|
L-Boned posted:Does ISIS have the oil revenue to make up for their shortfalls? I agree that they lack the expertise to govern their territories through anything other than brute force. That's part of Quarantine. Block their oil sales, if that is feasible. Isolate them. Nobody and nothing goes in or out. let them tear themselves to pieces in isolation. zimboe fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jul 5, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Narciss posted:Hindus and Buddhists never overran a third of the known world in violent conquest after founding their religion. They may form violent sects and butcher Muslims in their own country, but I'm having trouble thinking of holy wars that took place on anywhere near the same scale as the Islamic conquests. The closest I can think of are the crusaders in the pagan slavic/baltic states. Come out and say it: You hate brown people. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Re: ISIS and the Khawarij, f you've got an hour to kill, I'm finding this really interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytoUfTsy7QA The big thrust so far has been the things ISIS has done that are consistent with the Kharijites of old. One thing he mentions is how ISIS kidnapped Alan Henning and held him for ransom. Islamic scholars said that Henning should be released, but ISIS ignored them because you can't just go around releasing people and expect to get ransom in the future. So they executed him. While ISIS likely did this because of greed and the pursuit of personal gain, rather than any sort of Islamic reason, from an Islamic perspective, this subversion of the highest scholars of Islam is consistent with the Kharijite depictions. quote:The heresy of the Departers [Kharajites] was the first group of people who deviated from the pure and sublime faith of Islam. The first and worst of those who departed from the Sunni path was the Kharijī known as the Dhul-Khuwaisarah. The Companion Abu Sa`īd al-Khudrī (r) related, “Once Sayyidina `Alī (r) sent some gold ore wrapped in dyed leather from Yemen to the Prophet of Allah (s), and he divided it among four people: Zaid al-Khalīl, al-Aqra ibn Hābis, Unaiyna ibn Hisn and Alqamah ibn Ulāthah. That sort of holier than thou arrogance is present in everything ISIS does, particularly when it comes to, as Alyas Karmani calls them, children, casually invoking takfir and jihad, which are reserved for the most learned of Islamic scholars. There's definitely a case to be made that ISIS are a manifestation of the Khawarij.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I could probably find greater numbers of people (both % and absolute) in the US who want to establish a Christian theocracy. Assuming this is true if you worded the poll question so starkly - there is quite a difference between some hypothetical, ideal theocracy that people are allowed to envision, and an actual theocratic terrorist state which was/is continually expanding and executing shitloads of people every day. As far as those in the Arab world and beyond who openly sympathize with ISIS, I am not willing to extend them much sympathy on account of them being "misinformed" somehow. ISIS reminds the entire world of their brutal ideology in every single video they release. Anyone who decides to extend them support even if exposed exclusively to propaganda released by ISIS itself is pretty much a monster. That being said - it is true that ISIS is rejected by such a vast majority of Muslim around the world and overt support for them is a small fringe. The problem is that most of this population is still Islamist, politically speaking - and it should be clear by now that Islamism inevitably leads to ISIS-style medieval carnage. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to gain a foothold anywhere and establishing a "free and open democracy" isn't worth it if that leads immediately to a takeover by extreme Islamists. I am quite sympathetic to the much-despised arab liberals who are willing to collaborate with fascists to keep Islamist politicians from creating any more Irans or Saudi Arabias. If that means abrogating the god-given democratic rights of a bunch of daughter-murdering illiterate hicks, it is genuinely a shame, but very much worth the cost. (of course, none of this calculus applies to Assad, given that he's a long-time ally of Iran and a tacit supporter of ISIS). The significance of ISIS is not so much what it has done as what it represents. Note that ISIS has been far more successful than Al Qaeda ever was in convincing so-called lone wolves to carry out spates of attacks on their behalf. Edit: Volkerball posted:That sort of holier than thou arrogance is present in everything ISIS does, particularly when it comes to, as Alyas Karmani calls them, children, casually invoking takfir and jihad, which are reserved for the most learned of Islamic scholars. There's definitely a case to be made that ISIS are a manifestation of the Khawarij. The "learned Islamic scholars" you speak of are collectively responsible for the rise of ISIS due to a failure to modernize their faith. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The "learned Islamic scholars" you speak of are collectively responsible for the rise of ISIS due to a failure to modernize their faith. I guess all Western scholars up to 1933 were collectively responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
