[Oxymandias]

@ingliz

All you did was just summarize it. I used the basic idea of the statement numerous times. You just didn't understand it.

[ingliz]

My argument is that Baathism isn't fundamentally Islamic. You argue the latter.

No, I argue Ba'athism is inherently Islamic, and that inherence cannot be ignored.

Example:

Aflaq repeatedly stressed the spiritual and organic relationship between Arabism and Islam.

inherent ≠ fundamental

There is a difference.

Note inherent just means a thing existing in something as an attribute. Saying that thing is fundamental to that something is an altogether more emphatic statement, with the emphasis being on the primacy of the attribute.

The confusion arises because you refuse to read the primary sources and instead base your argument on a 'wiki' article.

[Oxymandias]

@ingliz

Oh then I agree.

I also based this on a website that had a series of quotes from Alfaq. I couldn't quote any of them because I don't know how to quote.

[ingliz]

Oh then I agree.

I am not sure you do.

Inherent or fundamental, it doesn't really matter in the "real world".

When a 'thing' is considered ideologically orthodox, canonical, in any 'ism; politicians play with these 'things', and neat abstractions get very messy.

Iraq, as an example:

ISiL believes Islam is being westernized, confined to the rituals of worship and a superficial religious compliance.

Ba'athist politicians play politics with Islam.

[T]here shall come a day when the nationalists will find themselves the only defenders of Islam

And, before you know it, I am thinking about the number of former Ba'athists in the Islamic State leadership and their influence upon the organisation.

[Oxymandias]

@ingliz

That makes sense and yes, I do agree.