The Islamic Enlightenment - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
User avatar
By Presvias
#15033452
@anasawad

Here is the new thread..

You may know more about this than I do, but I wanted to share two articles about the Islamic enlightenment which never got finished:

Spoiler: show
Spectator
Christopher de Bellaigue, a journalist who has spent much of his working life in the Middle East, has grown tired of people throwing up their hands in horror at Isis, Erdogan and Islamic terror, and declaring that the region is backward and in need of a thorough western-style reformation.

As he argues in this timely book, the Islamic world has been coming to terms with modernity in its own often turbulent way for more than two centuries. And we’d better understand it, because it’s an interesting story, and often a positive one — the way vast crowds streamed onto the streets of Cairo, Istanbul and Tehran in demonstrations against authoritarian rule over the past decade, for example. Western-style participatory democracy remains the dream of the man and woman in the souk. Globalisation means that technical innovation and modern ideas cannot help seeping across borders. And Islam is a notably broad church, by no means totally uncompromising: witness the popularity of the Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen who, from American exile, preaches inter-religious accord while being accused of trying to overthrow the Turkish state.

De Bellaigue approaches his subject largely through those three cities — Cairo, Islam’s intellectual centre with its famous though often sclerotic Al Azhar university; Istanbul, once capital of the vast inter-denominational Ottoman empire which straddled Europe and Asia; and Tehran, the furthest from the West, with its powerful Shia tradition.

Back in our own Dark Ages, Abbasid openness to science and philosophy provided a bridge between ancient Greece and Renaissance Europe. However, these advances were reversed as ijtihad, or independent reasoning, gave way to taqlid, or emulation of authority. The razing of the Galata Observatory in Istanbul in 1580 epitomised a waning intellectual curiosity.

The Islamic world was forced to deal with the post-Enlightenment West after Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt in 1798. His ambitious Description of Egypt signalled purpose, which bore lasting fruit in developments such as a medical college in Cairo, run by the French surgeon Antoine Barthélemy Clot.

Stung by a sense of cultural inadequacy, the cleric Hassan al-Attar was one of several Egyptians who travelled in search of knowledge to Europe, where he concluded that the Quranic ban on body dissection was wrong. The scholar Rifaa al-Tahtawi oversaw the translation of over 2,000 European and Turkish books. Rulers like the Khedive Ismail Pasha underpinned such initiatives with infrastructural projects, including hospitals, railways and the Suez Canal. But he also copied the West’s baser habits in his profligacy. The country’s parlous finances allowed Britain and France to extend control, sparking incipient nationalism which led to Colonel Ahmed Urabi’s revolt in 1879. Opposition to western intellectual and economic hegemony has played a significant part in the Islamic revival
ever since.

It was a similar story with the Tanzimat reforms in Turkey and the progressive teachings of Babi and his successor Bahaullah, the founder of Bahaism, in Iran, which enjoyed a constitutional revolution in 1905.

The first world war boosted national awareness across the region, confirming, from an Islamic perspective, the West’s appetite for territorial and economic gain at the expense of the rights of the populations involved.

The convulsions of 1914–18 proved particularly important in Turkey, which, shorn of an empire, underwent a secular nationalist catharsis under Ataturk. Leaders such as Reza Shah in Iran and Colonel Nasser in Egypt followed similar paths: western-style development was still the aim. But as de Bellaigue points out, the aspirations of potentates were not always shared by the masses.

In charting the emergence of an alternative Muslim approach to the world, he summons up intriguing characters such the canny Iranian born Jamal al-Din Afghani, who travelled the world developing a spirit of pan-Islamism. Out of Egypt came Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Conan Doyle-loving Sayyid Qutb, whose studies in innocuous sounding Greeley, Colorado, left him frothing about American permissiveness while developing incisive ideas about the lack of spirituality at the heart of western civilisation.

In Iran a different spin came from Jalal Al-e-Ahmad, a former communist whose 1962 book Gharbzadegi (variously translated as Westoxication, Westernstruck and Occidentosis) has, de Bellaigue says, taken its place with Qutb’s Milestones and Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth as one of the three most influential anti-western political tracts. Al-e-Ahmad argued that the West’s cult of the machine had undermined traditional village-based Quranic values.

