|
khwarezm posted:We can say a lot of bad things about the IRA but I don't really think they compare to ISIS, in terms of pure numbers killed its not even in the same ballpark. I don't think pure numbers killed is a good measure for this discussion, since that correlates more often with success in violent endeavors than exceptional inhumanity in that violence. The Arab Conquests killed a lot more people than the Mexican-American War but that doesn't decide whether one was morally worse or not.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
L-Boned posted:If 97% of muslims do not view ISIS positively, you would think there would at least be a decent amount headed to the middle east to fight against ISIS. The fact that this hasn't happened at all makes me question polls like these. There's already tens of thousands in the Middle East who don't have a choice about fighting or dying. The reason there's not a "decent amount" (whatever that is) heading there from, say, Indonesia is that there's no cohesive anti-ISIS movement trying to recruit them. Stop being disingenuous.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
L-Boned posted:So, basically the majority of countries would rather bomb Houthi rebels than deal with ISIS. I get the whole Shia vs. Sunni thing, but it is sad that Sunnis turn a blind eye to ISIS as long as it furthers their cause. Like a dozen Sunni Grand Muftis have publicly condemned ISIS. Most of the Muslims being murdered by ISIS are Sunnis, and most of the Muslims fighting them are Sunnis. But what actual Muslims say and do doesn't seem to matter unless you don't like it, so hey.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That and American Muslims were virtually absent from the political fight over gay marriage because the groups that fought against gay marriage hate Muslims just as much if not more. Also religious minorities, even if they're socially conservative, tend to recognize the benefits of a secular state.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The US is a secular nation, and it does not go to war in the name of Christ. Christianity is a spent force in the West, and it's ridiculous to relativize it with contemporary Islam. Except for how a solid third of the country refuses to believe we're secular and define themselves entirely by their particular form of Christianity. But yeah, spent force, no impact, nothing to see here. Definitely not a factor in Manifest Destiny in the least.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Right, therefore the US is exactly like a Christian Da'esh except worse, and it's probably racist to distinguish the two. I was responding to your total dismissal of Christianity's cultural influence, not saying it's equivalent to anything? You're really bad at picking a fight.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I was discussing its legal influence, and how the US is a secular nation. The wall between church and state is not impermeable in the US, but it's ridiculous to compare Christianity's influence on US policy with Islam and Da'esh. More broadly, it's ridiculous to compare contemporary Christianity's political influence with that of political Islam. Christianity has been in decline for decades, while Islam is ascendant in all areas of life where Muslims constitute a majority. I was discussing its legal influence too - 3/9 of the Supreme Court at least wouldn't agree that the US is a secular state with an impenetrable wall between church and state. Christianity's political influence may not be as great as Islam's because most Christian nations have been secularizing in the last century, but that doesn't mean it has no influence at all like you said. They're not equivalent but Christianity is still a major political force in the modern world.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:What happens if the ISIS is defeated on the battlefield. A vaccuum of power, open to any bloodthirsty enough to fill it. America's focus will be three continents away, until it is inevitbaly pulled back by the next spectacularily awful thing. This time we'll just make sure it's a pro-USA strongman in charge! That always works out well for us. Brannock posted:Hang on, I thought vocal minorities didn't matter? Wow, I guess in dismissing one poster's hand-wringing over the very existence of a vocal minority of Muslim extremists and in dismissing another's assertion that Christianity has no political influence in the US, I have referred to two distinct vocal religious minorities with differing degrees of power in different cultures. What a wacky world it is! Abner Cadaver II fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Question of the Year for D&D. What we're saying is that Islam is not a uniquely violent religion at the root of those reactionary politics anymore than Christianity is a violent religion at the root of the Ku Klux Klan's politics. We're not arguing that there's no connection between reactionary politics and religious extremism just that Islam is no more inherently reactionary or violent than any other world religion, and trying to make it out as such is really very counter-productive.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:The problems with fundamentalist Islam is the fundamentals of Islam. Just as homophobia is unarguably, and correctly, associated with fundamental Christianity (it's in the Bible), If you buy the idea that grabbing random laws out of the Old Testament to obey is truly Christian, sure. Rakosi posted:glorification of Jihad, the pursuit of martyrdom and violence towards infidels/apostates is likewise a core component of fundamentalist Islam (it is in the Quran). And that's what we (by which I meant everyone in this thread who isn't just raging about how bad religion is always forever) are arguing is wrong. "It's in the Qur'an so the most literal extreme interpretations of those specific passages are correct" is bad theology. You're just ignoring centuries of Islamic scholarship, which closely parallels Christian and Judaic scholarship in its increasingly humanist views, and taking the most violent extant sects and saying they're truly representative because they're the most violently repressive. If you're really going to insist that "true Islam" is inherently awful and violent then what are the choices you're giving yourself for dealing with terrorism by self-professed Islamic groups? You can't have Muslim allies if you're going to insist Islam is inherently violent and evil. TheImmigrant posted:I care about the world as it exists today. Private observance of religion doesn't bother me, but as soon as all evangelical religions - Christianity (neutered) and Islam (not neutered) are relegated to the private sphere, the better the world will be. My point is that political Christianity is far from neutered in this world, even if its influence is not equivalent to political Islam, and that the violence in the Middle East has much more to do with material than religious conditions. And yes I'm mostly blaming Western (and Soviet and even Ottoman) imperialism for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You're going to have to pick a better Christian example than the Westboro Baptist Church if you're trying to use one in comparison with ISIS to make a point that fundamental Christians are as dangerous as fundamental Muslims. How about the Army of God, the terrorist wing of the Christian "pro-life" movement?