fact with concrete examples relevant to the aforementioned sacred rights respectively:

Religion. In Islam, agency to believe & practice your beliefs is sacred: “there is no compulsion in religion”. It is prohibited in Sharia to compel others to act or prevent them from acting against their religious directives. In fact, this also extends to attacking Islam if done as a religious duty. John of Damascus, one of the Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church, wrote theses denouncing the beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a false prophet & an antichrist, while working as an officer of the Caliphate court. Contrastingly to the western secular state, the Islamic state recognizes other sources of morality beside its own, hence legal pluralism. In effect, the 1300 years of Islamic rule it took Christianity to fall 30 points in the Middle East, took only 30 years in France under secular rule. After 8 centuries of Islamic rule in India & West Africa not even 1/7th of the population there are Muslim. 6 centuries of Islamic rule in Eastern Europe & the overwhelming majority of the population was still Christian. 

Reason. Given all that is said prior, the sanctity of reason in Islam is evident. In fact, it is a requirement in the Sunni tradition to have discernment before faith lest it is invalid. You have to know why you believe for your belief to be valid. 

Life. Although this is a universally sacred right, it is only truly universal in Islam, for all human life regardless of origin is inviolable in Sharia, unless otherwise negated (by transgression). This is in contrast to secular western states in which non-national life is non-inviolable, as no western laws guarantee any protection to non-nationals. More so, under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are exempt from military participation, for they are not expected to sacrifice their life for a cause they do not share. Sending soldiers to die in battles for reasons they don’t believe in is murder. A state has no business deciding what life is worth protecting & for what cause. 

Progeny. In Sharia, all people can establish reproductive relations according to their beliefs. Under Islamic rule, Jews were allowed to marry their aunts & Zoroastrians their sisters even if that is considered incest in Sharia. Marriage is a relation between a man & a woman based on mutual consent. The state has no business whatsoever in regulating or even legalizing the practice. In Sharia, parents also have a right to their children sans interference of the state, their nurturing or their education. & children have a divine right to their parents. Renouncing children in Islam is minor apostasy (i.e. barred from entering Heaven, albeit not punishable in this life). Hence, practices which may destroy family integrity are prohibited in Sharia, albeit penalized when done in public.

Property. Private ownership is a scared right. The only things the beloved Prophet (pbuh) declared can not be privately owned are: natural water (like rivers), fire (energy sources, like forests & oil), & sacred endowments (like the holy mosques). [there is a difference of opinion on whether natural resources can be privately owned]. In effect, during the Crusades, the Muslim sultan Beibars wished to confiscate unverified property from owners without deeds to fund the war, but he could not get the Mufti Iman Nawawi to give him permission to do so, for he had no right to. Only God can revoke ownership in Islam, not even the beloved Prophet (pbuh) has the authority to do so. Moreover, in Sharia, the Islamic state has no jurisdiction in private property. Even if a crime is committed in private property it is beyond state jurisdiction to punish it, unless it has public consequences. If two sodomites commit their act behind close doors without public impact, it is not a crime in Sharia, albeit a sin in the eyes of God.

All the above is antithetical to Authoritarianism. Looking forward to the next round., 

Thanks Con for posting your opening round.

I am not exactly sure what Con’s argument is, or maybe he’s trolling. I will, nonetheless, try to rebut it.

First off, the Quran explicitly & unequivocally prohibits talking innocent life in many instances: “whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.” (5:32) – “And do not kill a person whom Allah has given sanctity, except for a just reason.” (17:33) – “And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake.” (4:92) –“And do not kill yourselves. Indeed, Allah has been Very-Merciful to you.” (4:29) …etc. Therefore, Con’s entire case collapses, for his dubious premise on the violability of innocent life in the Quran is False. 

Further, Con relies on a recounted act in the Quran, to infer that the book commands Muslims to kill the innocent life that is destined to forfeit its innocence in the future. This reasoning is fallacious in several ways:

1 To infer obligation from a narrated act in the Quran is ludicrous, for otherwise Muslims would have to commit all the prohibitions in the Quran, like disbelief, theft, murder…, as these acts are also narrated therein.
2 The Quran also narrates that God commanded Abraham, a prophet, to kill his own child. Should Muslims then kill their own children? Of course not, “Do not kill your children for fear of want. We will provide for them and for you. Surely killing them is a great sin.” (17:31). This is even truer for Con’s story. 
3 The killing in the story was contingent on the future culpability of the presently innocent life. A situation akin to killing baby Hitler knowing his future. Only, we do not have the ability to acquire such knowledge. Therefore, we must first attain knowledge of the future for this passage to be of any relevance to us.
4 In the same verses mentioned by Con, Moses himself affirms the maleficence of the act according to what God taught him: “Did you kill an innocent soul while he did not kill anyone? You have committed a heinous act indeed.” The act is still evil, albeit it occurred. This asserts further the sanctity of human life, thus the paramountcy of human autonomy.
5 The entire story relates to God’s decree, & has nothing to do with morality. Likewise, "The angel of death who has been entrusted with you will take you. Then to your Lord you will be returned.” (32:11). God takes life just as He gives it, by way of the angel of death or Khadir with Moses or otherwise.
6 Con’s inference contradicts the explicit statement of the Quran in both prohibiting innocent life & freedom of religion: “There is no compulsion in faith” (2:256) “And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve.”” (18:29).

