How ISIS replenishes its ranks - Page 4 - 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.
#15029209
@anasawad

All doctrines are decided by people, and when they want it be based on religion, they go to that religion's scripture.


All religious doctrines are decided by people and evolve based on what the people desire.

Currently, the reason why you see regular Sunni Muslims making their own interpretations while the establishment scholars decide the theology is because there is a disconnect between the theology of the people and the theology of the establishment.

If the theology of the people is given legitimacy and force of will, then the theology of the establishment would be destroyed. This is why the establishment dedicates so much energy into removing books which they deem "haram" because those books are dangerous to their power.

It is.
You're claiming that anyone can randomly interpret the religion without any conditions.
I bolded the parts where even your source tells you that it has to be based on something already in the Quran or the Hadith, and that it is done under certain conditions.

Which is what I've been saying all along, and you've been disagreeing with it.


Well the essay comes to the conclusion that you're saying is wrong so you need through it in it's entirety to understand why it says that the Quran is open to interpretation.

You literally just took the surface level details and claimed that it agrees with you. It doesn't. The article, in it's full, is about saying that Islam is open to interpretation and is compatible with anarchism. I've quoted directly from the essay where it says that does.

Open to interpretation under a set of rules and within a specific foundation, As both me and your article claim.


The article doesn't claim that. It explains the basics so it can later on twist the basic rules and foundations for it's own purposes, something you say is impossible but clearly happened in the essay.

You need to re-read. The entire point of me quoting that article is to restart the conversation. You are not restarting the conversation and I suggest that you do.

Take easy genius, it's only a couple of pages, you didn't bring a book into it.

Most of the things said in the article are thing I've already said my self here.
You simply ignored the parts of it that goes against your argument and took the parts you liked, which is why you ended up having a skewed understanding of the piece.
A habit not strange to you I can tell.


You don't know my argument and you didn't even read the entire article, especially the part where it said what the thesis was and it says, and quote again in full:

In this thesis, I will show the textual evidence for my argument regarding the existence of anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian principles, concepts and practices in Islam. As well, I will provide the Koranic justifications for my re-orientation of these principles in order to demonstrate the interpretative tradition of Islam [and it's anti-capitalist and anti-statist nature]


You haven't read the entire thing, ignored the thesis which literally tells you exactly what the essay is about and what conclusions it makes, and now you're saying it argues with you despite textual support demonstrating that it doesn't.

If you didn't read this then you didn't read the scholars I cited.

The argument both in real life and presented in the page is whether it is allowed in general or allowed in certain quantity, and whether it is punishable or not.
The part about the punishment is simply because there are no verses in the Quran mentioning any punishment.
And I quoted the part where it says that yes, even the Hanafis, believe that while wine is not allowed at all, others are only allowed under a specific quantity, meaning it's not allowed to get drunk off of them, but you can taste them.

Does this contradict what I've been saying? No.
Because the basic rule, taken from the Quranic verses and the Hadith, is that you shouldn't drink. This is what the Asel here is.
The fer', i.e. where the interpretation comes in, is based on the verses and the hadith mentioned in that very same page on top, and the arguments made on it is whether it should be punished or not since there is no punishment mentioned and what degree should the ban cover. As mentioned in the same page.

There is no disagreement over the Asel, there are disagreements over the Fer' in it.

You not understanding this is your problem, not mine.
Try reading the basics of Fiqh before you start blabbering on the subject.


The relevant point is that non-grape wine or liquor is allowed and not punished.

10th, 11th, and 12th centuries.
And those periods were periods of economic growth and prosperity.


For whom exactly?

Victorian England was a time of growth and prosperity but it was clearly a specific part of the population that benefited from that growth and prosperity.

The same can be said of the Abbasid Caliphate.

Simply the ideological divide and the perceptions were growing as time went by.
Especially considering that this is the period where some groups were starting to abandon the Abd Al Malek ibn Marwan Quran as critics of it were arising.
If you weren't aware of this before, the Quran you see today wasn't always like that, infact, the eldest version is believed to be almost double the size; This is because Osman Ben Affan edited the Quran, and burned much of it, then Abd Al Malek in the Ummayad empire came along and burned that Quran and gave a new version as well. (this 3rd version is currently in the British library, and you can look it up online, there are significant differences between the Osmani Quran and the Marwani Quran.)
The period between the late 9th century and the mid 12th century was a period of an internal religious dispute as the Khawarij (latter on to be called the Imami Shi'a, and not the same Khawarij as the ones in the early days, Khawarij is a word just like Shi'a is, it's a category) were starting to rise again; As with everything, every action has a reaction, and as the Imamis started to spread, the religious pull from the other side started to increase, generally led by hardliners and mainly Hanbalis.


I'm not entirely sure Uthman actually burned the Quran or made his own. That seems to be a myth more than anything.

This period was the begining of modern Islamic history as the foundations for all major sects and movements started then.
This is why trying to bring the original Shi'a of Ali into a discussion about Shi'a schools of thought is useless. Those don't exist anymore, and anyone who knows anything about the topic knows those are a minor and irrelevant thing.


I didn't bring them in the context of this period but to show how Shia Islam evolved despite it's most simplistic and single-minded roots to whatever the fuck it is now. Thus, Sunni Islam can do the same.

1- The early Khawarij weren't political, they were religious wars.
They started after Osman bin Affan made his Quran, or "collected the Quran". That's why they described him as an infidel and promised to hellfire.
The conflict was between those who hold the first version of the Quran against those who hold the new rewritten version of the Quran.



To hell they weren't. The Khawarij were the most political faction.

And it wasn't entirely because of what is quite frankly a myth or rumor.

2- Al Redda wars were religious wars as well.
They were against those who left Islam entirely.


Not entirely. The actual issue with apostasy in the Caliphate was that it lessened the Caliphate's control over Arabia which is a big no no for any state or empire. It was religious because being Muslim was about allegiance to the Caliphate and so what was fundamentally a political conflict was given religious aesthetics.

It does, it was part of the south's society and culture.


No it isn't.

And racism is a different topic.

:knife: :knife:
Those libraries, like the British Library, photograph these scripts or pages, put them in PDF files or in slides, and make them available to the public.


Not all of them and most medieval Arabic books aren't even mueseums and libraries. You can't easily access all of them.

Pretty much everything is digitized, even ancient scripts and tablets can be found in this form.


Like I said, not most of them. If you count how many texts are digitized compared to the amount of texts actually published and surviving, it's a ridiculously small number of digitized works.

All the ones that survived are currently digitized in this form.
Literally, all of them, even scripts that were on stone tablets.


The stone tablets especially aren't all digitized. The famous or significant ones sure, but most of them are not.

