LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Pilarcraft]

Bye

what

[Democratic Communist Federation]

what

That was directed at the person I was responding to.

[Genivaria]

Don't...don't agree with me.

Oof ouch owie this is a dagger right into my left unity

You're right, first the revolution, then the purge.

[Torrocca]

Oof ouch owie this is a dagger right into my left unity

You're right, first the revolution, then the purge.

Gotta shoot the Fascists and Capitalists before we shoot each other :^)

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Oof ouch owie this is a dagger right into my left unity

The people causing our current problems would, I think, strongly deny that they are Leftists.

[Genivaria]

Oof ouch owie this is a dagger right into my left unity

The people causing our current problems would, I think, strongly deny that they are Leftists.

Define 'our current problems' ?
The leftist apologists for Sharia for example are no friend of mine.

[Oil exporting People]

> Attempting to establish Communist regimes isn't Communist internationalism

Again, what?

I would argue that Stalin's Russia was more interested in creating friendly buffer/puppet states than for the sake of spreading the revolution.

Both are accomplished in the same.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Define 'our current problems' ?
The leftist apologists for Sharia for example are no friend of mine.

You came to the right person. Although I am not a Muslim, I am a sociologist of religion with a specialization in Islamic studies.

Tell me, if you would, what is Šarīʿaẗ or Sharia (Arabic, شَرِيعَة)? Care to give it a try?

[Painisia]

The reason why anarchism and communist internationalism will not work or will not be very effective, is because it is outside the human`s rationality. Anarchism`s intentions are not bad, but it is very unrealistic. Abolishing the state could mean the abolition of civilization. Humans need order and structure. And humans are territorial by instinct, much like animals. So a planet with no borders and no government, means that there will have to be mutualism among humans. However, I think that is too far away from human rationality

[Genivaria]

I would argue that Stalin's Russia was more interested in creating friendly buffer/puppet states than for the sake of spreading the revolution.

Both are accomplished in the same.

Sure I just mean that he was more interested in spreading it through national alliances as opposed to how Saudi Arabia spreads Wahhabism, the ideology spreads while the borders and political alliances remain the same.

[Torrocca]

The reason why anarchism and communist internationalism will not work or will not be very effective, is because it is outside the human`s rationality. Anarchism`s intentions are not bad, but it is very unrealistic. Abolishing the state could mean the abolition of civilization. Humans need order and structure. And humans are territorial by instinct, much like animals. So a planet with no borders and no government, means that there will have to be mutualism among humans. However, I think that is too far away from human rationality

*Cough*onehundredthousandyearsofhumanhistory*cough*

[Painisia]

The reason why anarchism and communist internationalism will not work or will not be very effective, is because it is outside the human`s rationality. Anarchism`s intentions are not bad, but it is very unrealistic. Abolishing the state could mean the abolition of civilization. Humans need order and structure. And humans are territorial by instinct, much like animals. So a planet with no borders and no government, means that there will have to be mutualism among humans. However, I think that is too far away from human rationality

*Cough*onehundredthousandyearsofhumanhistory*cough*

But were living standards great at that time? NO At that time, you had to fight for your life to get food and medicine was not advanced at all. Plus getting killed by wild animals

[Genivaria]

Define 'our current problems' ?
The leftist apologists for Sharia for example are no friend of mine.

You came to the right person. Although I am not a Muslim, I am a sociologist of religion with a specialization in Islamic studies.

Tell me, if you would, what is Šarīʿaẗ or Sharia (Arabic, شَرِيعَة)? Care to give it a try?

No, and if you're going to give that 'sharia means personal struggle' drivel please save it.

[MERIZoC]

You came to the right person. Although I am not a Muslim, I am a sociologist of religion with a specialization in Islamic studies.

Tell me, if you would, what is Šarīʿaẗ or Sharia (Arabic, شَرِيعَة)? Care to give it a try?

No, and if you're going to give that 'sharia means personal struggle' drivel please save it.

Lmao

[Democratic Communist Federation]

No, and if you're going to give that 'sharia means personal struggle' drivel please save it.

It never fails. I always get the wrong answers. No, you gave me the definition for Ǧihād or Jihad (Arabic, جِهَاد). Someday, a person who hates Islam will actually be able to tell me, accurately, what they hate.

Šarīʿaẗ literally translates as path. It refers to following the path to Allah (Arabic, ﷲ, literally, the God).

[Genivaria]

No, and if you're going to give that 'sharia means personal struggle' drivel please save it.

It never fails. I always get the wrong answers. No, you gave me the definition for Ǧihād or Jihad (Arabic, جِهَاد). Someday, a person who hates Islam will actually be able to tell me, accurately, what they hate.

Šarīʿaẗ literally translates as path. It refers to following the path to Allah (Arabic, ﷲ, literally, the God).

