| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Secularism vs Islamism
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Secularism vs Islamism

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 20 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Secularism vs Islamism
    Posted: 30 Nov 2011 at 07:33
I get the impression that in many Muslim-majority countries there is a rivalry between people who want a secular state like in most European nations, and those who want an Islamic state with laws based on the Koran.
With regards to the latest elections in Tunisia, Morocco and the constitutional draft in Lybia, it seems like that the Islamists are the majority in these countries.

However, most of the Moroccans and Tunisians that I've personally known are rather secular, and claim that most of the younger generation in their countries desire to live a western lifestyle with greater personal freedom with less taboos.

Could anyone highlight about the real situation in these countries?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2011 at 14:16
There isn't a rively on anything but power. History tells us that the first thing Islamists will do is to break the same laws they want to impose. Secularists aren't that different either, their version of secularism is closer to atheism (that is banning all religious practices) than true secularism.
 
Why people elected Islamists? Well one must look at a country by country basis to find out but generally you are talking about nations with +30% illiteracy rates, high unemployment and basically failed states on everything from economics to social welfare. These countries have been ruled for decades by a secular militaristic elite that itself comes from the old elite class before independence. Islamists (communists who by the way suffered as much as Islamists during the dictatorships if not worse) were the representative of the declining middle class and during certain times (especially in Egypt) the state had a defacto alliance with them to counter the socialist/communist/trade unionist threat. Before the revolution in Egypt the brotherhood was defacto a state within a state despite being officially banned. The government destroyed all opposition to it except the brotherhood partly to fill in government roles in the countryside and poor areas and partly to milk the western countries on the basis of an "Islamic threat".
 
Now back to the elections and the revolutions in general. During the revolution not a single Islamist slogan was shouted, not a single Islamist party declared its intent on an Islamic state. This also happened during the elections. People want jobs, a welfare state and good education and not waste time on matters that are already controversial within Islamic jurispudence. Plus if the elections proved anything they proved that Islamists don't have the power they once claimed. In Tunisia more than 60% of the people voted for seculairst parties and Nahdah itself is full of secularists. Same percentage was in Morocco which has the worst illiteracy rates in the Arab world and despite the boycotte of several very influential secular groups.
 
If Islamist parties were ture to their democratic committments then the situation will be more of a US type situation (where the christian right is the largest group) influencing elections but not winning them.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 20 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2011 at 07:41
Thanx for the resume.

In countries like Tunisia where there has been a very long secular tradition, are secular Tunisians worried about the posible rise of an Islamic republic? Are they worried that their secular lifestyle could possible come to an end like in Iran after the 1979 revolution?
What about Lybia?

In Egypt, apart from the secular Muslim population there is also a large Christian minority, how do they see the rise of the Muslim brotherhood?


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2011 at 13:54
Not to be cynical, but within a political milieu all active groups will "break" their original promises with respect to idealized constructs on equity that brought them into being. It's the nature of the beast, specially if the process carries the traits of the revolutionary. After all, once power is achieved it corrupts! Elsewhere, I have rendered my objections to the bastardization of the term Islamist and here I will raise the caution that to broadly sketch the term as a multi-national phenomenon risks full misinterpretation given the fact that regional criteria are markedly different within the historical horizon. In each of the states in question one has to recognize the interaction of centripetal and centrifugal forces against the background of modernity and the accepted institutions of the society. Study the history of the Ba'ath in Syria to grasp this connundrum.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 08:16
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

I get the impression that in many Muslim-majority countries there is a rivalry between people who want a secular state like in most European nations, and those who want an Islamic state with laws based on the Koran.

Although we hear a lot about the secular stream in Arabic countries, they're actually a tiny minority, as recent events are demonstrating. Perhaps the media and the governments in the West would like us to believe they are prominent, but in reality they simply are not.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

With regards to the latest elections in Tunisia, Morocco and the constitutional draft in Lybia, it seems like that the Islamists are the majority in these countries.

The vast majority of the people are Muslims, and relative to most other religions, Muslims tend to be a lot more committed to their religion on the whole. So this is really no surprise.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

However, most of the Moroccans and Tunisians that I've personally known are rather secular, and claim that most of the younger generation in their countries desire to live a western lifestyle with greater personal freedom with less taboos.

I'm guessing that you live in a Western country, where people from those regions have migrated to. This probably says more about the people who wanted to migrate there, than it does about the inhabitants of those countries as a whole.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Could anyone highlight about the real situation in these countries?

I've never been to any of those countries, but I have spent a good deal of time in Egypt, and know several people from those countries.

I think the real situation in those countries is still somewhat clouded, but the elections do tend to suggest the people overwhelmingly want a lot more Islam in their lives. This may partially be a reaction to the previously enforced secularism of the dictators Ben Ali, Qadhafi, Mubarak etc, like what happened in Russia after the fall of the USSR, or it may well reflect the actual situation on the ground. I'd suggest a bit of both, but I think it's more loaded towards the people wanting Islam more in their lives,
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 14:32
Islam should be controlled in the Islamic countries with the same chains we control the disease of Christianity in the Western countries.

Religion is a mental illness that must be controlled to avoid it interfieres with the public life, and the liberties of the population. If someone wants to believe in God, in the eye curse or reencarnation, or in anything, let it do it, but forbide religion to grab political power, or to dictate the science curricula at schools.


Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 14:45
That's your opinion and you're quite welcome to call for it in your country, the Islamic world is a different kettle of fish though.

Islam will inevitably have a great deal of influence over society and government there.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 15:32
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

I get the impression that in many Muslim-majority countries there is a rivalry between people who want a secular state like in most European nations, and those who want an Islamic state with laws based on the Koran.