If it's sectarian, then it means it's religiously motivated. If it's otherwise, then we say it's a civil war or strife.
Basics.


No, it doesn't indicate motivation at all. All it does is indicate that it was a conflict between sects but the nature of that conflict remains ambigious.

Also, since most sectarian conflicts start locally to you, and since most local peasants don't actually know much about their own sect, it's not going to religiously motivated. It's going to start with someone dying or something being stolen.

Two different fucking sects.

For fuck's sake how are you unable to understand these basic concepts?


It was one sect before. How do you not understand that basic concept?

Actually they do.
Read the new CCP laws and manifestos. They follow state capitalism right now, have been for several decades as part of the reforms.


No, they don't follow state capitalism. From the wikipedia article:

While non-Chinese analysts generally agree that the CCP has rejected orthodox Marxism–Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought (or at least basic thoughts within orthodox thinking), the CCP itself disagrees.[107] Certain groups argue that Jiang Zemin ended the CCP's formal commitment to Marxism with the introduction of the ideological theory, the Three Represents.[108] However, party theorist Leng Rong disagrees, claiming that "President Jiang rid the Party of the ideological obstacles to different kinds of ownership [...] He did not give up Marxism or socialism. He strengthened the Party by providing a modern understanding of Marxism and socialism—which is why we talk about a 'socialist market economy' with Chinese characteristics."[108] The attainment of true "communism" is still described as the CCP's and China's "ultimate goal".[109]


Also the CCP doesn't have a manifesto it uses anymore. You have to look at the constitution, and the constitution still defines itself as communist :lol:

And in the Baath manifesto you can see that they want to create a nationalist socialist republic, which is exactly what Syria is.
A nationalist socialist republic is a fascist republic. You know, the whole national socialism thing, fascism.


This is just grasping for straws. "Nationalist socialism" (which is not even the term Baathist books use btw) is not "national socialism" or Nazism. Baathism specifically discusses republicanism and socialism but nationalism is discussed in a different light.

Of course it's all incoherent hogwash but they definitely don't claim to Nazis. That's dumb even for you :lol:

Baathist claims they're national socialists, Which is another term for fascists.
It's mentioned several times in their manifesto.


No, it refers to Nazis which is a specific type of fascism. And Baathists don't claim to be Nazis. They're fascists yes, but they're not Nazis and don't outwardly claim they're fascist. If you've read Alfaq's books you would know this.

State capitalism is a school of thought within Communism.


No it isn't otherwise pretty much every country is communist because all countries have state owned enterprises and influence.

Yes, they abandoned Maoism and adopted State Capitalism. Both are communist schools of thought.
This is what the movement of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" was all about.


That's not how they define "Socialism with Chinese characterstics". And state capitalism isn't communist.

Ok, and?
Venezuela is socialist, though it has corruption but yes it is still socialist.
And Sweden is a social democracy.


Then Sweden would be actually socialist and Venezuela should be a social democracy. Because, ya know, Sweden has more state control than Venezuela.

Both are exactly what they claim to be.


Nope.

The only outlier country is north Korea since it claims to be a republic when it's, in reality, an absolute monarchy.


Not an outliner. I bet I can find several African countries, a country in the Balkans, or something that lies about what it claims it actually is.

And Egypt too.
#15029217
ingliz wrote:A real reformation of the Islamic religion would require a repudiation of large parts of Muhammad’s legacy, which is akin to reforming Christianity by repudiating Christ.


:)


Yeah we have people who have already done that and most local Sunni Muslims make their own interpretations.

@anasawad thinks that this is irrelevant for whatever reason.
#15029224
@Palmyrene
Currently, the reason why you see regular Sunni Muslims making their own interpretations while the establishment scholars decide the theology is because there is a disconnect between the theology of the people and the theology of the establishment.

If the theology of the people is given legitimacy and force of will, then the theology of the establishment would be destroyed. This is why the establishment dedicates so much energy into removing books which they deem "haram" because those books are dangerous to their power.

The disconnect is far less than you think.

Well the essay comes to the conclusion that you're saying is wrong so you need through it in it's entirety to understand why it says that the Quran is open to interpretation.

I read it in its entirety and know exactly what it's saying.
It talk about personal interpretations in the context and on the foundations of the Quran.

All it does incline is that instead of scholars only having the ability to interpret, regular people should too. But both under the same rules.

You literally just took the surface level details and claimed that it agrees with you. It doesn't. The article, in it's full, is about saying that Islam is open to interpretation and is compatible with anarchism. I've quoted directly from the essay where it says that does.

:knife:
For fuck's sake, I'm getting tired of this.
Just learn how to read thoroughly and not to cherry-pick stuff.


The article doesn't claim that. It explains the basics so it can later on twist the basic rules and foundations for it's own purposes, something you say is impossible but clearly happened in the essay.

All it talks about is expanding the range of interpretations and those who can do it. It still clearly states multiple times that it should be done on the foundations of the Quran and the Sunnah, and not randomly on a whim as you claim.

You need to re-read. The entire point of me quoting that article is to restart the conversation. You are not restarting the conversation and I suggest that you do.

I've already read it twice.
What should be done is you going back and reading it more thoroughly.
Your claim is far more radical than what the article claims, and the basis of both arguments (your argument and that of the author) contradict each other on a fundamental level.


You don't know my argument and you didn't even read the entire article, especially the part where it said what the thesis was and it says, and quote again in full:

:|


You haven't read the entire thing, ignored the thesis which literally tells you exactly what the essay is about and what conclusions it makes, and now you're saying it argues with you despite textual support demonstrating that it doesn't.

:|

You're no longer funny man, now it's just sad.

If you didn't read this then you didn't read the scholars I cited.

I've read it. You're the one who just skipped major parts of it.

But then again, seeing what you do here, I'm guessing it's a habit of yours to skip entire lines and paragraphs and just focusing on key words.

The relevant point is that non-grape wine or liquor is allowed and not punished.

In the exact same page, one paragraph below the one you quoted, which I so far have quoted multiple times, that the ban is set based on quantity for everything other than wine.

I'm not entirely sure Uthman actually burned the Quran or made his own. That seems to be a myth more than anything.

He did, he ordered all the previous scripts to be burned and gathered a new one.
It's on record.
Even Omar Ibn Al-khattab said on the matter that most of the original Quran is lost.

To hell they weren't. The Khawarij were the most political faction.

And it wasn't entirely because of what is quite frankly a myth or rumor.

They were a religious faction.
And it wasn't a myth or a rumor, we have all the texts, we know for a fact that this happened.

Not entirely. The actual issue with apostasy in the Caliphate was that it lessened the Caliphate's control over Arabia which is a big no no for any state or empire. It was religious because being Muslim was about allegiance to the Caliphate and so what was fundamentally a political conflict was given religious aesthetics.

