Right Wing Discussion Thread XIII: Do the Right thing

[Sovaal]

That violates freedom of expression.

I don't even care, if it stops folks like you from pushing that garbage it's a fine sacrifice to make. We can make the state sanctioned religions be Christianity, various forms of polytheism and the native religions.

MFW no Pastafariansim?

[Sovaal]

That’s actually his point. Religion and good society don’t correlate, thus religion isn’t a cause of good society.

You can have correlation without causation, you can’t have causation without correlation.

The Amish seem to have a pretty good society going on, last I checked.

I'd like to see them defend it on here.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Religion is important for the society to be healthy, especially when economical conditions of it are going well. Many people, probably the majority, needs the guide in their life and without this guide they try to seek another so they fall into sectarianism, New Age believes or just political ideologies. Or they turn into apathy and nihilism which leads to the decrease of fertility rate, materialism, narcotics and finally to the completely lack of empathy.

But not every religion can bring a healthy society. The most problematic here is Islam in it's current state because, out of many other reasons, they are very ease for sectarianism which with highly admired warrior culture among Arabs leads to what we see in the Middle East. Abolishing the last caliphate was (I'm looking at you, Kemal Paşa), Islam (well, at least it it's Sunni branch) needs a central authority to become acceptable in modern world.

Tbf, I don't think you could have had the Ottoman Caliphate continue to act as the voice of all Muslims with the empire demolished. Even during WWI, it wasn't clear that the Caliph spoke for the Ummah, and if he had, the Arab Revolt would have never become as serious as it was. The only way you could have gotten a caliphate in the modern world and have it be successful would have been if the Hashemites had managed to remain independent and retain control over the Two Mosques.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Religion is important for the society to be healthy, especially when economical conditions of it are going well. Many people, probably the majority, needs the guide in their life and without this guide they try to seek another so they fall into sectarianism, New Age believes or just political ideologies. Or they turn into apathy and nihilism which leads to the decrease of fertility rate, materialism, narcotics and finally to the completely lack of empathy.

But not every religion can bring a healthy society. The most problematic here is Islam in it's current state because, out of many other reasons, they are very ease for sectarianism which with highly admired warrior culture among Arabs leads to what we see in the Middle East. Abolishing the last caliphate was (I'm looking at you, Kemal Paşa), Islam (well, at least it it's Sunni branch) needs a central authority to become acceptable in modern world.

Where are you, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk!? Erdogan will probably transform Turkey into an Iranian Islamic Republic

*Turkish, not Iranian. And insha-Allah, that'll happen

[El-Amin Caliphate]

But not every religion can bring a healthy society. The most problematic here is Islam in it's current state because, out of many other reasons, they are very ease for sectarianism which with highly admired warrior culture among Arabs leads to what we see in the Middle East. Abolishing the last caliphate was (I'm looking at you, Kemal Paşa), Islam (well, at least it it's Sunni branch) needs a central authority to become acceptable in modern world.

That has nothing to do with Al-Islam. That hahas to do with Muslims.

[Fahran]

I'd like to see them defend it on here.

As a regular NSer, I can corroborate that the Amish have a better community than we do.

[Freezic Vast]

I'd like to see them defend it on here.

As a regular NSer, I can corroborate that the Amish have a better community than we do.

Proof that lack of technology makes one community closer and better... nah screw that, I prefer technology.

[Fahran]

Proof that lack of technology makes one community closer and better... nah screw that, I prefer technology.

We just hate ourselves. Why else would we be posting in NS General of all places?

Yes, I'm joking.

[Erdogan in cool sunglasses]

Religion is important for the society to be healthy, especially when economical conditions of it are going well. Many people, probably the majority, needs the guide in their life and without this guide they try to seek another so they fall into sectarianism, New Age believes or just political ideologies. Or they turn into apathy and nihilism which leads to the decrease of fertility rate, materialism, narcotics and finally to the completely lack of empathy.

But not every religion can bring a healthy society. The most problematic here is Islam in it's current state because, out of many other reasons, they are very ease for sectarianism which with highly admired warrior culture among Arabs leads to what we see in the Middle East. Abolishing the last caliphate was (I'm looking at you, Kemal Paşa), Islam (well, at least it it's Sunni branch) needs a central authority to become acceptable in modern world.

Tbf, I don't think you could have had the Ottoman Caliphate continue to act as the voice of all Muslims with the empire demolished. Even during WWI, it wasn't clear that the Caliph spoke for the Ummah, and if he had, the Arab Revolt would have never become as serious as it was. The only way you could have gotten a caliphate in the modern world and have it be successful would have been if the Hashemites had managed to remain independent and retain control over the Two Mosques.