Although we hear a lot about the secular stream in Arabic countries, they're actually a tiny minority, as recent events are demonstrating. Perhaps the media and the governments in the West would like us to believe they are prominent, but in reality they simply are not.
 
Small yes, tiny, definitely no. You mentioned the elections and other than Egypt, 50-70% of votes in countries where free or semi free elections occured went to secularits parties. Even in Egypt 35% is hardly tiny.

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

I'm guessing that you live in a Western country, where people from those regions have migrated to. This probably says more about the people who wanted to migrate there, than it does about the inhabitants of those countries as a whole.
 
Not nececcarily. People tend to have more liberal positions when asked about individual subjects but because of fear of labling they tend to describe themselves otherwise. A woman wearing tights and hijab over it is not an Islamist, she is joking on herself if she thinks that yet because of peer pressure she does that.

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


I've never been to any of those countries, but I have spent a good deal of time in Egypt, and know several people from those countries.

I think the real situation in those countries is still somewhat clouded, but the elections do tend to suggest the people overwhelmingly want a lot more Islam in their lives. This may partially be a reaction to the previously enforced secularism of the dictators Ben Ali, Qadhafi, Mubarak etc, like what happened in Russia after the fall of the USSR, or it may well reflect the actual situation on the ground. I'd suggest a bit of both, but I think it's more loaded towards the people wanting Islam more in their lives,
 
Again not necessarily. People tell you what they think you want to hear from them or expect to hear from them not their actual opinion. In Egypt we had two groups of Islamists fighting, the salafists who want to bring more Islam to society and the brotherhood who ran on a more traditional political platform, that is with much less ideology and more programs. The salafists got 20-25% which in my opinion is the true percentage of Islamists in Egypt since I don't consider the brotherhood as such.
 
In the end the entire campaign (including from the salafists) concentrated not on religion but on bread and butter issues.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 01 Jan 2012 at 15:33
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 16:25
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Small yes, tiny, definitely no. You mentioned the elections and other than Egypt, 50-70% of votes in countries where free or semi free elections occured went to secularits parties. Even in Egypt 35% is hardly tiny.

Which country had 50-70% of votes go to secularists?

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Not nececcarily. People tend to have more liberal positions when asked about individual subjects but because of fear of labling they tend to describe themselves otherwise. A woman wearing tights and hijab over it is not an Islamist, she is joking on herself if she thinks that yet because of peer pressure she does that.

10+ years ago, she would've probably been wearing a skirt, with no hijab. Things are changing, and it's clear which direction they are heading in.

Personally I don't subscribe to terminology such as "Islamists". This is a false attempt to try and marginalise those who are sincere about Islam, by suggesting they are extreme or detached from the mainstream.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The salafists got 20-25% which in my opinion is the true percentage of Islamists in Egypt since I don't consider the brotherhood as such.
 
In the end the entire campaign (including from the salafists) concentrated not on religion but on bread and butter issues.

Hizb an-Nour (the Salafist party you are referring to) has only been in existence for a very short time. The fact they got 25% of the votes is miraculous, considering how long they've been public for.

If you have a look at this Pew Poll you'll find that the vast majority of Egyptians want to see Islam ruling. And I guess by "Islamist" you mean people who support things like Shari'ah punishments and the like. According to that poll about 80-85% of Egyptian Muslims support such things.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In the end the entire campaign (including from the salafists) concentrated not on religion but on bread and butter issues.

I really don't see how that supposedly detracts from their Islamic leanings?

As political parties, of course they're going to discuss political/economic issues, no? An Islamic political party is not one that mindlessly chants "Allahu akbar", it's one that governs and rules according to al-Ahkam ash-Shar'iah (The Islamic laws and principles). Discussing "bread and butter" issues is exactly what it should be doing, and providing the Islamic viewpoint and solution for such issues. Not merely saying "We want to rule by Islam".


Edited by Mukarrib - 01 Jan 2012 at 16:54
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 18:08
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Small yes, tiny, definitely no. You mentioned the elections and other than Egypt, 50-70% of votes in countries where free or semi free elections occured went to secularits parties. Even in Egypt 35% is hardly tiny.

Which country had 50-70% of votes go to secularists?
 
In Morocco where 99% of people are muslims only one Islamist party (if one can call it so) fought the elections and it won 40%, the rest are all secular parties and this after boycotte from several powerful leftist parties and only one salafist party in the otherwise salafistless Morocco:
 
In Tunisia, similar results with one addition, the powerful former ruling party was banned and the list that allies itself with won 3rd place:
 
 
Since these are the only two free elections one can cite and were on the wake of the revolutions I think its a pretty good sample.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Not nececcarily. People tend to have more liberal positions when asked about individual subjects but because of fear of labling they tend to describe themselves otherwise. A woman wearing tights and hijab over it is not an Islamist, she is joking on herself if she thinks that yet because of peer pressure she does that.

10+ years ago, she would've probably been wearing a skirt, with no hijab. Things are changing, and it's clear which direction they are heading in.

Personally I don't subscribe to terminology such as "Islamists". This is a false attempt to try and marginalise those who are sincere about Islam, by suggesting they are extreme or detached from the mainstream.
 
No, 10 years ago she would have been a school girl who because of her father's pressure or the pressure from her peers wore the hijab in the first place. A woman who wears hijab as a religious duty (and there are many) wears it like it is supposed to be, without tight jeans and half the hair loose in the air while grabbing her boyfriend's hand or worse, dancing and wearing full makeup.
 
