|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Woah, woah, woah, are you really saying that any Christian who isn't a universalist isn't really a Christian? Whoops, there goes hundreds of millions of adherents! Universalism is actually the minority view, at least in America. Different type of universalism. Smudgie Buggler posted:I know what you meant, but it's loving nonsense. You may as well say most people who think they're liberals aren't really liberals because they aren't sufficiently committed to the set of philosophical principles derived from the work of John Locke. It's idiotic. You're indexing your definition of 'Christian' to your interpretation of the supposed teachings of a guy we don't even know for sure wasn't made up out of whole cloth. I don't think it's pendantry to point out how dumb that is. He means 'Christian' as a follower of Christ rather that 'Christian' as a member of the religion. A liberal may not adhere to the philosophy of Locke, but a someone who describes themselves as Lockian might not be a follower of Locke in any meaningful way. Miltank fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Aug 2, 2015 |
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:First, Christian theology is a hell of a lot more varied than Islamic theology. That isn't in any way an indictment of Islam, it's just obviously and demonstrably the case. It is way more philosophically homogenous than Christianity. Smudgie Buggler posted:Second, you used the absence of a counterpart to the Pope in Islam as an example of why Islam isn't hierarchical or top-down authoritative in how interprets scripture. This is exceptionally retarded, not just because the Pope is by no means the boss of what Christians believe, but because Sunni Islam had until 1924 (and has again now, according to Daesh) a supreme religious authority: the Caliph. A bona fide Caliph's legitimacy is derived from his spiritual succession from Mohammed in pretty much exactly the same way as the Pope's derives from his succession from Saint Peter as Bishop of Rome. It is an astonishingly important position. Most Sunnis simply believe the Caliphate currently to be a vacant position, not abolished. In short, sedevacantism is orthodoxy in Sunni Islam. That post is much better than this, by the way: Smudgie Buggler posted:That doesn't follow at all, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Well it's newer... Christendom has become more unified over time though. E: actually it fluctuates. Certainly it is more unified in belief now than it was at its early beginnings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:First, Christian theology is a hell of a lot more varied than Islamic theology. That isn't in any way an indictment of Islam, it's just obviously and demonstrably the case. It is way more philosophically homogenous than Christianity. This post is really wrong and I'm not quite sure why you think you are able to pontificate on what "Real Islam" is when you don't even know the role of the Caliph. The Caliph is not the determiner of religious positions, and Caliphs trying to seize spiritual authority from the Ulema has generally gone wrong. The Abbasid caliphate trying to seize religious authority with the Mihna is why the madhab they supported doesn't even exist anymore, and the 'heretics' they tried to wipe out - the Hanbali - are now the majority madhab in Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:This post is really wrong and I'm not quite sure why you think you are able to pontificate on what "Real Islam" is when you don't even know the role of the Caliph. quote:The Caliph is not the determiner of religious positions, edit: I said he was the 'supreme religious authority'. I'll admit this is confusing. What I meant was that he supposed to be the undeniable spiritual leader of the Ummah, regardless of the present scope of his political rule. quote:and Caliphs trying to seize spiritual authority from the Ulema has generally gone wrong. quote:The Abbasid caliphate trying to seize religious authority with the Mihna is why the madhab they supported doesn't even exist anymore, and the 'heretics' they tried to wipe out - the Hanbali - are now the majority madhab in Saudi Arabia. tooterfish posted:Well it's newer... Not that significantly, though. Christianity as we would even come close to recognising it in terms of fundamental theology emerged about 350, and the liturgy and basics of actually being a Christian would be unrecognisable to us prior to about 800. Sunni Islam, in contrast, has been incredibly consistent on some basic things in a way Christianity massively hasn't since the get-go. Christianity got off to a crawl during its first few hundred years, whereas Islam had exploded by the time Mohammed was dead. In practical terms, they're as near to the same age, and I think there's a strong argument to be made that repeated massive upheavels in Christian governance and philosophy means that Islam is actually more stable and 'mature' in a broad institutional sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:So if we accept the premise that Islam is fundamentally the Worst Evil Bad Religion on the planet then what exactly is your solution? Saturation nuclear bombardment? Mass brainwashing? Culture is downstream from politics. If Islam can be prevented from gaining and keeping a foothold in political systems (or through de-facto enforcement by terrorists or angry mobs), it cannot win the culture war against western liberalism. And can I take this post as a tacit acknowledgement by you that even if Islam isn't THE worst extant major religion, it is at least tied for the position? As I've said before, Mormonism is about as bad as Islam in terms of being fundamentally anti-secular. Mormon Star Wars posted:This post is really wrong and I'm not quite sure why you think you are able to pontificate on what "Real Islam" is when you don't even know the role of the Caliph. The Caliph is not the determiner of religious positions, and Caliphs trying to seize spiritual authority from the Ulema has generally gone wrong. The Abbasid caliphate trying to seize religious authority with the Mihna is why the madhab they supported doesn't even exist anymore, and the 'heretics' they tried to wipe out - the Hanbali - are now the majority madhab in