Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[White Chrobatia]

Er, hate to break it to you, but Tankies *are* the mainstream of communism. Most people who aren't've moved on to other labels since the fall of the SovUnion. Many even before that.

I'm not convinced.

stats lie confirmed

[Herskerstad]

True, but it would be a mistake to say that liberal factions did not fight for communism nor influence it.

Fascists and communists have fought together before. Politics makes strange bedfellows and all that jazz. I don't think that really says anything exceptional.

Sure, blueshirts and all that although most of said situations are rather peculiar. Fascism does have a lot in common with certain strains of communism.

Though liberalism, if one is to count the ideology and movements which would define themselves as such, would be two rather different aspects to make a judgement on in regards of either initiating violence or starting wars. Ranging from a war based in part on freeing the slaves, which would have liberal values at it's core, to liberal parties and presidents lobbying for your run of the mill wars, which while it does not ascribe anything to the idea of liberalism in itself still should not be kept entirely out of political scrutiny. Much like said college aged kids who praise communism, saying it's never really worked in any major nations and not really reflecting on the many reasons why it always inevitably failed in said projects.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Anyway, to keep it on track.

What would all of you define Islamism as?

Are you wrong and think it's just any Islamic Theocracy? Or do you understand the movement and know how define it? Let's go.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not convinced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist ... Federation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Cuba

Yer basically looking at a few Western holdouts like the CPUSA, which has less than 3,000 members in a country of 315,000,000, and using a minority within THOSE groups to paint communist ideology as a whole.

[Conserative Morality]

Anyway, to keep it on track.

What would all of you define Islamism as?

Are you wrong and think it's just any Islamic Theocracy? Or do you understand the movement and know how define it? Let's go.

I'd define Islamism as the integration of Islamic law into the legal apparatus of a state.

[Herskerstad]

Anyway, to keep it on track.

What would all of you define Islamism as?

Are you wrong and think it's just any Islamic Theocracy? Or do you understand the movement and know how define it? Let's go.

I would define it as the Islamic counterpart to the almost extinguished idea of Christendom, or essentially a religious domain which holds an active social, religious, political, cultural and economical tenements that cross certain sociological lines.

Of course, the values and ideas are subject to different evaluations, and stand quite different from the aforementioned one.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Wrong.

Because the actual movement is a bit more specific. Emphasizing Historical Revisionism and radical reform of classical Islamic interpretation to fit with the idea of a modern nation state. The most common form today is the Puritanical strain. which emphasizes a Literalistic way of jurispudence paired with totalitarianism.

The form of the Ideology was laid down by modern revolutionaries such as Wahhab, Maududi, Qutb and others. And for the Shi'a, mainly Khomeini.

The more explicitly Modernist form of it was championed by The Islamic Modernist School and others influenced by them. And originally the Muslim Brotherhood, which has since leaned towards the puritanical side.

Basically it's A reformist, modern form of political Islam.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HyEyL ... &q&f=false

[Conserative Morality]

Wrong.

>> 2016
>> Prescriptivism

If you prefer, you can replace 2016 with any date before 1755.

[Togeria]

Assalam Alaykum.

I come to see a discussion between Conservative Morality and Joch.

These little moments are the reason I enjoy life.

[Herskerstad]

Wrong.

Because the actual movement is a bit more specific.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HyEyL ... &q&f=false

Well the movements that defines itself under Islamism, and what people would attribute being the idea of Islamism, are at times mutually exclusive. Calling one wrong for describing the latter is a bit redundant.

[Conserative Morality]

Assalam Alaykum.

I come to see a discussion between Conservative Morality and Joch.

These little moments are the reason I enjoy life.

Glad to be able to entertain.

[Togeria]

Assalam Alaykum.

I come to see a discussion between Conservative Morality and Joch.

These little moments are the reason I enjoy life.

Glad to be able to entertain.

I enjoy seeing both you and Joch debate when y'all get to it. While I haven't debated the either of y'all before mainly because I haven't been put in a position where my own views clash against the either of you two I respect how unflinching you two are in your beliefs, but at the same time despite that y'all are still open to civil discussion and debate.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Glad to be able to entertain.

I enjoy seeing both you and Joch debate when y'all get to it. While I haven't debated the either of y'all before mainly because I haven't been put in a position where my own views clash against the either of you two I respect how unflinching you two are in your beliefs, but at the same time despite that y'all are still open to civil discussion and debate.