In my book a woman who wears a miniskirt and performs her religious duties is 10 times more religious than these types of women because at least she is honest about herself.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The salafists got 20-25% which in my opinion is the true percentage of Islamists in Egypt since I don't consider the brotherhood as such.
 
In the end the entire campaign (including from the salafists) concentrated not on religion but on bread and butter issues.

Hizb an-Nour (the Salafist party you are referring to) has only been in existence for a very short time. The fact they got 25% of the votes is miraculous, considering how long they've been public for.

If you have a look at this Pew Poll you'll find that the vast majority of Egyptians want to see Islam ruling. And I guess by "Islamist" you mean people who support things like Shari'ah punishments and the like. According to that poll about 80-85% of Egyptian Muslims support such things.
 
Which returns me to my earlier point about notions and lables. People are asked about shariah but most of them don't know what the hell is meant by it. Believe me if you ask them the correct question the percentages will fall like autumn leaves. Plus they don't know that 94% of the articles of the Egyptian civil code is indeed compliant with shariah just as 30 or 40% of french civil code and so on. Does France rule by shariah?
 
We see this in the US too. Asked about socialised medicine (the word) people overwhelmingly reject it. Asked about the public option people overwhelmingly (including republicans) adopt it.
 
Its all about ideology. Politicians turned the religion into an ideology just like socialism and communism. A series of empty slogans that these parties know are nothing but utter crap yet galvanise the illiterate/gullible masses. For these masses Islam is the magic word, the utopia, the final solution (the brotherhood's slogan), a world where everyne is happy and rich. Reality bites the next day.
 
As for the salafist performance, obviously you know nothing about Egypt or else you should have been surprised why didn't they perform better than that. The Islamists in Egypt are well funded nationally and from abroad (Qatar spent nearly $1 billion on Islamist parties in Tunisia, Libya Egypt and Morocco) since as I mentioned before the Mubarak regime didn't destroy their financial structures the way it did with unions (which were gutted out) and other opposition parties (indeed it helped it get away with scams like Al-Rayyan scam back in the 80s). Mubarak never touched the salafists either who have a massive Zakah collecting apparatus (called Beit Al-Mal associations) which they used to support their political campaigns despite this being strictly prohibited by shariah (but as usual they found a scholar who gave them the thumbs up).
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In the end the entire campaign (including from the salafists) concentrated not on religion but on bread and butter issues.

I really don't see how that supposedly detracts from their Islamic leanings?

As political parties, of course they're going to discuss political/economic issues, no? An Islamic political party is not one that mindlessly chants "Allahu akbar", it's one that governs and rules according to al-Ahkam ash-Shar'iah (The Islamic laws and principles). Discussing "bread and butter" issues is exactly what it should be doing, and providing the Islamic viewpoint and solution for such issues. Not merely saying "We want to rule by Islam".
 
It doesn't, it shows that these parties left their ideology at the front door and concentrated on what people actually want. In all the elections the brotherhood contested across the Arab world since the 30s they had one program, Islam is the solution, without telling us what the hell they mean by that which is why before the 70s they never were an electoral or a populist threat. When their star rose with the right wing Arab governments taking the helm and supporting them (even in secular Syria) while destroying the left they still kept their empty slogans.
 
These parties always relied on the passiveness of the masses, that once they rule the masses will be just as passive as they were under the leftists and the right wing dictators before. Yet the revolutions taught them a lesson, if you don't deliver we will rise up. The Iranian utopia was shattered by the 2009 demos. Religious parties in Iraq were more corrupt than Saddam and the brotherhood regime in Sudan in a total failure and people have taken up arms against it.
 
And then the revolutions came instigated and lead by none other than the western agents who espouse secularism and are allied with the regime as their propaganda always stated. This made them rethink their entire approach. Never again will people vote on slogans, people want a program and will vote against you if you don't deliver and this is what is going to happen come the next elections. Remember the leader of Al-Nour party was defeated by a staunch secularist in a heavily Islamic part of Alexandria because people know that populist rants won't do anything to ease unemployment and get the economy growing.
 
A final note here about the "Islamic" viewpoint of things, may I ask which one? You will never find two scholars agreeing on a single issue and worse, you will find scholars who sell their souls to the devil just because people don't like his ruling.
 
Does anyone of the Egyptian Islamists have the balls to go on stage and say that abortion is perfectly legal according to most opinions of scholars?
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 01 Jan 2012 at 18:09
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 18:49
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

That's your opinion and you're quite welcome to call for it in your country, the Islamic world is a different kettle of fish though.

Islam will inevitably have a great deal of influence over society and government there.


All the religions are the same crap, sir. Islam, Christianity, the Krishnas, the Jehovah Witness or the Candomble. They enrich the priests (whatever name) and the religious caucus, at the expense of the naive followers. Religions are designed to brainwash people and to extract resources from the masses. They are designed from egocentric leaders to watch and control the lives of the people, and in the case they got the power, they build religious tyranies.

As such, they are in opposition with the civil societies and freedom, and they are the enemies of humanism. And, therefore, must be controlled, to restrict the damage they produce.

The recent history of the West is the fight against religion. With Islam, that has started all over again. But don't worry, Islam also will be defeated like it was once the all powerfull Christianity.






Edited by pinguin - 01 Jan 2012 at 18:51
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 01:39
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In Morocco where 99% of people are muslims only one Islamist party (if one can call it so) fought the elections and it won 40%, the rest are all secular parties and this after boycotte from several powerful leftist parties and only one salafist party in the otherwise salafistless Morocco:

And the important point, did any other platform get more votes than the Islamic one? Answer: No.