Call for Ummah during the WWI was probably a thing which killed the Caliphate as an idea. At this time Arab nationalism was in power and the call was for the nationalists only a proof that Ottomans only want to use Arabs as a tool. But on the other hand I don't believe in Hashemite Caliphate. First problem is that Turkey is still the strongest country in the Middle East. The second is that Hashemite rule was mostly installed by the foreign powers and there were always the ones who say they are only the local hand of foreign powers. In that atmosphere it was impossible to stay in power without state-organized terror (in Stalin way). But if only the Hashemites would try terror they would loose their religious authority.

Anyway I think the concept of caliphate must evolve a bit to fit the modern times. The king-archpriest model is always destined to fail because kings and dynasties never last eternally. I think rather the Caliph should be more alike Islamic Pope - without hard power but with ability to discredit every imam who is doing against him. But of course that should be a final stage of long-lasting modernization period... In ideal world...

[Tarsonis]

As a regular NSer, I can corroborate that the Amish have a better community than we do.

Proof that lack of technology makes one community closer and better... nah screw that, I prefer technology.

Suffering breeds community. Technology eases suffering.

[Erdogan in cool sunglasses]

But not every religion can bring a healthy society. The most problematic here is Islam in it's current state because, out of many other reasons, they are very ease for sectarianism which with highly admired warrior culture among Arabs leads to what we see in the Middle East. Abolishing the last caliphate was (I'm looking at you, Kemal Paşa), Islam (well, at least it it's Sunni branch) needs a central authority to become acceptable in modern world.

That has nothing to do with Al-Islam. That hahas to do with Muslims.

But the state of Muslims is the effect of state of Islam. Without central authority every Imam can say what he wants and even say that it is written in Quoran. That is a thing which allows some so-called Imams advocate for terrorism. Of course an educated person can always read the Quoran and say that "Imam" is lying. But there are always some uneducated people who will start killing unbelievers...

[United Muscovite Nations]

Tbf, I don't think you could have had the Ottoman Caliphate continue to act as the voice of all Muslims with the empire demolished. Even during WWI, it wasn't clear that the Caliph spoke for the Ummah, and if he had, the Arab Revolt would have never become as serious as it was. The only way you could have gotten a caliphate in the modern world and have it be successful would have been if the Hashemites had managed to remain independent and retain control over the Two Mosques.

Call for Ummah during the WWI was probably a thing which killed the Caliphate as an idea. At this time Arab nationalism was in power and the call was for the nationalists only a proof that Ottomans only want to use Arabs as a tool. But on the other hand I don't believe in Hashemite Caliphate. First problem is that Turkey is still the strongest country in the Middle East. The second is that Hashemite rule was mostly installed by the foreign powers and there were always the ones who say they are only the local hand of foreign powers. In that atmosphere it was impossible to stay in power without state-organized terror (in Stalin way). But if only the Hashemites would try terror they would loose their religious authority.

Anyway I think the concept of caliphate must evolve a bit to fit the modern times. The king-archpriest model is always destined to fail because kings and dynasties never last eternally. I think rather the Caliph should be more alike Islamic Pope - without hard power but with ability to discredit every imam who is doing against him. But of course that should be a final stage of long-lasting modernization period... In ideal world...

Once you had the Young Turk Revolution, the idea of Pan-Islamism within the Ottoman Empire was a failure, and nationalist revolts were quite inevitable, imo. I agree with you that the Hashemites were discredited early, but I was referring to a possibility that such could have been avoided without the Sykes-Picot agreement.

As far as an evolved concept of the Caliphate, I don't think that would really work because the intertwining of secular and religious power, in the form of the Caliphate, was a major tenet of early Islam, and one that has existed for most of its history. Moreover, it's one that many people are nostalgic of because of the defeat of more secularizing movements such as Ba'athism and other Pan-Arab ideologies. I think you'd have to dramatically change Islam for a non-temporal Caliphate to exist. I could be wrong, though.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Call for Ummah during the WWI was probably a thing which killed the Caliphate as an idea. At this time Arab nationalism was in power and the call was for the nationalists only a proof that Ottomans only want to use Arabs as a tool. But on the other hand I don't believe in Hashemite Caliphate. First problem is that Turkey is still the strongest country in the Middle East. The second is that Hashemite rule was mostly installed by the foreign powers and there were always the ones who say they are only the local hand of foreign powers. In that atmosphere it was impossible to stay in power without state-organized terror (in Stalin way). But if only the Hashemites would try terror they would loose their religious authority.

Anyway I think the concept of caliphate must evolve a bit to fit the modern times. The king-archpriest model is always destined to fail because kings and dynasties never last eternally. I think rather the Caliph should be more alike Islamic Pope - without hard power but with ability to discredit every imam who is doing against him. But of course that should be a final stage of long-lasting modernization period... In ideal world...

Once you had the Young Turk Revolution, the idea of Pan-Islamism within the Ottoman Empire was a failure, and nationalist revolts were quite inevitable, imo. I agree with you that the Hashemites were discredited early, but I was referring to a possibility that such could have been avoided without the Sykes-Picot agreement.