Well, thank you brother. Thanks a lot

[Arachno-Satinism]

Wrong.

Because the actual movement is a bit more specific. Emphasizing Historical Revisionism and radical reform of classical Islamic interpretation to fit with the idea of a modern nation state. The most common form today is the Puritanical strain. which emphasizes a Literalistic way of jurispudence paired with totalitarianism.

The form of the Ideology was laid down by modern revolutionaries such as Wahhab, Maududi, Qutb and others. And for the Shi'a, mainly Khomeini.

The more explicitly Modernist form of it was championed by The Islamic Modernist School and others influenced by them. And originally the Muslim Brotherhood, which has since leaned towards the puritanical side.

Basically it's A reformist, modern form of political Islam.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HyEyL ... &q&f=false

The general definition provided isn't necessarily wrong. Your definition refers specifically to the modern strain of Islamic orthodoxy that currently dominates the discussion on integration of Islamic laws into the legal apparatus in secular or quasi-secular countries. They aren't the sole actors in this advocation, of course, and oftentimes there's a little difference between the modernist, more reform-minded Islamists and more conventional, traditional orthodox Muslims.

(jochi will kill me for this)
I personally admire a few pioneers of the Islamist movement, primarily their stance against taqlid and general rallying against the complacence of traditionalist Muslims and their clergymen. Their ideals on society were rooted too much in delusional romanticism on the era of Rightly Guided Caliphs, and of course on social issues I vociferously disagree with them more strongly than I do with moderates, but I admire their spirit. Specifically, I like Rashid Rida, which appears to me to be more progressive minded in comparison to other Salafists.
(pls no kill)

That doesn't necessarily mean I don't hate their policies with utter passion tho

[Jochizyd Republic]

(jochi will kill me for this)
I personally admire a few pioneers of the Islamist movement, primarily their stance against taqlid and general rallying against the complacence of traditionalist Muslims and their clergymen. Their ideals on society were rooted too much in delusional romanticism on the era of Rightly Guided Caliphs, and of course on social issues I vociferously disagree with them more strongly than I do with moderates, but I admire their spirit. Specifically, I like Rashid Rida, which appears to me to be more progressive minded in comparison to other Salafists.
(pls no kill)

Alright. My thumb is in suspension.

If you mean mainly the early Islamic Modernists (Abduh, Afghani etc.) that's understandable if you're coming from a liberal perspective.

If you mean some of the more reserved Modernists who wanted to reconstruct the Traditional Wisdom of Islam in a non-revisionist way with (perhaps regrettable) respect to certain Modernist philosophies (Iqbal) That's understandable and respectable.
It's debatable that they in particular can be called Islamists as the term is understood today.

But Rida was completely irredeemable. He just proved Abduh's school was doomed to fall to extremely dangerous forms of puritanism. He was completely insane. He relied on literalism and extremism and so did the people like him. What next, are you going to say "Oh, Wahhab/Albani was alright, I mean he was kind of an egalitarian and all as long as you agreed with him"

[Socialist Czechia]

Who was the greatest enemy of Islam?

I say Mongols, considering how close they were to literally wipe out islam (and christianity) from face of our homeworld. Considering what they did to Khwarezmids, to Baghdad and Caliph. Mass murders, massacres, genocide and destruction of entire cities.
Crusades were child games compared to that.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Who was the greatest enemy of Islam?

I say Mongols, considering how close they were to literally wipe out islam (and christianity) from face of our homeworld. Considering what they did to Khwarezmids, to Baghdad and Caliph. Mass murders, massacres, genocide and destruction of entire cities.
Crusades were child games compared to that.

Ahhhh.....what a great empire that was.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Who was the greatest enemy of Islam?

I say Mongols, considering how close they were to literally wipe out islam (and christianity) from face of our homeworld. Considering what they did to Khwarezmids, to Baghdad and Caliph. Mass murders, massacres, genocide and destruction of entire cities.
Crusades were child games compared to that.

They were not. The Mongols were very religiously tolerant of Muslims. Not only employing them and joining their causes in many battles but funding certain enlightened sholarly and sufi organizations along with the Arts which led to the three famed Gunpowder Empires and the making of the Magnificent Muslim Trade Kingdoms of Central Asia.

However, Baghdad, Bukhara, and Alamut were horrible mistakes in particular. Extremeley detrimental to the Islamic world.
I won't pretend they were perfect.