Add to this a strong Shia sense of resistance to injustice, articulated by the sociologist Ali Shariati, and you have the wellsprings of Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution in 1979. Meanwhile, Qutb’s ideas were steeled by the concept of takfir, which held that a state or individual could be declared apostate and deserving of death. This disputed theory was adopted by al-Jihad, the group responsible for the assassination of President Sadat in 1981, and, more recently, by Isis.

De Bellaigue is happy to describe this as Counter-Enlightenment. But he is convinced there is a parallel story, and developments such as the moderate Hassan Rouhani becoming President of Iran show an underlying respect for democracy and the individual. He skilfully conveys the curious game – part confrontation, part balancing act — which has been played out between western dominion and Islamic Renaissance. While generally critical of the former, he has written a sweeping and hugely engaging book that throws much-needed light on modern Islam.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/whe ... nment/amp/

Spoiler: show
I am quite used to people smirking into their sleeves when they hear that I’ve just written a book called The Islamic Enlightenment. The really helpful wags say they expect something along the lines of The Wit and Wisdom of Spiro Agnew, which was billed as a collection of all the memorable aphorisms of the former US vice-president, and contained only blank pages.

So, the Islamic Enlightenment — good for a laugh. But we’re all familiar with the serious argument that lies behind the jests; that Islam has not been through an Enlightenment, a Reformation, or any of the other rites of passage that have formed our modernity, and that, ergo, Muslims and modernity are strangers. Not just strangers, but enemies: ever since Gutenberg revolutionised mass printing in the 1450s, pushing the West into the modern age, the Muslims have set their face against innovation. And to be fair, when you take into account the fact that it took some 400 years for movable type to come into general use in the Middle East, and that for much of this period the Ottoman authorities punished book-printing with death, is it any wonder that this bleak view of Muslim improvability has acquired the wide acceptance and legitimacy it currently enjoys?

In fact, rarely has there been a better time to test the belief — widespread in the Trump White House, among Europe’s rising populists, and the Kremlin — that Islamic society is incapable of reforming because it hates progress. Wouldn’t it be awkward if proof were adduced to show that, on the contrary, for long periods in their recent history the central and most influential lands of Islam, having been confronted by dynamic western modernity, embraced that modernity in spades and only lapsed into Islamist recalcitrance after the first world war obliterated them physically and the victorious allies tried to subjugate them politically? But this is what happened in Turkey, Egypt and Iran during the ‘long’ 19th century until 1914.

A key aspect of Islamic modernisation (in Egypt’s case only until the British invasion of 1882) was that the lands in question acted as free, independent agents. Change was not only driven by royal autocrats like Iran’s Crown Prince Abbas Mirza, who reformed the Persian military during the Napoleonic wars, but also by commoners of vision such as the Egyptian administrator and intellectual Rifaa al-Tahtawi, whose conception of progress accommodated steamships, girls’ education and linguistic reform. Another secular visionary was Ibrahim Sinasi, father of Turkish journalism, who peppered the Ottoman government of the early 1860s with impertinent advice on how to deal with Greek irredentists and poured scorn on reactionaries who opposed the introduction of gaslights in Istanbul (the same innovation had met with the same reaction in Georgian London).

Islamic society on the eve of the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt in 1798 had indeed been medieval in many ways, its backwardness perpetuated by despotic government, almost universal illiteracy and the clergy’s monopoly over knowledge. Now change came in a rush. The telegraph, the postal service and table manners arrived almost simultaneously, closely followed by the first polite calls for the crowned head to share power. Theatres of anatomy overturned the prophet’s injunction against cutting up corpses (‘though it may have swallowed the most precious pearl’) and there was an increase in religious scepticism; a photograph of an Istanbul medical school around the middle of the century shows a cohort of medics posing in fezzes amid ghoulish arrangements of human remains. As for the plague, quarantine and hygiene did for this mass killer as they had in Europe two centuries earlier, while slavery was first challenged by a ban on the trade itself (insisted upon by those newbie zealots the British), and ultimately condemned by the decline of the harem, shared habitat of eunuchs and concubines.

