User Tag List

First 9171819202129 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 312

  1. #181
    shadow boxer strawberries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ----
    Posts
    950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oakysage View Post
    To take this to a personal level shows lack of understanding of the objective side.
    no, i was reflecting on my values. i do not rule out the notion that a woman could find comfort in covering herself up.

  2. #182
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebe View Post
    I thought that the failure of the Shah's attempt in Iran to westernize is because of the failure of their economy and poor management and corruption under his rule whether than secularism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Yes those were factors as well, nevertheless you can't minimalise the religious factor, not least of which because that became the predominant factor in setting up the Islamist regime. Point being, secularism doesn't have a good record in the Middle East - and why that's so is an interesting topic in of itself, especially because it requires operating under a number of paradigms quite alien to Islamic thinking. And also the legacy of Western colonialism doesn't help either.
    Good point, Peguy. Also, I'd like to point out that if enforced secularism was not a significant part of the problem it appears most unlikely that an ISLAMIC revolution would have been the popular solution. I invoke Newton's third law here by way of analogy. It's particularly applicable to political affairs. One form of extremism almost inevitably foments its converse in good time.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  3. #183
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Good point, Peguy. Also, I'd like to point out that if enforced secularism was not a significant part of the problem it appears most unlikely that an ISLAMIC revolution would have been the popular solution. I invoke Newton's third law here by way of analogy. It's particularly applicable to political affairs. One form of extremism almost inevitably foments its converse in good time.
    That's a good point, and gets into something I often say: fundamentalism is as much a product of modernity as secularism and both operate within the same parameters. The ideological nature of Islamist extremists reflects much of this, which I'll expand upon later.

  4. #184
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That's a good point, and gets into something I often say: fundamentalism is as much a product of modernity as secularism and both operate within the same parameters. The ideological nature of Islamist extremists reflects much of this, which I'll expand upon later.
    I agree on this; much if not all modern religious fundamentalism (and not just the Islamic kind, though that is the primary bugbear of the secular West due to the fear of "otherness" they embody) is of recent origin, though it may look to the distant past for its ideological roots, and essentially reactionary in nature. That reaction needs something to work against. If it doesn't find it, it goes nowhere...
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  5. #185
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    I agree on this; much if not all modern religious fundamentalism (and not just the Islamic kind, though that is the primary bugbear of the secular West due to the fear of "otherness" they embody) is of recent origin, though it may look to the distant past for its ideological roots, and essentially reactionary in nature. That reaction needs something to work against. If it doesn't find it, it goes nowhere...
    Well how "reactionary" it is by nature is really up to debate, since Islamism relies heavily upon modern ideological conceptions, as Theodore Dalrymple explains here:
    The most obvious example of an ideology that came into prominence—or better, prominently into our consciousness—after Communism’s fall was Islamism. Because of its emphasis on returning to Islamic purity, and its apparent—indeed noisy—rejection of modernity, most people failed to notice how modern a phenomenon Islamism was, not just in time but in spirit. This is evident from reading just one of Islamism’s foundational texts: Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones, first published in 1964. The imprint of Marxism-Leninism is deep upon it, especially the Leninist component.

    Qutb starts with cultural criticism that some might find eerily prescient. “The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not because Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic and military power has become weak,” he writes. “The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.” Since, according to Qutb, those “life-giving values” cannot come from the Eastern Bloc, he thinks (like Juan Domingo Perón, the Argentinean dictator, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister) that a Third Way must exist: which, he says, can only be Islam.

    Just as in Marx only the proletariat bears the whole of humanity’s interests, so in Qutb only Muslims (true ones, that is) do. Everyone else is a factionalist. In Qutb’s conception, the state withers away under Islam, just as it does—according to Marx—under Communism, once the true form is established. In Marx, the withering away comes about because there are no sectional material interests left that require a state to enforce them; in Qutb, there is no sectional interest left once true Islam is established because everyone obeys God’s law without the need for interpretation and therefore for interpreters. And when all obey God’s law, no conflict can arise because the law is perfect; therefore there is no need for a state apparatus.

    One finds a unity of theory and praxis in both Qutb’s Islamism and Marxism-Leninism. “Philosophy and revolution are inseparable,” said Raya Dunayevskaya, once Trotsky’s secretary and a prominent American Marxist (insofar as such can be said to have existed). And here is Qutb: “Thus these two—preaching and the movement—united, confront ‘the human situation’ with all the necessary methods. For the achievement of freedom of man on earth—of all mankind throughout the earth—it is necessary that these methods should work side by side.”