The big reason we don't see this type of poo poo so much in the Christian world (and by that I don't just mean terrorism, I mean the overall socially regressive horror), is, in my opinion, two-fold: A) Christianity has continued to evolve and reform over the past 500 years so that the vast majority of its adherents no longer practice a form of it that supports the horrible poo poo that was allowed in its history. People seem to fall into this false equivalence where they look at christian shitheads like Falwell or Scott Lively as the christian analogues of Islamic extremists, but utterly fail to take note of any sort of sense of degree. There is a minority of fundamentalists in the western world that want to implement horribly regressive theocratic policies just like in Muslim nations, however it seems to go unremarked that the actual policies themselves are more aligned with the mainstream or even progressive ideas in those Muslim nations. The left is quite adept at identifying regressive Christian crap in our public institutions and (correctly) calling out Christianity for its support of horrible social policy, yet will turn around and defend institutions ten times worse in Islamic countries as being good or not-problematic just because they actually let little girls learn how to read before selling them into marriage or because you actually get a trial before being stoned for adultery. B) Western Christian countries have developed strong secular civic institutions which restrain of the influence of religious institutions on public policy. While religion certainly plays a large roll in the western world (see: the US), even in the US one usually has to make some sort of secular argument to advance a religion-based public policy. These institutions also (with varying success) grant rights and protections to religious minorities and actively attempt to stop religious dogma from being implemented as law. That means that even though there are still large amounts of regressive Christian shitheads running around our secular civic institutions mitigate the amount of damage they can do. Imperialism strife in the middle east has utterly destroyed any of these that existed in much of the Islamic world. I feel like too often this discussion boils down to people arguing whether religious violence is caused by A or caused by B, with people who are focused on imperialism and not wanting to associate (or be associated) with racist anti-Muslim sentiment going whole hog on the idea that Western imperialism destroyed civil society and allowed religion to run amok while turning a blind eye that the religion is a problem as well. Not because there is anything inherently worse about Islamic scripture, but because basing your society on writings from thousands of years ago when every culture on earth was barbaric and regressive is a bad thing no matter what language it uses to refer to god, and due to the lack of reform in Islam your most liberal Islamic countries are going to struggle to compare favorably to a theocracy run by backwoods fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. While its really easy to point to B and think all that we need is to setup liberal democracy and everything will be better, that's ignoring that it took Christian attitudes to evolve to the point where people actually thought "maybe we really should render unto Caesar" before that even became possible in the West. In short Islam and Christianity are both problems, because regressive religious bullshit of any flavor is bad. Islam is by far a bigger problem then Christianity right now because even regressive lovely Christian groups are more progressive then their Islamic counterparts and because they are largely contained by the strong civic institutions that stability and prosperity breed. edit: Just in case its not clear, my purpose in comparing Christianity and Islam isn't "Christianity is better" the reasons one is a bigger problem then the other is what I'm getting at, trying to argue Christianity vs. Islam is like arguing what flavor of cancer is better for you. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I guess all Western scholars up to 1933 were collectively responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany then? To a degree, but particularly the counter-enlightenment scholars and leaders. Burke, the vicomte de Chateaubriand, Adam Müller, Maistre, Schopenhauer, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:To a degree, but particularly the counter-enlightenment scholars and leaders. Burke, the vicomte de Chateaubriand, Adam Müller, Maistre, Schopenhauer, etc. Maybe you should distinguish regressive Islamic scholars' responsibility for the rise of ISIS depending on their ideology like you do with Western scholars too??