The growing integration of the sexes and the decline in polygamy among the new middle class were two manifestations of a broader feminine emancipation. Having begun the century as unlettered chattels of their menfolk, by the first world war a growing number of educated women in Cairo, Istanbul and Tehran were equipped to contribute to an emerging national life. They wrote for feminist journals, led humanitarian campaigns and — to the dismay of puritans — shed layer after layer of chaste Islamic covering.

In the early 1890s, Zainab Fawwaz, an Egyptian feminist, declared that there was nothing in Islamic law prohibiting women from ‘involvement in the occupations of men’. This in a country where only a few decades earlier efforts to found a school for midwifery had foundered on popular hostility and the school had had to be filled with Abyssinians bought from the Cairo slave market.

That Islam’s liberal moment came juddering to a halt in 1914 is a little-known tragedy. In the first decade of the 20th century, Iranian and Turkish democrats had launched revolutions establishing parliamentary systems that limited the powers of the ruler — a similar movement in favour of popular sovereignty in Egypt had been thwarted by the British occupation two decades earlier. But war laid waste to the region and the British and French chopped up much of the former Ottoman Empire into mandate-sized chunks. Egypt stayed under British supervision, while in Iran and Turkey the powers were only kept at bay by new regimes that westernised furiously along Roman lines (Mussolini was the model), not Jeffersonian ones.

One of the reasons why Islam’s liberal moment was never revived was its association with an avowedly liberal West that in fact behaved anything but liberally; this confusion of message and messenger fuelled the Muslim Brotherhood and subsequent Islamist movements, while defenders of a measured westernisation such as the secular-minded Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh were rewarded for their political independence with the hostility of the West. (In 1951 Mossadegh nationalised Iran’s British-run oil industry; the CIA and MI6 toppled him in a coup two years later.)

Now, amid the beastliness of Isis and its fellow travellers, and the tendency of a growing number of westerners to demonise not Islamism or the terrorists but Islam tout court, it seems vital to recall that hopeful century when the lands of Islam engaged lustily with modernity in the hope that something of it can be recaptured — as, indeed, it briefly looked as though it might during the Arab Spring. The alternative is to perpetuate the self-fulfilling consensus around which the Isis ideologues and our own populists unite: a story of inevitable conflict and alienation based on a historical fallacy.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/the ... d-war/amp/

From what I can ascertain; real Sunni-Shia sectarianism was entrenched mostly by the Ottomans, who attempted to use it as a rallying cry to control people and bring them out in support of their Empire.
#15033776
@Presvias
Ok, a few points on the articles:
the Islamic world has been coming to terms with modernity in its own often turbulent way for more than two centuries. And we’d better understand it, because it’s an interesting story, and often a positive one

True; I'd say the current wars and conflicts are, indeed, a step in the path of reformation; That, however, is not so easy, nor simple as the power dynamics in the middle east goes far into putting limits and obstacles towards reformation, not to mention the religious factions which would and does respond violently and the tight room for reforms and changes in mainstream Islam.

Western-style participatory democracy remains the dream of the man and woman in the souk.

I doubt that western-style democratic systems will be spreading in the middle east or the wider Islamic world in the coming years or any time soon as, unlike Europe, the middle east and the Islamic world is rarely made up of nation-states, but rather loosely bound federal-confederate states with many factions and nations within them, as such western-style democracies are only possible in very small nations, and would only be possible on a wider scale if most the bigger states in the region broke up and dissolved into nation-states.

The middle east, to a large extent, still maintains imperial borders drawn by former empires, be they regional or foreign.

Globalisation means that technical innovation and modern ideas cannot help seeping across borders.

True; However, I would argue this will, counter-intuitively, lead to more conflict rather than less as different nations evolve and expand, they will meet the boundaries of a central imperial or artificial state that seeks to maintain power, thus collision is inevitable.

Back in our own Dark Ages, Abbasid openness to science and philosophy provided a bridge between ancient Greece and Renaissance Europe. However, these advances were reversed as ijtihad, or independent reasoning, gave way to taqlid, or emulation of authority. The razing of the Galata Observatory in Istanbul in 1580 epitomised a waning intellectual curiosity.