I have established in the first round & reiterate again this round the paramountcy of human agency in Islam & its sacred nature & its prevalence in Sharia, & the fact that the Islamic state is but an agent bound to preserve & maximize individual autonomy in choice, action, self, private ownership…etc. Hence, Islam is antithetical to authoritarianism.

I have no time to read your entire argument. Your argument is nonsense and I dont like reading nonsense. So I will skip on it. If you are going to challenge me to a debate, then at least try to think of an argument and not obvious lies.

One such obvious lie is about Quran forbidding the killing of innocents:

In Quran, only muslims are innocent.

Let that sink in.

When Quran says dont kill innocents, Quran means dont kill muslims.

This is confirmed in my previous round, where Quran in final words justified the murder of a boy due to his disbelief.

Quran says "dont attack non-believers unless they attack you."

History shows us that muslims have different definition for the word "attack", "corrupt"...

If you express your disbelief to muslims and say that you dont believe in allah, muslims will interpret that as an attack against them and islam.

If you dont believe me, go to Saudi Arabia and say "allah is a pig". 

The Quran itself clearly says that all non-believers will burn eternally. Why would someone burn eternally if he was innocent?

Use your brain and dont let muslims trick you.

Con has made no attempt to defend his case or refute mine. Until Con brings us sound arguments that show Islam encourages authoritarianism, as stated in the resolution, his should be taken as a concession. I suspect he is just trolling. 

Con keeps making unsupported vacuous claims. Before I am expected to respond to them, he must first show us how those claims are sound, how they are supported, & how they are relevant to our topic. Still, I shall refute them regardless.

In effect, Con conjures out of thin air ‘innocent soul’ in the Quran is actually ‘Muslim soul’, despite the fact that no such exclusion is in any way made therein. He also imagines that the Khadir story with Moses somehow supports this, despite the fact that Moses himself asserts “Did you kill an innocent soul while he did not kill anyone”, i.e. innocence (or violability) is contingent on transgression against others. – Even if we take Con’s bare assertions for granted, this still does not show us how Islam encourages authoritarianism. Any state is, by design, exclusionary. The modern nation state, such as the US, extends no rights to non-nationals. The nation ethno-state extends none to non-natives…etc. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that an Islamic state extends no rights to non-Muslims (which isn’t true), Con still needs to tell us how this entails Authoritarianism.

Con further purports that “don’t attack disbelievers unless they attack you” in the Quran actually, for some mysterious reason, means the complete opposite: “attack them when they don’t attack you”. Or in his words, “don’t attack disbelievers unless they disbelieve”. Apparently, a predicate of a thing in the eyes of Con is the opposite of the thing itself. This violates the most fundamental principle of Logic, the Law of Identity. I suspect when a doctor tells him, don’t consume milk unless it’s lactose-free, Con uses his brain then proceeds to consume lactose.

In truth, as asserted in my opening round, inviolability (or innocence) in Islam is contingent on transgression: “Fight in the cause of Allah only against those who fight you, but do not transgress. Allah does not like transgressors”. Indeed, a human being is inviolable in Sharia unless they transgress (for instance by killing or attacking another), which furthers proves my initial argument. Hence, an Islamic state extends protection & rights to all humans, native or non-native, Muslim or non-Muslim, national or non-national, unless they transgress. That is, unless they violate one of aforementioned sacred rights: Religion, Reason, Self, Progeny, Property, & Honor. This, to ensure human autonomy in settling on the Earth & in seeking God, until they return to Him: “every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no soul shall bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.”

As we have shown again & again, Islam fundamentally maximizes human autonomy by divine right, especially in individual self & reason, collective survival & private property, that no Islamic government has any authority to limit, only to preserve. Authoritarianism, in contrast, is restriction of human autonomy. These do not concur. Hence, Islam does not encourage Authoritarianism.