Saudi Arabia. First of all, I think you're going through some incredible rhetorical gymnastics to try and claim the Calph was a purely secular leader with no religious role. Wasn't a large part of the point of the position to have a military leader in charge of the collected armies of Islam, as a whole? The position lacking interpretive religious authority (which itself was a very close call, as you yourself point out) doesn't make it much less scary. That's kind of beside the point, though, because I think that the lack of a more centralized interpretative authority in Islam may have made the religion worse (I.E. more conservative and traditionalist). Essentially, every single individual Muslim is deputized to enforce the dictates of the Qur'an and Hadith, if not directly then indirectly through courts which are explicitly and fundamentally religious in purpose. The sad fact is that historically, liberalization of a polity's views usually occurs from the top down. It's happening right now in Catholicism, albeit haltingly. If the views of the majority of Catholics from Africa, Southeast Asia and Central America were better represented by the current Pope, the religion itself and the world at large would be far worse off for it. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Culture is downstream from politics. If Islam can be prevented from gaining and keeping a foothold in political systems (or through de-facto enforcement by terrorists or angry mobs), it cannot win the culture war against western liberalism. And can I take this post as a tacit acknowledgement by you that even if Islam isn't THE worst extant major religion, it is at least tied for the position? As I've said before, Mormonism is about as bad as Islam in terms of being fundamentally anti-secular. No, you can't. That's a ludicrously broad statement to make about something as enormous and varied as a world religion like Islam or Christianity. It's different from discussing particular sects or other sub-groups like your Mormon example. What's your solution - suppress democracy and prop up supposedly secular dictators and oligarchies in Islamic countries?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:edit: I said he was the 'supreme religious authority'. I'll admit this is confusing. What I meant was that he supposed to be the undeniable spiritual leader of the Ummah, regardless of the present scope of his political rule. It's not confusing, it's straight up wrong. The reason the Mihna is relevant is because if - as you are claiming - the Caliph is the "undeniable spiritual leader" in charge of Islam, then the Abbasid Caliphs would have had no need to run an inquisition on the Hanbali in order to try to impose their favored madhab (Mu'tazila) on their subjects. Their declaration that the Caliph had the authority to declare what was orthodox and heretical - as opposed to the community of scholars ("But the Caliph is an Ulama" ignores the fact that the ulema is referring to the community of scholars so even if the Caliph had jurist training, what spiritual authority do they have except what any member of that body has?) - and attempts to enforce that through the Mihna ended in a jurist revolt and the rise of the religious scholars they tried to suppress. The reason the Abbasids had to declare that the Caliph had the ability to determine religious orthodoxy is that the Caliphs did not have that power and their attempt to make it stick failed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:What's your solution - suppress democracy and prop up supposedly secular dictators and oligarchies in Islamic countries? Or at least stop topping secular dictatorships creating a power vacuum in which groups like ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood can gain power (yes, I know that the Muslim Brotherhood is nowhere near as bad as ISIS). The U.S. not destabilizing democratic Iran and installing the Shah would have also been cool, I think we can all agree on that. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Narciss posted:Or at least stop topping secular dictatorships creating a power vacuum in which groups like ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood can gain power (yes, I know that the Muslim Brotherhood is nowhere near as bad as ISIS). The U.S. not destabilizing democratic Iran and installing the Shah would have also been cool, I think we can all agree on that. Narciss posted:When we're comparing millenia-old desert religions and the degree to which they are anathema to modern liberal sensibilities, it's always going to be a matter of degree. I would contend that no religion is as blatantly incompatible with liberal society as Islam, and I think many people in this thread would agree. If Islam is inherently anti-liberal and must be prevented from gaining political control of majority-Islamic countries, why wouldn't you want to overthrow democratic rule in Iran in favor of the Shah?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:If Islam is inherently anti-liberal and must be prevented from gaining political control of majority-Islamic countries, why wouldn't you want to overthrow democratic rule in Iran in favor of the Shah? Because Democratic Iran was relatively secular, and after the overthrow of the Shah a hardliner Islamic regime overpowered the liberal elements of the revolution and took power. If it's not broke, don't fix it. You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating some type of Foreverwar against any and every Islamic regime so that we can attain perfect liberal democracy across the planet. That'd be nice but it's unrealistic; all I'm trying to do is present my view that Islam itself is anathema to those types of institutions. It can even participate in them, but eventually you end up with the Islamic parties de-Islamifying or an Islamic State being established and undermining the liberal elements. ---------------- Narciss fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Narciss posted:Because Democratic Iran was relatively secular, and after the overthrow of the Shah a hardliner Islamic regime overpowered the liberal elements of the revolution and took power. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Yet you're arguing (forgive me if I'm confusing you with Liberal_L33t with this characterization) that Islam itself is so fundamentally anti-liberal that it's preferable to have a secular dictator than a democratic state controlled by its Muslim population. Iran was no less Muslim in the 1950s, and even if attitudes were generally more secular by your view of Islam wouldn't you expect it to gradually transform into a theocratic state through the votes of the Muslim majority? e: quote:It can even participate in them, but eventually you end up with the Islamic parties de-Islamifying or an Islamic State being established and undermining the liberal elements. So if it turns into an Islamic State, what? You destroy them and try to set up a secular dictator and promise to try democracy again once the natives are westernized enough for your taste? You don't want a foreverwar against Islamic regimes but you seem to be arguing that Islam is so fundamentally bad that it'd be a good idea? quote:That'd be nice but it's unrealistic Oh. Abner Cadaver II fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Yet you're arguing (forgive me if I'm confusing you with Liberal_L33t with this characterization) that Islam itself is so fundamentally anti-liberal that it's preferable to have a secular dictator than a democratic state controlled by its Muslim population. Iran was no less Muslim in the 1950s, and even if attitudes were generally more secular by your view of Islam wouldn't you expect it to gradually transform into a theocratic state through the votes of the Muslim majority? I would say that it's a danger, but not a certainty. Muslim constituencies and the individuals they comprise can liberalize and lose their Islamic edge. I think what's happening here is that you're trying to connect my view of Islam to my geopolitik too directly. When I'm talking about religions I'm speaking in generalities; I think Islamic populations are less conducive to liberal democracy, because the tenets of their religion found in their holy book are directly opposed to many of the basic ideals of that ideology. But no, liberal democracy in Muslim-majority countries is not impossible. It's just that it is made possible by the population and their representatives selectively ignoring parts of their holy book. That view is a far cry from "overthrow all Muslim democracies and install a secular warlord". ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Narciss posted:That view is a far cry from "overthrow all Muslim democracies and install a secular warlord". So at what point do you think it is permissible to overthrow a democratic government and install a secular dictator in a Muslim nation, if ever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:So at what point do you think it is permissible to overthrow a democratic government and install a secular dictator in a Muslim nation, if ever? That is an awfully broad question, but I'll give it a shot. I'd say: when that government is committing enough human rights abuses to sufficiently offend my liberal sensibilities, and when the hypothetical intervening entity actually has a good shot at improving the lives of the people in that country over the long term. Then there's other hypothetical situations like such a democratic/islamic country invading another sovereign state where I'd maybe say "we (the U.S., where I live) should intervene" and our resulting victory would mean a regime change. ---------------- Narciss fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Can we all agree that the Shaw was infinitely preferable to what came after him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Can we all agree that the Shaw was infinitely preferable to what came after him? I would think so. I'd even agree that what came before him was preferable to the Shah, even without the benefit of hindsight (the Islamic revolution and all that). ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Doesn't Tunisia have a 40% quota for women in their parliament? I'd say that's pretty loving liberal. I think ethnically and religiously homogeneous Muslim nations (like Tunisia) are entirely capable of engaging in liberal reforms, but the presence of any "other" in the midst provides overwhelming ammunition to reactionaries and overpowers any secular or liberal factions. The West should provide citizenship to any minorities in the Middle East (Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians, Alawites) then work on cleaning up the borders so as to create ethnically homogeneous nation states. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
hypnorotic posted:Doesn't Tunisia have a 40% quota for women in their parliament? I'd say that's pretty loving liberal. I think ethnically and religiously homogeneous Muslim nations (like Tunisia) are entirely capable of engaging in liberal reforms, but the presence of any "other" in the midst provides overwhelming ammunition to reactionaries and overpowers any secular or liberal factions. The West should provide citizenship to any minorities in the Middle East (Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians, Alawites) then work on cleaning up the borders so as to create ethnically homogeneous nation states. I'm not sure about a quota, but Tunisia does have a higher proportion of woman in parliament than the US does in Congress. As for your citizenship idea, my God that would be a nightmare. We'd have hordes of mainstream Sunni muslims coming in, going "yup I'm *oppressed religious minority*" and then ghettoing it up in Dearborn, Michigan. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I would think so. I'd even agree that what came before him was preferable to the Shah, even without the benefit of hindsight (the Islamic revolution and all that). So destroying all political and civil liberties and subjecting your people to a reign of terror is okay as long as it isn't for religious reasons. hypnorotic posted:The West should provide citizenship to any minorities in the Middle East (Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians, Alawites) then work on cleaning up the borders so as to create ethnically homogeneous nation states. Where does "the West" get this responsibility/authority? Narciss posted:hordes of mainstream Sunni muslims coming in, going "yup I'm *oppressed religious minority*" and then ghettoing it up in Dearborn, Michigan. 