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The "learned Islamic scholars" you speak of are collectively responsible for the rise of ISIS due to a failure to modernize their faith. I thought that was Bush invading Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Hmmm gee maybe the Middle East wouldn't loving hate everyone if we hadn't propped up a bunch of omnicidal dictators during the cold war hmmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Maybe you should distinguish regressive Islamic scholars' responsibility for the rise of ISIS depending on their ideology like you do with Western scholars too?? If this was the 1940s or the immediate aftermath of WWII, I'd probably be pretty breezy about leveling harsh accusations at the western intellectual tradition as a whole, and shaming would-be defenders of western civilization by association with the Nazis. I think a lot of good came for Europe as a result of having the historical example of the Nazis around to discourage people from flirting with the ideas of the extreme right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The big reason we don't see this type of poo poo so much in the Christian world (and by that I don't just mean terrorism, I mean the overall socially regressive horror), is, in my opinion, two-fold: A lot of words to say that different countries are different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:If this was the 1940s or the immediate aftermath of WWII, I'd probably be pretty breezy about leveling harsh accusations at the western intellectual tradition as a whole, and shaming would-be defenders of western civilization by association with the Nazis. I think a lot of good came for Europe as a result of having the historical example of the Nazis around to discourage people from flirting with the ideas of the extreme right. Nah you'd probably be tilting at the Ottomans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The left is quite adept at identifying regressive Christian crap in our public institutions and (correctly) calling out Christianity for its support of horrible social policy, yet will turn around and defend institutions ten times worse in Islamic countries as being good or not-problematic just because they actually let little girls learn how to read before selling them into marriage or because you actually get a trial before being stoned for adultery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Re: ISIS and the Khawarij, f you've got an hour to kill, I'm finding this really interesting. Al-Saqr or Fizzil might be better at writing up an effort post about this (I'll try later, though) but one of the major problems is actually that traditional Sharia jurisprudence, which accepts a diversity of opinions on religious issues as legitimate, has been increasingly attacked by dictatorships since the 1960s. The idea that it is legitimate for two Muslims to have different interpretations about a religious issue is considered dangerous since it removes the ability for the state to say "If you are a good Muslim you have to agree with us on this issue." This has been playing out in Egypt especially, with military governments putting pressure on Al-Azhar to only allow their scholars to give (super conservative) rulings that they agree with. Al-Azhar, which used to be one of the amazingly well-respected centers of jurisprudence by both left-leaning and right-leaning Muslims, now suffers from an increasingly bad reputation as Sisi's government calls on them to whitewash his behavior and kick out anyone who disagrees. They are mouthpieces of the state, and when they say "Oh, well ISIS is bad," they no longer have the respect or authority to make it stick since, like ISIS, they whitewash crimes if their side does them and deny the legitimacy of anyone who disagrees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Hmmm gee maybe the Middle East wouldn't loving hate everyone if we hadn't propped up a bunch of omnicidal dictators during the cold war hmmmmmmm But they're marginally less worse than religious ones, somehow! It's the only way to properly govern the unruly Musselman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
One thing I am curious about, are the Druze considered to be muslims? or are they viewed as a completely separate religion in the Islamic world?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:One thing I am curious about, are the Druze considered to be muslims? or are they viewed as a completely separate religion in the Islamic world? Yeah they're sui generis
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
