TankMan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,213
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Seriously?fascists hate abortions, religious people also do
fascists are totalitarians, religious people also are
fascist are misogynist, religious people also are
fascists are xenophobic, religious people also hate minorities
fascists are expansionists, religion of Christianity and Islam also are
fascists are racist, trust me religious people also are, the choice melt down to being an Arab or Nordic in origin
and above all this code of ethics the fascists waved around was infect derived from the religion
that is why there are commonalities, because both manifest the same thing a society have to offer.. traditions.
my point is that fascists kill and punish people for the same reasons as religious governments will kill or punish them for,
First of all, what on Earth do you mean by "Religious people"? Do you realize you'e just generalised 6 billion people? Oh how I hope this is satire....
Islam explicitly states no one man is superior to another by virtue of anything other than his deeds. Explicitly.yes they do believe in a superior race.. that was their staple no doubt but every religion do connect it self with such a superior race
Judaism with Jews
Islam with Arabs
"An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person,3 except in piety"
Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #1739, and Mosnad Ahmad, #2037
Except... the Church hasn't realigned creationism with evolution which is why it's still one of the most widely debated issues in the world.i said that in the face of compulsive evidence the church officials have accepted the theory of evolution BUT they have realigned creationism with evolution by saying god must have created a process of evolution and helped it along the way and then should have send Adam and eve down from heaven on some point to manifest the bodies which were evolved.
I fully agree with the idea of aligning science with religion - let's not forget how many scientific discoveries originate from the Islamic Golden Age - a time during which Islam was a dominant, ruling ideology. But let's not jump onto the Secularist bandwagon. What is needed is proper intellectual discussion among Muslims without devolving into infighting and sectarianism.
Secularism is just running from the issue and pretending religion doesn't matter, when it does to billions of people worldwide. If the majority population believes the state should be run based on religion, imposing secularism onto them is, ironically, directly against Democracy.
And yet again you show an astounding lack of knowledge. Governments kill or punish people because of politics and power-hungry ruthless leaders. The Communists in Russia and Maoists in China were both Secularist and Anti-Fascist. Yet they killed people in the millions.traditions.
my point is that fascists kill and punish people for the same reasons as religious governments will kill or punish them for,
the end result is loss of human life..
Saying that religion is the cause for the most deaths is one of the most preposterous claims that has been accepted into public discourse since the recent rise of this new brand of borderline-militant Secularism.
Let's look at some actual research shall we:
"Phillips and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars lays out the simple facts. In 5 millennia worth of wars—1,763 total—only 123 (or about 7%) were religious in nature"
"The Encyclopedia of Wars, an extensive study published in 2008, chronicles 1,763 wars throughout human history. It names just 123 as ‘religious in nature’ – a little under 7%."
"The Institute for Economics and Peace report also found that having less religion in a country doesn’t make it more peaceful. The proportion of atheists in a country had no bearing on levels of peace."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html
https://www.str.org/blog/is-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars#.WFNL_tKLTZ4
Religion has just become a punching bag for psuedo-intellectuals who want to sound smart while avoiding the real issues of dirty politics, greed, imperialism, and especially class divide. Those are the true causes of death and violence.
The two ideologies responsible for the most deaths in history are completely secular in nature: Capitalism and Communism.
Today, starvation kills many, many more people than religion ever could directly or indirectly. Meanwhile we have enough food to feed all the starving people a few dozen times over. Seriously, look it up
http://www.stopthehunger.com/
people who died of hunger this year 10,725,901
Why don't we deal with that before we go on sanctimonious crusades to destroy 6 billion people's religious beliefs?
I see the red flag in your profile pic and say, from one socialist to another, that you need to realise something. There is a difference between the true Left and modern 'Liberals'.
Liberal fascist is an oxymoron.
And why do you hate liberals so much ?
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is hailed as the father of the two nation theory. He, in a lecture given by him before a large and very influential audience of Muslims in Lucknow, on 18th December, 1887, said :
" ..... Gentlemen, I am not a Conservative, I am a great Liberal.... "
Allama Muhammad Iqbal said :
"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam..."
and
"The claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to re-interpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life, is, in my opinion, perfectly justified."
(Mohammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam)
And Jinnah fits quite closely the model of the classic liberal politician. He wanted a Liberal constitution for Pakistan as well (as recorded by Fatima Jinnah in "My Brother")
The Fact is : "Pakistan movement was strongly opposed by extremist Muslims aka Mullahs and their followers, supported by moderate Muslims, and spearheaded by Liberal and Secular Muslims"
The Irony is "today Liberal and secular Muslims are "traitors" on the payroll of CIA/Mossad/RAW etc., Moderate Muslims are 'Wajib ul Qatl Mushriks', and the Mullahs are 'the representatives and protectors of the ideology of Pakistan' " !!!
I agree that Iqbal, Jinnah, and Sir Syed were Liberal - but that word has changed meaning since then. Today's liberalism is more accurately called Neoliberal Capitalism, and it has hijacked the Left Wing in the West.
No one is saying Mullahs are representatives or protectors of Pakistan. In fact, they are a major problem and were against Iqbal and Sir Syed, they were even against the creation of Pakistan.
Iqbal was an islamic socialist. He believed that Socialism and Islam are compatible, in fact, that Islam was socialistic in the first place. This is true to a great extent. Socialism does not need to be secularist - it is completely compatible with most religions.
Furthermore, Iqbal was a - dare I say it - 'Salafi'. Salafi in the sense that he disagreed with Taqlid (blind following) and supported Ijtehaad. That is the fundamental difference between say, a Hanafi Sunni and a Salafi
http://www.stratagem.pk/cover-story/iqbals-vision-of-the-sovereign-state/The building of khudi is also why Iqbal advocated a return to ijtehad, rather than blind faith in taqlid. Iqbal believed that the practice of ijtehad was a constant evolution for the better. Iqbal lamented the loss of ijtehad (legal advance) in the Islamic world through the early political triumph of conservative Ulama over the Mu’tazila, the perversion of Sufism into asceticism, and the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols. He greatly admired personalities such as ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al Wahhab, Shah Waliullah, and Syed Ahmed Khan, and the modernists, who were trying to bring back such ijtehad, which contextualized Islamic law according to new challenges and discoveries, without retreating from the core spirit of Islam (quite apart from modern extremist takfiriinterpretations of such individuals). Rejecting both the ‘narrow, medieval, aesthetic dogma’ of the contemporary Ulama, and the ‘mystic, monkish and ascetic’ trends which had developed in contemporary Sufism, Iqbal saw Islam as the birth of inductive intellect.
Strangely enough, it is the ghair-muqallids like the ones Iqbal admired who are labelled extremists nowadays. Mostly because of the Takfiris who have hijacked the idea in a way. The key thing here, though, is that he rejected both the Mullahs and the Westerners
http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/zarb-e-kaleem-076-maghrabi-tehzeeb.html
http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/bang-e-dra-163-tulu-e-islam.html
http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/bal-e-jibril-131-farman-e-khuda.html
Just because you are religious doesn't mean you have to be a rightist close-minded conservative molvi. And just because you are left-wing doesn't mean you have to support the West.
Similarly, there is a strange role reversal in the left-right dynamic: the Left has become the opposite of what it's supposed to be.
The people @Verve called 'Liberal Fascists' exist only to defend Western Imperialism and neo-Liberal Capitalism, two of the most destructive ideologies in history. The reason we do not hear about them much is because they are currently in power.
It it true that 'Liberal Fascist' is an oxymoron. But they exist. They are people who believe in forcing secularism and "democracy" (read: pro-Western foreign policy + Capitalism) down the throats of people.
The true left does still exist though it is very weak, probably the best example I can cite is Noam Chomsky.
Anyway, the key point I am making here is that Liberal doesn't mean what it used to, and 'Liberal Fascists' do exist (personally I prefer the term 'Psuedo-Liberal')