The Islamic world was forced to deal with the post-Enlightenment West after Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt in 1798. His ambitious Description of Egypt signalled purpose, which bore lasting fruit in developments such as a medical college in Cairo, run by the French surgeon Antoine Barthélemy Clot.

Stung by a sense of cultural inadequacy, the cleric Hassan al-Attar was one of several Egyptians who traveled in search of knowledge to Europe, where he concluded that the Quranic ban on body dissection was wrong. The scholar Rifaa al-Tahtawi oversaw the translation of over 2,000 European and Turkish books. Rulers like the Khedive Ismail Pasha underpinned such initiatives with infrastructural projects, including hospitals, railways, and the Suez Canal. But he also copied the West’s baser habits in his profligacy. The country’s parlous finances allowed Britain and France to extend control, sparking incipient nationalism which led to Colonel Ahmed Urabi’s revolt in 1879. Opposition to Western intellectual and economic hegemony has played a significant part in the Islamic revival
ever since.

This is a point I've alluded to previously;
The modern Islamic tradition, specifically the mainstream Sunni mainstream was drawn by long-gone empires seeking to legitimize its authority by fixing religion and placing many bans and limitations on reforming the scripture.
That's why the Quran is filled with texts and verses banning any attempt of reforms and placing harsh punishments on it.
Compare and contrast, the various Shiite sects managed to overpass these limitations and forming many paths for reforms, especially the Imamite tradition; However, having it on the price of being labelled heretics, excluded and considered off-shoot sects, fought, and occasionally punished by exterminations by the radicals in the mainstream.


So, the Islamic Enlightenment — good for a laugh. But we’re all familiar with the serious argument that lies behind the jests; that Islam has not been through an Enlightenment, a Reformation, or any of the other rites of passage that have formed our modernity, and that, ergo, Muslims and modernity are strangers. Not just strangers, but enemies

Funny enough, this is, to a large extent, true.
The only way to truly reform Islam is to reform the Quran which, as aforementioned, overhauled by empires to be fixed and limit any attempts of reforms, in order to maintain their legitimacy.
This means that modern ideals and concepts will be incredibly hard, if not impossible, to integrate into Islam, leaving only 2 options for social and political reforms in the wider Islamic world: either abandon the religion completely or convert the majority into an entirely new mainstream by effectively creating an entirely new sect and spreading it as far as possible; Noting that both options would include large scale wars to the scale of a world war as the current mainstream Sunni tradition would not "go into the goodnight" peacefully.

that Islamic society is incapable of reforming because it hates progress.

Moving from a theological perspective into a social perspective, the various Islamic societies don't "hate" progress, rather it is forbidden from pursuing it.
The choice isn't accept or reject change, the choice is either stay as you are or try to change and be punished both in your current life and the afterlife by god.

A key aspect of Islamic modernisation (in Egypt’s case only until the British invasion of 1882) was that the lands in question acted as free, independent agents. Change was not only driven by royal autocrats like Iran’s Crown Prince Abbas Mirza, who reformed the Persian military during the Napoleonic wars, but also by commoners of vision such as the Egyptian administrator and intellectual Rifaa al-Tahtawi, whose conception of progress accommodated steamships, girls’ education and linguistic reform. Another secular visionary was Ibrahim Sinasi, father of Turkish journalism, who peppered the Ottoman government of the early 1860s with impertinent advice on how to deal with Greek irredentists and poured scorn on reactionaries who opposed the introduction of gaslights in Istanbul (the same innovation had met with the same reaction in Georgian London).

Islamic society on the eve of the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt in 1798 had indeed been medieval in many ways, its backwardness perpetuated by despotic government, almost universal illiteracy and the clergy’s monopoly over knowledge. Now change came in a rush. The telegraph, the postal service and table manners arrived almost simultaneously, closely followed by the first polite calls for the crowned head to share power. Theatres of anatomy overturned the prophet’s injunction against cutting up corpses (‘though it may have swallowed the most precious pearl’) and there was an increase in religious scepticism; a photograph of an Istanbul medical school around the middle of the century shows a cohort of medics posing in fezzes amid ghoulish arrangements of human remains. As for the plague, quarantine and hygiene did for this mass killer as they had in Europe two centuries earlier, while slavery was first challenged by a ban on the trade itself (insisted upon by those newbie zealots the British), and ultimately condemned by the decline of the harem, shared habitat of eunuchs and concubines.