From the middle east thread, the issue of a persecution complex comes up again. Since apparently actual discussion of Islam is supposed to be kept out of the middle east thread now(?), here are my thoughts on the matter:Volkerball posted:As far as the media attention, you don't fight a persecution complex through "slander." ISIS propaganda revolves around preaching that the Western world invades Muslim countries, drones it incessantly, and is therefore actively involved in a crusade against Islam. Every FOX News segment about how WE NEED TO KILL THEM is shared all over on extremist forums to validate that the enemy they are fighting is real, and creating more source material for that isn't going to deescalate the situation. They have a persecution complex because they are being persecuted. Traditionalist Islam and the conservative Arab cultures with which it is enmeshed are violently incompatible with modern constitutional government. And can you please give up the infantilizing conceit that radical Islam is a wholly western-manufactured import that wouldn't exist save for imperialism? It is true that greedy western politicians did support such factions - but they were factions which already existed, and had broad popular support. Radical Islamism is much more a reaction against the spread of modernist philosophies in the middle east than it is any kind of movement against economic imperialism. In fact, the record of Islamists in opposing western economic exploitation is non-existent, because they only care about opposing secularism and individualism. This idea that the genesis of modern Islamic terrorists is a result of bad old western-style nation states being established and disrupting the wonderful, harmonious balance of Islamic scholarship that never oppressed anybody is a bunch of communitarian horseshit. Citizens in whatever golden age of Islamic scholarship from the 1500s or 1800s or whatever that they hearken back to had no rights worth mentioning, particularly anyone who wasn't an adult male. That system was garbage and it needed to be swept away. If the introduction of constitutional nation-states thus sparked terrorism, the fault lies with the religion, not the institution of the nation state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Radical Islamism is much more a reaction against the spread of modernist philosophies in the middle east than it is any kind of movement against economic imperialism. In fact, the record of Islamists in opposing western economic exploitation is non-existent, because they only care about opposing secularism and individualism. This idea that the genesis of modern Islamic terrorists is a result of bad old western-style nation states being established and disrupting the wonderful, harmonious balance of Islamic scholarship that never oppressed anybody is a bunch of communitarian horseshit. Citizens in whatever golden age of Islamic scholarship from the 1500s or 1800s or whatever that they hearken back to had no rights worth mentioning, particularly anyone who wasn't an adult male. That system was garbage and it needed to be swept away. If the introduction of constitutional nation-states thus sparked terrorism, the fault lies with the religion, not the institution of the nation state. If only America would have helped the Shah more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Citizens in whatever golden age of Islamic scholarship from the 1500s or 1800s or whatever that they hearken back to had no rights worth mentioning, particularly anyone who wasn't an adult male. Citizens in the USA that weren't adult white males had no rights to speak of less than two centuries ago. I guess we better sweep away this trash culture with fire and sword.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Citizens in the USA that weren't adult white males had no rights to speak of less than two centuries ago. I guess we better sweep away this trash culture with fire and sword. This system manifests itself in the fascination with arbitrary territorial units which aren't marked by any significance more distinct than settlement patterns of culturally near-identical people several centuries ago. The only distinctive region, the former center of human slaveholding, still retains a disproportionate impact compared to the marginally more civilized territories. These arbitrary "states" are given specific representation grossly out of proportion with their population, economic importance, and so on, and use that representation to further the interests of extractive industries - and this is considered a strength of the system by the deluded maniacs! Indeed, a major health law, which was threatening to vault the "United" States into accord with 19th century German health insurance, nearly derailed because of a minor confusion in a legal draft using the very term, "state". Yet, rather than using a clear term, such as provinces, prefectures, etc. they cling to this vestige. The entire political culture is a reaction against emergent trends in parliamentary democracy justified with an appeal to some kind of "monarch." The country cannot be saved, and its people should be managed by their betters, with their extracted resources used to construct schools and infrastructure in the underdeveloped territories, compensate the occupying peacekeeping forces, and so on. But the real enemy is of course "American exceptionalism," a pernicious ideology which must be destroyed and opposed wherever it threatens to emerge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
hey remember when you demanded a muslim poster prove he didnt harbor ISIS sympathies and also that time you accused american muslims of hyping up crimes against them to derail the narrative that theyre secretly trying to destroy western political thought
