Social Muslim call to prayer echoes out in Minn

[Armbars]

Twenny pages coz a new church noise rings through the air.

Go guys cray cray

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Yeah that definitely shows that you're not aware of the history if that's the case. Turkey is the best example but many of the elite of the former French colonies(e.g. Tunisia, Algeria) took on that style of secularism. Iran under the Shah is another example as is Egypt under Nasser.

It's not quite as bad as I phrased it (Neo Atheism) but there was a definite attempt to remove religion from spheres of public life which was a mistake. I am an Atheist and Secularist and I believe religious/philosophical expression should be allowed in public as long as it poses no security risk, doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else, isn't backed by the government.

Anyway I am not necessarily blaming secularism, the countries all have their particular histories and particular problems which they dealt with varying success so we could type out hundreds of thousands of words with thousands of citations and not get to the bottom of the problem.

It really sounded like you were blaming Secularism as you only mentioned that ideology specifically, at least now we agree that it's complicated.

But what I am doing is challenging the notion that Islam needs to be reformed so that it remains only a matter of private belief that makes no claims on the public sphere and gets out of the way of secular regimes and civil society by pointing to the historical reality that the conservative monarchies are vastly more successful than the countries that embraced secular ideologies.

As I stated, religion is fine in the public sphere as long as it doesn't match the criteria in my first statement as well as it having no influence (or limited) in government. And you still haven't answered why Secularism and the ideals on the enlightenment have been so successful in Europe and the progress of the world yet as you stated failed so miserably in the Middle East.

I wouldn't say secularism isn't inherently bad though; Senegal is one of the only stable democracies in the Muslim world and in Africa and also a secular former French colony. But unlike Turkey its elites were not hostile to religion in the public sphere and tried to relegate it to a matter of private belief. On the contrary, the civil society in Senegal is highly religious and dominated by the Sufi brotherhoods of which ~95% of the population is a part. So that country too shows that Islam is not necessarily a problem but can in fact be part of the way forward. In fact that to me is an ideal combination; secular state and a religious civil society. But regardless of how I feel the conservative monarchies of the Gulf, as well as Brunei, are wildly successful despite not being secular states.

I'm not sure what you mean by successful, are you stating just monetarily as that means very little to the progress of humanity. Can the conservative monarchies of the gulf and Brunei in good faith sign the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? That may be the real measure of success for a nation as well as taking care of it's people.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's not quite as bad as I phrased it (Neo Atheism) but there was a definite attempt to remove religion from spheres of public life which was a mistake. I am an Atheist and Secularist and I believe religious/philosophical expression should be allowed in public as long as it poses no security risk, doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else, isn't backed by the government.

Doesn't really matter what you believe, what's relevant is what the elites of the region and their interlocutors around the world believe.

It really sounded like you were blaming Secularism as you only mentioned that ideology specifically, at least now we agree that it's complicated.

Ha, if the conversation is "Islam bad, need reform, secularism good" then simplicity is fine but when you point out the failures of secular ideologies now suddenly "i-its complicated!"

As I stated, religion is fine in the public sphere as long as it doesn't match the criteria in my first statement as well as it having no influence (or limited) in government.

Why shouldn't it influence government? If I am a feminist or a libertarian or a socialist I can influence the government based on my beliefs but not if I am a Muslim or Christian? Why? Civil society should influence the government and religion in these countries is the backbone of civil society.

And you still haven't answered why Secularism and the ideals on the enlightenment have been so successful in Europe and the progress of the world yet as you stated failed so miserably in the Middle East.

What is this, an interrogation? Idk man, why don't you give it a stab? Let me guess, "because Islam"

I'm not sure what you mean by successful, are you stating just monetarily as that means very little to the progress of humanity. Can the conservative monarchies of the gulf and Brunei in good faith sign the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? That may be the real measure of success for a nation as well as taking care of it's people.

They have a high level of human development is what I mean, they're all in the "very high" level of human development on the human development index. Also lol at Westerners caring about human rights as evidenced by Kemalist Turkey being held up as a "model" Muslim government; as I said all that the West cares about is diplomatic allegiance and a sanitized tourist destination. Do that and the West doesn't give a shit about human rights violation.

Not to mention the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is a joke, the only states that get held accountable to those standards are backwards African dictatorships.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Doesn't really matter what you believe, what's relevant is what the elites of the region and their interlocutors around the world believe.

Of course it matters what we believe, it's our discussion. Looks like we are agreed on a secular government with freedom of public expressions of religion with limits are we not?

Ha, if the conversation is "Islam bad, need reform, secularism good" then simplicity is fine but when you point out the failures of secular ideologies now suddenly "i-its complicated!"

You've never had that "Islam is bad" conversation with me obviously, I'll get right into detail on why I prefer Secularism and Enlightenment ideals over Theocracy.

Why shouldn't it influence government? If I am a feminist or a libertarian or a socialist I can influence the government based on my beliefs but not if I am a Muslim or Christian? Why? Civil society should influence the government and religion in these countries is the backbone of civil society.

Influence was the wrong word, control is a better one. Ideally no one religion should have control over any part of government. There may be exceptions like Lebanese confessionalism with rights guaranteed to citizens and minorities.