This is in response to what?

Not all of them and most medieval Arabic books aren't even mueseums and libraries. You can't easily access all of them.

All the ones that survived are.
You not being aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Like I said, not most of them. If you count how many texts are digitized compared to the amount of texts actually published and surviving, it's a ridiculously small number of digitized works.

OMG, :lol: :lol:
Now you just crossed into pure insanity.

You really don't know anything about the world do you.

The stone tablets especially aren't all digitized. The famous or significant ones sure, but most of them are not.

Those especially are digitized; Infact, they were the first to be digitized so researchers can study them remotely without having to move them alot which could damage them, not to mention the cost.

No, it doesn't indicate motivation at all. All it does is indicate that it was a conflict between sects but the nature of that conflict remains ambigious.

They were conflicts that started because of disagreements over the scripture of the Quran.
How the fuck is this not religious?

Also, since most sectarian conflicts start locally to you, and since most local peasants don't actually know much about their own sect, it's not going to religiously motivated. It's going to start with someone dying or something being stolen.

Let's now move to the 5th grade level of history (since you obviously weren't paying attention).

Tensions start growing between different factions, after a certain critical point, any random dispute between individuals or families becomes, in essence, a spark as more people start getting involved against the perceived others. Then, after some time, the dispute would've grown enough to a point where community and faction leaders start getting involved and bringing the rest of the faction into the conflict; Once that happens, things started spiraling out of control and you get a full fledged war.

It was one sect before. How do you not understamd that basic concept?

It was a different sect.
The Imami sect didn't exist before Imam Jafar Al Sadeq.

No, they don't follow state capitalism.

From the wikipedia article:
Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_cap ... st_century

Also the CCP doesn't have a manifesto it uses anymore. You have to look at the constitution, and the constitution still defines itself as communist :lol:

State capitalism is a school of thought in Communism.

This is just grasping for straws. "Nationalist socialism" (which is not even the term Baathist books use btw) is not "national socialism" or Nazism. Baathism specifically discusses republicanism and socialism but nationalism is discussed in a different light.

Of course it's all incoherent hogwash but they definitely don't claim to Nazis. That's dumb even for you :lol:

Baathism is Arab national socialism.

Not all fascists are Nazis.

No, it refers to Nazis which is a specific type of fascism. And Baathists don't claim to be Nazis. They're fascists yes, but they're not Nazis and don't outwardly claim they're fascist. If you've read Alfaq's books you would know this.

National socialism is the ideology the Nazis follow, it's a form of fascism. National socialism isn't exclusive to Nazis as the Nazis are just one party of many to follow that ideology.

No it isn't otherwise pretty much every country is communist because all countries have state owned enterprises and influence

I'm sure you mean China here.
China is communist, and it follows state capitalism school of thought.

Many countries have state owned enterprises, very few countries follow state capitalism which is a well defined school of thought in policy.

That's not how they define "Socialism with Chinese characterstics". And state capitalism isn't communist.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is what the set of reforms were called.

And state capitalism is communist.

Then Sweden would be actually socialist and Venezuela should be a social democracy. Because, ya know, Sweden has more state control than Venezuela.

You're kidding right?

Sweden is a social democracy. Venezuela is a socialist republic.
The two are entirely different from each other and mean entire different things.
#15029228
Palmyrene wrote:Yeah we have people who have already done that... @anasawad thinks that this is irrelevant for whatever reason.

It is irrelevant.

The Quran condemns apostasy.


:)
#15029235
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
The disconnect is far less than you think.


It's pretty major actually. Alot of superstitution and weird beliefs that originate from general life experiences and local culture are present which aren't in the establishment.

It's a huge disconnect and if you give legitimacy to the theology of the people over that of the establishment, then the theology of the people becomes the establishment.

I read it in its entirety and know exactly what it's saying.
It talk about personal interpretations in the context and on the foundations of the Quran.


No, it doesn't. Here's the full article (it's an actual book):

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ ... arca-islam

It's about making Islam compatible with personal interpretations of any variety and anarchism.

All it does incline is that instead of scholars only having the ability to interpret, regular people should too. But both under the same rules.


No, not really. It goes further:

Anarchic-Ijtihad is committed to identifying and re-interpreting, if necessary, anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian principles in the Sunnah and the Koran. I use Anarchic-Ijtihad to identify these anarchic commitments in Islam, so that the interpretation I am advocating for, Anarca-Islam, resonates with anarchism. Similarly, I use Anarchic-Ijtihad to reread Islamic anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian commitments in anarchism so that they resonate with Anarca-Islam. Because Anarchic-Ijtihad is an anarchically oriented ijtihad it is not only a form of critical or discursive form of analysis. Anarchic-Ijtihad, by virtue of the very definition of ijtihad, is a method I use to make judgements in favour of Anarca-Islam. It also affords me the ability to critique interpretations of Islam that do not uphold Anarca-Islam’s anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist commitments. I regard these commitments as Islamic commitments, just as I regard them as anarchist commitments. Anarca-Islam too is the method I use to coalesce the individual anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist concepts and practices from Islam.

The perception of this method of inquiry as unnecessary will be under the pretext that in the mind of seculars as Knight the Koran is innate, benign or useless. To Knight, as I discussed in chapter two, the Koran is a ‘tiny little book for tiny little men’ (Knight, 2004: 15, emphasis added). In Taqwacores, Knight has the female character Rabeya cross “out a verse from the Koran” (Fiscella, 2009) that Knight believes allows a man to beat his wife. Knight highlights in the passage below through Rabeya his point of view of the Koran:

“Finally I said, fuck it. If I believe it’s wrong for a man to beat his wife, and the Quran disagrees with me, then fuck that verse. I don’t need to stretch and squeeze it for a weak alternative reading, I don’t need to excuse it with historical context, and I sure as hell don’t need to just accept it and go sign up for a good ol’ fashioned bitch-slapping. So I crossed it out. Now I feel a whole lot better about that Quran” (Knight, 2004: 105)

As a Muj’tah’id, and using Knight’s words, I prefer to stretch, squeeze and work through the historical contexts of the verse and if necessary to re-interpret and provide the Islamic justification(s) for the verse’s re-interpretation using Anarchic-Ijtihad. I do this not to provide weak alternatives for the verse as Knight claims, but rather to construct a powerful position from it in Anarca-Islam. In sum, what I find beautiful about the way the Koran uses language is that it does so using Arabic words and sentences that are at times:

a) Extremely precise (whether in the scope of describing things and events or giving guidelines, clear lessons, or ‘rules’ to Muslims)

Or

b) Filled with metaphors that could be ‘deciphered’ using ijtihad, or any of its types like Anarchic-Ijtihad

Or

c) Contaminated by the use of Divine phrases that are ‘secret’ and to which Al’ Ghayb is applied.

