Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

If you need to argue some point, do it here.
BriarThrone
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:33 am

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by BriarThrone » Sun May 20, 2018 10:29 am

Davies wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 8:24 am
I wonder what he thinks will replace it.
Secularism would be a nice start. It worked really well in Iran for a few decades.

That's why I'm confused as much as I am angered by your "eternal war" accusation. Iran was a really great place for decades under the Shah, and it would have gotten progressively more free, if it was allowed to. Islamic fanaticism was almost non-existent. It wasn't perfect, but it was making real strides in terms of civil liberties. Then Carter supported Ayatollah Khomeini in an overthrow of the Shah for... reasons? and the "almost" part just above became very relevant. They imposed full Islamist rule, and fervent devotion to Islam became how you survived and prospered in the now oppressive and brutal Iranian society. Take away that incentive, and Iran would be amazing again inside a decade, because the people are great. They're just being oppressed by an awful clergy implementing an awful religion as-written. And it could work throughout the Middle East... if not for people like you, who insist that any criticism of the ideas is an attack on the people.

User avatar
Davies
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:37 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by Davies » Sun May 20, 2018 11:26 am

Oh, wow.

The Shah's Iran is your ideal. Wow. Just wow. And you called me a fascist. :lol:

greycrusader
Posts: 210
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:25 pm

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by greycrusader » Sun May 20, 2018 2:30 pm

BriarThorne-arguing Iran was a "great place" for decades under the Shah is a completely a-historical, obviously false statement; the "Shah" (who wasn't even part of the line of hereditary rulers of Iran, but a jumped-up junior military officer whom the former British regents took a shine to) was a military dictator, who carried out summary arrests and executions of journalists, dissidents, political opponents, and the like, his secret police kidnapped and tortured people, and he brooked no challenge to his rule (see also: every other damn secular tyrant in the region); he was in place because MI-6 and the CIA overthrew an actual democratically elected leader, Mosedeq, supposedly for being a proto-socialist and nationalizing the nation's oil industry (I am utterly opposed to the stupidity of authoritarian socialism/communism, btw), which prior was controlled by the UK. While the Shah wasn't an utter psychopath like Saddam Hussein or Cuba's Batista (another US-backed tyrant/mass murderer), the people were massively oppressed and abused under his rule.


But of course, the fundamentalist terror-regime which followed is far worse, hellish for non-believers, gay people, even modern/secular Muslims; so why did the overthrow result in an even more heinous government with less freedom (just as in Cuba, to carry forth the analogy); because the ayatollahs were a minority, but they were organized, motivated, their members indoctrinated to the point of fanaticism, all traits shared with Nazis/Fascists in post WW I Europe and the Marxists in 3rd World countries. Far too many of the nations suffering horribly under Marxist/communism or Islamic Fundamentalist rule COULD have potentially been prevented if the West (mostly the USA and UK) hadn't been so invested in the "domino theory" that we were willing to prop up brutal dictators so long as they were anti-Communist (or sometimes just friendly to economic interests). This worsened under EVERY U.S. administration until the collapse of the USSR. This does NOT put the horrific sins of theocrats or communists upon our hands, but our foreign policy born out of fear rather than optimism led to predictably poor results.

As far as President Carter "backing" Khomeni...no, actually, it was a combination of naivety and badly executed policy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mad ... fae3285611

You ARE correct in stating secularism is a viable alternative, perhaps the ONLY viable one, so long as it is a constitutional, democratic type; this is what helped both Turkey and Pakistan avoid fundamentalism for decades, though neither nation was ideal in this regard-often, the military often had to intervene and depose leaders who started veering into fundamentalism, and sharia law was tolerated in rural, tribal areas.

I oppose ANY theocratic government, as well as all kinds of religious fundamentalism; Islam presents a threat in much of the world because far too many of its adherents cleave literally to its medieval principles, taking the faith far too seriously, and because of the pernicious notion others must confirm to THEIR religion (leading to terrorism and sharia law demands). But I've studied, worked with, and lived alongside Muslims, and had no issues with any of them. Hence my objections to blanket statements about entire groups of people. I have no problem condemning jihadists whatsoever.

