Do you have a higher opinion of Evangelical Christianity or Islam?
Biden his time:
Quote from: Aurelius on November 28, 2022, 04:38:41 PM
Quote from: All Along The Watchtower on September 18, 2022, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: ingemann on September 17, 2022, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: All Along The Watchtower on September 17, 2022, 11:41:31 AM
If you're asking if I have a higher opinion of the largely white conservative/fundamentalist Protestants who are disproportionately American vs. Muslims in general, well I know which ones are far more powerful, numerous, and malignant in my country.
I'll grant that Salafism and Khomeneism are Bad. Though it should be noted that both of those are modern developments (in the latter case very much so, obviously) and simplistic, politicized interpretations of an utterly massive Abrahamic religion with well over a millennium of history, explicitly calling for a "return" to the imagined early golden period of the religion. The fundamentals, if you will.
Both of those are far less awful than historical Islam, ISIS may seem horrible but they’re far more in line with the historical practice of Islam than the former two. I think Evangelical Christianity represent corrupted Christian values, but they’re still better than generic Islam.
european.txt
Yeah and it's still correct.
No, it's wrong and that you and ingemann are saying this tells me that you don't know anything about Islam or its "historical practice" other than what you read online on social media comments.
ISIS is a terrorist organization that has been condemned by thousands of Islamic scholars worldwide, most of its victims are Muslim, and unlike the original Islamic conquests when it leaves an area it leaves it entirely bereft of non-Muslims and breaks dozens upon dozens of Islamic laws, for example prohibitions on torture, killing civilians, rape, forced conversion, calling Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) freed all his slaves, Islam forbade enslavement of already free people, while ISIS makes new ones.
Islam expressly forbids burning as a punishment for crime (or for any reason on any creature) while ISIS shares videos of themselves doing this online (as well as executing thousands of people for merely fighting in an army against them meanwhile under Islam Prisoners of War are meant to be treated well).
Comparing ISIS to Islam is like comparing the LRA to Christianity.
PSOL:
Quote from: SInNYC on December 04, 2022, 02:02:39 PM
Whichever one is in a less regressive social climate at that time/place.
Evangelical extremists arent as extreme as extremist Islamicists today. Even the most extreme of evangelicals are more likely to see a shrink than follow directions if they see a burning bush talking to them. I cant say the same for analogous scenarios involving extremist Islamicists.
But this is really more to do with the socioeconomic climate of the regions that establish official position on the religion. Thus, LRA is considered heterodoxy, while ISIS isnt considered as heterodox as LRA.
I have to step in and say that this line is particularly incorrect, given Islamists are inherently against folk traditions of nominal Muslims and magic in general. Qutbis and Wahhabis are especially against shrine worship for somewhat different yet intersecting reasons, and Islamists in general wouldn’t go that far.
Quote from: Aurelius on November 28, 2022, 04:38:41 PM
Quote from: All Along The Watchtower on September 18, 2022, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: ingemann on September 17, 2022, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: All Along The Watchtower on September 17, 2022, 11:41:31 AM
If you're asking if I have a higher opinion of the largely white conservative/fundamentalist Protestants who are disproportionately American vs. Muslims in general, well I know which ones are far more powerful, numerous, and malignant in my country.
I'll grant that Salafism and Khomeneism are Bad. Though it should be noted that both of those are modern developments (in the latter case very much so, obviously) and simplistic, politicized interpretations of an utterly massive Abrahamic religion with well over a millennium of history, explicitly calling for a "return" to the imagined early golden period of the religion. The fundamentals, if you will.
Both of those are far less awful than historical Islam, ISIS may seem horrible but they’re far more in line with the historical practice of Islam than the former two. I think Evangelical Christianity represent corrupted Christian values, but they’re still better than generic Islam.
european.txt
Yeah and it's still correct.
Not really
First off, “historical Islam” and historical Islamic societies are broad enough to be basically useless. Going by what the actions of what Muhammad and his colleagues did is not comparable given the social context and demographic clientele Muhammad and ISIS serve are radically different. Muhammad and Islam provided a largely positive effect on the Arabian peninsula; standardizing women’s status, providing better treatment to slaves and small-scale merchants who would accept Muhammad as a leader—which many people of the lesser classes and immigrants joined as liberating—social benefits, and consumer regulation. ISIS in turn just represents degenerate middle class twits, similar to tradcaths, who just want to conserve and expand their own power. Muhammad was not perfect, he did eliminate and sideline the more revolutionary elements which would continue by both followers of the lines of Uthman and Ali, and garbage like the mystical crap the followers put in or the issuance to kill gender-nonconforming people were put in by the Islamic establishment. However, saying ISIS is closer to Muhammad or some nonsense about Christianity’s divergences over time is made in such bad faith. In spirit, Muhammad represents Robespierre or Stalin than Baghdadi taking into account historical context.
Khomeinism/Iranian line/Vilayat e Faqih and Salafism, while taking inspiration in the Quran as a reactionary piece in the respective context of each society, are not the same contextually. The former two movements are done primarily by a marriage of convenience of the Middle Class shopkeepers, landlords, and Labour aristocrats wanting to conserve and expand power in the midst of the elite being unable to expand the patronage system under sweeping European domination or being threatened by “modernization” threatening to turn them into the mass of poor people they despise.
