The Problem about [Radical] Islam (especially to Turks)

[Aber Antarctica]

"...While I appreciate that these topics can elicit strong emotions..."

(sigh) Understatement of the goddamn century...

[The Libyan Arab Republic]

Funny thing about Radical Islam, it's always funded by either Saudi Arabia or the dirty dogs who stole Persia and called it Iran. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram are funded by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Hamas and Hezbollah is funded by Shia Iran. You can go research it for yourself.

[The Libyan Arab Republic]

The rise of Islam has contributed to the persecution, enslavement and genocide of non-Muslim infidels beginning in the 7th century. As a non-Muslim, I have a huge problem with that.

Do you have a problem with the rise of Christianity, which has also contributed to the persecution, enslavement and genocide of non-Christians beginning in the first or second century?

There is no room for true equality or coexistence in Islam. You either submit or you die.

Considering how well Muslims have integrated in the US, and the fact that the far-right (almost always Christians, never Muslims) are far more dangerous than them here in the states, I think you're wrong.

I WILL NOT SUBMIT. I will NEVER accept dhimmitude or annihilation.

Fortunately those are not the two options in ragards to Islam in general, just the extremist variants.

Bro, you seem like a supporter for the Government's actions in Waco because of that Christian comment.

[Syndicasia]

Do you think religion and communism are compatible? For the sake of this thread, Islam and Communism. Do you think Islam and Communism are compatible?

Not in the slightest. And it is not just me; Nikolai Bukharin outlined such best in his ABC of Communism, but so too did Lenin and Marx in many of their works. Moreover, even some Christians openly say that Christianity and Communism are incompatible (in an analysis I agree with).

Here's an excerpt from a Christian website:

Marxism is ultimately about material things; Christianity is ultimately about spiritual things. Frederick Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, said that Marx’s greatest insight was that “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like” (“Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883, transcribed by Mike Lepore). In other words, Marxism seeks to meet the physical needs of man and posits that, until those needs are met, man is incapable of any aspirations higher than an animal-like existence. Jesus taught, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? . . . Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:26, 33). Marx taught, “Seek first man’s kingdom and the stuff of this world.” Jesus’ words are the antithesis of communism and Marxism, and it’s one reason why Karl Marx reviled Christianity.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Marxism-Christian.html

Christianity, of course, is an example, and it is interesting to note Christians giving a formula that Marxism would agree with, though this formula very much is generalized to all religions.

This is what Nikolai Bukharin, a leading Bolshevik for decades, had to say:

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature. But it is profitable to the predatory class to maintain the ignorance of the people and to maintain the people's childish belief in miracles (the key to the riddle really lies in the exploiters' pockets), and this is why religious prejudices are so tenacious, and why they confuse the minds even of persons who are in other respects able.

The general happenings throughout nature are, moreover, in no wise dependent upon supernatural causes. Man has been extremely successful in the struggle with nature. He influences nature in his own interests, and controls natural forces, achieving these conquests, not thanks to his faith in God and in divine assistance, but in spite of this faith. He achieves his conquests thanks to the fact that in practical life and in all serious matters he invariably conducts himself as an atheist. Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

I see no reason for why this need not apply to Islam.

[Hutsuls]

Do you think religion and communism are compatible? For the sake of this thread, Islam and Communism. Do you think Islam and Communism are compatible?

Not in the slightest. And it is not just me; Nikolai Bukharin outlined such best in his ABC of Communism, but so too did Lenin and Marx in many of their works. Moreover, even some Christians openly say that Christianity and Communism are incompatible (in an analysis I agree with).

Here's an excerpt from a Christian website:

Marxism is ultimately about material things; Christianity is ultimately about spiritual things. Frederick Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, said that Marx’s greatest insight was that “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like” (“Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883, transcribed by Mike Lepore). In other words, Marxism seeks to meet the physical needs of man and posits that, until those needs are met, man is incapable of any aspirations higher than an animal-like existence. Jesus taught, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? . . . Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:26, 33). Marx taught, “Seek first man’s kingdom and the stuff of this world.” Jesus’ words are the antithesis of communism and Marxism, and it’s one reason why Karl Marx reviled Christianity.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Marxism-Christian.html

Christianity, of course, is an example, and it is interesting to note Christians giving a formula that Marxism would agree with, though this formula very much is generalized to all religions.