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Al-Saqr or Fizzil might be better at writing up an effort post about this (I'll try later, though) but one of the major problems is actually that traditional Sharia jurisprudence, which accepts a diversity of opinions on religious issues as legitimate, has been increasingly attacked by dictatorships since the 1960s. The idea that it is legitimate for two Muslims to have different interpretations about a religious issue is considered dangerous since it removes the ability for the state to say "If you are a good Muslim you have to agree with us on this issue." This has been playing out in Egypt especially, with military governments putting pressure on Al-Azhar to only allow their scholars to give (super conservative) rulings that they agree with. This is a huge tragedy, it's as if Oxford became the mouthpiece of a fascist government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Al-Saqr or Fizzil might be better at writing up an effort post about this (I'll try later, though) but one of the major problems is actually that traditional Sharia jurisprudence, which accepts a diversity of opinions on religious issues as legitimate, has been increasingly attacked by dictatorships since the 1960s. The idea that it is legitimate for two Muslims to have different interpretations about a religious issue is considered dangerous since it removes the ability for the state to say "If you are a good Muslim you have to agree with us on this issue." This has been playing out in Egypt especially, with military governments putting pressure on Al-Azhar to only allow their scholars to give (super conservative) rulings that they agree with. I'm actually not someone very well versed in this, but i recall Al Azhar was at least trying during the 50's, this all went to poo poo when the Iranian revolution happened and the Arabs went full gear anti-iranian. It used to be switching from sunni to shia and vice versa a really easy and effortless thing (you didn't have to do anything, because no one gave a poo poo). Another example is the craziness of the ulema in Saudi and what amounts to their yesmen in other arab countries basically shouting down people and arbitrarily ruling Hadith as weak or strong, almost completely out of whim, this changes almost every year. They also stopped doing live debates between Ulema, last time it happened there was a huge backlash, and pretty much signaled the fact the middle eastern regimes preferred to maintain a narrative than have people think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:hey remember when you demanded a muslim poster prove he didnt harbor ISIS sympathies and also that time you accused american muslims of hyping up crimes against them to derail the narrative that theyre secretly trying to destroy western political thought That particular poster was advocating a de-facto global law against a form of free expression, which is only slightly different from ISIS's putative goal of a de-jure law to the same effect. I don't feel particularly guilty for jokingly comparing him to ISIS in the aftermath of an anti-free speech terrorist attack which a vocal minority of Muslims applauded afterwards. And as for the second charge - I wasn't claiming any kind of conspiracy. I was using reaction to the Chapel Hill shootings as an example of how many muslims have a defensive attitude and are as quick to sling around the label of Islamophobia as they are slow to criticize anything about their own systems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Hah wow yeah you sure showed those muslims how backwards they are. Whew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:This idea that the genesis of modern Islamic terrorists is a result of bad old western-style nation states being established and disrupting the wonderful, harmonious balance of Islamic scholarship that never oppressed anybody is a bunch of communitarian horseshit. Citizens in whatever golden age of Islamic scholarship from the 1500s or 1800s or whatever that they hearken back to had no rights worth mentioning, particularly anyone who wasn't an adult male. That system was garbage and it needed to be swept away. If the introduction of constitutional nation-states thus sparked terrorism, the fault lies with the religion, not the institution of the nation state. Yes, brutal autocracies are "western-style nation states." Point taken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:And as for the second charge - I wasn't claiming any kind of conspiracy. I was using reaction to the Chapel Hill shootings as an example of how many muslims have a defensive attitude and are as quick to sling around the label of Islamophobia as they are slow to criticize anything about their own systems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:That particular poster was advocating a de-facto global law against a form of free expression, which is only slightly different from ISIS's putative goal of a de-jure law to the same effect. I don't feel particularly guilty for jokingly comparing him to ISIS in the aftermath of an anti-free speech terrorist attack which a vocal minority of Muslims applauded afterwards. Oh my god, not a vocal minority!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