Finally, while I'm not the owner or moderator here, I'd like to ask everybody to please be civil to one another; is it necessary to start slinging accusations and insults at each other instead of just keeping comments polite or even just suggesting we all step away from the keyboards for awhile? This is getting really close to the point of fracturing us here, just as a hot button issue broke the community before. I don't anyone here deserves to be called a fascist, "filth", or similar epithets.

So all my best to everyone-really.

User avatar
Scots Dragon
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:08 pm
Location: Trapped in England

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by Scots Dragon » Sun May 20, 2018 2:43 pm

Batgirl III wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:34 am
All Nazis are socialists, but not all socialists are Nazis;
Name aside, Nazism has literally nothing to do with socialism. It was the far-right coopting the word of a left-wing ideology to appeal to working class supporters and nothing more.
Formerly known as Narsil on the ATT and Ronin Army forums.

User avatar
Batgirl III
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:17 am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by Batgirl III » Sun May 20, 2018 4:46 pm

Scots Dragon wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:43 pm
Batgirl III wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:34 am
All Nazis are socialists, but not all socialists are Nazis;
Name aside, Nazism has literally nothing to do with socialism. It was the far-right coopting the word of a left-wing ideology to appeal to working class supporters and nothing more.
[/quote

Have you actually read any of the NSDP’s foundational literature or the laws they passed once they came to power? If they weren’t a socialist party, then they sure as hell acted like one, talked like one, governed like one, and built gulags like one.
BARON wrote:I'm talking batgirl with batgirl. I love you internet.

User avatar
Batgirl III
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:17 am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by Batgirl III » Sun May 20, 2018 4:51 pm

BriarThrone wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:36 am
Batgirl III wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:21 am
I think you’re being overly broad in characterizing all of Islam with the actions and ideologies of only a minority of the religion as a whole. For every al-Wahhābiyah, Ḥizbu 'llāh, and Ḥamās true-believer out there who believes in exporting violent jihād to the rest of the world, there’s another eight-plus Suni and Shīʿah that really don’t give a damn.
You're doing it too. All of Islam is like that, with a very few exceptions, like the reform movements like those of Imam al Tawhidi. Not all Muslims, because not all Muslims are that invested.
This is a stunning level of ignorance, not of theology or geopolitics, but of the language. “Muslim” مُسْلِم is, the active participle of “Islam” أَسْلَمَ (ʾaslama).

To say that Islam is like X, but Muslims are like Y is to say that mathematics is like X, but mathematicians are like Y.

That’s not how logic works.
BARON wrote:I'm talking batgirl with batgirl. I love you internet.

BriarThrone
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:33 am

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by BriarThrone » Sun May 20, 2018 5:59 pm

Batgirl III wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 4:51 pm
This is a stunning level of ignorance, not of theology or geopolitics, but of the language. “Muslim” مُسْلِم is, the active participle of “Islam” أَسْلَمَ (ʾaslama).

To say that Islam is like X, but Muslims are like Y is to say that mathematics is like X, but mathematicians are like Y.

That’s not how logic works.
If you'd looked at any of the rest of what I've said, it becomes clear.

The set of beliefs - "Islam" - is inherently awful. There are many, many people who have fled from it or are attempting to reform it because it is vile and oppressive. The people who hold those beliefs - "Muslims" - do not do so perfectly, and can identify as such for a number of reasons other than pure devotion, and can therefore be not-awful.

I have a lot of respect for those sticking their neck out and trying to create and spread a non-awful version of Islam, ending the problem from within. I just think they're going to find limited success, because the doctrinal counter-arguments are so easy and effective.
Scots Dragon wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:43 pm
Name aside, Nazism has literally nothing to do with socialism. It was the far-right coopting the word of a left-wing ideology to appeal to working class supporters and nothing more.
"Not real socialism!" :D Fascism is derived from Leninism.
Davies wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 11:26 am
Oh, wow.

The Shah's Iran is your ideal. Wow. Just wow. And you called me a fascist. :lol:
Did you see the part where I said "not perfect"? Therefore, obviously it is not "my ideal Iran." As I said, it had a long way to go. But Iran was a freaking vacation spot back then. Literally, it was very popular for international tourism. There are people right now in Iran trying to restore the quality of life they had under the Shah, as a starting point, and it's easy to see why - it's a vastly improved state from where they currently are, and it's the only such within living memory.

And yes, you're a fascist. You are right here supporting fascism. In an actual, literal way.

User avatar
Batgirl III
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:17 am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by Batgirl III » Sun May 20, 2018 6:11 pm

Islam isn’t fascist, fascist isn’t a synonym for authoritarian. Fascism as a political philosophy makes some very specific claims about economics, religion, and the state that are in diametrical opposition to fundamentalist Islam.

Also, Mussolini and Lenin were contemporaries who never interacted to the best of my knowledge. Fascism could not have been an offshoot of Leninism.
BARON wrote:I'm talking batgirl with batgirl. I love you internet.

BriarThrone
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:33 am

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by BriarThrone » Sun May 20, 2018 6:21 pm

Batgirl III wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:11 pm
Islam isn’t fascist, fascist isn’t a synonym for authoritarian. Fascism as a political philosophy makes some very specific claims about economics, religion, and the state that are in diametrical opposition to fundamentalist Islam.
It's called "oligo-fascism." Islam is a political ideology, more than it is a religion, and it's structured as a fascist state structure and economy, controlled by the clergy.
Batgirl III wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:11 pm
Also, Mussolini and Lenin were contemporaries who never interacted to the best of my knowledge. Fascism could not have been an offshoot of Leninism.
Your knowledge is incomplete. Giovanni Gentile was, indeed, a contemporary of Lenin, but Lenin's work greatly influenced his own, which was in turn praised by Lenin. Obviously, there were forms of fascism before Gentile, just like there was pre-Marx communism, but they weren't described as such. 20th century European fascism is based on Leninism. Studying the definition of fascism and applying it backward, you find things like Islam, which is structured in a very specific way, only centered on the clergy as the state, instead of abolishing the clergy as a competing power.

User avatar
Batgirl III
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:17 am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by Batgirl III » Sun May 20, 2018 7:13 pm

The word your looking for is “theocracy,” not fascism. Don’t fall into the post hoc ergo promter hoc trap of defining things after the fact. That’s a textbook logical fallacy.
BARON wrote:I'm talking batgirl with batgirl. I love you internet.

BriarThrone
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:33 am

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by BriarThrone » Sun May 20, 2018 7:16 pm

Batgirl III wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:13 pm
The word your looking for is “theocracy,” not fascism. Don’t fall into the post hoc ergo promter hoc trap of defining things after the fact. That’s a textbook logical fallacy.
It is a theocratic fascist system. The state and economic structure of Islam are properly classified as fascism.


User avatar
M4C8
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:17 pm
Location: South-East England

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by M4C8 » Mon May 21, 2018 3:03 am

This whole thread highlights the inherent and continuing problem concerning the 'Muslim' issue for me, while we all know that obviously not all Muslims are terrorists and can except that most don't even hold extremist views so saying 'they're all scum' is not really fair or accurate. On the other hand however there is a very real and obvious problem concerning a huge number of Muslims across the world, not just in Islamic nations but sadly for us also in counties where they're a minority such as here in Britain. Personally I find those who automatically jump to the defense of the Muslim community, no matter what, denying that the problem even exists far more potentially dangerous to our society in the long run.

The automatic and continued denial that it's a 'Muslim problem' from the Muslim community after every terrorist attack and the immediate accusations of racism/bigotry made against anyone who tries to raise the issue does nothing but allow these terrible atrocities to continue. At some point even those who haven't previously held negative views on the community as a whole will begin to loose what goodwill they had and begin to feel angered and disgusted by the Muslim community's continued refusal to take responsibility for the actions of those in that community and the outrageous cries of racism towards anyone who does try to address the issue or start a dialogue.