This is what Nikolai Bukharin, a leading Bolshevik for decades, had to say:

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature. But it is profitable to the predatory class to maintain the ignorance of the people and to maintain the people's childish belief in miracles (the key to the riddle really lies in the exploiters' pockets), and this is why religious prejudices are so tenacious, and why they confuse the minds even of persons who are in other respects able.

The general happenings throughout nature are, moreover, in no wise dependent upon supernatural causes. Man has been extremely successful in the struggle with nature. He influences nature in his own interests, and controls natural forces, achieving these conquests, not thanks to his faith in God and in divine assistance, but in spite of this faith. He achieves his conquests thanks to the fact that in practical life and in all serious matters he invariably conducts himself as an atheist. Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

I see no reason for why this need not apply to Islam.

Haven’t you heard about Religious Communism?

[Aber Antarctica]

Not in the slightest. And it is not just me; Nikolai Bukharin outlined such best in his ABC of Communism, but so too did Lenin and Marx in many of their works. Moreover, even some Christians openly say that Christianity and Communism are incompatible (in an analysis I agree with).

Here's an excerpt from a Christian website:

Marxism is ultimately about material things; Christianity is ultimately about spiritual things. Frederick Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, said that Marx’s greatest insight was that “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like” (“Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883, transcribed by Mike Lepore). In other words, Marxism seeks to meet the physical needs of man and posits that, until those needs are met, man is incapable of any aspirations higher than an animal-like existence. Jesus taught, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? . . . Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:26, 33). Marx taught, “Seek first man’s kingdom and the stuff of this world.” Jesus’ words are the antithesis of communism and Marxism, and it’s one reason why Karl Marx reviled Christianity.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Marxism-Christian.html

Christianity, of course, is an example, and it is interesting to note Christians giving a formula that Marxism would agree with, though this formula very much is generalized to all religions.

This is what Nikolai Bukharin, a leading Bolshevik for decades, had to say:

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature. But it is profitable to the predatory class to maintain the ignorance of the people and to maintain the people's childish belief in miracles (the key to the riddle really lies in the exploiters' pockets), and this is why religious prejudices are so tenacious, and why they confuse the minds even of persons who are in other respects able.

The general happenings throughout nature are, moreover, in no wise dependent upon supernatural causes. Man has been extremely successful in the struggle with nature. He influences nature in his own interests, and controls natural forces, achieving these conquests, not thanks to his faith in God and in divine assistance, but in spite of this faith. He achieves his conquests thanks to the fact that in practical life and in all serious matters he invariably conducts himself as an atheist. Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

I see no reason for why this need not apply to Islam.

Haven’t you heard about Religious Communism?

Quite an oxymoron, unfortunately.

Now, this is the type of shit I'm passionate about (EXTREMELY so), but unfortunately for me, United Calanworie probably has me at arm's reach for potential ass-whoopings (possible punishment/penalties) as a result of the last time I got too passionate about this. So...can't go too into depth.

What I will say? A moralistic faith, being compatible with a materialist political group filled with folks that couldn't give a damn about morals? You guess just how compatible it is.

[El Lazaro]

Haven’t you heard about Religious Communism?

Quite an oxymoron, unfortunately.

Now, this is the type of shit I'm passionate about (EXTREMELY so), but unfortunately for me, United Calanworie probably has me at arm's reach for potential ass-whoopings (possible punishment/penalties) as a result of the last time I got too passionate about this. So...can't go too into depth.

What I will say? A moralistic faith, being compatible with a materialist political group filled with folks that couldn't give a damn about morals? You guess just how compatible it is.

Marxists really act like they’re the only communists who have ever existed when they’re really just the most bloodthirsty.

[Aber Antarctica]

Quite an oxymoron, unfortunately.

Now, this is the type of shit I'm passionate about (EXTREMELY so), but unfortunately for me, United Calanworie probably has me at arm's reach for potential ass-whoopings (possible punishment/penalties) as a result of the last time I got too passionate about this. So...can't go too into depth.

What I will say? A moralistic faith, being compatible with a materialist political group filled with folks that couldn't give a damn about morals? You guess just how compatible it is.

Marxists really act like they’re the only communists who have ever existed when they’re really just the most bloodthirsty.

Unfortunately, a lot of kids in the West these days vouch for them. Hell, a lot of people post WWII in the West vouched for them. These double-standards are why we're still dealing with China and North Korea. Why it didn't take outside influences, but people within, after almost half a decade or so of Soviet-&-puppet/ally rule in most places, to finally demonstrate that they had enough for the BS. No Nuremburg-style trials for all the bullshit the Eastern Bloc and their allies did. No sirey. Apparently, when you defeat an objective villian in a Wold War, it's basically an infinite get-out-of-jail-free card for crimes against humanity.