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The difference between Army of God and Da'esh is so vast that it's a difference in kind, not degree. How are they different in kind? They're both using violence to achieve political aims and justifying themselves with their piety.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Da'esh is a well-disciplined organization of thousands that holds and governs a significant amount of territory. The Army of God is a marginal group of a handful of individuals with a single issue, that might not even exist any more. That would be a difference in degree rather than in kind though?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Well if you can't trust a subreddit to get the pulse of Islamic opinion what can you trust?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
"Liberal_L33t posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:but are they primarily christian, in the sense that christianity is their motivating ideology? i'd say no, their main motivating ideology is white supremacy Christianity (Protestantism specifically) is/was an integral part of the Klan's particular brand of white supremacy. They occasionally targeted Catholics as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I like how you accepted my conclusion but super sarcastically in a way that makes me think you're not open to a real discussion. I'm accepting it hypothetically (and very sarcastically) because I want to know what you think the world should do about Those Bad Muslims if it really is such a fundamentally, irredeemably anti-modern religion like you imagine it is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Firstly, the government is not the only authoritarian institution of concern. Tribal communities and mob justice are just as great an obstacle to the secularization of the Arab world as de jure Sharia. Much like the KKK and racist-owned businesses in the U.S. during the late 20th century, authoritarian institutions of law-enforcement must be deployed against non-governmental institutions and individuals if any progress is to be made in our lifetimes. Using federal troops to desegregate the South in the 60s is a very bad analogy for many reasons. Do you really, truly think that foreign powers going in and establishing police states to "de-Islamify" populations is a good idea? That seems to be what you're advocating here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I'm very confident that no one is sincerely advocating that. I sincerely hope they aren't advocating it. I'm asking the question because this view of Islam as a monolithic foe to modernity is one also held by the people who do think the only or best option is some good old fashioned colonial imperialism. What I'm taking issue with is the idea that Islam is inherently incompatible with modernity and that the whole religion ought to be somehow in some way suppressed, which is what Liberal_L33t has been saying.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Religious governance is, almost by definition, incompatible with modernity, and the concept of secularism/laïcité seems anathema to the dominant strands of contemporary Islam. And that's a more nuanced statement that can be worked with. It's this view I disagree with: Rakosi posted:The problems with fundamentalist Islam is the fundamentals of Islam. Liberal_L33t posted:Without the argument from authority to resort to, Islam is bankrupt. Without the club of the religious courts and the clenched fist of the abusive father beating acceptance into children, Islam won't even last one generation unless it backs way the gently caress off in terms of its political and lifestyle prescriptions. Liberal_L33t posted:If, by your definition, supporting secular, constitutional systems (even ones with problematic human rights records) and doing everything practical to hinder the progress of Islamist movements is "old fashioned colonial imperialism", then yes, I suppose I am guilty of supporting it. You keep using phrases like "de-Islamification" and I don't see how foreign powers can decide they need to de-Islamify a region by any means practical and not engage in what amounts to colonial imperialism to make that happen. Human rights violations by secular states no more permissible than human rights violations by sectarian states. I doubt you support what China does to its Muslim population under the excuse of 'fighting Islamic extemism'. My very poorly expressed point is that religious fundamentalism is bad, and opposing Islam in particular rather than religious fundamentalism generally just plays into the hands of the extremists on both sides who want a monolithic West waging war against a monolithic Islam. e:On the surahs I vote for a chronological order.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Schizotek posted:Not hostile western translators. But commentary from 12th and 13th century Islamic scholars who were embroiled in the midst of the crusades which uh... gave them some particular views. Crusades and Mongol conquests. It was not a great time to be in the Islamic world all around. This reminds me of my then-Catholic father telling me a lot of American fundamentalist beliefs were rooted not in the Bible but from particular Bibles' commentaries and footnotes, but I can't recall the particular version he was talking about. I've already learned a lot, thanks Schizotek et al! e: It probably was the Scofield - thank you. Abner Cadaver II fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 01:13
|
|