Also a more Islamic party (al-Adl wal Ihsaan) was not permitted to run in the elections.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In Tunisia, similar results with one addition, the powerful former ruling party was banned and the list that allies itself with won 3rd place:
 

And again, who won?

And from your own link: "The largest and most organised party is the center-right and moderately Islamist Ennahda."

It's all well and good to make sweeping claims that 50-70% of the people support secularism, but the voters tell a different story. What exactly is meant by "secularism" anyway? Clearly it is not one united position, or it would now be governing Tunisia.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Since these are the only two free elections one can cite and were on the wake of the revolutions I think its a pretty good sample.

Right, but even if we look at any other Muslim country in the region that has had relatively open elections, Turkey & Palestine for instance, we find both elected Islamic leaning parties.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

10+ years ago, she would've probably been wearing a skirt, with no hijab. Things are changing, and it's clear which direction they are heading in.
 
No, 10 years ago she would have been a school girl

Actually I didn't mean the specific person. I meant 10+ years ago, the average Egyptian girl wouldn't even have been wearing hijab. Today she is. This is what I've heard from people who visited Egypt regularly throughout the 90's and then into the new millennium. I never visited Egypt until about 2004, and by then hijab was already quite widespread.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

who because of her father's pressure or the pressure from her peers wore the hijab in the first place.

Let's steer clear of speculating about people's personal motives.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

A woman who wears hijab as a religious duty (and there are many) wears it like it is supposed to be, without tight jeans and half the hair loose in the air while grabbing her boyfriend's hand or worse, dancing and wearing full makeup.

These things come in stages, that was my point. A decade or so ago, the average girl wasn't even wearing hijab, in a decade's time maybe they'll be wearing it properly :)
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In my book a woman who wears a miniskirt and performs her religious duties is 10 times more religious than these types of women because at least she is honest about herself.

Luckily we don't go by your book.

Each different individual is at a different point in their own spiritual development. Wearing a miniskirt is clearly not adhering to ones religious duties.

This is probably because you are viewing hijab as a discrete symbol of religious duty, whereas in reality it is a level of public decency. The more covered, the more decent, the less covered, the less decent. In this respect, a wrongly worn headscarf is clearly better than a miniskirt and no hair covering.
 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Which returns me to my earlier point about notions and lables. People are asked about shariah but most of them don't know what the hell is meant by it.

Obviously you did not follow the link to the poll.

The 3 questions asked about Shari'ah punishments for instance specifically mentioned capital punishment for adultery and apostasy and amputation for theft and robbery. It was in direct response to these specific questions that around 80% of Egyptian Muslims said they support it. In fact of all the countries polled, Egypt had the highest support for Shari'ah physical punishments, even higher than Pakistan (only just), a country usually considered far more conservative in such matters.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Believe me if you ask them the correct question the percentages will fall like autumn leaves.

Such as? Are there more "correct" questions than the ones mentioned above? Please do yourself a favour and read the poll before commenting further.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus they don't know that 94% of the articles of the Egyptian civil code is indeed compliant with shariah just as 30 or 40% of french civil code and so on. Does France rule by shariah?
 
We see this in the US too. Asked about socialised medicine (the word) people overwhelmingly reject it. Asked about the public option people overwhelmingly (including republicans) adopt it.
 
Its all about ideology. Politicians turned the religion into an ideology just like socialism and communism. A series of empty slogans that these parties know are nothing but utter crap yet galvanise the illiterate/gullible masses. For these masses Islam is the magic word, the utopia, the final solution (the brotherhood's slogan), a world where everyne is happy and rich. Reality bites the next day.

This is all rendered moot, given that you've now been informed what the questions asked were.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

As for the salafist performance, obviously you know nothing about Egypt or else you should have been surprised why didn't they perform better than that.

A party that didn't even materialise as a party until a matter of months before the elections taking out 25% of the vote has performed far better than could ever have been expected.

You simply are too stubborn to admit when Islam/Muslims have achieved something aren't you? Please try to maintain at least an appearance of objectivity here.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The Islamists in Egypt are well funded nationally and from abroad (Qatar spent nearly $1 billion on Islamist parties in Tunisia, Libya Egypt and Morocco) since as I mentioned before the Mubarak regime didn't destroy their financial structures the way it did with unions (which were gutted out) and other opposition parties (indeed it helped it get away with scams like Al-Rayyan scam back in the 80s).

The Islamic parties were all banned under Mubarak. You have gotta be kidding me. The fact they survived all these years of oppression and attacks is truly amazing, and is testament to their broad support from the masses.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Mubarak never touched the salafists either who have a massive Zakah collecting apparatus (called Beit Al-Mal associations) which they used to support their political campaigns despite this being strictly prohibited by shariah (but as usual they found a scholar who gave them the thumbs up).

Got some evidence they used zakah to fund their campaign? Or is this just another of your wild accusations that you seem to be throwing around like they're going out of fashion?
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

It doesn't, it shows that these parties left their ideology at the front door and concentrated on what people actually want.

Only if your analysis of political Islam is so shallow as to think they are only interested in "religious" issues.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

When their star rose with the right wing Arab governments taking the helm and supporting them (even in secular Syria) while destroying the left they still kept their empty slogans.

Right wing Arab governments? Please...