[El Lazaro]

Marxists really act like they’re the only communists who have ever existed when they’re really just the most bloodthirsty.

Unfortunately, a lot of kids in the West these days vouch for them. Hell, a lot of people post WWII in the West vouched for them. These double-standards are why we're still dealing with China and North Korea. Why it didn't take outside influences, but people within, after almost half a decade or so of Soviet-&-puppet/ally rule in most places, to finally demonstrate that they had enough for the BS. No Nuremburg-style trials for all the bullshit the Eastern Bloc and their allies did. No sirey. Apparently, when you defeat an objective villian in a Wold War, it's basically an infinite get-out-of-jail-free card for crimes against humanity.

Oh, I thought you were one of them. In that case, I would like to say that communism is not inherently Marxist.

[Syndicasia]

Haven’t you heard about Religious Communism?

Such philosophies are syntheses that are greatly erroneous and omit some fundamental part of either communist doctrine or religious doctrine. If something is socialism and not rooted in materialism, it is a form of utopian socialism at best.

Regardless, here is what was said about morality:

But is there such a thing as communist ethics? Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course, there is. It is often suggested that we have no ethics of our own; very often the bourgeoisie accuse us Communists of rejecting all morality. This is a method of confusing the issue, of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and peasants.

In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?

In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God's commandments. On this point we, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of God so as to further their own interests as exploiters. Or, instead of basing ethics on the commandments of morality, on the commandments of God, they based it on idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God's commandments.

We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is deception, dupery, stultification of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists.

We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.

The old society was based on the oppression of all the workers and peasants by the landowners and capitalists. We had to destroy all that, and overthrow them but to do that we had to create unity. That is something that God cannot create.

This unity could be provided only by the factories, only by a proletariat trained and roused from its long slumber. Only when that class was formed did a mass movement arise which has led to what we have now -- the victory of the proletarian revolution in one of the weakest of countries, which for three years has been repelling the onslaught of the bourgeoisie of the whole world. We can see how the proletarian revolution is developing all over the world. On the basis of experience, we now say that only the proletariat could have created the solid force which the disunited and scattered peasantry are following and which has withstood all onslaughts by the exploiters. Only this class can help the working masses unite, rally their ranks and conclusively defend, conclusively consolidate and conclusively build up a communist society.

That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society; that is a fraud. To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... oct/02.htm

[Aber Antarctica]

Not in the slightest. And it is not just me; Nikolai Bukharin outlined such best in his ABC of Communism, but so too did Lenin and Marx in many of their works. Moreover, even some Christians openly say that Christianity and Communism are incompatible (in an analysis I agree with).

Here's an excerpt from a Christian website:

Marxism is ultimately about material things; Christianity is ultimately about spiritual things. Frederick Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, said that Marx’s greatest insight was that “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like” (“Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883, transcribed by Mike Lepore). In other words, Marxism seeks to meet the physical needs of man and posits that, until those needs are met, man is incapable of any aspirations higher than an animal-like existence. Jesus taught, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? . . . Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:26, 33). Marx taught, “Seek first man’s kingdom and the stuff of this world.” Jesus’ words are the antithesis of communism and Marxism, and it’s one reason why Karl Marx reviled Christianity.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Marxism-Christian.html

Christianity, of course, is an example, and it is interesting to note Christians giving a formula that Marxism would agree with, though this formula very much is generalized to all religions.

This is what Nikolai Bukharin, a leading Bolshevik for decades, had to say:

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature. But it is profitable to the predatory class to maintain the ignorance of the people and to maintain the people's childish belief in miracles (the key to the riddle really lies in the exploiters' pockets), and this is why religious prejudices are so tenacious, and why they confuse the minds even of persons who are in other respects able.

The general happenings throughout nature are, moreover, in no wise dependent upon supernatural causes. Man has been extremely successful in the struggle with nature. He influences nature in his own interests, and controls natural forces, achieving these conquests, not thanks to his faith in God and in divine assistance, but in spite of this faith. He achieves his conquests thanks to the fact that in practical life and in all serious matters he invariably conducts himself as an atheist. Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

I see no reason for why this need not apply to Islam.

Haven’t you heard about Religious Communism?

