What in the hell is Islamism?
Where are all these terms coming from?
They're misguided, idiotic Muslims. There. Does that satisfy everyone?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
'Islamists'
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
What in the hell is Islamism?
Where are all these terms coming from?
They're misguided, idiotic Muslims. There. Does that satisfy everyone?
Besides being heavily divorced from historical and scriptural evidence, I still get your view. I don't think it is correct.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
No, because it betrays the history of Islam and their motives, including their genuine grievances.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Sorry, sweet lady, you don't get a free pass from me on this one. :sorry1:
Well poo. What would satisfy you, dear friend?
You know I don't excuse much, so try me.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Naw, I like you too much to get down in the dirt and get messy.Well poo. What would satisfy you, dear friend?
You know I don't excuse much, so try me.
Another day, perhaps.
Naw, I like you too much to get down in the dirt and get messy.
Another day, perhaps.
Awww shucks.
You can always PM me if you wish... and the feeling is mutual.
Works for me.
I understand that we aren't diplomats or politicians here, and I'm very for world peace and liberalization, but ignorance or denials like this will never help solve the problem. The fact of the matter is Islam isn't purely non-violent and peaceful, and it isn't a necessarily totalitarianism trying to take over the world (at least any longer), and we have to understand that it is somewhere in between.
May you say why? I get that the article probably explains that, but how can people who embrace destructive violence not be misguided? Even if they may claim support from some tradition or scripture, really?
I don't think there is such a clear fact. Islam, in my view, is whatever Muslims make of it. Encouraging it to be constructive is not a denial.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Because the scripture and tradition really does support them explicitly. I think this is hard for idealists to accept; that some religion, or cultural tradition, might actually be inimical to basic human rights.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
*edit*
Secondly it is how Muslims understand it to be.
In both cases, set on a collision course with the rest of civilization.
Secondly it is how Muslims understand it to be.
In both cases, set on a collision course with the rest of civilization.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, Islam is the entire historical context plus the Islamic scriptures and biographies, not exactly a willy-nilly relativism.
I may accept it, no problem. But of course, that in no way means that they must feel bound to what clearly must be left behind.
Mohammed lived a long time ago, in a world that no longer exists.
Much like anyone else, Muslims must decide how best to honor their traditions, and that unavoidably means also which parts should be disregarded or reevaluated. That is not only legitimate, but also necessary to keep their doctrine worthy and healthy.
I agree, but the problem with that is: if you start striking out verses that sanction violent Jihad and sanction racism/sectarianism against the other monotheistic traditions, destroy the biographies of the Prophet and his earliest followers who did it along with verses mentioning Allah's promotion of it, you null and void the divinity of the Islamic text.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
A world that shaped this one, and continues to shape the world of tomorrow.
What you say is sensible, but profoundly un-Islamic. Islam has been the most successful religion in preserving its core doctrines/dogmas and rejecting critical analysis, self-analyzed or otherwise.
Islam should be changed, but to change it the necessary extent will also destroy its essential identity.
Taking you literally, doesn't that mean that Islam may only be meaningfully defined in function of said historical context? One of the consequences being that they are fully entitled to embrace peaceful and enlightened attitudes, regardless of how well-supported more violent takes might turn out to be?
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Let's get to the heart of this.
What is Islam, as a collection of memes? How does it operate in this 'historical context'?
Like most religions, it is installed in conquered peoples as the framework for controlling their public and private mind.
First and foremost it was initiated to establish and perpetuate an order, a status quo, a way of the world; and it is institutions that act in this manner which keep the old world of Mohammed and every other atavist alive even on the ash-heap of history, continuing to inflame the world with their smoldering ruin.
What is Islam, as a collection of memes? How does it operate in this 'historical context'?
Like most religions, it is installed in conquered peoples as the framework for controlling their public and private mind.
First and foremost it was initiated to establish and perpetuate an order, a status quo, a way of the world; and it is institutions that act in this manner which keep the old world of Mohammed and every other atavist alive even on the ash-heap of history, continuing to inflame the world with their smoldering ruin.