I realized sources are missing in my opening round. It must have been a last formatting issue. Since I posted roughly the same opening argument in the other debate with the same topic Islam Does (Not) Encourage Authoritarianism, readers are free to check sources there in embedded links. Or refer to the list below:
dimensions
you do not will except by the Will of Allah
Ahd
Khalifa
Fitrah
Aql
Amana
three kinds
mentioned
He created you and what you do”
actions are but with intentions
prerequisites
no soul shall bear the burden of another
sacred rights of Sharia
State implies jurisdiction, allegiance, leadership, government…
Ismah - Inviolability
accordingly
there is no compulsion in religion
John of Damascus
Millet system
unconditional in the academic realm
Mufti Iman Nawawi 

Next time you want to debate me, dont resort to these lies. I understand that as a muslim you have an urge to lie about others, but dont think others are as stupid as you.

Your first lie about my claim is: "attack them when they don’t attack you"

Your second lie about my claim is: "Dont attack believers unless they disbelieve".

I stated that disbelievers will be attacked if they express their disbelief, and not if they disbelieve.

The fact that your retarded brain thought these two sentences are the same is just so utterly stupid and funny, but what did I expect from a muslim.

Disbelief is the same as expressing disbelief. Wrong. It is not even similar.

We know that every single muslim country commits violence against disbelievers when they express their disbelief.

We have demonstrated that muslims have a different definition of the word attack. Verbally insulting islam is an attack according to every muslim country and every muslim in this world.

In the next round, try using less lies so maybe you can still save face.

We have already explained Islam means surrender to God, in recognition that human will is subject to divine Will, & that human souls are accountable thus for their intentions in regards to divine Will. Particularly:
Reason (‘Aql) – God created human souls & bestowed them with a special gift. 
Covenant (‘Ahd) – Souls pledged to worship (recognize) only God.
Trust (Amana) – God begot souls into Earth whom He entrusted with preserving that pledge.
Earthly Realm (Dunya) – a trial ground for souls to find God & keep their pledge until they return back to God, to be judged accordingly.
Succession (Khilafa) – Humans, therefore, vicegerents on Earth acting in God’s dominion with His permission within the boundaries He set. 
Sacred Right (Haq) – boundaries, thus, set with the purpose of granting souls the chance to find God & keep His covenant.
Agency (Ikhtiyar) – Reason, hence, is the means by which humans chose to recognize God & maintain His boundaries or otherwise.
Liability (Taklif) – having agency ergo autonomy of choice, hence, means being responsible & accountable for one’s choices. Reciprocally, being liable to one’s choices necessitates autonomy (i.e. free agency). Indeed, divine Judgment in Islam is contingent on Taklif.  

In the Islamic paradigm, rational faculty is what fundamentally distinguishes human beings. According to the Sunni Tradition, the individual’s choice is in essence rational reflection & rational resolve, to give purpose & meaning to the individual's action, in accordance with the individual’s competence & their circumstances. It follows, to be liable for one’s choices, is to have sufficient autonomy & ability to make choices.

Accordingly, God, through His beloved Prophet (pbuh), made several  exemptions from liability to ensure sufficient freedom of choice, namely (as stated in the opening round): personhood, sanity, consciousness, maturity, awareness, soundness, & autonomy. 

To ensure souls have the sufficient agency to find & recognize God, according to the Islamic maxim “Aman qabl Iman” ‘security before faith’, Sharia upholds 6 sacred rights the transgression of which is penalized. Namely: Religion (God’s covenant), which is predicated on Reason (for it is the medium by which the individual may know God), which is predicated on Life (or bodily integrity, for the individual need exist first), which is predicated on Progeny (or family integrity, for the species need to survive for the individual to exist), which is predicated on Property (material wealth, for the security & stability of society is necessary for the survival of the species), which is predicated on Honor (moral wealth, for social cohesion & mutual trust & respect is prerequisite to social stability). 

From there, we have described what an Islamic government is & its purposes. In effect, according to the Sunni Tradition: the Islamic government is a dominant institution elected by a contract of allegiance between subject-ruler, delegated to maintain & preserve the sacred rights, acting as a successor (caliphate) to the beloved Prophet (pbuh) in the secular realm, & therefore, affording souls security in both this life & the next. The Islamic government, thus, has no authority in Sharia to restrict or limit individual rights & agency, only to protect it & maintain it.

The real world significance of the above in the Islamic state is manifested in Ismah – Inviolability: sanctity of religion, life, reason, progeny, property & honor. In practice, this means active state protection & due legal recourse. All humans in Sharia are inviolable unless they themselves transgress against the sacred rights otherwise. Particularly, non-Muslims at peace with Muslims are inviolable -whether they be permanent or temporary residents within the Islamic state or without anywhere in the world; whereas non-Muslim at war with Muslims or their allies (enemy combatants) are not inviolable. Enemy non-combatants & enemy POWs thus neither at peace with Muslims nor a danger otherwise are semi-inviolable in Sharia. Not only is human agency paramount in Islam in scope, it also is in scale, for it extends to all humans of all backgrounds, national or not, Muslim or not -save transgressors. All can chose what to believe, practice their beliefs accordingly, own their own property by divine right & act therein with complete autonomy sans authority of the state.