Leftists, especially far-leftists see religion as a virus, disease, and plague. And for them, how better than to get virus/disease/plague than to first destroy what carries/contains it?
For them, to get rid of religion and anything even remotely close to it, they'll have to get rid of the practitoners/followers themselves -- something which they've tried to do multiple times. Like...
MULTIPLE times...
...to some degree or another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reli ... _Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... aign_(1921–1928)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... aign_(1928–1941)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... aign_(1958–1964)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... ign_(1970s–1987)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Reli ... st_Romania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antirelig ... s_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... rary_views
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#Religion

[Syndicasia]

Where's that dude with "American Imperialist" in his signature?
He was fun to talk to, despite our obviously many differences. And he was the person I was talking to.

[Western European Khilafat]

Where's that dude with "American Imperialist" in his signature?
He was fun to talk to, despite our obviously many differences. And he was the person I was talking to.

North Seleucia...iirc?

[Northern Seleucia]

Do you think religion and communism are compatible? For the sake of this thread, Islam and Communism. Do you think Islam and Communism are compatible?

Not in the slightest. And it is not just me; Nikolai Bukharin outlined such best in his ABC of Communism, but so too did Lenin and Marx in many of their works. Moreover, even some Christians openly say that Christianity and Communism are incompatible (in an analysis I agree with).

Here's an excerpt from a Christian website:

Marxism is ultimately about material things; Christianity is ultimately about spiritual things. Frederick Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, said that Marx’s greatest insight was that “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like” (“Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883, transcribed by Mike Lepore). In other words, Marxism seeks to meet the physical needs of man and posits that, until those needs are met, man is incapable of any aspirations higher than an animal-like existence. Jesus taught, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? . . . Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:26, 33). Marx taught, “Seek first man’s kingdom and the stuff of this world.” Jesus’ words are the antithesis of communism and Marxism, and it’s one reason why Karl Marx reviled Christianity.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Marxism-Christian.html

Christianity, of course, is an example, and it is interesting to note Christians giving a formula that Marxism would agree with, though this formula very much is generalized to all religions.

This is what Nikolai Bukharin, a leading Bolshevik for decades, had to say:

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature. But it is profitable to the predatory class to maintain the ignorance of the people and to maintain the people's childish belief in miracles (the key to the riddle really lies in the exploiters' pockets), and this is why religious prejudices are so tenacious, and why they confuse the minds even of persons who are in other respects able.

The general happenings throughout nature are, moreover, in no wise dependent upon supernatural causes. Man has been extremely successful in the struggle with nature. He influences nature in his own interests, and controls natural forces, achieving these conquests, not thanks to his faith in God and in divine assistance, but in spite of this faith. He achieves his conquests thanks to the fact that in practical life and in all serious matters he invariably conducts himself as an atheist. Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

I see no reason for why this need not apply to Islam.

I see. I knew for certain about Christianity and Communism, but I wanted your take on the whole thing, particularly Islam.

[Northern Seleucia]

Where's that dude with "American Imperialist" in his signature?
He was fun to talk to, despite our obviously many differences. And he was the person I was talking to.

Here I am, I was at university, and I have classes day and night so I was gone and then I crashed and fell asleep as soon as I went to my dorm lmao. But yeah, I'm back.

---

Where's that dude with "American Imperialist" in his signature?
He was fun to talk to, despite our obviously many differences. And he was the person I was talking to.

North Seleucia...iirc?

Yessir

[Syndicasia]

I see. I knew for certain about Christianity and Communism, but I wanted your take on the whole thing, particularly Islam.

Well I hope my answer clarified

[Northern Seleucia]

I see. I knew for certain about Christianity and Communism, but I wanted your take on the whole thing, particularly Islam.

Well I hope my answer clarified

Certainly. How would you, theoretically, get a legitimate communist movement in a country like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where religion is so interwoven in daily life and culture?

[Nightralia]

Syndicasia, this probably isn't the best place for it, and I won't post more on this to not rile the mods, but what would you suggest would be the possible way that India could turn to a more socialist path in the near future? because currently the view among most is that India had a socialism experiment in the past (fabian socialism era from 1947 to 1991) which failed miserably and really hurt India economically and even geopolitically, as it had a really tense relationship with the US, almost being attacked by them once. and then the 1991 free market reforms have demonstrably boosted the standards of living in India a lot, and many states are close to reaching high middle income status (a couple are already there), although inequality has increased too, generally the 'rising tide' has worked, although it seemed to be slowing down in 2019 and then covid hit.