"vocal minority" has got to be one of the most abused terms in modern vernacular for dismissing something that doesn't support your viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Narciss posted:Hindus and Buddhists never overran a third of the known world in violent conquest after founding their religion. They may form violent sects and butcher Muslims in their own country, but I'm having trouble thinking of holy wars that took place on anywhere near the same scale as the Islamic conquests. The closest I can think of are the crusaders in the pagan slavic/baltic states. Considering there have been powerful and indeed brutal hindu empires and that their scripture includes readings like his. quote:paritranaya–for the deliverance; sadhunam–of the devotees;vinasaya–for the annihilation; ca–also; duskrtam–of the miscreants;dharma–principles of religion; samsthapana-arthaya–to reestablish;sambhavami–I do appear; yuge–millennium; yuge–after millennium.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
That “vocal minority” is pretty significant. It describes a demographic that lends credence to the even smaller, but highly destructive, nonvocal/stabby/shooty/blowy-uppy minority. I assume the vocal minority consists of people who answered “yes” to the question, “Is violence an appropriate response to those who insult the Prophet?” From context, we know “violence” doesn't mean a punch in the nose. So lots of followers of Islam who have never considered joining ISIS or AQ – and have probably never met anybody who has – agree with this part of the daesh platform. This is after we all know what form the disapproval of daesh is likely to take.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
Seriously, how does Iran even fit into this, Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
It amazes me that the videos released by ISIS (which are typically described as “execution videos”) are actually recruitment tools. People watch this poo poo and want to join daesh. Why is this? I think it's because the videos depict a system of justice that some find appealing. The videos all contain two elements: 1) Enumeration of the victims' crimes. It's always made clear that those executed by daesh were asking for it. The Jordanian pilot is shown volunteering to fight daesh; the supposed results of his airstrikes are also shown. The videos spend some time establishing that those executed are, in fact, guilty of crimes against the Islamic State. 2) Horrible executions. Seemingly, the more horrible, the better (I may describe some of them soon, so be warned). I think I know why these executions -- disgusting to most of us – appeal to those who would join ISIS. The (multi-camera, 1080p) executions are Biblical in their cruelty. The only excuse for them, the only thing that would make them right, is if they were done at God's behest. The videos show the wrath of God being administered by his followers. Because God is mighty, those who offend him get killed real good. It's not enough to burn the captured Jordanian pilot alive in a cage. No, he also needs to have construction debris dumped on him. And then he needs to be run over by a bulldozer, several times. So, the cruelty of the executions is part of the draw of these videos. It's what makes them Holy. If somebody is inspired to join daesh on the strength of one of these recruiting videos, it could be on a religious basis. To that extent, at least, I would blame the religion. bitey fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
Hey thread, two quick questions. 1) Can you point me to a source on the "3% of Muslims support Daesh" thing? I was expecting it to be REALLY low, but not THAT low. 2) Can anyone help me enummerate the number of countries where female citizens are FORCED to wear skin-covering attire? I know there are places where it's either a preferrence or the equivalent of being a weeaboo, but towards Muslim Arab attire. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
Azran posted:Hey thread, two quick questions. Ignore the 3%, it's not really based on anything accurate, but I'd be surprised if it were that much higher. Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan (not legally anymore, but basically).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
bitey posted:I assume the vocal minority consists of people who answered “yes” to the question, “Is violence an appropriate response to those who insult the Prophet?” From context, we know “violence” doesn't mean a punch in the nose. This is bullshit. Virtually ever religion would have followers who give this kind of response, hell baptist Americans would easily fall into this category. We don't see this on a large scale from westerners due to the moderating force of capable secular state actor influence on western culture and law. It's almost like sectarian violence blossoms in the basking radiance of lovely secular governments. You can't argue that insulting core elements of religious doctrine would not incite violence based on the very nature of faith, especially seated in reactionary ideology. It's dumb, this line of attack is dumb, stop it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Ignore the 3%, it's not really based on anything accurate, but I'd be surprised if it were that much higher. Also some Arabic countries like Qatar and the UAE do enforce a sorta 'modesty' approach to clothing restriction. Personally I haven't seen it happen but there are signs outside of malls and such saying you might/will be denied entry if your clothes are too revealing: Think along the line of low-cut croptops and mini skirts/short shorts. It's also currently Ramadan so the whole modesty thing is a bit more in the public eye. Nothing that could land you in jail or get charged with though. Azran posted:1) Can you point me to a source on the "3% of Muslims support Daesh" thing? I was expecting it to be REALLY low, but not THAT low. Why would you expect it to be not that low? 3% of 1.5bn is still alot of people. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:As far as those in the Arab world and beyond who openly sympathize with ISIS, I am not willing to extend them much sympathy on account of them being "misinformed" somehow. ISIS reminds the entire world of their brutal ideology in every single video they release. Anyone who decides to extend them support even if exposed exclusively to propaganda released by ISIS itself is pretty much a monster. Yes, yes, you don't need to remind us that you're an entitled white American who is incapable of empathy. Brutality, by itself, does not render a movement monstrous, or else most of the revolutionary movements and fights against (or for) oppression in history would be monstrous. People who sign up for ISIS don't do so because they're inhumane monsters who love brutality, they do it because they feel that the goal is important enough to be worth any brutality that might be needed to successfully carry it out - and considering how successful ISIS has been, it's not surprising that people who might agree with their ultimate goals are signing up despite the brutality. quote:That being said - it is true that ISIS is rejected by such a vast majority of Muslim around the world and overt support for them is a small fringe. The problem is that most of this population is still Islamist, politically speaking Really? I wonder what kind of common element would cause the Islamic State In Syria to be composed almost entirely of "Islamists"? I guess clearly it's just an ingrained Islamic predeposition toward violence and slaughter, there could be no other possible reason why Christians and Jews and Hindus aren't joining the Islamic State In Syria I'm significant numbers! quote:- and it should be clear by now that Islamism inevitably leads to ISIS-style medieval carnage. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to gain a foothold anywhere and establishing a "free and open democracy" isn't worth it if that leads immediately to a takeover by extreme Islamists. I am quite sympathetic to the much-despised arab liberals who are willing to collaborate with fascists to keep Islamist politicians from creating any more Irans or Saudi Arabias. If that means abrogating the god-given democratic rights of a bunch of daughter-murdering illiterate hicks, it is genuinely a shame, but very much worth the cost. (of course, none of this calculus applies to Assad, given that he's a long-time ally of Iran and a tacit supporter of ISIS). Aaaand there we go! Would you also say it was worth the cost for the Weimar government's "free and open democracy" to collaborate with fascists to abrogate the god-given democratic rights of idealistic idiot socialists? The moment you decide fascist brutality is justifiable to suppress the democratic rights of some group you don't like, democracy is dead and brutality is the order of the day...especially if you're doing it because you're a racist who thinks that a particular minority is too uncivilized and stupid to be allowed to have a say in government. Liberal_L33t posted:Radical Islamism is much more a reaction against the spread of modernist philosophies in the middle east than it is any kind of movement against economic imperialism. In fact, the record of Islamists in opposing western economic exploitation is non-existent, because they only care about opposing secularism and individualism. This idea that the genesis of modern Islamic terrorists is a result of bad old western-style nation states being established and disrupting the wonderful, harmonious balance of Islamic scholarship that never oppressed anybody is a bunch of communitarian horseshit. The reason that Islamist movements didn't significantly oppose Western economic exploitation in the first half of the 20th century was because they were weak and insignificant then, both in terms of membership and in armament. Nobody* was selling arms to anti-government groups back then, and many of the iconic insurgent arms today didn't even exist back then. Also, much more importantly, most of those countries were heavily secularizing at the time, and Islamist groups were political nobodies until various Western-supported dictators started brutally oppressing any opposition to Western Azran posted:2) Can anyone help me enummerate the number of countries where female citizens are FORCED to wear skin-covering attire? I know there are places where it's either a preferrence or the equivalent of being a weeaboo, but towards Muslim Arab attire. Does it have to be entire countries? If not, it applies to some parts of Israel as well. Areas dominated by Haredi Jews will flip their poo poo if they think a woman isn't dressed modestly enough, right down to stone throwing and other violence. And god forbid a man and a woman walk next to each other in public, ignoring the gender-segregated sidewalks in some of these communities. God loving forbid. Despite the popular perception, Muslim countries aren't the only ones where women can be literally pelted with stones by religious people furious that they dare to wear a skirt in public.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 15:24
|
|