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The Iranian utopia was shattered by the 2009 demos

The attempted Western-backed secularist uprising in Iran was a resounding failure. It simply did not get off the ground. That's why the West is now engaged in an aggressive policy of threats and sanctions, to try and squeeze the Iranian people into surrendering to her demands. Iranians live a very comfortable life, hence the reason very few are interested in facing tanks and snipers in the streets as the people in all the Western-install puppet regimes of the Arab world are. Iran has one of the best living standards in the world, with the cheapest cost of living. The Western powers who tried to incite an uprising, will now try to erode that, so the people might be a little more conducive to their wishes.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Religious parties in Iraq were more corrupt than Saddam

Iraq is under occupation. The only "parties" involved were the ones the U.S cultured. Usually sectarian ones, which would keep the people divided and ruled.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

and the brotherhood regime in Sudan in a total failure and people have taken up arms against it.

The regime in Sudan is not Ikhwani. It is run by the National Congress Party. Whilst it did court the support of people like al-Turabi, who has been influenced by al-Ikhwan (but has departed drastically from their ideals), it later gaoled him several times.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

A final note here about the "Islamic" viewpoint of things, may I ask which one? You will never find two scholars agreeing on a single issue and worse, you will find scholars who sell their souls to the devil just because people don't like his ruling.

Are we talking about issues or ideologies? Of course people in all movements (Islamic or otherwise) will disagree over issues. 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Does anyone of the Egyptian Islamists have the balls to go on stage and say that abortion is perfectly legal according to most opinions of scholars?

It is? Where on earth did you get this from?

Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 01:53
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

All the religions are the same crap, sir. Islam, Christianity, the Krishnas, the Jehovah Witness or the Candomble.

Nice way to engage in discussion. I'm sure it's going to be very fruitful with this kind of attitude.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

They enrich the priests (whatever name)

Islam is a clergyless religion.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

and the religious caucus, at the expense of the naive followers. Religions are designed to brainwash people and to extract resources from the masses. They are designed from egocentric leaders to watch and control the lives of the people, and in the case they got the power, they build religious tyranies.

As such, they are in opposition with the civil societies and freedom, and they are the enemies of humanism. And, therefore, must be controlled, to restrict the damage they produce.

The recent history of the West is the fight against religion. With Islam, that has started all over again. But don't worry, Islam also will be defeated like it was once the all powerfull Christianity.

Sadly people like you will eventually drive the world to WWIII.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 02:22
Nope. People like me will eventually clean the world from superstition.


Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 03:26
Pinguin - I would like to remind you of the CoC VII, B-6

http://www.worldhistoria.com/worldhistoria-code-of-conduct-terms-of-use_topic123940_post444.html#444


6. Nationalism and the belittlement of religious groups; derogatory remarks to religious, national or ethnic groups and members, jingoism, bigotry, racism, political propaganda.

Anyone can disagree without being disrespectful or intolerant, i expect no less from you. Being a long time member here, you should be well versed with the CoC. Please keep that in mind when posting an opinion on religion because i won't remind you again, as this post is a plea for civility. Any further antagonizing on your part will be followed with a warning. Failure to comply will result in a suspension.

Thank you,
Panther
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 08:01
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

That's your opinion and you're quite welcome to call for it in your country, the Islamic world is a different kettle of fish though.
 
Well, as long as the islamic countries and muslim peoples actions also affect us in the west we too have to be involved in trying to control the most destructive tendencies among them.


Edited by Carcharodon - 02 Jan 2012 at 08:04
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 08:48
Not quite sure what you mean by all that Carcharodon, but if you're referring to the recent "war on terror", then it seems like Western intereference is precisely what has caused problems to begin with.

Perhaps you can elaborate on exactly what you mean by "islamic countries and muslim peoples actions also affect us in the west"?

The West has been heavily involved in trying to control Muslim countries (mostly to get a good grip on their lucrative energy resources), and this is what has been affecting people in the West.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 09:01
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Not quite sure what you mean by all that Carcharodon, but if you're referring to the recent "war on terror", then it seems like Western intereference is precisely what has caused problems to begin with.

Perhaps you can elaborate on exactly what you mean by "islamic countries and muslim peoples actions also affect us in the west"?

The West has been heavily involved in trying to control Muslim countries (mostly to get a good grip on their lucrative energy resources), and this is what has been affecting people in the West.
 
The opression in some muslim countries give rise to a lot of refugees that come to the west. This affects us who live here in different waysw. Also muslim fanatics actually do attack people here and some of them are inspired or financed by people who live in muslim countries.
Bu ofcourse I do not deny that western countries also have meddled a lot with muslims countries.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 09:22
Muslim refugees are usually trying to escape the brutal dictators that the West has installed and propped up in their countries.

Muslim militant groups have attacked Western interests in an attempt to curb their aggressive foreign policies towards the Muslim world.

Both of these things would be non-existent, if the West acted rightly towards the Muslim world to begin with.

Having said that, Muslims themselves also must shoulder some of the responsibility, for having been so naive and passive in allowing the Western powers to carry out these things.

With the recent revolutions though, it seems all that is about to be turned on its ear, and the Muslim world is going to take back their rights by force (in which case they'll probably appreciate them more, and be more careful about defending them in future).

But this is bad news for the West, and I think there's going to be a lot of violence to come, as the West attempts to maintain a grip on the resources it considers its own, and which it now sees slipping away.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 14:28
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In Morocco where 99% of people are muslims only one Islamist party (if one can call it so) fought the elections and it won 40%, the rest are all secular parties and this after boycotte from several powerful leftist parties and only one salafist party in the otherwise salafistless Morocco:

And the important point, did any other platform get more votes than the Islamic one? Answer: No.

Also a more Islamic party (al-Adl wal Ihsaan) was not permitted to run in the elections.
 