also despite the goodwill the USSR had (and has) in India, communist parties have really fallen hard, and there's also the fact that they ruined West Bengal's economy. Fron being the third largest party and holding power in 4+ states, they've been reduced to just one. plus the maoist uprising has alienated millions too, especially in rural areas and the eastern states (jharkhand, odisha, bihar, chattisgarh) despite them being the most impoverished, the naxals have given communism a bad name. so has chinese aggression and north korean despotism despite both being closer to fascism then communism.

generally, communism is seen as the past in India, and capitalism as the future. what could possibly change, while still not compromising economic growth?


kay, I'll get back to topic.
Western Europe Khilafat, you're Bangladeshi origin right? What do you think would have happened if by some miracle the Pakistani military accepted the 1970 election results, and West Pakistan went to the socialist PPP and East to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Would have been interesting to see a socialist Pakistan and a genocide free Bangladesh evolve, if somehow it evolved into an equal federation. Probably the US gets very angry and the USSR is overjoyed. whole Taliban thing never arises and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan might not even happen.

...or again the US could ruin it all with a coup and assassination.

[La Xinga]

Talmudic Judaism is very different from Biblical Judaism.

It's not everyday some Yeshma'eli pretends to be a Talmudic scholar.

[Western European Khilafat]

Western Europe Khilafat, you're Bangladeshi origin right? What do you think would have happened if by some miracle the Pakistani military accepted the 1970 election results, and West Pakistan went to the socialist PPP and East to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Would have been interesting to see a socialist Pakistan and a genocide free Bangladesh Lemme just put east pakistan here instead evolve, if somehow it evolved into an equal federation. Probably the US gets very angry and the USSR is overjoyed. whole Taliban thing never arises and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan might not even happen.

...or again the US could ruin it all with a coup and assassination.

Us probably ruins it just to get the upper hand on "commies!!!111!"
I doubt it still would last very long because being given the Canada treatment by India (literally bearhugged except for the sea and 200km with Myanmar) would, 1, make it hard for resources to go either way, and Bengal as a linguistic and ethnic region is more pluralist, so that could go wildly both ways.
Taliban thing...I doubt that has much connection to 1971, i think it was mainly Pashtun nationalism from what I've read.

[United Greater Seljuk State]

Leftists, especially far-leftists see religion as a virus, disease, and plague. And for them, how better than to get virus/disease/plague than to first destroy what carries/contains it?
For them, to get rid of religion and anything even remotely close to it, they'll have to get rid of the practitoners/followers themselves -- something which they've tried to do multiple times. Like...
MULTIPLE times...
...to some degree or another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reli ... _Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... aign_(1921–1928)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... aign_(1928–1941)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... aign_(1958–1964)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti ... ign_(1970s–1987)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Reli ... st_Romania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antirelig ... s_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... rary_views
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#Religion

But I don't. And yes I'm far, FAR-leftist.

---

Not a huge fan of Turkey. If they can topple Erdogan, embrace democracy, reject radical Islam, stop hating on Israel and stop committing genocide against the Kurds and Armenians, then maybe my opinion of Turkey will improve. Until then, it's just another racist Muslim country ruled by an Islamofascist dictator.

Finally.

But don't expect us to combat RADICAL Islam via «criticizing» it by burning Kur'an. Yes, we will close down ANY cults and religious organizations (aka tarikat/lar), and also crack down on religious p3d0ph1l1a and discrimination against women/LGBTQ/Non-Muslims. BTW I have agnostic and atheist friends from school and they face ZERO discrimination/conversion attempts here.

Onto the topic of Kurds and Armenians... For Kurds, yes, we may have commited bad things but because t3rr0r1st PKK g3noc1ded more than 40k Turks, including children and women teachers (they weren't even covered with hijab, imagine killing Turkish women while shouting «women rights»). We will grant them their right to speak Kurdish (and political representation) but only when they reject the terrorist Ocalan and PKK/YPG.

For Armenians... Apart from 1915 relocation events (I'm not ignoring the fact that innocent Armenians died), they claim our brother's (Azerbaijan) land (Karabagh) and our land (Eastern Anatolia). Maybe when they demolish their memorials to literal Nazi collaboraters and Dashnak/ASALA terrorists, we will try to reconcile. But please no «genocide». We would never do that bad things, and why do you need to tarnish our historical reputation and make a Turkophobic generation from the Turkish youth? (The «ending denial» and «making a collective guilt amongst the [s*bhuman barbarian proto-Nazi Mongoloid Quasi-Arabs] Turks [whose favourite free-time activity is genociding and killing, they genocided the poor genocide so hard that no-one can commit genocides now]» thing)

*Psssssst... I'm waiting for you to quote me...