As an Arabic reader, I find the Koran a difficult text to challenge that way. That is, in its ability to resist ‘the judgments’ of human beings on its divine integrity as a text, especially without critics understanding the different grammatical context to which rules of syntax are also applied. Unlike Knight, I therefore believe that it is in the spaces of these judgments that are leveled by critics as critiques on the Koran that there is an advantage for Muslims in using this space to their advantage while reinterpreting the Koran. After all there can be little doubt that the Koran speaks a thousand lies and truths that to this modern day creates uncertainty because of the language the Koran uses. The Koran creates this uncertainty while also disabling the degree to which heresy could be committed against it. This is because the Koran prides itself on being a text of moderation and that is lucid yet considerate to the understanding and comprehension of an Arabic reader. As a text, it is the Koran that haunts and holds Islam, and which means ‘the middle path’, and without which Islam does not exist.


So you're completely wrong.

:knife:
For fuck's sake, I'm getting tired of this.
Just learn how to read thoroughly and not to cherry-pick stuff.


I'm cherry picking stuff? Not the guy who read half of a section of an article and then decided that the entire book agrees with him.

All it talks about is expanding the range of interpretations and those who can do it. It still clearly states multiple times that it should be done on the foundations of the Quran and the Sunnah, and not randomly on a whim as you claim.


This is disproved above.

I've already read it twice.
What should be done is you going back and reading it more thoroughly.
Your claim is far more radical than what the article claims, and the basis of both arguments (your argument and that of the author) contradict each other on a fundamental level.


:lol: :lol:



You're no longer funny man, now it's just sad.

I've read it. You're the one who just skipped major parts of it.

But then again, seeing what you do here, I'm guessing it's a habit of yours to skip entire lines and paragraphs and just focusing on key words.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

In the exact same page, one paragraph below the one you quoted, which I so far have quoted multiple times, that the ban is set based on quantity for everything other than wine.


But the point is that you can drink non-grape wine or liquor.

He did, he ordered all the previous scripts to be burned and gathered a new one.
It's on record.
Even Omar Ibn Al-khattab said on the matter that most of the original Quran is lost.


Yeah this seems to be a Shia conspiracy than anything true and collapses upon modern-day archeological discoveries of Qur'an manuscripts identical to the modern Uthmani Quran and scientfically dated to the lifetimes of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birming ... manuscript


They were a religious faction.
And it wasn't a myth or a rumor, we have all the texts, we know for a fact that this happened.


Given how tied religion was to politics, any faction that politically opposed the Caliphate or wanted to take control would have to have a religious justification otherwise they would not have legitimacy.

This is in response to what?


The Ridda wars claim.

All the ones that survived are.
You not being aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.


No they didn't and you're going to have to prove that they do.

OMG, :lol: :lol:
Now you just crossed into pure insanity.


It's actually quite obvious. And you claiming every single medieval book or book is digitized is actually the insane thing here. It's rather sad actually.

Those especially are digitized; Infact, they were the first to be digitized so researchers can study them remotely without having to move them alot which could damage them, not to mention the cost.


The point is that they weren't all digitized, just the ones that researchers are most interested in (i.e. the most famous and popular).

They were conflicts that started because of disagreements over the scripture of the Quran.
How the fuck is this not religious?


Not all of them and those that did never turned into violence, they stated in the royal court as all religious debates have.

Let's now move to the 5th grade level of history (since you obviously weren't paying attention).


Says the guy who doesn't know the basics of the reason why Hanbalis rose in power in the first place :lol:

Only primary school children think that it was caused due to religious reasons :lol:

Tensions start growing between different factions, after a certain critical point, any random dispute between individuals or families becomes, in essence, a spark as more people start getting involved against the perceived others. Then, after some time, the dispute would've grown enough to a point where community and faction leaders start getting involved and bringing the rest of the faction into the conflict; Once that happens, things started spiraling out of control and you get a full fledged war.


Wow such an in depth and totally not simplistic analysis of why sectarian conflicts start.

And none of what you've said indicates that the conflict be necessarily about religion at all. It doesn't even have to be between sects.

It was a different sect.
The Imami sect didn't exist before Imam Jafar Al Sadeq.


No, I'm saying Shias were one sect before and then became several later on. How do you not understand this basic concept?

From the wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_cap ... st_century


Does China claim they are? No. Even the wikipedia article I cited said that non-Chinese analysts think China isn't communist anymore but actual theorists part of the Chinese Communist Party disagree.

That's what matters because the discussion is about whether some countries are lying about their ideology or structure.

State capitalism is a school of thought in Communism.


No it isn't. Most countries are, one way or the other, state capitalist.

Baathism is Arab national socialism.


No it isn't. It's Arab fascism but not Arab Nazism. And Baathists don't claim they're fascists.

Not all fascists are Nazis.


Never said they were but Ba'athists never claimed they're fascists which is the point of the argument.

National socialism is the ideology the Nazis follow, it's a form of fascism. National socialism isn't exclusive to Nazis as the Nazis are just one party of many to follow that ideology.


Nazi is literally the abbreviation means national socialism in German. If you follow national socialism, you're a Nazi in a literal sense. Hitler specifically developed Nazism.

I'm sure you mean China here.
China is communist, and it follows state capitalism school of thought.


No every country is state capitalists. The degrees might be different but in the end they are all still state capitalist.

Many countries have state owned enterprises, very few countries follow state capitalism which is a well defined school of thought in policy.


No it isn't. Your entire argument can be destroyed by looking at the wikipedia article for state capitalism.

I mean it's already obvious given how capitalism is in the fucking name so it's obviously not communist but the fact that even Marx rejected state capitalism as an evil really tells you something.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is what the set of reforms were called.

And state capitalism is communist.


Yeah I know.

And it isn't.

You're kidding right?

Sweden is a social democracy. Venezuela is a socialist republic.
The two are entirely different from each other and mean entire different things.


Given how Sweden has more state control than Venezuela the terms should be the opposite.
#15029236
ingliz wrote:It is irrelevant.

The Quran condemns apostasy.


:)


Pardon? How is that relevant? They aren't apostates, they're reformists.

Your response is highly irrelevant and doesn't make sense in the context of the conversation.
#15029238
Palmyrene wrote:They aren't apostates, they're reformists.

Don't be silly.

By definition, they are apostate.

The conversation:

ingliz wrote:A real reformation of the Islamic religion would require a repudiation of large parts of Muhammad’s legacy, which is akin to reforming Christianity by repudiating Christ.