Again, where did the +60% of votes go in both elections? Those parties were the only ones that contested every constituency and yet they only achieved 40% or less. The rest of the votes went to secularist parties. One can only imagine if these parties had the financial support the brotherhood parties got.
 
As for Morocco, the group you are referring to didn't contest the election nor it is a proper party. It went behind some candidates but all failed.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In Tunisia, similar results with one addition, the powerful former ruling party was banned and the list that allies itself with won 3rd place:
 

And again, who won?

And from your own link: "The largest and most organised party is the center-right and moderately Islamist Ennahda."

It's all well and good to make sweeping claims that 50-70% of the people support secularism, but the voters tell a different story. What exactly is meant by "secularism" anyway? Clearly it is not one united position, or it would now be governing Tunisia.
 
Winning plurality isn't like winning majority. The secularist parties in Tunisia and in Morocco could have easily formed their own governments while ignoring the Islamists, remember they do have 60% of the votes and almost the same percentage in seats, and there were indeed calls to do so but they chose a coalition government instead largely because of ideological differences among the secularists (left vs. right).
 
As for Turkey and Palestine, again, the brotherhood lost the presidential elections in Palestine and according to all polls would easily lose the next general elections which is why Hamas (and to a lesser extent Fatah which will also lose to other secular parties) refuse to hold elections despite agreeing 4 times since 2009 to do so.
 
In Turkey, the AKP is as Islamists as the Liberals in Aussieland are socialists.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

10+ years ago, she would've probably been wearing a skirt, with no hijab. Things are changing, and it's clear which direction they are heading in.
 
No, 10 years ago she would have been a school girl

Actually I didn't mean the specific person. I meant 10+ years ago, the average Egyptian girl wouldn't even have been wearing hijab. Today she is. This is what I've heard from people who visited Egypt regularly throughout the 90's and then into the new millennium. I never visited Egypt until about 2004, and by then hijab was already quite widespread.
 
Neither did I. What I meant by this is these women were the girls of yesteryears forced by their parents to wear hijab and kept it afterwards. The rise in the percentage of women wearing hijab (just as the current rise in the levels of women wearing niqab) is a product of times. It gives them access and helps their reputation. Only a minority actually wear hijab from a religious point of view.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

who because of her father's pressure or the pressure from her peers wore the hijab in the first place.

Let's steer clear of speculating about people's personal motives.
 
No we can't. Personal motives are at the heart of the issue. I live in Saudi Arabia if you follow my posts and I see this duality in my own family. Women wearing niqab here and going hijabless abroad.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

A woman who wears hijab as a religious duty (and there are many) wears it like it is supposed to be, without tight jeans and half the hair loose in the air while grabbing her boyfriend's hand or worse, dancing and wearing full makeup.

These things come in stages, that was my point. A decade or so ago, the average girl wasn't even wearing hijab, in a decade's time maybe they'll be wearing it properly :)
 
 
No they don't. Hijab ended by women themselves and no one forced them to dump it back in the 20s. The way things are going the same will happen once the fear factor is raised.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In my book a woman who wears a miniskirt and performs her religious duties is 10 times more religious than these types of women because at least she is honest about herself.

Luckily we don't go by your book.

Each different individual is at a different point in their own spiritual development. Wearing a miniskirt is clearly not adhering to ones religious duties.

This is probably because you are viewing hijab as a discrete symbol of religious duty, whereas in reality it is a level of public decency. The more covered, the more decent, the less covered, the less decent. In this respect, a wrongly worn headscarf is clearly better than a miniskirt and no hair covering.
 
 
Read fatwas on hijab and you will understand what I mean. Hijab isn't just covering the hair, its wearing unprovocative dresses in public and without any makeup or such. What women you mention wear is a scarve not hijab. They are actually committing a bigger sin than women who wear a miniskirt in public because that woman knows she is committing a sin while these women committ the greater sin of deceit.
 
Not to mention the fact that niqab or buqa is the true hijab and not just the scarve.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Which returns me to my earlier point about notions and lables. People are asked about shariah but most of them don't know what the hell is meant by it.

Obviously you did not follow the link to the poll.

The 3 questions asked about Shari'ah punishments for instance specifically mentioned capital punishment for adultery and apostasy and amputation for theft and robbery. It was in direct response to these specific questions that around 80% of Egyptian Muslims said they support it. In fact of all the countries polled, Egypt had the highest support for Shari'ah physical punishments, even higher than Pakistan (only just), a country usually considered far more conservative in such matters.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Believe me if you ask them the correct question the percentages will fall like autumn leaves.

Such as? Are there more "correct" questions than the ones mentioned above? Please do yourself a favour and read the poll before commenting further.
 
 
 [/QUOTE]
 
Read it before and again I stand by my statement. If those people were told that anyone who steals $10 or more loses his hand, that half the things people say are pure apostasy punishable by death wihtout questions asked people will have a different say in this matter and that a person (man or woman even if she was pregnant from adultry) only needs to swear on the quran to clear him/herself of the adultry charge then no punishment happens the poll results will be quite different.
 
 
 

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus they don't know that 94% of the articles of the Egyptian civil code is indeed compliant with shariah just as 30 or 40% of french civil code and so on. Does France rule by shariah?
 
We see this in the US too. Asked about socialised medicine (the word) people overwhelmingly reject it. Asked about the public option people overwhelmingly (including republicans) adopt it.
 
Its all about ideology. Politicians turned the religion into an ideology just like socialism and communism. A series of empty slogans that these parties know are nothing but utter crap yet galvanise the illiterate/gullible masses. For these masses Islam is the magic word, the utopia, the final solution (the brotherhood's slogan), a world where everyne is happy and rich. Reality bites the next day.