[Technoscience Leftwing]

* I think that religion can only give a monastic parody of communism, with equality in poverty and excessive suppression of physical needs.
* Of course, in the early stages of religions there were ideas of egalitarianism, rebellion against the masters, charity, and cosmopolitanism. And on the basis of these ideas, plebeian rebellious heresies arose. For example, the Munster Commune during the Peasants' War in Germany, or Mazdakism in Iran.
* But communism is not limited to this humanitarian superstructure. To prevent equality from turning into "equality in poverty" and discipline from acquiring a monastic-ascetic character, two more things are needed. 1. The idea of ​​transforming nature with the help of technology: industrialization, urbanization, automation. 2. Rehabilitation of carnal, bodily, earthly, sensual needs. The rejection of hedonophobia and "mortification of the flesh" in favor of hedonism, utilitarianism, and earthly comfort. These two ideas were developed in secular materialist versions of communism, particularly Marxism.

[Kaumudeen]

Funny thing about Radical Islam, it's always funded by either Saudi Arabia or the dirty dogs who stole Persia and called it Iran. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram are funded by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Hamas and Hezbollah is funded by Shia Iran. You can go research it for yourself.

Iran was called Persia by outsiders, the locals have always called it Iran. It formally changed its name internationally to Iran in 1935, decades before the revolution.

[Perishna]

Funny thing about Radical Islam, it's always funded by either Saudi Arabia or the dirty dogs who stole Persia and called it Iran. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram are funded by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Hamas and Hezbollah is funded by Shia Iran. You can go research it for yourself.

Iran was called Persia by outsiders, the locals have always called it Iran. It formally changed its name internationally to Iran in 1935, decades before the revolution.

Its usually pronounced as “Erān” in Farsi
Etymology:
“Er” (meaning: Aryan (no not the germans))
“-ān” (grammar: indicating plural genitive)
Meaning of Eran/Iran:
[Land] of the Aryans/Iranians

This word comes from Middle Persian where arabic influence was minimal.
Also, jews and christians even helped the muslims with taking over Zoroasterian Iran who prosecuted them and buddhists for “being with the evil”.

[United Greater Seljuk State]

* I think that religion can only give a monastic parody of communism, with equality in poverty and excessive suppression of physical needs.
* Of course, in the early stages of religions there were ideas of egalitarianism, rebellion against the masters, charity, and cosmopolitanism. And on the basis of these ideas, plebeian rebellious heresies arose. For example, the Munster Commune during the Peasants' War in Germany, or Mazdakism in Iran.
* But communism is not limited to this humanitarian superstructure. To prevent equality from turning into "equality in poverty" and discipline from acquiring a monastic-ascetic character, two more things are needed. 1. The idea of ​​transforming nature with the help of technology: industrialization, urbanization, automation. 2. Rehabilitation of carnal, bodily, earthly, sensual needs. The rejection of hedonophobia and "mortification of the flesh" in favor of hedonism, utilitarianism, and earthly comfort. These two ideas were developed in secular materialist versions of communism, particularly Marxism.

Yes. But I'm not highly religious to the P4l3st1ne/H4ma$/H3zb0ll4h/(Insert extremely Islamic t3rr0r1st organization name here) supporting level. I'm only a cultural and ethical Muslim (apart from fasting and some prayers), which doesn't make me highly phobic of other religions/atheisms/belief systems. But turning a majority Muslim (like 80-90%) country into an atheist/Islamophobic hellhole and declaring an [un]holy crusade against it (just like the LM wants) is bad. Instead, we could balance the laws so no-one gets a supermajority and an 60-65% Muslim, 25 percent other Abrahamic religions, 5 percent paganism/shamanism/Buddhism (and other things like it) and 5 percent atheism, with none of them having power to initiate destruction/pogroms etc. to others (e.g. burning Qur'an/Bible/Torah, blaming Islam/Christianity/Judaism with p3d0ph1l1a, desecrating places of worship/gathering etc etc.) or blame each other with p3d0ph1l1a and t3rr0r1sm (as I said, ALL religions). And please don't forget banning secret reigious cults (aka tarikat). (The above is my plan for pacifying a Muslim majority country.)

And where is the 'Murican inperialist Christoevangelist Lenin+Tito+Islam+Turkness (last one being PROBABLY) hating comrade?