What is this, an interrogation? Idk man, why don't you give it a stab? Let me guess, "because Islam"

Strange response, you've asked me questions here and I've never accused you of interrogating me... Anyways I've already given you my answer and yes, the dynamics of Islam is a major part of why Secularism and the Enlightenment never really flourished in the middle east. Islam even today is much more ingrained in the social, economic and political fabric of muslim societies than Christianity was in the 16th - 17th century Europe. Islam is much more robust culturally than Christianity ever was and thus so much more difficult to remove.

They have a high level of human development is what I mean, they're all in the "very high" level of human development on the human development index. Also lol at Westerners caring about human rights as evidenced by Kemalist Turkey being held up as a "model" Muslim government; as I said all that the West cares about is diplomatic allegiance and a sanitized tourist destination. Do that and the West doesn't give a shit about human rights violation.

Not to mention the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is a joke, the only states that get held accountable to those standards are backwards African dictatorships.

Certainly in practice there's a lot for the west to live up to and yes our governments have failed over and over again but the document itself and the articles within them are sound. I don't think the Saudis and Brunei really have much to be proud of for human development as they really didn't do anything except make the right alliances and exploit their natural resource.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Certainly in practice there's a lot for the west to live up to and yes our governments have failed over and over again but the document itself and the articles within them are sound. I don't think the Saudis and Brunei really have much to be proud of for human development as they really didn't do anything except make the right alliances and exploit their natural resource.

So they have nothing to be proud of other than good statecraft, pragmatic diplomacy, and prudent use of their natural resources? Haha, sure. I mean lets look at the other countries in the region with comparable oil resources like Libya and Iraq, its no guarantee of success.

Plus some Western countries like the US are developed because of their own natural resources(e.g coal, oil, arable land,). The others developed through predatory colonialism, is that something to be proud of? Should the Gulf countries follow the example of the West and colonize half the world instead of exploiting their own resources?

Just more double standards.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

So they have nothing to be proud of other than good statecraft, pragmatic diplomacy, and prudent use of their natural resources? Haha, sure. I mean lets look at the other countries in the region with comparable oil resources like Libya and Iraq, its no guarantee of success.

Well lets look at how differently the relationship each of those countries had with the United States and how different those countries are today. Oil is no guarantee you're absolutely right but oil with Americas backing like the Saudis had will likely mean "success".

Plus some Western countries like the US are developed because of their own natural resources(e.g coal, oil, arable land,). The others developed through predatory colonialism, is that something to be proud of? Should the Gulf countries follow the example of the West and colonize half the world instead of exploiting their own resources?

Just more double standards.

Western countries including the US developed faster than any other area in the world because of the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. America during the 1800s was more advanced than any country outside of Europe. The Gulf countries were far behind the west and did not have the society, technology or infrastructure to colonize anyone.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Well lets look at how differently the relationship each of those countries had with the United States and how different those countries are today. Oil is no guarantee you're absolutely right but oil with Americas backing like the Saudis had will likely mean "success".

I already addressed this earlier in the thread so now I'm having to repeat myself here

But that's the thing, this is no accident. The secular rulers try to take on populist foreign policy stances, like anti-Zionism and anti-imperialism and regional militarism, to bolster popular support but this is a risky proposition as it can invite disastrous military conflicts.

Meanwhile the conservative monarchies are more pragmatic and therefore ally with the superpower of the time; the Sauds overthrow the British installed Hashemite monarchy but turned on the very same warriors that put them in power when those warriors started to threaten British interests in the Levant. They knew not to fuck with British. Once British power waned they started sucking up to the Americans.

Western countries including the US developed faster than any other area in the world because of the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. America during the 1800s was more advanced than any country outside of Europe. The Gulf countries were far behind the west and did not have the society, technology or infrastructure to colonize anyone.

So in other words predatory colonialism is something to be proud of while pragmatic diplomacy isn't. When its Western success we'll just ignore the resource advantage and predatory foreign policy and attribute it to some constellation of values but with the successes in the Islamic world its only due to oil and the good grace of the West. More of the double standards I referred to earlier.

I'm repeating myself so I think I've mostly said what I want to say on the subject and I've grown bored of the thread so I have no intention of going back and forth with you indefinitely. If Mr. @Bald1 wants to answer my question I'd love to read his response, otherwise I think I am done here. Cheers.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I already addressed this earlier in the thread so now I'm having to repeat myself here


So in other words predatory colonialism is something to be proud of while pragmatic diplomacy isn't. When its Western success we'll just ignore the resource advantage and predatory foreign policy and attribute it to some constellation of values but with the successes in the Islamic world its only due to oil and the good grace of the West. More of the double standards I referred to earlier.

Absolutely not, Capitalism fueled by predatory colonialism definitely was a factor in the rise of the West and no, it's not something to be proud of. In fact the current refuge crisis across the world and especially in Central America can be traced back to predatory policies like the Reagan Doctrine. The success of the House of Saud began in 1938 with the discovery of oil and the other gulf states even later, before the discovery they were nothing more than desert kingdoms consistently subjugated by the Egyptians and Ottomans. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything they have produced other than oil or in the case of the Emirates, hotels for the rich. And make no mistake about this, yes their 19th and 20th century growth was largely to do with the ties they made with West.

I'm repeating myself so I think I've mostly said what I want to say on the subject and I've grown bored of the thread so I have no intention of going back and forth with you indefinitely. If Mr. @Bald1 wants to answer my question I'd love to read his response, otherwise I think I am done here. Cheers.

Cheers Cunt!