The growing integration of the sexes and the decline in polygamy among the new middle class were two manifestations of a broader feminine emancipation. Having begun the century as unlettered chattels of their menfolk, by the first world war a growing number of educated women in Cairo, Istanbul and Tehran were equipped to contribute to an emerging national life. They wrote for feminist journals, led humanitarian campaigns and — to the dismay of puritans — shed layer after layer of chaste Islamic covering.

And none of those reforms came without a price, nor without a vicious response from the more radical and devout elements of the religion as I'm sure we are all fully aware of at the time.

From what I can ascertain; real Sunni-Shia sectarianism was entrenched mostly by the Ottomans, who attempted to use it as a rallying cry to control people and bring them out in support of their Empire.

It may have come to the forefront due to imperial conflicts and wars, however, it is more ideological than political.
Most Shi'a sects are Shi'a sects simply because they attempted to reform Islam and of that, became to be seen as heretics and enemies of Islam; As such, it is predictable that the ideological differences and hostilities will, at some point, seep into the political stage, and, potentially, direct it.



Apologies if any part was ill-written, I'm tired, busy, and have tons of things to do, and thus, my thought is occupied and hardly focused.
#15033798
Islamic imperialism must be destroyed at all circumstances. Islam is the biggest threat to the advancement, progress, and the real consciousness of the world.

Islam is the biggest enemy to socialism. Islam is the biggest enemy to social liberation, since Islam is against social liberation. Islam holds the west back.

When Spain and Portugal were liberated from Islamic rule in the 1400's, they created the world's first global empires.
#15033818
SSDR wrote:Islam is the biggest enemy to socialism.


Not capitalism? Most socialists would disagree with you.

Not sure what type of socialist you are; but you do know that even Lenin had a soft spot for the Muslims...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_i ... viet_Union

Of course, Orthodox Christians were ruthlessly crushed and oppressed; even those who weren't pro-tsarist white army supporters.
#15033821
Presvias wrote:Not capitalism?

Yes, capitalism for sure.

Presvias wrote:Of course, Orthodox Christians were ruthlessly crushed and oppressed; even those who weren't pro-tsarist white army supporters.

This is one proof that there in no enlightenment in Islam.
Praise the Lord.
#15033834
The Islamic world was secularizing, the US sabotaged it. The US is largely responsible for the growth of radical Islam and the current backward state of the Islamic world.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/02/0 ... otherhood/

Everything is always a retarded fucking farce with you people.
#15033836
Sivad wrote:The Islamic world was secularizing, the US sabotaged it. The US is largely responsible for the growth of radical Islam and the current backward state of the Islamic world.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/02/0 ... otherhood/

Everything is always a retarded fucking farce with you people.

Are you actually calling the Islamic terrorist attack on the USA on 9/11 secularizing and not radical?
#15033840
Hindsite wrote:Are you actually calling the Islamic terrorist attack on the USA on 9/11


You actually think that attack was motivated by Islam? :knife:
#15033841
The Saudi - Zionist - Neocon axis of evil was the culprit, the retardical islames were the stooges.
#15033845
Sivad wrote:The Islamic world was secularizing, the US sabotaged it. The US is largely responsible for the growth of radical Islam and the current backward state of the Islamic world.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/02/0 ... otherhood/

Everything is always a retarded fucking farce with you people.


Who are you talking to?

I guess one can argue that the US supported AQ and Bin Laden, the Mujahideen, Qadafi, the muslim brotherhood, Saddam at one time and then had enmity with them later. They used them.

Also, Israel helped to strengthen and foster creation of Hamas and Fatah when the PFLP & DFLP were a real fighting force. And recently, it was proven that Israel were patching up AQ fighters to do their bidding..


There's also western support for regimes in saudi arabia, uae, dubai, bahrain etc.

One can also argue that the imposition of the shah in iran led to the 79 revolution and radical theocracy.