This is all rendered moot, given that you've now been informed what the questions asked were.
 
 
No it doesn't. It is a very legitimate question. Islamist parties rasing the banner of shariah always conviniently forget to mention these facts and when faced with them they start dodging the question and raise subjects that will make them look good.
 
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

As for the salafist performance, obviously you know nothing about Egypt or else you should have been surprised why didn't they perform better than that.

A party that didn't even materialise as a party until a matter of months before the elections taking out 25% of the vote has performed far better than could ever have been expected.

You simply are too stubborn to admit when Islam/Muslims have achieved something aren't you? Please try to maintain at least an appearance of objectivity here.
 
The Egyptian bloc lead by Najib Saweris was formed even after the Nour party and achieved almost 20%. Whats your point?
 

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The Islamists in Egypt are well funded nationally and from abroad (Qatar spent nearly $1 billion on Islamist parties in Tunisia, Libya Egypt and Morocco) since as I mentioned before the Mubarak regime didn't destroy their financial structures the way it did with unions (which were gutted out) and other opposition parties (indeed it helped it get away with scams like Al-Rayyan scam back in the 80s).

The Islamic parties were all banned under Mubarak. You have gotta be kidding me. The fact they survived all these years of oppression and attacks is truly amazing, and is testament to their broad support from the masses.
 
Now I know for certain that you know nothing about Egypt or its Islamists. What kind of a "banned" party that has a yearly Ramadhan iftar that is attended by the PM among others, that holds year-round internal elections for its offices up to the Irshad office, chooses its murshid every several years, has offices with their names printed in big black letter and finallt contests elections and wins 20% of them?
 
Ayman Noor on the other hand was thrown in prison, got his entire fortune confiscated, his party destroyed and his wife divorced just because he dared to run against Mubarak.

As for the salafists, they forbade people from demonstrating against Mubarak only to jump at the chance after he left.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Mubarak never touched the salafists either who have a massive Zakah collecting apparatus (called Beit Al-Mal associations) which they used to support their political campaigns despite this being strictly prohibited by shariah (but as usual they found a scholar who gave them the thumbs up).

Got some evidence they used zakah to fund their campaign? Or is this just another of your wild accusations that you seem to be throwing around like they're going out of fashion?
 
Supposing that you read Arabic here are some:
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

It doesn't, it shows that these parties left their ideology at the front door and concentrated on what people actually want.

Only if your analysis of political Islam is so shallow as to think they are only interested in "religious" issues.
 
Since I was a brotherhood stooge in a former life I can easily claim to have more knowledge about them and their goals and attitudes than you do. Plus I also dabbled with Salafists, modernists and almost every other Islamist movement on the spectrum.
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

When their star rose with the right wing Arab governments taking the helm and supporting them (even in secular Syria) while destroying the left they still kept their empty slogans.

Right wing Arab governments? Please...
 
A government that follows the IMF death list is right wing.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The Iranian utopia was shattered by the 2009 demos

The attempted Western-backed secularist uprising in Iran was a resounding failure. It simply did not get off the ground. That's why the West is now engaged in an aggressive policy of threats and sanctions, to try and squeeze the Iranian people into surrendering to her demands. Iranians live a very comfortable life, hence the reason very few are interested in facing tanks and snipers in the streets as the people in all the Western-install puppet regimes of the Arab world are. Iran has one of the best living standards in the world, with the cheapest cost of living. The Western powers who tried to incite an uprising, will now try to erode that, so the people might be a little more conducive to their wishes.
 
Our Persian friends won't agree with this statement. Although I do think that Nejad did indeed win a plurality if not a very slim majority that doesn't count out that the regime nearly collapsed.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Religious parties in Iraq were more corrupt than Saddam

Iraq is under occupation. The only "parties" involved were the ones the U.S cultured. Usually sectarian ones, which would keep the people divided and ruled.
 
The occupation has lifted its hand from most of Iraq a long time ago, corruption only increased to astronomical levels.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

and the brotherhood regime in Sudan in a total failure and people have taken up arms against it.

The regime in Sudan is not Ikhwani. It is run by the National Congress Party. Whilst it did court the support of people like al-Turabi, who has been influenced by al-Ikhwan (but has departed drastically from their ideals), it later gaoled him several times.
 
 
The sudanese regime is a brotherhood regime like it or not. The Salvation front is the Sudanese branch of the brotherhood but are more independent than the rest of the brotherhood branches.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Does anyone of the Egyptian Islamists have the balls to go on stage and say that abortion is perfectly legal according to most opinions of scholars?

It is? Where on earth did you get this from?

 
Read about it. I did.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 15:02
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Muslim refugees are usually trying to escape the brutal dictators that the West has installed and propped up in their countries.
 
Did the west really install the islamist regime in Iran?
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Muslim militant groups have attacked Western interests in an attempt to curb their aggressive foreign policies towards the Muslim world.
 
Indiscriminate killing will probably not curb anything. Instead it will increase the violence.

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Both of these things would be non-existent, if the West acted rightly towards the Muslim world to begin with.
 
But if you see it in a longer historical perspective muslims have also attacked the west for hundreds of years. It seems the west and muslims have waged war since the days of early Islam.
 