Palmyrene wrote:Yeah we have people who have already done that and most local Sunni Muslims make their own interpretations.

@anasawad thinks that this is irrelevant for whatever reason.

ingliz wrote:It is irrelevant.

The Quran condemns apostasy.


:)
#15029243
@Palmyrene
It's pretty major actually. Alot of superstitution and weird beliefs that originate from general life experiences and local culture are present which aren't in the establishment.

It's a huge disconnect and if you give legitimacy to the theology of the people over that of the establishment, then the theology of the people becomes the establishment.

And where do you think these beliefs come from?


Let's now take this piece apart and highlight the important relevant parts to the conversation in quotes:
using Arabic words and sentences that are at times:
a) Extremely precise (whether in the scope of describing things and events or giving guidelines, clear lessons, or ‘rules’ to Muslims)

Those are generally where Osol comes from.

b) Filled with metaphors that could be ‘deciphered’ using ijtihad, or any of its types like Anarchic-Ijtihad

Or

c) Contaminated by the use of Divine phrases that are ‘secret’ and to which Al’ Ghayb is applied.

Those are where some Foro' comes from.


The Koran creates this uncertainty while also disabling the degree to which heresy could be committed against it.

Ooh look, he also knows this.

So you're completely wrong.

So, you quoted a section that talks tons about this new "anarcho-Islam" and all. And in that same section, he mentions two points which confirm everything I've been saying so far.

Also:
After all there can be little doubt that the Koran speaks a thousand lies and truths that to this modern day creates uncertainty because of the language the Koran uses.

:lol:
A total devout Sunni Muslim.
:knife:

I'm cherry picking stuff? Not the guy who read half of a section of an article and then decided that the entire book agrees with him.

Except what I did isn't cherry picking.
You're the one providing the source for your claim, and for me to refute you all I have to do is highlight the parts where your own source refutes your argument or, potentially, backs mine instead.

Just like in this section you just posted, your source admits two of the things I've been saying for the past several pages, so, I highlighted them.

Ofcourse don't worry, I know you'll now run another 10 pages claiming I didn't read this one too.

This is disproved above.

How? In the section you just quoted?
It's not disproved at all.
Also, by disagreeing with my statement, you're disagreeing with the first text you quoted.
I highlighted the important parts there in post #15028961

But the point is that you can drink non-grape wine or liquor.

Taste them, sure. Drink in general, no.


Yeah this seems to be a Shia conspiracy than anything true and collapses upon modern-day archeological discoveries of Qur'an manuscripts identical to the modern Uthmani Quran and scientfically dated to the lifetimes of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birming ... manuscript


https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.as ... 165_fs001r
Here you go.
Look at the verse numbers and compare them to any standard Sunni Quran nowadays.
This is the 3rd version of the Quran BTW, the one from Abd al Malek.
I counted around 50 verses to have been deleted and 9 added.
Also:
رواه البخاري في الصحيح عن علي بن عبد الله ورواه مسلم عن أبي بكر ابن أبي شيبة وغيره عن ابن عيينة - (أخبرنا) أبو نصر بن قتادة أنبأ أبو منصور العباس بن الفضل النضروري ثنا أحمد بن نجدة ثنا سعيد بن منصور ثنا حماد بن زيد بن عاصم بن بهدلة عن زر بن حبيش قال قال لي أبي بن كعب رضي الله عنه كأين تعد أو كأين تقرأ سورة الأحزاب قلت ثلاث وسبعين آية قال اقط لقد رأيتها وانها لتعدل سورة البقرة وان فيها الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم


عن عروة بن الزبير عن عائشة قالت : كانت سورة الأحزاب تقرأ في زمن النبي مائتي آية فلما كتب عثمان المصاحف لم نقدر منها إلا ما هو الآن ".الاتقان 2/25 .

وعن حذيفة قال: قال لي عمر بن الخطاب: كم تعدّون سورة الاحزاب؟ قلتُ: إثنتين أو ثلاثا وسبعين آية. قال: إن كانت لتعدل بسورة البقرة وإنْ كان فيها لاية الرجم. الدرّ المنثور 5 / 180،

على أنّ ما قدمناه أهون بكثير من إحصاء عمر بن الخطاب لحروف القرآن الكريم كما في رواية الطبراني ، وقد شهد على ذلك السيوطي في الاِتقان ، وإليك نص ما نسبه إلى عمر من أنَّه قال : «القرآن ألف ألف حرف ، من قرأه صابراً محتسباً كان له بكل حرف زوجة من الحور العين» . راجع : الاتقان في علوم القرآن : 242 ـ 243. كنز العمال 1 / 460، الحديث 2309 و ص 481، الحديث 2427؛ والاتقان 1 / 72 في آخر النوع التاسع عشر في عدد سور القرآن وآياته وكلماته وحروفه؛ والدرّ المنثور 6/ 422.تذكرة الحفاظ ص1118؛ وكشف الظنون 1 / 2 وذيله ص 648؛ وهدية العارفين 1 / 648.

Those are from Sahih Bukhari, from Aisha and Omar, both contempraries to the prophet and Osman, and Omar was a caliph.
According to Omar bin Al Khattab, The second of the caliphs, 2 thirds of the Quran no longer exist.
(EDIT: Forgot to write the clarification for this. Omar is quoted in Sahih Bukhari saying that the Quran is approximately a million letters, which this is backed by other sources as well; However, after Osman issued his Quran, they counted for 350k letters, and now that number went down even further to 320k letters. which means, 2 thirds of the Quran has been deleted. Now we know that there is the Willayah and the Norayn sections deleted, which the Willayah in the Imami Quran is 172 verse and the Norayn is 91 verse. There is also parts mentioned by Bukhari saying there is an entire chapter of the Quran deleted in that period, and from Imam Muslim ibn Al hajaj that there is a Sura of the Quran counting at 220 verse also deleted. So yes, Osman did rewrite the Quran. And Abd Al Malek rewrite again afterwords as seen above.)
And there are tons of stuff from Aisha, the prophet's wife, saying that parts of the Quran were deleted.

Are Aisha and Omar Shiites?
Also, the Suras named Surat Al Willayah and Surat Al Norayn were entirely deleted from Osman's Quran.

It's actually quite obvious. And you claiming every single medieval book or book is digitized is actually the insane thing here. It's rather sad actually.

The ones that survived are indeed digitized. In one hand so they're not lost if they were destroyed or damaged, on the other hand to allow researchers to study them remotely.

The point is that they weren't all digitized, just the ones that researchers are most interested in (i.e. the most famous and popular).

All stone tablets were digitized, they're all photographed and put in slides or E-Books to be seen and read.

And none of what you've said indicates that the conflict be necessarily about religion at all. It doesn't even have to be between sects.

