If you end up fascist you cannot be a Muslim theocratic state which is what Islam posits as the ideal this you cannot have a state that is both fascist and an Islamic theocracy. This combination is entirely possible for other faiths that do not posit an ideal state.
You cannot be both.
You’re making a pure semantics argument, saying that an “Islamic theocracy” means something so specific that even if a fascist regime could be considered both Islamic and a theocracy, you can’t call it that because only caliphates qualify for that label. It’s a bit silly.
No I am not making a semantic argument. The role if faith in a theocracy and the role of the state religion in a fascist state are entirely different.
The only theocratic state that can exist in Islam is a caliphate. That’s literally what is in the Quran. There’s no nuance or room for debate here.
Do you hate Islam? Is that why this is so hard for you to grasp?
The only theocratic state that can exist in Islam is a caliphate. That’s literally what is in the Quran. There’s no nuance or room for debate here.
Hypothetically, if a fascist government were to form with Islam as the state religion, I would describe it as an Islamic theocracy as well as a fascist dictatorship. To suggest they are mutually exclusive and that only a caliphate - the ideal Islamic theocracy as described in the Quran - can truly be considered an Islamic theocracy is just the No True Scotsman fallacy.
This is a common issue with organized religion in general. To an insider, only your beliefs are the true Islam, and all those others who call themselves Muslims but don’t share your exact interpretation aren’t real Muslims. To an outsider it’s obvious that they are all Muslim, just different sects. No single sect can claim their interpretation is the correct one, yet most try anyway.
Do you hate Islam? Is that why this is so hard for you to grasp?
I have no hate for Islam, and I grasp what you’re saying just fine, I just disagree.