Edited by Carcharodon - 02 Jan 2012 at 15:07
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 15:07
For those desiring a "pure islamic society" I will ask how many choices they have. I see two 
"clear" options (that is "in principle" - they must answer for themselves what they prefer or believe in), but perhaps there are some more, that are not at all clear to me. 1: Try to make a world order of  their own. Then whey could try to make the world "just" as they see it, since they would decide.
2: Instead to decide a certain part of the planet and its population belongs to them, but the rest not - and isolate those parts from each other. If those two "solutions" appear unrealistic or even not desirable there is little alternative to compromises, I think, and the "purity" becomes more or less an illusion.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 00:27
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Pinguin - I would like to remind you of the CoC VII, B-6

http://www.worldhistoria.com/worldhistoria-code-of-conduct-terms-of-use_topic123940_post444.html#444


6. Nationalism and the belittlement of religious groups; derogatory remarks to religious, national or ethnic groups and members, jingoism, bigotry, racism, political propaganda.

Anyone can disagree without being disrespectful or intolerant, i expect no less from you. Being a long time member here, you should be well versed with the CoC. Please keep that in mind when posting an opinion on religion because i won't remind you again, as this post is a plea for civility. Any further antagonizing on your part will be followed with a warning. Failure to comply will result in a suspension.

Thank you,
Panther


OK I accept the code and I shut up. However, I would like to make it clear I feel the same against ANY religion, and not only about that one.


Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 13:09
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Did the west really install the islamist regime in Iran?

Are there many refugees from Iran? I don't think so.

According to all figures I've seen Iran gives asylum to far more refugees than it does produce refugees. In fact I don't think Iran produces any more refugees than the world average.

Maybe you mean back in the 1980's during the US-backed war that Saddam waged on them?

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Indiscriminate killing will probably not curb anything. Instead it will increase the violence.

I dunno, I think the U.S has had a run for her money since 2001. Submitting to the dominance of bullies usually does not pacify them, fighting back one in a while often does though.

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

But if you see it in a longer historical perspective muslims have also attacked the west for hundreds of years.

There's been no notable incursion by a Muslim power into the West since about the 16th. century. That's a pretty long historical perspective you've got.

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

It seems the west and muslims have waged war since the days of early Islam.

Not really. There was an initial surge of Islam out of the Middle East, which settled down by the time of the crusades. Then a bit of a push by the Ottomans, which again settled down not long after.

The recent Western incursions into the Muslim world were part of the greater colonialist era in which the Western nations tried to dominate as much of the world as possible in a rush to secure its resources. The Muslim world happened to have one of the most prized resources, which meant colonialism has lingered on in the form of puppet governments that help safeguard the resources, and siphon them off for the West's taking.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 13:44
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Did the west really install the islamist regime in Iran?

Are there many refugees from Iran? I don't think so.

According to all figures I've seen Iran gives asylum to far more refugees than it does produce refugees. In fact I don't think Iran produces any more refugees than the world average.

Maybe you mean back in the 1980's during the US-backed war that Saddam waged on them?
 
 
 
Iran has among the worst brain drain levels in the world reaching to almost 25% of all pos-secondary educated people there:
 
The Iran-Iraq war which was launched  by the mullahs attempts to export their revolution through terror had little to do with that.
 

 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

 

The Muslim world happened to have one of the most prized resources, which meant colonialism has lingered on in the form of puppet governments that help safeguard the resources, and siphon them off for the West's taking.
 
Utter crap. No one forced the 100s of thousands who crucified the Iraqi king and raped the women of the royal family to do so, indeed the millions across the Arab world cheered.
 
Qaddafi reached power through a massive wave of support and 5 million idiots out of 20 million turned out to the funeral of the man who turned Egypt from an exporting country with a semi-industrial base to a poor country living on the ration card and defeated in a war he know was coming a month before but did absolutely nothing to prevent.
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 22:24
Quote I get the impression that in many Muslim-majority countries there is a rivalry between people who want a secular state like in most European nations, and those who want an Islamic state with laws based on the Koran.


If only. 

Quote The Iran-Iraq war which was launched  by the mullahs attempts to export their revolution through terror had little to do with that.


Yes, because it was the Mullahs who launched a surprise invasion of Khuzistan with the intention of annexing it with 6 divisions based on a 1930s British invasion plan for the same.  Oh wait, that doesn't quite make sense.  
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 22:48
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nope. People like me will eventually clean the world from superstition.




Don't confuse anti-theism with intelligence. I'm one of these people who finds religion odd, eccentric even, but its mostly harmless when its political power is irrelevant (Think of the Church of England, which is kind to old ladies and black babies in the third world, and generally does nothing more controversial than bring coffee to the after church tea party)
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2012 at 00:33
I don't think anti-theism is intelligent, but I believe religion should be nothing more than a personal,  voluntary hobby, for people too afrad to die. Religion should not have any incidence in public or political life. Even strinking bells and shouting the prayer should be forbidden as harmful noise.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2012 at 14:09
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nope. People like me will eventually clean the world from superstition.




Don't confuse anti-theism with intelligence. I'm one of these people who finds religion odd, eccentric even, but its mostly harmless when its political power is irrelevant (Think of the Church of England, which is kind to old ladies and black babies in the third world, and generally does nothing more controversial than bring coffee to the after church tea party)
 
Quel horreur!
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2012 at 14:29
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


Yes, because it was the Mullahs who launched a surprise invasion of Khuzistan with the intention of annexing it with 6 divisions based on a 1930s British invasion plan for the same.  Oh wait, that doesn't quite make sense.  
 
There were several attempts on Saddams life as well as his own ministers months before the war (especially the infamous April 1980 Baghdad bombing proudly orchestrated by none other than the current "sherrif" of Baghdad Maliki himself). Not only Khomaini refused to hand the Dawah party terrorists he publically called in July for the overthrough of Saddam and said it was a religious duty on all shias and started building up the military overthere. What did you expect Saddam to do, send roses?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.