LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Arbeitersrepublik]

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

Amusing, is it? Are you aware that there are libertarian communists who are Muslims? And no, Šarīʿaẗ is not invariably awful. Are some interpretations of Šarīʿaẗ bad? Certainly, but so are some interpretations of Judaism (extreme political Zionism), Christianity (dominionism and the KKK), and Hinduism (Hindutva).

The KKK is not exclusively a Christian organization so much as it is a racist one.
Dylan Roof did shoot up a Church after all, because it had a congregation of mostly African Americans.

[Torrocca]

Thoughts on Jordan Peterson? I found him pretty annoying on a lot of levels, although it seems left-wingers have a tendency to over-demonize his philosophy, which is mostly the same as YT skepticism, just add lobsters.

[BASS INTRO]

"Lobster man,
take me by the hand;
lead me to the land
that you understand..."

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Certainly. And they don't necessarily support sharia; the ones who do aren't really libertarian.

You are expressing the common Western misunderstanding of Šarīʿaẗ. It translates as path (to God), and it refers to Tawḥīd (Arabic, تَوْحِيد), a word which translates as Unification or Unifying. Tawḥīd refers to a belief in one God. In a very real sense, Tawḥīd is the essence of Islam. Šarīʿaẗ also includes the five pillars of Islam (faith, prayer, charity/tithing, fasting, and pilgrimage).

Beyond that, there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes Šarīʿaẗ. There is currently a culture war going on in the worldwide Muslim community between the conservatives and the modernists. People in both camps justify their positions by referring to the Sacred Texts of Islam.

I study Islam, and I know, and am close friends with, many Muslims. All the ones I know personally are modern, but they strongly believe in the Qurʾân (Arabic, قُرْآن), usually in other texts (depending on the branch of Islam they belong to), and the Šarīʿaẗ.

I can criticize one thing without accepting another, and Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism aren't always bad, while sharia is.

Have you studied it? I don't mean reading or listening to second-hand information, but actually studied it. Otherwise, there is no point in having this conversation. I am an Islamic sociological scholar, not a right-wing political pundit.

And, no, Šarīʿaẗ is not always bad. The fact that you would say such a thing indicates to me that your information comes primarily from either anti-Islamic sources or right-wing Islamic extremists.

[Pilarcraft]

Certainly. And they don't necessarily support sharia; the ones who do aren't really libertarian.

You are expressing the common Western misunderstanding of Šarīʿaẗ. It translates as path (to God), and it refers to Tawḥīd (Arabic, تَوْحِيد), a word which translates as Unification or Unifying. Tawḥīd refers to a belief in one God. In a very real sense, Tawḥīd is the essence of Islam. Šarīʿaẗ also includes the five pillars of Islam (faith, prayer, charity/tithing, fasting, and pilgrimage).

Beyond that, there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes Šarīʿaẗ. There is currently a culture war going on in the worldwide Muslim community between the conservatives and the modernists. People in both camps justify their positions by referring to the Sacred Texts of Islam.

I study Islam, and I know, and am close friends with, many Muslims. All the ones I know personally are modern, but they strongly believe in the Qurʾân (Arabic, قُرْآن), usually in other texts (depending on the branch of Islam they belong to), and the Šarīʿaẗ.

To be fair, the fractions that argue for a reform within Sharia itself still don't seem to disagree with (or at least call out) the more sketchy stuff in it. Say, Irtidad, Al-zina, and Lawat. All of which are given a death sentence going back to the time of the Prophet himself. You can't really say "some of them aren't as bad" if they still believe in the fourteen major articles of Hudud.

[Cekoviu]

Certainly. And they don't necessarily support sharia; the ones who do aren't really libertarian.

You are expressing the common Western misunderstanding of Šarīʿaẗ. It translates as path (to God), and it refers to Tawḥīd (Arabic, تَوْحِيد), a word which translates as Unification or Unifying. Tawḥīd refers to a belief in one God. In a very real sense, Tawḥīd is the essence of Islam. Šarīʿaẗ also includes the five pillars of Islam (faith, prayer, charity/tithing, fasting, and pilgrimage).

Beyond that, there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes Šarīʿaẗ. There is currently a culture war going on in the worldwide Muslim community between the conservatives and the modernists. People in both camps justify their positions by referring to the Sacred Texts of Islam.

I study Islam, and I know, and am close friends with, many Muslims. All the ones I know personally are modern, but they strongly believe in the Qurʾân (Arabic, قُرْآن), usually in other texts (depending on the branch of Islam they belong to), and the Šarīʿaẗ.

Even if we're only using those five pillars, there's plenty of objectionable content in the concept of tithing in particular. And yet again, you insist on using an academic definition when that's clearly not what anybody is operating on.

I can criticize one thing without accepting another, and Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism aren't always bad, while sharia is.

Have you studied it? I don't mean reading or listening to second-hand information, but actually studied it. Otherwise, there is no point in having this conversation. I am an Islamic sociological scholar, not a right-wing political pundit.

And, no, Šarīʿaẗ is not always bad. The fact that you would say such a thing indicates to me that your information comes primarily from either anti-Islamic sources or right-wing Islamic extremists.

I don't really see the point of you hanging out on an internet forum that isn't designed explicitly for scholars if you aren't willing to have a conversation with somebody who isn't a scholar in the related field.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

"Join Anarchism, it'l be like the stone age." Great marketing campaign."

>missing the point this hard

also:

"Join Libertarianism, it'll be like feudalism but with corporations instead!" :^)

How did I miss the point?

[Cekoviu]

>missing the point this hard

also:

"Join Libertarianism, it'll be like feudalism but with corporations instead!" :^)

How did I miss the point?