Quote from: ingemann on November 18, 2022, 02:20:19 PM
Quote from: Laki on November 18, 2022, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: ingemann on September 17, 2022, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: All Along The Watchtower on September 17, 2022, 11:41:31 AM
If you're asking if I have a higher opinion of the largely white conservative/fundamentalist Protestants who are disproportionately American vs. Muslims in general, well I know which ones are far more powerful, numerous, and malignant in my country.
I'll grant that Salafism and Khomeneism are Bad. Though it should be noted that both of those are modern developments (in the latter case very much so, obviously) and simplistic, politicized interpretations of an utterly massive Abrahamic religion with well over a millennium of history, explicitly calling for a "return" to the imagined early golden period of the religion. The fundamentals, if you will.
Both of those are far less awful than historical Islam, ISIS may seem horrible but they’re far more in line with the historical practice of Islam than the former two. I think Evangelical Christianity represent corrupted Christian values, but they’re still better than generic Islam.
historical Islam >>> Historical Christianity.
You know about Islamic Gold Age, and European Medieval Ages.
Who do you think approved of the scientific method, yes. The biggest scientists of that time were Arabs. The best explorers of the time were also Arabs like Ibn Al Battuta.
Many Middle East Empires were tolerant like Ottomans or the Moors. Who were intolerant: yes the ones calling for crusades, and the backwards civilizations in Europe. Even norsemen were superior to Europeans.
The Muslim conquered the richest parts of the Roman Empire and turned it into the Middle East, the Christians lived in the post-apocalyptic ruins of poorest part of the Roman Empire and turned it into Europe.
The “enlightened” Caliphate suffered from rampant peasant revolts, they continued attacked and raided their neighbors for slaves and tribute, their economies depended on taxing second class citizens or raiding, they were center of the global slave trade and while slavery was falling in importance in the late Roman Empire, they revived it and pushed it to height never seen before or even after. Civil Wars over succession or religious difference were common.
The Italian peninsula, modern day Southern France, and Constantinople and surrounding environs weren’t exactly broke either. Christian Europe was objectively worse off than the Islamic world until the Mongols leveled most of the Islamic world and Europeans found new trade routes bypassing the Islamic world and the whole America’s to exploit instead of being boxed in like the Islamic states. From there they took over the world.
I’m not even going to go into much on the last paragraph, as it basically glosses over the second and most important part of why Western Europe had higher rises of living in the late-1700s/1800s that ultimately eclipsed living standards. The revolutions in Europe; most notably in France, the UK, and Germany—were far more successful and potent than those in the Middle East at any point in its history as time went on. I would even go so far as to argue that the Abbasid revolution, providing a state which is most associated with the Islamic golden age, was less successful than the German Peasants revolution in terms of societal effects versus a change of ethnic background and location of power of the ruling elites. The fact of the matter is that European revolutions greatly hastened the end of both feudalism and mercantilism in ushering in Capitalism; something that failed in the Arab world and especially in Iran which transitioned into a feudal, and even mercantile, society earlier than any state of equal stature.
Quote from: Aurelius on November 03, 2022, 09:51:42 PM
Changing my mind back to Evangelical Christianity after reading "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Yeah yeah, I know, not all Muslims, not all Christians, but only the worst, fringiest Christian sects are as immiserating as many entire Muslim societies.
That’s because the “Christian world” ceased to take Christianity seriously by that time and benefited from the advantages I’ve mentioned earlier in this post. Comparing Somalia in the midst of a civil war, or even f•••ing Saudi Arabia during the 90s when they were getting in to using Wahabbi proxies to establish control inside the peninsula and out, is legitimately laughable. That and the straight up bull•••• lies she spews about Muslim immigrants to get her paychecks from certain xenophobic actors.
I have family and friends who are on the Islamic spectrum both here and at home. I know the history and knows the effects Islam as a framework leads to. But let’s not get into this bull•••• of d•••waiving because the absolute bull•••• I’m reading here is just embarrassing.
PSOL:
Evangelical Christianity and their adherents cannot be compared to either Christians as they identify now or nominal Muslims, therefore Evangelicalism is much worse because it’s teachings and the adherents who act on it as a group are much worse generally.
Oldiesfreak1854:
Evangelical Christianity (Christian). I have nothing against mainstream Islam, but I hate Islamic extremists every bit as much as Christian extremists. Not to mention most Islamic theocracies are extremely regressive in their treatment of women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities.
🦀🎂🦀🎂:
Quote from: bagelman on September 11, 2022, 10:47:29 PM
If two people were right in front of me, one Muslim and the other an Evangelical, the latter would be more likely to be a jerk than the former. That's one good thing I can say in Islam's favor.
However, if Evangelicals took over the US, it would suck as they would ban SSM and maybe even look into overturning Lawerence v. Texas. However, most Muslim countries in the middle east will chop off your head for being gay. I don't want my head chopped off and I don't like people who want to chop off my head. Thus evangelicals win, because they are less likely to chop off my head.
As far as I know, only two Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality: Iran and Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Obviously none is exactly pleasant to be gay (and it ignores the presumed existence of rural "village justice" in those countries with weak national governments) but the entirety of MENA isn't the Taliban.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page