No. The Greatest enemy of Islam have been various Puritan Movements. Almost from the Beginning with The Khawarij. Always dividing Islam. Invading peaceful Muslims and Non Muslims. Giving Islam a bad name. That sort of thing.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Who was the greatest enemy of Islam?

I say Mongols, considering how close they were to literally wipe out islam (and christianity) from face of our homeworld. Considering what they did to Khwarezmids, to Baghdad and Caliph. Mass murders, massacres, genocide and destruction of entire cities.
Crusades were child games compared to that.

They were not. The Mongols were very religiously tolerant of Muslims. Not only employing them and joining their causes in many battles but funding certain enlightened sholarly and sufi organizations along with the Arts which led to the three famed Gunpowder Empires and the making of the Magnificent Muslim Trade Kingdoms of Central Asia.

However, Baghdad, Bukhara, and Alamut were horrible mistakes in particular. Extremeley detrimental to the Islamic world.
I won't pretend they were perfect.

No. The Greatest enemy of Islam have been various Puritan Movements. Almost from the Beginning with The Khawarij. Always dividing Islam. Invading peaceful Muslims and Non Muslims. Giving Islam a bad name. That sort of thing.

This, and I also want to add one thing; some of the later Mongol dynasties, such as the Golden Horde, are finally Islamized not for a long time after the destruction of Baghdad and the Abbasids, and they helped to spread Islam and participated in the development of Islamic civilization, with examples are already stated by Jochi above.

[Herskerstad]

Who was the greatest enemy of Islam?

I say Mongols, considering how close they were to literally wipe out islam (and christianity) from face of our homeworld. Considering what they did to Khwarezmids, to Baghdad and Caliph. Mass murders, massacres, genocide and destruction of entire cities.
Crusades were child games compared to that.

Ahhhh.....what a great empire that was.

The mongol empire, or perhaps the trials the steppes as a whole would unleash upon the world, regardless if one loves their historical drama or not, can easily be contributed as the single greatest enemy of civilisation be it in the east or west. That's not to say nothing good came about from it our even out of it, but on the net or gross for that matter? Desolation beyond imagination.

[Herskerstad]

Who was the greatest enemy of Islam?

I say Mongols, considering how close they were to literally wipe out islam (and christianity) from face of our homeworld. Considering what they did to Khwarezmids, to Baghdad and Caliph. Mass murders, massacres, genocide and destruction of entire cities.
Crusades were child games compared to that.

I'd say overall the British Empire if you are thinking about unity, though admittedly if they picked some of their other plans it could have been much worse.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Ahhhh.....what a great empire that was.

The mongol empire, or perhaps the trials the steppes as a whole would unleash upon the world, regardless if one loves their historical drama or not, can easily be contributed as the single greatest enemy of civilisation be it in the east or west. That's not to say nothing good came about from it our even out of it, but on the net or gross for that matter? Desolation beyond imagination.

The greatness of a deed is not determined by whether it was good or not, they conquered a huge portion of the world, that is a great deed.

[Herskerstad]

The mongol empire, or perhaps the trials the steppes as a whole would unleash upon the world, regardless if one loves their historical drama or not, can easily be contributed as the single greatest enemy of civilisation be it in the east or west. That's not to say nothing good came about from it our even out of it, but on the net or gross for that matter? Desolation beyond imagination.

The greatness of a deed is not determined by whether it was good or not, they conquered a huge portion of the world, that is a great deed.

Sure, so was the holocaust. My point was not however to say that the mongols or steppe nations were insignificant, had they been so the world would likely have been fairly more advanced. Rather that they as a whole were detrimental to civilisation. Song would probably have reached the new world centuries before Europe ever did. Japan would have become less dominated by the Shugo. Eastern Europe probably would be more on par with western Europe, and maybe modern day Iraq or Iran would have kept it's intellectual leadership for centuries longer if not more.

Plenty of interesting what if's to throw around, but as far as parasitical ruler-ship is concerned they easily throne history.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

Who was the greatest enemy of Islam?

Shaytan. He still is.

[Herskerstad]

Who was the greatest enemy of Islam?

Shaytan. He still is.

Interestingly. At least if we are to go after Bukhari's train of thought, Shaytan is instrumental in ensuring that Allah would not get bored with a sinless creation and wipe us all away. I guess in that way he'd both serve humans and Allah alike.