[antibasilisk]

>would you be okay if a Catholic theocracy persecuted you for your own belief in "hard DCT", given that according to Catholicism it is heretical?

I would not, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my broader argument, since it doesn't hinge on Abrahamic religions seeing eye to eye on all topics. For example, you wouldn't find Ahmed bin Hanbal saying that he would prefer no caliphate to one that believed in the createdness of the Qur'an, despite being persecuted for that belief himself.

>"Hard DCT" is the Asharite position

Yes, but it's also not exclusive to them. For example Ibn Hazm was a prominent theologian who subscribed to it, despite his vehement opposition to asharism.

>I'm not sure what the Atharite position on this question is, if they have one

My understanding is that Ibn Taymiyyah takes the view that goodness is based on the nature of God, rather than command or foreknowledge exclusively, and that individual commands may take either side of euthyphro's dilemma, rather than being confined to one or the other.

[skissane]

> I would not, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my broader argument, since it doesn't hinge on Abrahamic religions seeing eye to eye on all topics.

Well, your whole idea of persecuting non-Abrahamists is a good example of something Abrahamists don't see eye-to-eye on. Certainly a lot of Christians are opposed to it – as I pointed out before, it violates the official teaching of the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council – but I don't believe all Muslims have ever agreed on it either. When Muslim rulers first conquered parts of India, and ended up ruling over Hindus and Buddhists, most of those rulers decided against extermination – and there were plenty of ulama willing to provide them with a fiqh justification for that decision.

> For example Ibn Hazm was a prominent theologian who subscribed to it.

Ibn Hazm lived before Sunni theology had settled-down into three established schools, and as such can't really be said to belong to any of them. Who follows Ibn Hazm's aqidah today? I'm guessing, if anyone does, it would be Zahiris? (who are sometimes considered a "minor Sunni maddhab", in addition to the four major ones)

> My understanding is that Ibn Taymiyyah takes the view that goodness is based on the nature of God, rather than command or foreknowledge exclusively, and that individual commands may take either side of euthyphro's dilemma, rather than being confined to one or the other.

Okay, but all Jews, Christians and Muslims agree that some divine commands are "positive" – only binding because God willed them, not because the object of the command is inherently good (for an obligation) or evil (for a prohibition). So in saying "individual commands may take either side of euthyphro's dilemma", Ibn Taymiyyah is not saying anything different from what Māturīdīs or Twelver Shi'a or Roman Catholics would say. "Hard DCT" always takes "one side" of Euthyphro's dilemma; everyone else takes "both sides" depending on the specific rule, just as Ibn Taymiyyah does. I don't actually see any difference between Ibn Taymiyyah (or Athnaris more broadly) and the Māturīdīs on this particular issue, while he clearly disagrees with the Asharites and Ibn Hazm

[antibasilisk]

>and there were plenty of ulama willing to provide them with a fiqh justification for that decision.

Yes, that's the position of the Hanafi and Maliki schools. The Shafi'is, Hanbalis and Zahiris however opt for extermination.

>Ibn Hazm lived before Sunni theology had settled-down into three established schools, and as such can't really be said to belong to any of them.

For Ibn Hazm, all three schools had been established by then. The 'schools' are broad categories, not everyone falls into them, he wouldn't be the last to express views outside of them (even today you have the New Kalam movement continuing these discussions).

>Who follows Ibn Hazm's aqidah today? I'm guessing, if anyone does, it would be Zahiris? (who are sometimes considered a "minor Sunni maddhab", in addition to the four major ones)

Outside of the three schools nobody really takes aqaid wholesale. There are matters people agree with him on and other matters they disagree on. His most controversial position was on resigning the meaning of God's names.

>I don't actually see any difference between Ibn Taymiyyah

I agree, but I think he would dispute that.

[skissane]

> Yes, that's the position of the Hanafi and Maliki schools. The Shafi'is, Hanbalis and Zahiris however opt for extermination.

So basically you are saying you want everyone to commit genocide against Hindus and Buddhists, because a minority of Sunni ulama believe such a genocide to be obligatory (at least in theory)? Sources disagree on whether Malikis or Shafi'is are larger in number; if you accept the larger estimates for the number of Malikis, the Hanafis and Malikis together would be the numerical majority of contemporary Sunni Islam, which means the majority of Sunni Islam rejects your pro-genocide position.

I don't think you are going to convince many people to accept your pro-genocide viewpoint – which is a very very good thing. In fact, while unlike you I'm no great fan of making beliefs illegal, if we are going to do it, I think your own pro-genocide beliefs should be near the top of the list