There's no such thing as a marketing campaign in the stone age. :^)

[Torrocca]

>missing the point this hard

also:

"Join Libertarianism, it'll be like feudalism but with corporations instead!" :^)

How did I miss the point?

The point wasn't, "hurr durr Anarchism means stone age," it was, "humans naturally have Anarchist tendencies, like non-hierarchies and mutualistic ideals, as evidenced by human history before Capitalism."

[Democratic Communist Federation]

To be fair, the fractions that argue for a reform within Sharia itself still don't seem to disagree with (or at least call out) the more sketchy stuff in it. Say, Irtidad, Al-zina, and Lawat. All of which are given a death sentence going back to the time of the Prophet himself. You can't really say "some of them aren't as bad" if they still believe in the fourteen major articles of Hudud.

Some of the modernists take the same approach to those ordinances that most modern Christians take to Paul's statement, The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says (1 Corinthians 14:34). They contextualize that statement (and others) historically.

Edit: I am literally aware of no Christian church which practices what Paul reportedly said.

There is yet another debate going on right now among conservative Christians: egalitarianism versus complementarianism. The egalitarians argue that women and men are equal in all cases. Any statement made, in the Bible, about one gender applies equally to the other. The complementarians, on the other hand, insist that women and men have complementary, but distinct, roles.

[Geneviev]

Why are you discussing sharia? As in, where did this start?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Remember kids, if you've not studied sharia law as an academic sociologist you can't criticise stonings, beatings, or chopping people's hands off for minor misdemeanours. You can't touch this debate because you JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Now stand by for several more pages of point-avoiding technical quibbles about completely irrelevant minutae that have nothing to do with the world outside of the floating lecture hall at the edge of the universe.

Stop, Professor time!

[Cekoviu]

Remember kids, if you've not studied sharia law as an academic sociologist you can't criticise stonings, beatings, or chopping people's hands off for minor misdemeanours. You can't touch this debate because you JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Now stand by for several more pages of point-avoiding technical quibbles about completely irrelevant minutae that have nothing to do with the world outside of the floating lecture hall at the edge of the universe.

Stop, Professor time!

Does the lecture hall sit at the temporal end or just the physical one? If the former, I'm going to stay; I've always wanted to see the end of all life.

[Cekoviu]

Why are you discussing sharia? As in, where did this start?

here

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Stop, Professor time!

I have as much of a right to put in my two cents as you do.

[Geneviev]

Remember kids, if you've not studied sharia law as an academic sociologist you can't criticise stonings, beatings, or chopping people's hands off for minor misdemeanours. You can't touch this debate because you JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Now stand by for several more pages of point-avoiding technical quibbles about completely irrelevant minutae that have nothing to do with the world outside of the floating lecture hall at the edge of the universe.

Stop, Professor time!

Those are not really the correct sharia law.

[Conserative Morality]

Stop, Professor time!

I have as much of a right to put in my two cents as you do.

Is it your right to not be mocked too?

[Cekoviu]

I have as much of a right to put in my two cents as you do.

Is it your right to not be mocked too?

I heard that's what it says in the First Amendment, so yes?

[Geneviev]

Why are you discussing sharia? As in, where did this start?

here

Goodness. And that became this? Fun.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Is it your right to not be mocked too?

People reveal their own characters, not mine.

[Conserative Morality]

Is it your right to not be mocked too?

People reveal their own characters, not mine.

High quality deepity right there. Deepak Chopra, is that you?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

High quality deepity right there. Deepak Chopra, is that you?

No, he started out as the chief assistant to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of Transcendental Meditation. Then he and Chopra had a fight. I have never practiced that meditation.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Thoughts on Jordan Peterson? I found him pretty annoying on a lot of levels, although it seems left-wingers have a tendency to over-demonize his philosophy, which is mostly the same as YT skepticism, just add lobsters.

People on both sides treat his ideas as much more radical than they are. He's taking advantage of his fame shamelessly for money, but he himself isn't really dumb or radical. Some reviews of his work in psychology journals and his old books seem to imply that he is fairly well respected academically. Never seen any of his stuff so I can't say for sure what I think of him.

[Cekoviu]

Thoughts on Jordan Peterson? I found him pretty annoying on a lot of levels, although it seems left-wingers have a tendency to over-demonize his philosophy, which is mostly the same as YT skepticism, just add lobsters.

People on both sides treat his ideas as much more radical than they are. He's taking advantage of his fame shamelessly for money, but he himself isn't really dumb or radical. Some reviews of his work in psychology journals and his old books seem to imply that he is fairly well respected academically. Never seen any of his stuff so I can't say for sure what I think of him.

Oh, he's certainly respected academically. He also believes in some pseudoscientific BS that should greatly reduce that reputation.

[Great Minarchistan]

how do you think US should balance the budget? military certainly needs to be curtailed, but that still leaves a deficit around 400-500 billion a year.

400-500bn assuming all of it is cut, you won't want China storming through the East Coast.

Current projected deficit is 1100bn, cut 300bn off the military (800bn left), cut medicare and medicaid by 500bn (300bn left) and social security by 300bn (balanced, ta da).

[Arbeitersrepublik]

how do you think US should balance the budget? military certainly needs to be curtailed, but that still leaves a deficit around 400-500 billion a year.

400-500bn assuming all of it is cut, you won't want China storming through the East Coast.

Current projected deficit is 1100bn, cut 300bn off the military (800bn left), cut medicare and medicaid by 500bn (300bn left) and social security by 300bn (balanced, ta da).

Military, corruption, and corporate welfare are the largest contributors to the deficit.