The tensions arise due to religion, and the dispute is the spark.
If it's not religious, then it wouldn't be referred to as sectarian conflict, rather civil war.

No, I'm saying Shias were one sect before and then became several later on. How do you not understand this basic concept?


The first Shi'a sect are called Shi'at Ali. i.e. The followers of Ali.
The Imami Shi'a came centuries later.

Those two are not the same, nor did the second come out of the first.
The first came out of a political dispute. The second came out of a religious movement.
The two are independent of each other.

Does China claim they are? No. Even the wikipedia article I cited said that non-Chinese analysts think China isn't communist anymore but actual theorists part of the Chinese Communist Party disagree.


This is the part you quoted:
While non-Chinese analysts generally agree that the CCP has rejected orthodox Marxism–Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought (or at least basic thoughts within orthodox thinking), the CCP itself disagrees. Certain groups argue that Jiang Zemin ended the CCP's formal commitment to Marxism with the introduction of the ideological theory, the Three Represents. However, party theorist Leng Rong disagrees, claiming that "President Jiang rid the Party of the ideological obstacles to different kinds of ownership [...] He did not give up Marxism or socialism. He strengthened the Party by providing a modern understanding of Marxism and socialism—which is why we talk about a 'socialist market economy' with Chinese characteristics."[108] The attainment of true "communism" is still described as the CCP's and China's "ultimate goal".


The part you quote says exactly what I said. The CCP turned to a different school of thought.
China is still communists, simply adopted a new school of thought within communism.
Even the quote you put says so.

That's what matters because the discussion is about whether some countries are lying about their ideology or structure.

How the fuck are they lying?
They turned from Maoism to state capitalism. Both are communist.

No it isn't. Most countries are, one way or the other, state capitalist.

No they're not.
Under state capitalism, the state controls the mean
#15029267
ingliz wrote:Don't be silly.

By definition, they are apostate.

The conversation:





:)


Ohhh I misunderstood what repudiate is.

@anasawad

And where do you think these beliefs come from?


Are you referring to the superstitions or the beliefs? Because both are condemned by scholars but are believed in by the local population regardless.

And let's not forget that the locals form their own ideas that are outside the establishment.

Let's now take this piece apart and highlight the important relevant parts to the conversation in quotes:


You don't get to choose what's relevant to my claim.

Ooh look, he also knows this.


Except you took them out of context. In the context of the article, the author is basically defending the following section from the book he and I have quoted. Since you ignored, I'll quote it again:

In Taqwacores, Knight has the female character Rabeya cross “out a verse from the Koran” (Fiscella, 2009) that Knight believes allows a man to beat his wife. Knight highlights in the passage below through Rabeya his point of view of the Koran:


“Finally I said, fuck it. If I believe it’s wrong for a man to beat his wife, and the Quran disagrees with me, then fuck that verse. I don’t need to stretch and squeeze it for a weak alternative reading, I don’t need to excuse it with historical context, and I sure as hell don’t need to just accept it and go sign up for a good ol’ fashioned bitch-slapping. So I crossed it out. Now I feel a whole lot better about that Quran” (Knight, 2004: 105)


As a Muj’tah’id, and using Knight’s words, I prefer to stretch, squeeze and work through the historical contexts of the verse and if necessary to re-interpret and provide the Islamic justification(s) for the verse’s re-interpretation using Anarchic-Ijtihad. I do this not to provide weak alternatives for the verse as Knight claims, but rather to construct a powerful position from it in Anarca-Islam.


Also he constructs his own form of ijtihad which definitely is not what your position is nor does it agree with yours.

So, you quoted a section that talks tons about this new "anarcho-Islam" and all. And in that same section, he mentions two points which confirm everything I've been saying so far.


Simulatenously you've read the bottom but ignored the top.

A total devout Sunni Muslim.


Who makes his own ijtihad and thinks the Koran can be interpreted as being against states and capitalism.

Soooo "devout".

Except what I did isn't cherry picking.
You're the one providing the source for your claim, and for me to refute you all I have to do is highlight the parts where your own source refutes your argument or, potentially, backs mine instead.


:lol:

It is cherry picking. You ignore his entire argument.

How? In the section you just quoted?
It's not disproved at all.
Also, by disagreeing with my statement, you're disagreeing with the first text you quoted.
I highlighted the important parts there in post #15028961


Read above.

Taste them, sure. Drink in general, no.


The line between tasting and drinking is high.

Look at the verse numbers and compare them to any standard Sunni Quran nowadays.
This is the 3rd version of the Quran BTW, the one from Abd al Malek.
I counted around 50 verses to have been deleted and 9 added.


What Quran is this supposed to be?

Also the Brimingham Quran manuscript is earlier and is identical to the current Quran.

Those are from Sahih Bukhari, from Aisha and Omar, both contempraries to the prophet and Osman, and Omar was a caliph.
According to Omar bin Al Khattab, The second of the caliphs, 2 thirds of the Quran no longer exist.
And there are tons of stuff from Aisha, the prophet's wife, saying that parts of the Quran were deleted.


Then explain the Brimingham manuscript.

The ones that survived are indeed digitized. In one hand so they're not lost if they were destroyed or damaged, on the other hand to allow researchers to study them remotely.


No they aren't all digitized. There's too many that survived.

And not all of them are allowed to ve digitized nor are the ones that aren't important to researchers.

Furthermore, most researchers just do their research in the mueseums and libraries themselves.

All stone tablets were digitized, they're all photographed and put in slides or E-Books to be seen and read.


How do you know it's all of them? Just because you don't know about stone tablets other than the ones digitized doesn't mean they don't exist.

The tensions arise due to religion, and the dispute is the spark.
If it's not religious, then it wouldn't be referred to as sectarian conflict, rather civil war.


1. If it's a conflict, no matter what it is, between sects it's sectarian. It's literally the definition of sectarian. Fighting between different communist groups is sectarian for example.

2. No they don't. The tensions arise due to perceiving the different sects as the "other". The actual disputes aren't theological at all.

The first Shi'a sect are called Shi'at Ali. i.e. The followers of Ali.
The Imami Shi'a came centuries later.

Those two are not the same, nor did the second come out of the first.
The first came out of a political dispute. The second came out of a religious movement.
The two are independent of each other.


They are definitely not independent. They are tied in some way.

The part you quote says exactly what I said.


No it doesn't. You took it out of context again.

First off, the first part you bolded was about non-Chinese analysts giving their opinion that China is no longer MList. That doesn't matter because what matters is what the CCP claims it is. You're incredibly dense for not understanding this.