Even today, in the militarytimes' pentagon section; I read an article about how the CIA and DoD were trying to cover up 'bacha bazi' in Afghanistan by modern offshoots of the mujahideen.

Then there's the interventions in Syria, by proxy in Sudan, and of course Libyan militias. And apparently, even ISIS was 'allowed to come into being' in Iraq around 2004.
#15033850
Presvias wrote:Who are you talking to?


I ask myself that same question: Is there anybody out there? Can anybody hear me? Is there anyone at all?
#15033859
Presvias wrote:Ah, you're just a troll.


Even if I was a troll I wouldn't be "just" a troll, I'm a guy that only a total fucking idiot would take lightly.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15033873
Presvias wrote:Not capitalism? Most socialists would disagree with you.

The values of Islam are the most anti socialist.
Not sure what type of socialist you are; but you do know that even Lenin had a soft spot for the Muslims...

This is because Islam was suppressed by the Orthodox Christian Tsar in the Russian Empire. Lenin experienced that since he lived most of his life during the Russian Empire years, and had sympathy for the Islamic people of the Russian Empire.
#15033933
SSDR wrote:The values of Islam are the most anti socialist.


How so? Almsgiving and the intrinsic values they hold as important, like peace, sounds fairly compatible with socialism to me.

This is because Islam was suppressed by the Orthodox Christian Tsar in the Russian Empire. Lenin experienced that since he lived most of his life during the Russian Empire years, and had sympathy for the Islamic people of the Russian Empire.


Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that one of socialism's most celebrated figures felt there was no contradiction between socialism and islam.
He felt no danger from their religion and you know as well as I do, that he would've suppressded the religion in an instant if he felt there was, regardless of his feelings personally towards muslims.

Note that I'm not a socialist by the way.
#15033935
Sivad wrote:Even if I was a troll I wouldn't be "just" a troll, I'm a guy that only a total fucking idiot would take lightly.


(shrugs)

No idea what you're talking about. If you've got an interesting point to make then feel free to.

If you just want a fight, or to issue threats, then other threads exist.

This thread was started to facilitate a hopefully mutually interesting and knowledge sharing debate. And neither me nor (I think) anasawad are even american in the first place. Nor, I think, are we even remotely interested in typically annoying western chauvinism, which we don't support.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15033939
Presvias wrote:How so? Almsgiving and the intrinsic values they hold as important, like peace, sounds fairly compatible with socialism to me.

- Islam supports currency and the medium of exchange.
- Islam supports slavery and the ownership of humans privately.
- Islam Is patriarchal.
- Islam supports the family institution.
- Islam is very romanticism, socialism is very realism.
- Islam supports social hierarchies.
- Islam is all about worshiping and bowing down to an invincible deity that is not proven to exist.
- Islam lacks real consciousness, and prevents their believers from gaining real consciousness.

Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that one of socialism's most celebrated figures felt there was no contradiction between socialism and islam.

Lenin does not know everything. Stalin is also one of socialism's most celebrated figures, and there are a lot of socialists who hated him and his views.
He felt no danger from their religion and you know as well as I do, that he would've suppressded the religion in an instant if he felt there was, regardless of his feelings personally towards muslims.

Just because he did not feel any danger from Islam does not mean he is correct. He never oppressed the danger because he did not feel that Islam is dangerous.
Note that I'm not a socialist by the way.

What are you?
#15033950
SSDR wrote:1 - Islam supports currency and the medium of exchange.
2 - Islam supports slavery and the ownership of humans privately.
3 - Islam Is patriarchal.
4 - Islam supports the family institution.
5 - Islam is very romanticism, socialism is very realism.
6 - Islam supports social hierarchies.
7 - Islam is all about worshiping and bowing down to an invincible deity that is not proven to exist.
8 - Islam lacks real consciousness, and prevents their believers from gaining real consciousness.


1. Fair enough, but that's by no means unique to Islam is it? And it isn't necessarily incompatible with early form, state capitalist socialism.

2. Well, you show me where it's part of modern religious dogma in mainstream Muslim countries?
It's an outmoded, now-fringe belief.

3. See 1.

4. ^

5. ^

6. ^

7. ^

8. You can believe in religion and have socialist values.

Lenin does not know everything. Stalin is also one of socialism's most celebrated figures, and there are a lot of socialists who hated him and his views.