Abner Cadaver II fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
hypnorotic posted:The West should provide citizenship to any minorities in the Middle East (Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians, Alawites) then work on cleaning up the borders so as to create ethnically homogeneous nation states. Kinda hypocritical for the US especially to advocate ethnically homogenous states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:So destroying all political and civil liberties and subjecting your people to a reign of terror is okay as long as it isn't for religious reasons. No? You must have misread what I typed. The Democratic government of Iran was preferable to the Shah, in my view. Secular dictators are what you settle for in the Mideast when a functioning democracy isn't a viable option because there is no tradition of "let's not kill those different from us"; you don't go around overthrowing functioning democracies to regain oil rights (ideally, at least). ----------------
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Narciss posted:No? You must have misread what I typed. The Democratic government of Iran was preferable to the Shah, in my view. Narciss posted:That is an awfully broad question, but I'll give it a shot. I'd say: when that government is committing enough human rights abuses to sufficiently offend my liberal sensibilities, and when the hypothetical intervening entity actually has a good shot at improving the lives of the people in that country over the long term. You do seem to hold the view that dictators can be preferable to democratic states so forgive me for being a bit confused. But seriously: "ghettoing it up"? I guess I shouldn't be surprised with your text there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:So destroying all political and civil liberties and subjecting your people to a reign of terror is okay as long as it isn't for religious reasons. You really can't acknowledge that the Shaw was better than what succeeded it simply because he liked the U.S. can you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Immortan posted:You really can't acknowledge that the Shaw was better than what succeeded it simply because he liked the U.S. can you? You're right, I really don't think geopolitical allegiance justifies the atrocities of a government. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:You're right, I really don't think geopolitical allegiance justifies the atrocities of a government. Except that wasn't the argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Except that wasn't the argument. I think the Shah was pretty much as bad as the current Iranian regime. What are we arguing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Narciss posted:We'd have hordes of mainstream Sunni muslims coming in, going "yup I'm *oppressed religious minority*" and then ghettoing it up in Dearborn, Michigan. Can we just make it bannable to say stuff like this icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I think the Shah was pretty much as bad as the current Iranian regime. What are we arguing? From 1971-1979 100 political prisoners were executed in Iran. From 1980-1985, 8,000 were.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:From 1971-1979 100 political prisoners were executed in Iran. From 1980-1985, 8,000 were. Yes, and in 1988 alone as many as 30,000 may have been executed. Both were/are still horrific totalitarian states and I doubt the Shah would have balked at mass executions of political prisoners if he'd won the civil war and had political prisoners in mass to execute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
hypnorotic posted:Doesn't Tunisia have a 40% quota for women in their parliament? I'd say that's pretty loving liberal. I think ethnically and religiously homogeneous Muslim nations (like Tunisia) are entirely capable of engaging in liberal reforms, but the presence of any "other" in the midst provides overwhelming ammunition to reactionaries and overpowers any secular or liberal factions. The West should provide citizenship to any minorities in the Middle East (Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians, Alawites) then work on cleaning up the borders so as to create ethnically homogeneous nation states. Uh, so what your saying is that Muslim states can't handle minorities in the midst, but Western ones can? Feck off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Yet you're arguing (forgive me if I'm confusing you with Liberal_L33t with this characterization) that Islam itself is so fundamentally anti-liberal that it's preferable to have a secular dictator than a democratic state controlled by its Muslim population. Iran was no less Muslim in the 1950s, and even if attitudes were generally more secular by your view of Islam wouldn't you expect it to gradually transform into a theocratic state through the votes of the Muslim majority? With all of your talk about 'forever-war' and the strawman that democratic Iran would inevitably have become a theocratic state, you are ignoring the evidence that de-Islamization of populations is an attainable goal in the medium and long term. This organic process is proceeding successfully in most western nations, despite the occasional violent tensions with the more conservative recently-arrived immigrants in some places. Traditionalist Islam cannot survive many generations as a cultural force without the support of authoritarian institutions, governmental or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