Secondly, the actual structure of China is not communist or Marxist-Leninist at all and if you trust what China says about itself then I've lost my faith in you. State capitalism isn't communist and the wikipedia article itself says that state capitalism was common before communism and that accussing countries of state capitalism is common in leftists because state capitalism, unsurprisingly, isn't communist.

Turns out an ideology called state capitalism isn't communist. Who knew?

How the fuck are they lying?
They turned from Maoism to state capitalism. Both are communist.


State capitalism isn't communist. State capitalism was a derogatory term by leftists given to the Soviet Union.

No they're not.
Under state capitalism, the state controls the mean


No that's Marxist Leninism. State capitalism is when the state controls or runs some private enterprises but the state itself does not own the means of production.

I guess Britian was communist since they had several state owned enterprises. One was so big it ran India.
#15029277
@Palmyrene
You don't get to choose what's relevant to my claim.

Your claim is anyone can randomly interpret the text however they like.
Both the texts you quoted refute this claim.

Except you took them out of context. In the context of the article, the author is basically defending the following section from the book he and I have quoted. Since you ignored, I'll quote it again:

They're not out of context.
If you wish, we can bring a third party to judge.

Your text accepts that there are straight forward clear cut language in the Quran that doesn't have a high degree of interpretation as well as other parts where there is lucid language that allows a high degree of interpretation.
And also accepts the fact that the Quran doesn't tolerate people missing with it.

I don't care about "Anarcho-Islam" nor is it the subject of the discussion.
And the part you boldened also says the he has to re-interpret parts of the Quran, then he states that some parts have very clear language that doesn't open much door for re-interpretation and how the Quran doesn't tolerate it.

They're not out of context, you're just trying real hard to dance around the facts.

Also he constructs his own form of ijtihad which definitely is not what your position is nor does it agree with yours.

I don't care what he calls his form nor is it relevant, he states very clearly what it is based on and it's still abiding by the same principles as all other methods of interpretations, I mentioned those rules before.

"re-interpreting" the secondary basis, as your guy wants, does nothing to change the reality. The foundation is shitty therefore everything built on it is going to be shitty as well. You can reinterpret it 10 billion times a day, it wont change the radical and extreme nature of the foundations when applied.


Simulatenously you've read the bottom but ignored the top.

As expected, now here we go for the next 10 pages where you'll repeatedly claim I didn't read it Ad nauseam.

Who makes his own ijtihad and thinks the Koran can be interpreted as being against states and capitalism.

Soooo "devout".

He says the Quran is filled with 1000s of lies.
Since the belief in Islam is that the Quran is the word of god, then he's calling God a liar there.
That could get hem killed in any Muslim majority country.
And would definitely earn him the title of an infidel.

It is cherry picking. You ignore his entire argument.

The argument made in the previous text fits exactly in the framework I'm running with, why would I need to quote every sentence of it when it effectively just encourages people to interpret more often, all under the exact same rules I already stated that are being used for interpretation in Fiqh.

I simply bolded the parts for you to see that the text supports my argument, not yours.
If you can't understand that, then I doubt you're really understanding the texts you're citing.

Even this last one, he talks a whole lot about the so called "anarcho-Islam", doesn't really talk about what method of interpretation he plans to use, but does reference the clarity of a good portion of the Quran in terms of rules which means he understands those don't have much room for interpretation, and understands the limits placed in the Quran on interpretation, which is what I've been saying all along so I bolded those parts for you to see them.

Seriously, bother reading your own citations.

The line between tasting and drinking is high.

Yea, actually it is. When you're old enough to drink, you'll know why.

Also the Brimingham Quran manuscript is earlier and is identical to the current Quran.

No it's not. Even the wiki page you cited says there are differences in the arrangement and strucutre. And it also mentions that this is just a few pages, not the whole thing.
It's not identical.

Then explain the Brimingham manuscript.


1- Only a few pages.
2- Not Identical.
(Hint: Read your source)

Also, funny how you just ignored the hadith by Omar and Aisha how even they, who lived in those times, say large parts of the Quran were deleted.


How do you know it's all of them? Just because you don't know about stone tablets other than the ones digitized doesn't mean they don't exist.

Because these initiatives are global and work to preserve human history in its entirety. It's not an individual effort.

2. No they don't. The tensions arise due to perceiving the different sects as the "other". The actual disputes aren't theological at all.

They perceive them as the other because of theological differences.

They are definitely not independent. They are tied in some way.

Then say how they're connected? Go on.

No it doesn't. You took it out of context again.

:lol:
These empty claims start showing.
I copy pasted the entire part you quoted, if I took it out of context, then you took it out of context because it was your quote.

First off, the first part you bolded was about non-Chinese analysts giving their opinion that China is no longer MList. That doesn't matter because what matters is what the CCP claims it is. You're incredibly dense for not understanding this.

If you read the two parts bolded, they confirm each other you know. or the entire paragraph.
The party claims they're taking a modern view of Marxism while non-Chinese experts say they're abandoning orthodox views of marxism.
Hmmm. It's almost as if Orthodox and modern are the opposite of each other; Ooh, wait, they are.

Secondly, the actual structure of China is not communist or Marxist-Leninist at all and if you trust what China says about itself then I've lost my faith in you. State capitalism isn't communist and the wikipedia article itself says that state capitalism was common before communism and that accussing countries of state capitalism is common in leftists because state capitalism, unsurprisingly, isn't communist.

Turns out an ideology called state capitalism isn't communist. Who knew?

1- No Lefty "accuses" countries of state capitalism. Right wingers, on the other hand, do because in state capitalism, the state takes over the means of production as demonstrated.
Which is why it is part of communism and most Communist schools of thought consider it the final stage before the full abolishment of capitalism.

No that's Marxist Leninism. State capitalism is when the state controls or runs some private enterprises but the state itself does not own the means of production.

State-owned enterprises and means of production.




EDIT:
What Quran is this supposed to be?

That's Abd el Malek's Quran. It's the last version for Sunni Islam, which your modern Quran comes from.
And even then, some changes have been made since then.
#15029287
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
Your claim is anyone can randomly interpret the text however they like.
Both the texts you quoted refute this claim.


The text, Anarca-Islam, directly makes this claim.

They're not out of context.
If you wish, we can bring a third party to judge.


They are. And what third party?

Your text accepts that there are straight forward clear cut language in the Quran that doesn't have a high degree of interpretation as well as other parts where there is lucid language that allows a high degree of interpretation.
And also accepts the fact that the Quran doesn't tolerate people missing with it.


Read the rest of it and don't take it out of context.

I don't care about "Anarcho-Islam" nor is it the subject of the discussion.


It's literally the title of the fucking book and entire thesis behind it.

If you want, I'll say you're right and move my goalpost and position to that of Anarca-Islam's. Now address his argument in full.

They're not out of context, you're just trying real hard to dance around the facts.


