Your idea of "analytical and factual" means an intricate (or pseudo) knowledge of theological debates, while compeltely ignoring whether or not this made any real hsitorical difference ot the roles of these religions.Absolutely not. I never said anything about so-called "inherent" properties of Islam as a whole, while you did. However, I mentioned that there are specific issues within the theology spread by 3 madhab of Sunni Islam. The truth is simply that I know Islam far more than you do, that I'm more down to earth, analytical and factual, and hence, I'd say you're out of touch with the real world.
I was just tired to see people debating over a subject where they're so deeply ignorant, where they confuse their own political prejudices with absolute truths. You were doing exactly the same mistake than true fascists like JHBowden, and even if you opposed him, that gives you no excuse.
Should you have practised modern sociology a bit more, you would know that the values spread by religion have always been a major political factor ("major" doesn't mean an absolute factor), and denying this is just a proof of blind stupidity. You can check Weber's, Simmel's, Durkheim's works. Of course, Marx never really understood this, but that doesn't imply Max Weber was a protofascist!
when did Marx deny this? I thought he and Engels were quite clear on the political improtance of, say, protestantism, Judaism, "Mohamediasm" (as Engels alled it), Hinduism, etc. To the point that they called "orientalists" by other post-modernists.
But it's not the point we are discussing. We are discussing whether the intricacies of theology between monotheistic religions, really matter to the extent you have claimed in the past, when you stated that it's impossible to compare Islam with Judaism or Christianity. This because you completely ignored any historical argument and fixated only on theological intricacies.
but I didn't call you a fascist, evil or otherwise. I know you are not a fascist. Again: intellectual dishonesty on your part.I get more and more the impression that you perceive the world in black and white. And that anybody who dares to disagree with you (even a fellow leftist) is simply labelled as "evil Fascist".
You however have called me a Stalinist, many times.
Not at all, if we look through our interactions, the insults and accusations of being wrong simply because one diverges from a certain ideological framework, have always come from yourself.Tcda, you behave exactly like a religious person, like a fundamentalist priest. And hence, it's not a big surprise to see that you accuse me of apostasy, heresy, or worst.
Another strawman.Yes, you're right: let's build a nuclear power plant in Haiti and let's see what happens next.
Outdated? This is coming from someone whose views on poverty come straight from Malthus.Once again, your views about extreme industrialization are ridiculous, totally outdated and possibly very dangerous.
My dear Stalinist friend, either it's time to read Marx more carefully, either you're joking with me.
Youa re vulgarizing and misrepresenting MArxism. But no mind: If you read Lenin's Theory of Imperialism, he is quite clear on the inseperability of eocnomics and politics in the epoch of monopoly capitalism.
thanks. I find it funny you would consider "unpredictable" to be a compliment!you're 100% predictable.
surely you could do better than that. Karl Popper or Olvier North give a more effective critic of Marxism than Habermas.You would need to read a lot more. Try Adorno or Habermas, for instance.
Next you'll be recommending Hardt and Negri.