People who say that x religion is incompatible with something because it's written in their holy book are kidding themselves. The list of things in Judaism and Christianity that are ignored by their everyday adherents or the things that they do with little, no or tortured scriptural basis, or those explicitly prohibited by scripture, is huge. Even amongst fundamentalists what they actually do and believe is as much a function of their politics, material conditions and the interpretations of their leaders as it is about scripture, if not moreso. You're daily surrounded by people who identify as a religion while vastly ignoring nearly all of its tenets, for a litany of reasons nearly all of which have to do not with the complicated theological reasons you pretend at. Christian Joe Lunchbucket doesn't justify his eating of cloven hoofed animals because he only follows the Nicene gospels, he justifies it not at all. He never even thinks about it. If anyone ever asks he probably gives some pop-theo explanation that all God wants is for him to be a good person and accept Jesus. Saying that this sort of thing is impossible for someone of another faith is not only orientalist scaremongering it also is ahistorical and ignores the available evidence that indeed this sort of thing happens all the time with secular Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Traditionalist Islam cannot survive many generations as a cultural force without the support of authoritarian institutions, governmental or otherwise. Sooooo...... what's the problem, again? Just wait a while and it goes away
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Sooooo...... what's the problem, again? Just wait a while and it goes away I'm sure that plan's a great comfort to homosexuals being thrown off buildings in Mosul as they plummet to their deaths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I'm sure that plan's a great comfort to homosexuals being thrown off buildings in Mosul as they plummet to their deaths. Militant islam will unlikely survive the 21st century. Or maybe it will?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I'm sure that plan's a great comfort to homosexuals being thrown off buildings in Mosul as they plummet to their deaths. The solution is to kill both of them with bombs, either from 30,000 feet in the air or via armed gangs on the payroll, its important to bomb religious people until they calm down and has an excellent track record so far. If you're liberal we could try shooting them instead or starving them with sanctions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:With all of your talk about 'forever-war' and the strawman that democratic Iran would inevitably have become a theocratic state, you are ignoring the evidence that de-Islamization of populations is an attainable goal in the medium and long term. This organic process is proceeding successfully in most western nations, despite the occasional violent tensions with the more conservative recently-arrived immigrants in some places. Traditionalist Islam cannot survive many generations as a cultural force without the support of authoritarian institutions, governmental or otherwise. So does destabilizing the region by toppling any government that's too "Traditionalist Islam" further that organic process? Does setting up authoritarian institutions to oppose "Traditionalist Islam" help? I'm not understanding how you take "Islam is inherently anti-modern/anti-liberal" as a position and then believe Islamic democracies are going to naturally become more modern/liberal. Why is the idea of 1950s democratic Iran transforming into an Islamic theocracy a strawman? As far as I can see it follows from your premise of Islam being inherently retrograde. Wouldn't Islamic majorities in a democracy would naturally create a less liberal and tolerant society in your view? Why do you think "Traditionalist Islam" can't survive without authoritarian institutions propping it up if Islam is inherently anti-modern/anti-liberal? I agree that without authoritarian institutions to prop it up fundamentalist Islam (like any fundamentalist religion) will fade away. I also think that with authoritarian institutions trying to enforce this "de-Islamization" won't do anything but create more violent fundamentalists. Abner Cadaver II fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:People who say that x religion is incompatible with something because it's written in their holy book are kidding themselves. The list of things in Judaism and Christianity that are ignored by their everyday adherents or the things that they do with little, no or tortured scriptural basis, or those explicitly prohibited by scripture, is huge. Even amongst fundamentalists what they actually do and believe is as much a function of their politics, material conditions and the interpretations of their leaders as it is about scripture, if not moreso. The bible in Christianity and the Koran in Islam are completely different things, doctrinally speaking. The miracle of Christianity is the Christ figure described in the bible. The miracle of Islam is literally the Koran itself. This is a big deal. You can't just ignore aspects of the Koran because the entire point of Islam is that god has given man his final, perfect and unimpeachable word. Miltank fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Miltank posted:The bible in Christianity and the Koran in Islam are completely different things, doctrinally speaking. The miracle of Christianity is the Christ figure described in the bible. The miracle of Islam is literally the Koran itself. Except you can ignore parts of the Koran and people do every day by the millions. Do you think that if a Muslim doesn't pray the prescribed five times a day he starts fading out like in Back to the Future?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:17
|
|