You mean the fact that he claims that the Quran is open to interpretation or that it can be interpreted as anti-statist or anti-capitalist? Or the fact that he says that Islam saying you can beat your wife can be interpreted differently or crossed out?

It is out of context and out of context quotes aren't facts.

I don't care what he calls his form nor is it relevant, he states very clearly what it is based on and it's still abiding by the same principles as all other methods of interpretations, I mentioned those rules before.


Then you must respond to why he comes to completely different conclusions.

"re-interpreting" the secondary basis, as your guy wants, does nothing to change the reality. The foundation is shitty therefore everything built on it is going to be shitty as well. You can reinterpret it 10 billion times a day, it wont change the radical and extreme nature of the foundations when applied
.

If you re-interpret it then you can negate the foundation.


He says the Quran is filled with 1000s of lies.
Since the belief in Islam is that the Quran is the word of god, then he's calling God a liar there.
That could get hem killed in any Muslim majority country.
And would definitely earn him the title of an infidel.


Such a devout Sunni Muslim.

The argument made in the previous text fits exactly in the framework I'm running with, why would I need to quote every sentence of it when it effectively just encourages people to interpret more often, all under the exact same rules I already stated that are being used for interpretation in Fiqh.


No, it comes up with it's own version of ijtihad which completely different from how actual ijtihad is done.

I simply bolded the parts for you to see that the text supports my argument, not yours.


Then don't claim the text agrees with you because he comes to a completely different conclusion.

Seriously, bother reading your own citations.


That's rich coming from you.

Yea, actually it is. When you're old enough to drink, you'll know why.


I have drunk before and the line between tasting and drinking is thin. Most people have different meanings of it.

No it's not. Even the wiki page you cited says there are differences in the arrangement and strucutre. And it also mentions that this is just a few pages, not the whole thing.
It's not identical.


It is. The actual content is the same so it is identical. Also, look at the wikipedia article pages titled, significance:

The proposed radiocarbon date for the manuscript is significant, as the Islamic prophet Muhammad lived allegedly from c. 570 to 632.[19] According to Sunni Muslim tradition it was Abu Bakr (r. 632-634), the first caliph, who compiled The Quran, and Uthman who canonized the standard version of Quran since accepted and used by all Muslims worldwide; then he commanded that all previous versions be burned.[20]


Since manuscript was radiocarbon dated to between 568 and 645 CE, Uthman did not burn all other copies. I doubt that a medieval bureaucracy would be even capable of burning all the other Qurans that contradicted his own.

Also, funny how you just ignored the hadith by Omar and Aisha how even they, who lived in those times, say large parts of the Quran were deleted.


I don't care about hadiths, I care about facts.

Because these initiatives are global and work to preserve human history in its entirety. It's not an individual effort.


Except that these initiatives haven't digitized everything yet. There's shitloads of medieval texts and stone tablets that haven't been digitized. There's a reason why these initiatives are still going on today.

They perceive them as the other because of theological differences.


Most common men aren't able to discren between the theology of different groups. If you ask a regular Sunni or Shia in Syria what they know about the other sect you'd just hear rumors or stereotypes. There's nothing they know about their actual theology.

What's enough to consider them other is that they wear a funny hat and that's it.

Then say how they're connected? Go on.


I'm not sure but there's something that connects them.

:lol:
These empty claims start showing.
I copy pasted the entire part you quoted, if I took it out of context, then you took it out of context because it was your quote.


Dude, you took my bolded parts and pretended they said something they actually didn't. That's taking it out of context.

If you read the two parts bolded, they confirm each other you know. or the entire paragraph.
The party claims they're taking a modern view of Marxism while non-Chinese experts say they're abandoning orthodox views of marxism.
Hmmm. It's almost as if Orthodox and modern are the opposite of each other; Ooh, wait, they are.


Except that most actual Marxists agree that China isn't communist. They allow private property, have private companies, they have the most billionaires, billionaires literally run the party, etc.

There's nothing Marxist about China. You're kidding yourself if you think so.


1- No Lefty "accuses" countries of state capitalism.


The biggest criticism that leftists use for the Soviet Union, both back then and now, is that they are not communist, they're state capitalist. The wikipedia article says this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

Look at the section "Use of the term by leftists"

Perhaps the earliest critique of the Soviet Union as state capitalist was formulated by the Russian anarchists as documented in Paul Avrich's work on Russian anarchism.[27]

This claim would become standard in anarchist works. For example, the prominent anarchist Emma Goldman in an article from 1935 titled "There Is No Communism in Russia" said of the Soviet Union:

Such a condition of affairs may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense Communistic [...] Soviet Russia, it must now be obvious, is an absolute despotism politically and the crassest form of state capitalism economically.[28]


So no.

Right wingers, on the other hand, do because in state capitalism, the state takes over the means of production as demonstrated.


No they don't. I've seen more right wingers respecting China than opposing it.

Which is why it is part of communism and most Communist schools of thought consider it the final stage before the full abolishment of capitalism.


No they don't. Even China thinks they're in the primary stage.

State-owned enterprises and means of production.


No, it doesn't. The means of production is owned by the CEOs. The entreprise itself is owned by the state but that doesn't mean they fully control it.

That's Abd el Malek's Quran. It's the last version for Sunni Islam, which your modern Quran comes from.
And even then, some changes have been made since then.


The point is that Uthman didn't burn all the other books with changes in it otherwise there would be no surviving books with changes in them nor is the content that different overall.
#15029846
anasawad wrote:If you can't thoroughly read your own sources, nor can you read the points correctly, then it is indeed a waste of time.
Take care.


Says the guy who didn't bother understanding the thesis of the article I was posting and instead went on a long diatribe on how it agrees with him on a minute issue that is irrelevant to the wider discussion (i.e. reforming Islam).

Kinda ironic.
#15029911
ISIS/Al Qaeda in terms of the region are all Sunni militants that are influenced by Wahhabi Islam. They are the same groups that the Marines fought tooth and nail in Fallujah during the Second Gulf War. They are also the same militants General Petraeus bought of with arms and weapons near the end of the Bush Administration years.

The problem with this group is that they will always be a threat in that region. They also get indirect support from other Sunni countries (Saudi Arabia *cough cough* :O ) and will continue to receive armaments indirectly through the sales of US military hardware to that nation.

I spent the better part of 5 years of my life over there. And to be honest I question why we are even over there at all. I am of the belief that if there is a monetary market reset it would be in the best interests of the United States to leave the region altogether.

September 16, Monday At Lexington, Missouri, Ma[…]

The Popular Vote...

No it doesn't. It works as it was designed. Stop[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1173496164[…]

Al Jazeera is indeed the most proper news source f[…]