As far as an evolved concept of the Caliphate, I don't think that would really work because the intertwining of secular and religious power, in the form of the Caliphate, was a major tenet of early Islam, and one that has existed for most of its history. Moreover, it's one that many people are nostalgic of because of the defeat of more secularizing movements such as Ba'athism and other Pan-Arab ideologies. I think you'd have to dramatically change Islam for a non-temporal Caliphate to exist. I could be wrong, though.

You're correct. It's not a Khilafah if the Khalifah is secular or only a religious symbol.

[Herskerstad]

That has nothing to do with Al-Islam. That hahas to do with Muslims.

But the state of Muslims is the effect of state of Islam. Without central authority every Imam can say what he wants and even say that it is written in Quoran. That is a thing which allows some so-called Imams advocate for terrorism. Of course an educated person can always read the Quoran and say that "Imam" is lying. But there are always some uneducated people who will start killing unbelievers...

In fairness what we know from the earliest annals of Islamic warfare, even among Muhammad and the five early caliphs, does not exactly set a glowing precedence for humanitarian standards in warfare.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

But the state of Muslims is the effect of state of Islam. Without central authority every Imam can say what he wants and even say that it is written in Quoran. That is a thing which allows some so-called Imams advocate for terrorism. Of course an educated person can always read the Quoran and say that "Imam" is lying. But there are always some uneducated people who will start killing unbelievers...

In fairness what we know from the earliest annals of Islamic warfare, even among Muhammad and the five early caliphs, does not exactly set a glowing precedence for humanitarian standards in warfare.

Don't talk about Al-Islam if you don't know it.

[Old Tyrannia]

In fairness what we know from the earliest annals of Islamic warfare, even among Muhammad and the five early caliphs, does not exactly set a glowing precedence for humanitarian standards in warfare.

Don't talk about Al-Islam if you don't know it.

I know that you think peppering your posts with untranslated Arabic terms unnecessarily makes you NSG's definitive expert on Islam, but surprisingly, you can't get away with deflecting criticism of your religion just by insisting that anyone who criticises it doesn't know what they're talking about.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Don't talk about Al-Islam if you don't know it.

I know that you think peppering your posts with untranslated Arabic terms unnecessarily makes you NSG's definitive expert on Islam

Says who? Who told you that I think that and why not check that assumption with me before assuming it's true?

[Old Tyrannia]

I know that you think peppering your posts with untranslated Arabic terms unnecessarily makes you NSG's definitive expert on Islam

Says who? Who told you that I think that and why not check that assumption with me before assuming it's true?

I know it because it's patently obvious and I didn't check the assumption with you because I knew you would deny it.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Says who? Who told you that I think that and why not check that assumption with me before assuming it's true?

I know it because it's patently obvious and I didn't check the assumption with you because I knew you would deny it.

Well I don't. I just like using Arabic. Is that a problem?

[Herskerstad]

I know it because it's patently obvious and I didn't check the assumption with you because I knew you would deny it.

Well I don't. I just like using Arabic. Is that a problem?

Kanskje, det gjør det unødvendig vanskelige å forstå hva en prøver og si, samt det beviser intet mer av ens evne til kommunisere ens kunnskap,som er hele grunnen til at NS fungerer hovedsaklig ved et felles språk.

[Old Tyrannia]

I know it because it's patently obvious and I didn't check the assumption with you because I knew you would deny it.

Well I don't.

Like I said, I knew you would deny it.

I just like using Arabic. Is that a problem?

I can't stop you from doing it but it is annoying and pointless.

[Tarsonis]

That’s actually his point. Religion and good society don’t correlate, thus religion isn’t a cause of good society.

You can have correlation without causation, you can’t have causation without correlation.

The Amish seem to have a pretty good society going on, last I checked.

That's a deflection. Just because Religious societies can be good and moral, doesn't mean the non religious societies can't, at least in the matter that is typically asserted. There is no causal correlative to support the assertion that Religions are necessary for a moral society.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Amish seem to have a pretty good society going on, last I checked.

That's a deflection. Just because Religious societies can be good and moral, doesn't mean the non religious societies can't, at least in the matter that is typically asserted. There is no causal correlative to support the assertion that Religions are necessary for a moral society.

I'm not sure I would agree, in many non-religious societies we see such things as higher rates of abortion, higher murder rates, and higher suicide rates as compared to many more religious states (at least comparing Western Europe to the Middle East).

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Well I don't.

Like I said, I knew you would deny it.

Yeah, I deny what isn't true about me. Speaking another language has nothing to do with arrogance.

I can't stop you from doing it

Then why even reply?

Well I don't. I just like using Arabic. Is that a problem?

Kanskje, det gjør det unødvendig vanskelige å forstå hva en prøver og si, samt det beviser intet mer av ens evne til kommunisere ens kunnskap,som er hele grunnen til at NS fungerer hovedsaklig ved et felles språk.

Sí, y por eso, yo traduzco mis frases arabes a Español a veces.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

but it is annoying and pointless.

To who?