So who are you following, or rather what ideology?

Just because he did not feel any danger from Islam does not mean he is correct. He never oppressed the danger because he did not feel that Islam is dangerous.


(shrugs) You're saying it is dangerous, but I can't see how it poses any threat to most forms of socialism; espesh state capitalism.

What are you?


That's complicated, so I'll quote the paragraph on my profile.

Ideology Other
Economic Stance "A worldwide confederation, where new societies can be started up in remote, unused locations and people can basically have what system they like; provided it follows basic universal rules of non-oppression, fairness, freedom and (roughly) collective governance.

Of course, you need a central authority with supreme power that keeps the peace and has real clout.

But that's the only way you can give everyone what they want; it's the only way the fascists can go and have their white paradise [note: hopefully far, far away from me..], the communists can have their communist paradise, the neoliberals can have their singaporean city state, the traditionalist conservatives can have gloucestershire, the islamist theocrats can have a chunk of Iran etc...

It's a mistaken idea that capitalism should be FORCED on everyone, or islamism, or OTT libertarianism, or communism, or even my own personal ideas wrt the community I'd live in myself."

I think Tainari mentioned that it sounds like communitarianism, idk what to call it. I was thinking free confederalism or something, but I'd hate to be lumped in with US confederates.
Last edited by Presvias on 15 Sep 2019 07:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15033952
Sivad wrote:You actually think that attack was motivated by Islam? :knife:

Yes, absolutely. The attackers were all Al-Qaeda Muslims. Muslims are motivated by Islam.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15034079
Presvias wrote:You can believe in religion and have socialist values.

Not Islam. Islam supports slavery, Muslims believe that anyone who runs away from their slave owner, their prayers "shall be ignored."
So who are you following, or rather what ideology?

In my viewpoint, I have my own ideology. I do not follow anyone. I make my own views based on various topics such as wisdom, experience, common sense, political science, and philosophy.

Other people have labeled me as various different political names or ideologies based on their political ideologies and their viewpoints and what they view me as based on their ideologies. Some political terms I have been labeled by others are "Nouvelle Droite," "National Bolshevikism," "Stalinist," "National Communist," "Marxist-Leninist," "Hoxhaist," or "Strasserist." I disagree with these political labels, but that is what others tend to view me. Some others have think that I am similar to Werner Sombart, Heinrich Laufenberg, Margot Feist "Honecker," Kim Jong Un, Enver Hoxha, Władysław Gomułka, or Stalin. I support some of these mentioned names.
You're saying it is dangerous, but I can't see how it poses any threat to most forms of socialism; espesh state capitalism.

Once Islam rules the world, it is very hard to destroy it since Islam wants to kill all atheists like myself. Islam kills all secular oppositionists who have real consciousness.
That's complicated, so I'll quote the paragraph on my profile.

Ideology Other
Economic Stance "A worldwide confederation, where new societies can be started up in remote, unused locations and people can basically have what system they like; provided it follows basic universal rules of non-oppression, fairness, freedom and (roughly) collective governance.

Of course, you need a central authority with supreme power that keeps the peace and has real clout.

But that's the only way you can give everyone what they want; it's the only way the fascists can go and have their white paradise [note: hopefully far, far away from me..], the communists can have their communist paradise, the neoliberals can have their singaporean city state, the traditionalist conservatives can have gloucestershire, the islamist theocrats can have a chunk of Iran etc...

It's a mistaken idea that capitalism should be FORCED on everyone, or islamism, or OTT libertarianism, or communism, or even my own personal ideas wrt the community I'd live in myself."

I think Tainari mentioned that it sounds like communitarianism, idk what to call it. I was thinking free confederalism or something, but I'd hate to be lumped in with US confederates.

You sound very bi partisan, and someone who accepts various different political ideologies. If you are a socialist, I think you would be a supporter of Tito.
Trump, Oh my god !

I am only a near genius. :lol: I am a genius. It[…]

Election 2020

True, but the people would love him, so the estab[…]

I missed the express political angle that it embar[…]

Bolton is fired

Yes, I think it might be good to remember who MADE[…]