II Rebuttal

Same as previous rounds, Con clearly is unable or unwilling to defend his case whatsoever, resorting instead to constant ad hominem attacks & successive bare assertions.

In effect, he calls me a liar & pretends that “attack believers if they express their disbelief” is: 
1 for some fictitious reason the actual meaning of: “don’t attack believers unless they attack you”
2 somehow contrary to “don’t attack disbelievers if they disbelieve”, even though believing & expressing belief are, for all intents & purposes, equivalent, for how else could we possibly know who disbelieves if they express otherwise.
3 for some delusional reason also contrary to “attack them when they don’t attack you”, even though that’s literally what it means. 

Con also conflates blasphemy with disbelief. The former relates to social sensitivities & national sanctities while the latter relates to freedom of choice. Nonetheless, I already established in my first round that freedom of religion in Sharia is so paramount that It is prohibited in Sharia to compel others to act or prevent them from acting against their religious directives. In fact, this also extends to attacking Islam if done as a religious duty. A good example of this is John of Damascus. One of the Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church, wrote theses denouncing the beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a false prophet & an antichrist, while working as an officer of the Caliphate court. – This level of freedom of expression is never seen anywhere else. In the modern “non-authoritarian” West, blasphemy (such as Holocaust denial), hate speech (racial slurs), or advocacy (for communism for instance) is punishable with no such caveats.

Authoritarianism is the exertion by the state of great authority at the expense of individual agency. I have shown that Islam maximizes human agency & autonomy, as a necessary prerequisite to liability & divine judgement, & a necessary foundation for souls to find God in this earthly realm. Effectively, human spiritual integrity, bodily integrity, rational integrity, personal integrity, family integrity & social integrity are all sacred rights in Sharia. I have brought many examples from the Islamic tradition & History to this effect. Therefore, Islam & Authoritarianism do not concur. Con, on the other hand, has not offered any rebuttal whatsoever to anything I said, nor has he offered any sound argument or evidence for his case.

Is a false claim.

"Believing" and "expressing belief" are not equivalent.

One can believe without expressing his belief.

One can disbelieve without expressing his disbelief.

Muslims dont consider "Disbelieving and not expressing disbelief" to be equal to "attack".

Muslims consider "Disbelieving and expressing disbelief" to be equal to "attack on islam".

"Attack on islam" is equal to "attack on muslims".

Saying "There is no Allah" is an expression of disbelief and an "attack".

It results in violence towards the person who says it. 

Insulting Allah results in death or in the less severe case: prison time or beating.

In order for a different religion to exist in a muslim country, its followers have to admit the existence of Allah.

They cannot go around saying "Allah doesnt exist". They cannot say bad things about Allah.

I feel like this needed to be said due to the false claim of "freedom of religion" in islam.

Is a misleading claim.

"We wont know who disbelieves if they express otherwise" does not prove the claim "Expressing disbelief is considered an attack" to be wrong.

"Dont attack non-believers unless they express their non-belief" is a claim that is a part of Quran's teachings.

"Attack non-believers if they express their non-belief" is a claim that is true according to Quran. Quran doesnt forbid violence against those who express their non-belief.

Is a false claim.

"They don't attack" is not equal to "they express their disbelief".

The claim "They express their disbelief" is not equal to "lack of attack".

The claim "They express their disbelief" is equal to "attack".

Blasphemy is by definition an expression of disbelief. Many muslim countries punish blasphemy with death, so I will treat this as my opponent conceding the argument of "Expressing disbelief is considered an attack".

My opponent conceded the argument of "punishing the expression of disbelief".

"Punishing the expression of disbelief" leads to "encouraging authoritarianism", since it encourages "subjection of disbelievers to the authority of the muslim state".

In conclusion, I have proved through the words of my opponent and through Quran and through well known history of muslim countries that islam encourages authoritarianism.

My opponent tried to move this debate to "West encourages authoritarianism", which does not prove the claim "islam encourages authoritarianism" to be wrong.

I have presented an example in Quran where boy was killed and where Quran justified that by using "disbelief" as a justification for killing the boy.

I also asked a question: "Why would Allah decide that non-believers should burn eternally and suffer, if Allah considers them innocent?". A difficult question with a simple answer: Allah doesnt think they are innocent.

My opponent implied that Quran says "non-believers shouldnt be harmed".

However, Quran doesnt say this anywhere.

Quran says: "Allah will torture all non-believers forever by placing them in a fire where they will burn for all eternity". 

I felt the need to correct my opponent, as he was misrepresenting what Quran says about what should happen to non-believers.

I think this is enough. Thank you for the debate.