Ahah, that's nice.
Except I'm not playing translation word games when I use the word Sharia in a political discussion nor am I impressed by people who do.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Ahah, that's nice.
Except I'm not playing translation word games when I use the word Sharia in a political discussion nor am I impressed by people who do.

Hmm. Unless my memory is failing me, you are the one who brought up the subject with me, not the other way around.

[Torrocca]

*Cough*onehundredthousandyearsofhumanhistory*cough*

But were living standards great at that time? NO At that time, you had to fight for your life to get food and medicine was not advanced at all. Plus getting killed by wild animals

Even in post-hunter-gatherer communities (villages in antiquity and the feudal eras (AKA before more advanced concepts of private property and property taxes formed)) there was a lot of mutualism and the like.

[Cekoviu]

The people causing our current problems would, I think, strongly deny that they are Leftists.

Define 'our current problems' ?
The leftist apologists for Sharia for example are no friend of mine.

Like whom?

[Genivaria]

Ahah, that's nice.
Except I'm not playing translation word games when I use the word Sharia in a political discussion nor am I impressed by people who do.

Hmm. Unless my memory is failing me, you are the one who brought up the subject with me, not the other way around.

Not that that actually disputes what I've said but I was merely using an example of so called leftists who are causing some of our current problems.

[Kvatchdom]

You came to the right person. Although I am not a Muslim, I am a sociologist of religion with a specialization in Islamic studies.

Tell me, if you would, what is Šarīʿaẗ or Sharia (Arabic, شَرِيعَة)? Care to give it a try?

No, and if you're going to give that 'sharia means personal struggle' drivel please save it.

There are Muslims who believe their faith should be personal rather than societal, though they are rare. Islam will have a reformation.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Not that that actually disputes what I've said but I was merely using an example of so called leftists who are causing some of our current problems.

It is not my fault that the far right has turned Šarīʿaẗ, and other aspects of Islam, into some kind of bogeyman. As an academic, my responsibility is to present accurate information, not to reinforce hate.

[Cekoviu]

Not that that actually disputes what I've said but I was merely using an example of so called leftists who are causing some of our current problems.

It is not my fault that the far right has turned Šarīʿaẗ, and other aspects of Islam, into some kind of bogeyman. As an academic, my responsibility is to present accurate information, not to reinforce hate.

Sharia is invariably awful, though. It's pretty amusing to watch a so-called libertarian communist desperately try to defend such things.

[Pilarcraft]

Define 'our current problems' ?
The leftist apologists for Sharia for example are no friend of mine.

You came to the right person. Although I am not a Muslim, I am a sociologist of religion with a specialization in Islamic studies.

Tell me, if you would, what is Šarīʿaẗ or Sharia (Arabic, شَرِيعَة)? Care to give it a try?

Al-Shari'at (الشریعه) is the term generally used for what we consider the 'path' the Muslims living in a Caliphate are supposed to follow. In the Legal/political discussion, it is defined as how a Caliphate is supposed to be ran. for reasons not necessary to divulge here, studying Quran, quite a few of the stuff there's an Ijma on, and the Sunnat ar-rasul (السنه الرسول) has been the main points of my academic career this last few years, and I can easily tell you that Sharia is a mix of the Quranic Law (for example, the part where it tells you not to drink alcohol, or eat pig meat, basically any part of the Quran that isn't a supposed history lesson, which makes almost all of the Suwar-e-Madani (سور مدنی)), The Sunnat (basically, the stuff Muhammad (and, differed on the sect you follow, other people) said or did. Muhammad and Ali are important, because they're the only two Amir-al-Mu'minin who every side agrees on their legitimacy. For example, that one time Muhammad ordered a fornicator to be stoned to death after he admitted to four witnesses), the stuff every Muslim Scholar agrees on, and the stuff you can figure out by comparing them to the cases in the aforementioned three sources.

Sadly, The stuff Muhammad decided should be just law were decided fourteen hundred years ago, in one of the least civilized societies of that time, heavily influenced by some of the most oppressive theocracies of that time. So, essentially, you get 'cut off their hand' for Thievery, 'throw stones at him until he dies' for fornication (and homosexuality), "lash him 100 times" for drinking, 'lash him a few times' for eating in front of people who're under the Sawm (fasting) [a problem that I have to brave in the next thirty days yo] etc. etc.

No, and if you're going to give that 'sharia means personal struggle' drivel please save it.

That's Jihad, not Sharia.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

That's Jihad, not Sharia.

There is also the greater and the lesser ǧihād, with the first being of far greater importance (eliminating nafs or the personal ego). Sadly, some political Muslims or ⫰Islāmiyyāt (Arabic, إِسْلامِيّات) have twisted the lesser ǧihād into a monstrosity which is not supported by ⫰Islām.