The denial is bad enough but the very worst thing IMO is the excuses, not just from Muslims themselves but also from the media and the PC brigade, 'Oh this attack happened because of our foreign policy' 'This one happened because of the Iraq war' 'This happened because of a cartoon' well I'm sorry but no, just no, nothing anyone has ever said or done justifies these abhorrent actions, nothing can ever justify the brutal purposeful murder of innocent civilians.

At what point do people's lives become more important than being seen to be politically correct, seriously how may people have to be brutally butchered in our streets before we're even allowed to freely address the problem.
Last edited by M4C8 on Mon May 21, 2018 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Batgirl III
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:17 am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by Batgirl III » Mon May 21, 2018 3:24 am

I think that a step to the solution would be for Non-Muslims to recognize that "Muslim" is easily as broad a category as "Christian," and to learn to distinguish between Sunni, Shi'ah, Ahmadiyya, and al-Wahhābiyah, etc. with at least the same level of understanding as we have for Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, and Branch Dravidian, or whatever.

We might not know exactly how a Catholic differs from a Calvanist, but we know that they do differ. Also, we're all capable of looking at a group of nut-jobs like Westboro Baptist Church and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and recognize them as extreme aberrations of standard Christian behavior.

Islam, in general, is pretty repressive and illiberal, I won't deny that. Islamic governments tend to be corrupt, authoritarian, repressive, and either condone (or are complicit in) organized international crime. But it is only a few sects like Wahhābiyah, Jihadist Salafism, and Khilāfah that are interested in actively waging war on those they deem enemies... Who are more often than not other Muslims who just happen to belong to the "wrong" sect.
BARON wrote:I'm talking batgirl with batgirl. I love you internet.

Ken
Posts: 1844
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:40 pm
Location: DeKamore, IL, Earth-Two

Re: Muslim Culture, History and Politics - Open Debate

Post by Ken » Mon May 21, 2018 11:56 am

Okay, I'm going to assume that whatever people's beliefs are everyone here has heard of Jesus' Last Supper. One of the biggest things to come out of the Last Supper is the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. In short, that Jesus imbued a bit of God's infinite divinity into the bread and wine, and shared it with his Apostles, and instructed them to continue doing this. Now, within the broader Christian faith, this is a contested doctrine. Catholics and Orthodox believe there is something truly miraculous that happens at every Mass: bread and wine becoming more. There's another large group of sects who reject that doctrine; in fact they protest against it. They are referred to, collectively, as Protestants.

Now, is the doctrine of the Eucharist a part of Christianity? It is actively embraced by some Christian sects, actively rejected by others, and passively rejected by still others. But it's still an element of Christianity. Different sects used to spill blood over it. It's in the Christian rulebook (the New Testement of the Christian Bible), both the Last Supper itself (in the Gospels), and the fact that the Apostles did continue (in the Acts of the Apostles, and one of the letters to the Corinthians). But different sects attatch different levels of importance to it.

Similarly, the whole Death to the Infidel thing is an element of Islam. It's there in the Quran. In that sense, BriarThrone is correct, it is an element of Islam, all of Islam. However, Batgirl is also correct in that it is a particular doctrine that different sects attach different levels of importance, ranging from fanatical embracing to (thank goodness) rejection. But rejection of a doctrine doesn't actually remove the the doctrine, but it defines how one chooses to deal with it.

We should not be blind to the fact that there are some Islamic sects that reject the Death to the Infidel doctrine.
We should not be blind to the fact that the Death to the Infidel doctrine exists, and that it is very hard to know exactly where any given individual stands on the matter.

The situation is nuanced. But that nuance isn't obvious, particularly to outsiders.

Caution is in order.
On curves ahead...
Remember, sonny...
That's rabbit's foot...
Didn't save the bunny...
Burma-Shave

Post Reply