    Like Lenin, Qutb thought that violence would be necessary against the ruling class (of bourgeois in Lenin’s case, unbelievers in Qutb’s): “Those who have usurped the authority of God and are oppressing God’s creatures are not going to give up their power merely through preaching.” Again like Lenin, Qutb believed that until human authority disappeared, the leader’s authority must be complete. Referring to “the Arab” of the Meccan period—an age whose moral qualities he wants to restore—Qutb says: “He was to be trained to follow the discipline of a community which is under the direction of a leader, and to refer to this leader in every matter and to obey his injunctions, even though they might be against his habit or taste.” Not much there with which Lenin could have disagreed. The British Stalinist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote of himself: “The Party had the first, or more precisely, the only real claim on our lives. . . . Whatever it had ordered, we would have obeyed.”

    Qutb is as explicit as Lenin that his party should be a vanguard and not a mass party, for only a vanguard will prove sufficiently dedicated to bring about the revolution. And like Leninism, Qutb’s Islamism is dialectical:

    [Islam] does not face practical problems with abstract theories, nor does it confront various stages with unchangeable means. Those who talk about Jihaad in Islam and quote Qur’anic verses do not take into account this aspect, nor do they understand the nature of the various stages through which the movement develops, or the relationship of the verses revealed at various occasions with each stage.
    Compare this with Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder:

    Right doctrinairism persisted in recognizing only the old forms, and became utterly bankrupt, for it did not notice the new content. Left doctrinairism persists in the unconditional repudiation of certain old forms, failing to see that the new content is forcing its way through all and sundry forms, that it is our duty as Communists to master all forms, to learn how, with the maximum rapidity, to supplement one form with another, to substitute one for another, and to adapt our tactics to any such change that does not come from our class or from our efforts.

    There are many other parallels between Leninism and Qutb’s Islamism, among them the incompatibility of each with anything else, entailing a fight to the finish supposedly followed by permanent bliss for the whole of mankind; a tension between complete determinism (by history and by God, respectively) and the call to intense activism; and the view that only with the installation of their systems does Man become truly himself. For Qutb’s worldview, therefore, the term Islamo-Leninism would be a more accurate description than Islamofascism.

    Qutb was a strange man: he never married, for example, because (so he claimed) he found no woman of sufficient purity for him. You wouldn’t need to be Freud to find the explanation suspect, or to find his reaction to Greeley, Colorado, in 1950, where he spent time on a scholarship—he saw it as a hotbed of unrestrained vice—somewhat hysterical, a cover for something seething deeply and disturbingly inside him. Devotion to an ideology can provide an answer of sorts to personal problems, and since personal problems are common, it isn’t surprising that a number of people choose ideology as the solution.
    The Persistence of Ideology by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal Winter 2009

    As I said to Lark, the characterisation of "IslamoLeninism" is about as strange and inaccurate as "Islamofascism"; although the point about the strong parallels between Islamist and Leninist thinking(especially in regards to revolutionary strategies involving a dedicated cadre as the vanguard) are well noted. Islamism is basically an attempted to interpet such forms of thought within an Islamic twist, as opposed to within the standard Enlightenment heritage(as you saw with 19th century radicals). So Islamism is as much a part of the Islamic world's encounter with modernity; and arose because of the failures of secularism within the Middle East, not out of an absence of it. This is why I find the common calls for imposing more modernity as the supposed solution, as advocated by Neo-Cons, feminists, Victor, etc., as rather naive at best and dangerous at worst since from historical inquiry I know this just adds fuel to the fires(as it historically has done).

  6. #186
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Do you all think two dominant cultures can exist within one country without clashing against each other? You call them xenophobic and racist, but what's that worth? Even if they were xenophobic and racist, is it not their country? What obligation do they have to anyone else but themselves?
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

  7. #187
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Thumbs down More Catholic than Catholic

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I know this just adds fuel to the fires(as it historically has done).
    The Roman Catholic Church declared modernism to be a heresy in 1907. But since then it has changed its mind and now fully accepts liberal democracy, the freedom of religion and the separation of Church and State.

    And although I enjoy your bookish contribution, I think that presenting yourself as loyal Catholic may be misleading.

    It seems to me you represent the traditionalist heresy that has been roundly rejected by the Church.

    Here you present yourself as more Catholic than Catholic and this is the hallmark of the traditionalist heresy.

    You may have more in common with Mel Gibson and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre than loyal Catholics.

  8. #188
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    ...Islamism relies heavily upon modern ideological conceptions...
    And yes, the parallels between Sayyid Qutb and Vladimir Lenin would explain the historic alliance between the Islamists and the Marxists.

    And indeed they are both violent, totalitarian ideologies.

  9. #189
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Victor here clearly has no real counter-argument, and resorts to personally attacking me. Very pathetic. :rolli:

  10. #190
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Victor here clearly has no real counter-argument, and resorts to personally attacking me. Very pathetic. :rolli:
    AD HOMINEM ATTACK!!!


Similar Threads

  1. Senate votes to turn down volume on TV commercials
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-03-2010, 06:00 PM
  2. Time to ban taxis in the UK
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-02-2010, 06:09 PM
  3. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-14-2009, 06:19 PM
  4. Mississippi wants to ban obese people from dining out!
    By scantilyclad in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-11-2008, 11:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO