Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Right-wing ideology in Islam

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

Is right-wing ideology allowed in shia-islam?

personally i'm against immigration, believe in the free-market and have common belief that the country that i'm in (Britain) should control the majority of the 3rd world to maintain peace between ideologies and ethnic groups.

I'm also prone to follow political groups like "UKIP" and also militant shia groups ie Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas and strongly against iranian and Saudi arab proxy wars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
11 minutes ago, Setse said:

the country that i'm in (Britain) should control the majority of the 3rd world to maintain peace between ideologies and ethnic groups.

While that may ostensibly be a reason for international adventurism, usually the idea is that while you are making peace between the two foreign parties you help yourself to whatever resources they were arguing about.

My understanding of Islam is that it provides a system of rights and obligations and there are clear prescriptions to fair-dealing. If by right-wing you are referring to using coercion etc. in order to effect unfair exchanges, I don't think that would work Islamically speaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
2 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

While that may ostensibly be a reason for international adventurism, usually the idea is that while you are making peace between the two foreign parties you help yourself to whatever resources they were arguing about.

My understanding of Islam is that it provides a system of rights and obligations and there are clear prescriptions to fair-dealing. If by right-wing you are referring to using coercion etc. in order to effect unfair exchanges, I don't think that would work Islamically speaking.

I agree to the notion that exploiting countries during civil unrest is usually in the wrong. However, if we use the continent of Africa (which has tons of natural resources) as an example many american, chinese and european companies have bought shares of land to unearth Africa's riches since Africa itself is often unstable due to bickering tribes and conflicting ideologies ,the world simply cannot wait for a whole continent to "get a grip" in an increasing technological advanced society. Atleast many of the companies hire africans themselves which can help uplift them out of poverty in some areas

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
2 hours ago, Setse said:

many american, chinese and european companies have bought shares of land to unearth Africa's riches

Or in other words they forced/deceived them to sell that land

2 hours ago, Setse said:

the world simply cannot wait for a whole continent to "get a grip"

 

2 hours ago, Setse said:

due to bickering tribes and conflicting ideologies

I don't see why the world (western nations) should interfere (militaristically) with issues that affect Africa domestically, as you said they don't have the means to unearth many of their valuable resources, so they clearly don't have an international influence to warrant a third party intervention. 

2 hours ago, Setse said:

many of the companies hire africans themselves which can help uplift them out of poverty in some areas

This has been going on for over a century, Africa has been milked continuously and those who have been 'hired' after they 'sold' their land are worse off than before.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Setse said:

Is right-wing ideology allowed in shia-islam?

personally i'm against immigration, believe in the free-market and have common belief that the country that i'm in (Britain) should control the majority of the 3rd world to maintain peace between ideologies and ethnic groups.

I'm also prone to follow political groups like "UKIP" and also militant shia groups ie Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas and strongly against iranian and Saudi arab proxy wars.

Why are you against immigration?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
6 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Why are you against immigration?

1. Because most immigrants come from "islamic"/socalist/corrupt countries, and they'll vote their own twisted cultural values, rather than assimilate to our culture of self-reliance. Take the Labour party in the UK for example ,the majority of immigrants here primarly vote labour every election which is open borderns and social welfare.

2. lower wages for the working class

3. cannot re-create western idealism ie the magna carta or the american constitution. Only Imam ali(عليه السلام) was able to create something better on how rulers should rule.

4. replacing the native population as immigrants tend to have much larger families , a report by the BBC says that the majority of school children are now foreign born

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
39 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I don't see why the world (western nations) should interfere (militaristically) with issues that affect Africa domestically, as you said they don't have the means to unearth many of their valuable resources, so they clearly don't have an international influence to warrant a third party intervention.

The African countries represented in the UN don't have a problem ,per-say, of materials being harvested by foreign bodies as i believe they know that due to current domestic problems in africa they could not do it themselves and this way they're atleast getting a small cut of the profit which is better than post colonial days atleast.

 

48 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

This has been going on for over a century, Africa has been milked continuously and those who have been 'hired' after they 'sold' their land are worse off than before.

 

Africa will always be milked so long as they're foreign invaders boast higher intellect. when europeans arrived in Africa they hadn't invented the wheel or had a word for "future" and to this day many small towns and tribes still don't have access to these basic inventions or ideas.

atleast when they sell their land they can buy food/water as opposed to starving/dying

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Setse said:

1. Because most immigrants come from "islamic"/socalist/corrupt countries, and they'll vote their own twisted cultural values, rather than assimilate to our culture of self-reliance. Take the Labour party in the UK for example ,the majority of immigrants here primarly vote labour every election which is open borderns and social welfare.

2. lower wages for the working class

3. cannot re-create western idealism ie the magna carta or the american constitution. Only Imam ali(عليه السلام) was able to create something better on how rulers should rule.

4. replacing the native population as immigrants tend to have much larger families , a report by the BBC says that the majority of school children are now foreign born

In North America, immigrants, including those from Muslim countries, tend toward liberalism and not to the working class or socialist parties which want big government and more welfare. That’s because many immigrants come here with an enterprising spirit, start small businesses, and are generally hard working.

If they do vote for leftist parties, its because the alternative is too xenophobic and anti-immigrant.

Immigration is what built North America, particularly the United States, into the economic power it is today. There was mass migration to the United States throughout the early and mid 20th century.

The difference is, America accepted her immigrants and integrated them into the nation, while in Europe, immigrants have never been socially accepted and constantly face employment discrimination.

Also, in America, there is no “native population” as the Whites are themselves European immigrants or descendants of Europeans who migrated here. This is one of the main reasons why North America is superior to Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
3 hours ago, Setse said:

the world simply cannot wait for a whole continent to "get a grip" in an increasing technological advanced society. Atleast many of the companies hire africans themselves which can help uplift them out of poverty in some areas

I was sure I had made a blog entry about the following. But I can't find it.

If you consider the Muslim experience in America and Australia, we have gone many decades or even centuries after the colonisers - after the land disputes have been settled. The original settlers were usurpers, they were thieves, scoundrels and murderers - the spawn of Satan who did very horrible things to the indigenous people (sometimes in the name of Jesus ((عليه السلام).)).

By the time we arrived the dirty work had already been done by the Christians. But as Matthew 5:5 promised us, 'blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth' and now mashallah we have mosques and imambaras all over N. America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

The original settlers were usurpers, they were thieves, scoundrels and murderers - the spawn of Satan who did very horrible things to the indigenous people (sometimes in the name of Jesus ((عليه السلام).)).

It is true that the original European colonizers committed genocide against the Amerindians, which was morally objectionable.

Nonetheless, they have to be given credit for developing this part of the world. The pre-Columbian era of Americas was even more primitive than the Bronze Age of Eurasia (meaning, the Americas were more primitive merely five centuries ago than Eurasia was five thousand years ago). A civilizational clash and conquest of one by the other was naturally inevitable given such a massive discrepancy. The world didn’t have our universal understanding of human rights and ethics in the 16th and 17th centuries.

If the Muslims had founded the Americas before the Europeans do you think they would have treated the Amerindians significantly different? After all we Muslims are blamed for the African slave trade and for perpetuating slavery of Africans.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
11 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

A civilizational clash and conquest of one by the other was naturally inevitable given such a massive discrepancy.

That's what I am saying, if there is evil to be done, let someone else there's plenty of people willing and happy to, it's not as if you have to force them. Why take the sin?

11 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

After all we Muslims are blamed for the African slave trade and for perpetuating slavery of Africans.

If we did that was wrong. But I think there's a fair amount of Western 'whataboutery' merchants who use pre-existing African practices as a flimsy excuse.

After all it is the U.S. that has a massive social problem as a result of the industrial level of slavery that they practiced. If Muslim/African countries had practiced it at that scale and that viciously they would have a BLM problem too, but they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Haji 2003 said:

After all it is the U.S. that has a massive social problem as a result of the industrial level of slavery that they practiced. If Muslim/African countries had practiced it at that scale and that viciously they would have a BLM problem too, but they don't.

What about Sudan? They had an entire civil war on the basis, Arab northerners versus darker Nilotes of the South.

If there were significant population of Blacks in the Middle East, there probably would be movements in that part of the world that parallel the Black civil rights movements in America.

I often read stories of how Blacks complain of significant discrimination in Arab countries, especially Egypt. African-Americans would be outraged by such stories.

The situation of Blacks in the Arab world is analogous to the situation of Blacks in Brazil. Race is more of a spectrum in Brazil, and not the traditional one drop rule upon which American society is based.

Nonetheless, just as there is considerable racial problems in Brazil, though of a slightly different kind and context than in America, there is a real racial problem in the Middle East too.

In South Asia, we have our own racial problem which is reflected as colorism and discrimination against darker backward caste people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Generally speaking, the right are my more natural allies.

They are quite honest about their position with regards to Muslims whereas the left tend to be wolves in sheep's clothing.

They tend to have more traditional, conservative values.

I also agree about immigration because it is creating too much tension with the natives - and for me personally it doesn't suit me to bring a load of uneducated Sunnis in, who are easy prey for Salafis and will just spread more Shi'a hatred. 

I don't agree with any of the 'far right' groups and would never vote for them even if I agree with some of their rhetoric.

Muslims are generally quite far right in Muslim countries, heck if you talk to Pakistanis from England they tend to blame all the problems in Pakistan on Afghan refugees - they bring drugs, crime, prostitution, extremism etc. Sounds a lot like what you hear about foreigners in some European countries, except that Pashtuns are part of the ethnic make up of Pakistan, it is very easy for them to integrate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
1 hour ago, Setse said:

The African countries represented in the UN don't have a problem ,per-say,

What represents the African people is the strife that they are undergoing, those governing elite cease to carry a legitimate form of governance once they betray their land and people. 

1 hour ago, Setse said:

they know that due to current domestic problems in africa they could not do it themselves and this way they're atleast getting a small cut of the profit which is better than post colonial days atleast.

You truly think it is out of any means of negotiation for those same entities within the UN to request aid from any member country, or even seek to build other ties with nations which in turn would establish good relations and benefit both governing factions? These 'leaders' as oftentimes seen within third world countries sell their nation and their people cheap, and in turn worsen the condition of their countries by inviting foreign entities to pillage and murder, after the entity has garnered what it seeks from said nation it leaves the country worse off then it was before. 

1 hour ago, Setse said:

to this day many small towns and tribes still don't have access to these basic inventions or ideas.

My point exactly, they're as worse off as before, except with fewer land to their names and lesser resources to garner. 

1 hour ago, Setse said:

atleast when they sell their land they can buy food/water as opposed to starving/dying

This is a malevolent solution and one which can be rectified through the absence of foreign entities pillaging third world countries, the main factor is greed and that is the only reason many of the world's nations are in shambles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

I share similar sentiments to Brother @Ali_Hussain when it comes to domestic affairs, however, internationally speaking I am neither of the left, nor right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

Generally speaking, the right are my more natural allies.

They are quite honest about their position with regards to Muslims whereas the left tend to be wolves in sheep's clothing.

How does that make them your ally? They are honest that they don’t like you, so you will ally with them because of their honesty?

Quote

I also agree about immigration because it is creating too much tension with the natives - and for me personally it doesn't suit me to bring a load of uneducated Sunnis in, who are easy prey for Salafis and will just spread more Shi'a hatred. 

On this basis, we Sunnis should likewise oppose immigration to the West of Shi’ites, because they will naturally incline toward anti-Sunni tendency and create sectarianism in this part of the world too.

Quote

Muslims are generally quite far right in Muslim countries, heck if you talk to Pakistanis from England they tend to blame all the problems in Pakistan on Afghan refugees - they bring drugs, crime, prostitution, extremism etc. Sounds a lot like what you hear about foreigners in some European countries, except that Pashtuns are part of the ethnic make up of Pakistan, it is very easy for them to integrate.

The irony is Pashtuns are indeed responsible for these things in Pakistan. I’ve been to Adiala Jail, which is officially Rawalpindi Central Jail. Being in Punjab you would expect most of its prisoners ought to be Punjabi, but they were actually disproportionately way more Pashtuns. Virtually all of the juvenile prisoners were Pashtuns, involved in drug trafficking and robbery. It mirrors the trend of Blacks disproportionately committing more crime than Whites in the West.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

How does that make them your ally? They are honest that they don’t like you, so you will ally with them because of their honesty?

On this basis, we Sunnis should likewise oppose immigration to the West of Shi’ites, because they will naturally incline toward anti-Sunni tendency and create sectarianism in this part of the world too.

The irony is Pashtuns are indeed responsible for these things in Pakistan. I’ve been to Adiala Jail, which is officially Rawalpindi Central Jail. Being in Punjab you would expect most of its prisoners ought to be Punjabi, but they were actually disproportionately way more Pashtuns. Virtually all of the juvenile prisoners were Pashtuns, involved in drug trafficking and robbery. It mirrors the trend of Blacks disproportionately committing more crime than Whites in the West.

They are my more natural allies because we actually agree on a lot of points with regards to basic morality, which is the cornerstone of decent society, whereas the left do not. If society moves too far to the left it will be nearly unliveable.

I am actually against bringing uneducated Shias here as well, because essentially there will be the same issues, and as you say if they are overtly sectarian it will cause strife within the Muslim community. However I was speaking from my personal point of view. But more generally extremist Shias just tend to be border line retarded, they are just complet idiots, whereas extremist Sunnis have much more extremist and violent tendencies. Also I've notice that it is easier for extreme Sunnis to bring the religiously educated Sunnis to their way of thinking than it is for extremist Shias. Take Yassir al-Habib for example, he was a major project of the Shirazis, they poured a lot of money into him, but he is still pretty irrelevant.

I can't really speak to the situation in Pakistan, but if it is as you say then fair enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

They are my more natural allies because we actually agree on a lot of points with regards to basic morality, which is the cornerstone of decent society, whereas the left do not. If society moves too far to the left it will be nearly unliveable.

I am actually against bringing uneducated Shias here as well, because essentially there will be the same issues, and as you say if they are overtly sectarian it will cause strife within the Muslim community. However I was speaking from my personal point of view. But more generally extremist Shias just tend to be border line retarded, they are just complet idiots, whereas extremist Sunnis have much more extremist and violent tendencies. Also I've notice that it is easier for extreme Sunnis to bring the religiously educated Sunnis to their way of thinking than it is for extremist Shias. Take Yassir al-Habib for example, he was a major project of the Shirazis, they poured a lot of money into him, but he is still pretty irrelevant.

I can't really speak to the situation in Pakistan, but if it is as you say then fair enough.

The Right wing already decisively lost the culture war in the early 2000s. Even then, the issues were very limited, gay marriage and abortion. The new generation of right wingers are not even social conservatives. They only react, that too quite mildly, to the most outrageous aspects of gender identity politics. They’ve already accepted, even embraced, the homosexualists. In Europe, this is especially true, the Right-wing and the homosexualists are natural allies against Muslims. In Europe, the Right-wing is focused more on the issue of Muslims, Islam and immigration. They could care less about morality and social conservatism. In order to effectively argue against Muslim presence in the West, the Right-wing has to be able to criticize our religious teachings and tendency toward social conservatism. They realized this long ago. That’s why they regularly point out that Muslims don’t believe in gender equality, don’t treat women equally, and don’t recognize the moral legitimacy of sodomy, homosex, lesbianism, and transgenderism. So I’m genuinely surprised as to why you consider them your natural allies.

Personally, I say let Western civilization crash and burn. Why should we invest ourselves in its vitality or preservation? Have we forgotten that we have been in a civilizational struggle with the West since at least the Crusades? The intellectual Right-wingers blame the Jews and mysterious crypto-Jews for having undermined their civilization and ultimately destroyed it. If that's true, we should appreciate what this powerful class of Jews have done. They were likewise motivated by vengeance for how Europe mistreated them.

When Notre Dame was burning, everyone said this is the symbol of Western decay and destruction. Was any Muslim not smiling at least on the inside when he saw Notre Dame burning?

It’s self-evident Western civilization cannot be redeemed. It’s too far deep into the pit.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Setse said:

Is right-wing ideology allowed in shia-islam?

personally i'm against immigration, believe in the free-market and have common belief that the country that i'm in (Britain) should control the majority of the 3rd world to maintain peace between ideologies and ethnic groups.

I'm also prone to follow political groups like "UKIP" and also militant shia groups ie Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas and strongly against iranian and Saudi arab proxy wars.

People should be allowed to believe in whatever they want to believe. But here's the thing: Islam demands from us to be against the oppressors and for the oppressed. You should remember this when really understanding the relationship Britain and other western states have with the Global South. 

Also, I feel like given that Allah, the Prophet and his family (عليه السلام) couldn't care for nations and races, why get all hung up on it yourself? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BleedKnee said:

People should be allowed to believe in whatever they want to believe. But here's the thing: Islam demands from us to be against the oppressors and for the oppressed. You should remember this when really understanding the relationship Britain and other western states have with the Global South. 

Also, I feel like given that Allah, the Prophet and his family (عليه السلام) couldn't care for nations and races, why get all hung up on it yourself? 

I’m quite skeptical of the whole narrative of British oppressing the “global South”. This anti-colonial, anti-imperialist narrative is intimately married to radical Leftism and Marxism. The British uplifted my country (India) and actually did much to alleviate the oppression of groups that were historically discriminated, namely, Muslims and scheduled castes.

I don’t know a single anti-British movement that wasn’t evil, from Nasser’s Army coup in 1952, to Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army during the Second World War.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Surprised to hear an Indian be okay with British colonialism :grin:

I mean, are you okay with massacres, apartheid, theft of resources, forced sterilization, famines, slavery, etc.? 

Fast forward to now, we are in a state of neo-colonialism where countries are thrown to unending conflict to satisfy American geopolitical ambitions (and that of their allies), child slavery being semi-approved by western companies like Nestle, climate change produced by western empires effects causing massive drought, France making billions of dollars a year from the franc-zone still existing within former French colonies, etc. 

I can understand that in a religious perspective, there's a disdain for secular Marxist organizations from the 20th century like the PKK that used to do suicide bombings in mosques and that crazy stuff. However, that doesn't disprove the incredible evil from colonialism and neo-colonialism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BleedKnee said:

Surprised to hear an Indian be okay with British colonialism :grin:

I mean, are you okay with massacres, apartheid, theft of resources, forced sterilization, famines, slavery, etc.? 

Fast forward to now, we are in a state of neo-colonialism where countries are thrown to unending conflict to satisfy American geopolitical ambitions (and that of their allies), child slavery being semi-approved by western companies like Nestle, climate change produced by western empires effects causing massive drought, France making billions of dollars a year from the franc-zone still existing within former French colonies, etc. 

I can understand that in a religious perspective, there's a disdain for secular Marxist organizations from the 20th century like the PKK that used to do suicide bombings in mosques and that crazy stuff. However, that doesn't disprove the incredible evil from colonialism and neo-colonialism.

Well the British liberated the Muslims of Punjab from the rule of a bunch of Sikh bandits. Muslims didn’t even have the right to offer the Adhan under Sikh rule, and cow sacrifice was punishable by death.

The British created Pakistan, the ultimate gift to Indian Muslims.

As for the accusations of massacres, apartheid, theft of resources, etc., this is all hugely exaggerated. If the British plundered India’s resources, then what about Muslim regimes prior to them, like the Mughals, Afghans and Turks?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
13 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

What about Sudan? They had an entire civil war on the basis, Arab northerners versus darker Nilotes of the South.

I am not sure what this has to do with slavery. Unless the Arabs lived in the north and kept their slaves in the south, which seems very unlikely.

 

10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

If the British plundered India’s resources, then what about Muslim regimes prior to them, like the Mughals, Afghans and Turks?

The Muslims came to India, stayed in India and became Indians.

The British decimated Indian industry so that it could not compete with British industry and their railways were built to extract Indian resources as efficiently as possible out of the country back to Britain. 

Sure Nadir Shah took away booty from India to Qalat-I-Naderi in Iran, but we are talking camel trains rather than train loads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I find it startling to see so many “Muslims” draw on concepts taken from the postmodernist, bourgeois “left,” e.g., terms and concepts such as neocolonialism. While criticising the secularist, Marxist left, many middle-class “Muslims” are all too happy to draw on cultural-“Marxist” identity politics, as a mirror image of Orientalist discourse. Like Orientalist discourse, cultural “Marxism” is drawn from a shared bourgeois, Western milieu, that of the intelligentsia, rather than from Islamic civilisation per se. Regardless, the Qur’ān itself admonishes people not to blame outsiders for their own personal failings, and that personal and collective reform starts from the ground up, within the home and family.

I see that some people here are making excuses for African Americans’ poor moral standards, even un-Islamic practices, by appealing to structural racism, despite the fact that blacks engage in certain behaviours that similarly disfavoured groups do not. In fact, “Muslims” who do so are no better than assimilated “Jews” who promote cultural “Marxism” and identity politics merely to protect their status in society. “Muslims” and (Zionist) “Jews” who promote race hatred, open borders, and identity politics use the dregs of African-American society—ghetto blacks—to augment their own wealth and status in society. The riotous black “thugs” (BLM et al.) are just guinea-pigs for them.

I actually think that miscegenation is a problem in Muslim as well as non-Muslim societies. The cosmopolitan nature of the early ”Islamic“ (Sunni-ruled) empires ended up tolerating a lot of pagan practices and racial groups associated with said practices, the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa being notable cases. Intermarriage between Semites and non-Semites gradually polluted the spiritually pure demographic core and led to decadent imperium and social degeneracy. Instead of destroying, say, animist and Hindu practices and societies, the Sunni regimes indulged them—until those very pagan idolaters overwhelmed them. Cf. the Mongol invasion(s).

The Native Americans were heathen idolaters whose populations were destroyed for their sins. Why should Muslims feel sorry for them? The Christian settlers were just doing what God commanded the Israelites to do when dealing with the Canaanites: to utterly wipe them out, sparing not even the settlements, women, and/or children. Yes, it sounds harsh, but God is never harsh. Only our soft, postmodernist culture comes up with such terms as “genocide,” based on collective guilt for following God’s orders.

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
2 hours ago, Northwest said:

The Native Americans were heathen idolaters whose populations were destroyed for their sins. Why should Muslims feel sorry for them? The Christian settlers were just doing what God commanded the Israelites to do when dealing with the Canaanites: to utterly wipe them out, sparing not even the settlements, women, and/or children.

We have the practices of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) to follow and he offers plenty of precedence on how to deal with heathen tribes. For us those instructions supersede those given to the Israelites.

Even if it was ok for the European colonists to do what they did (which I dispute) we can't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
51 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

We have the practices of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) to follow and he offers plenty of precedence on how to deal with heathen tribes. For us those instructions supersede those given to the Israelites.

Even if it was ok for the European colonists to do what they did (which I dispute) we can't.

@Haji 2003

I don’t necessarily disagree with the points enumerated, but apart from the basics things can get murky. As far as I know, the Prophet only granted protective status to the People of the Scripture (Ahl’ al-Kitāb), but excluded pagans from dhimmi status. Pagans don’t have the same rights as Ahl’ al-Kitāb, at least in terms of civil rights and responsibilities. For example, pagans are denied the right to practice their religion and culture. (Similarly, the European Christians forced Native Americans to give up their pagan cultures, convert, and assimilate, as industrial boarding missions illustrated.) However, the Qur’ān does offer very specific injunctions as to how prisoners of war and civilians are to be treated, regardless of their religion or background, including the protection of noncombatants, among them women and children. Certainly, the Prophet also ordered his followers not to destroy food supplies while besieging settlements. Nevertheless, on some issues I suspect that some people here tend to generalise beyond the very specific circumstances that the Prophet and his followers faced. Circumstances obviously change, as Islam itself attests: for example, Prophet Moses reduced the number of daily prayers from fifty (?) to five, Prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to orient the qibla’ (direction of prayer) toward Mecca instead of Jerusalem, etc.

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
19 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

In North America, immigrants, including those from Muslim countries, tend toward liberalism and not to the working class or socialist parties which want big government and more welfare. That’s because many immigrants come here with an enterprising spirit, start small businesses, and are generally hard working.

You're wrong, Immigrants almost always vote Democrat (pro welfare, pro immigration and gun restrictions) which can be seen with Virginia and Texas turning into Blue states thanks to 10 years of constant immigration ,i believe the current population in these states is around 50-60% hispanic. As for "hard working" you're implying that the people already in America arn't hard working which is false.

19 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

If they do vote for leftist parties, its because the alternative is too xenophobic and anti-immigrant

This just proves my point further that multi-racial societies don't work because every race wants something different; the whites want closed borders while immigrants want open borders that floods the market with cheap labour. Blacks also voted 91% for democrats last election

19 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Immigration is what built North America, particularly the United States, into the economic power it is today. There was mass migration to the United States throughout the early and mid 20th century.

You're forgetting that it was Europeans that immigrated to North America that shared the same cultural and religious ideology than the already English and German settlers. Europeans are much different to the current trends of immigration that are asians/blacks and south Americans that come from socialist or economically poorer countries. They cannot/will not replicated western idealism ie the Mangna carta or the American constitution ,in fact they're actively against this with immigrants tending to be anti-guns. Also the American founding fathers were pretty racost ie slave owners so i doubt they imagined the country that they build being only 65% white in 2020

20 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The difference is, America accepted her immigrants and integrated them into the nation, while in Europe, immigrants have never been socially accepted and constantly face employment discrimination.

This is simply untrue, Europe has provided immigrants with much ,much more than our North American counterparts with free housing and other social welfare as well as our media (BBC) being very pro immigration. As of now the illegal immigrants are provided with a 4 star hotel in Britain which is ridiculous.

America hasn't at all integrated (non-white) immigrants. Blacks have their own slang ,own culture and the majority still live in ghettos...and they've been there the longest!. Asians have their seperate areas "china town" distancing themselves with the white population and the growing resentment between each race is widening that can be seen during the 2016 and now the 2020 elections.

 

it's only a matter of time before every western nation breaks out into full blown racial wars

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
17 hours ago, BleedKnee said:

People should be allowed to believe in whatever they want to believe. But here's the thing: Islam demands from us to be against the oppressors and for the oppressed. You should remember this when really understanding the relationship Britain and other western states have with the Global South. 

Also, I feel like given that Allah, the Prophet and his family (عليه السلام) couldn't care for nations and races, why get all hung up on it yourself? 

salam

i agree with your point that the holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) couldn't care for nations and races, in fact i'm sure the very concept of looking down on someone due to race was something the Prophet tried eliminating completely

However ,the main problem is the standard of living , crime rate and politics has all changed with the policy of open borders. London is now 45% white and the crime rate has skyrocketed ,is that a coincidence?

Sweden's rape crime has increased by 51% all being foreign born and France ,belgium,uk experienced terrorist attacks that have never been seen before. this has directly impacted all of europe as security cameras ,armed police and government survelliance are now the norm. Also speaking out against immigration is labeled as "racism" or "hate speech" and can land me in jail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Another thing: the Western (media) Establishment, for the most part, is opposed to traditional and religious values. As such the media promote not just LGBTQ+I propaganda, pedophilia, incest, pornography, illegitimacy, feminism, weirdness, ugliness, perversion, the destruction of the nuclear family, etc., but also strongly support open borders, interracial marriage, “internationalism” (or at least UN-backed “multilateral” cover for Western imperialism), etc. For some reason certain Muslims criticise the media for promoting cultural and spiritual degeneracy, but promote the media’s pro-immigration, pro-miscegenation, multiculturalist agenda. One should be rightly suspicious of the fact that the ruling media actively promote the dissolution of the nation-state via massive immigration, given that everything else it promotes is antithetical to the tenets of Islam and other Abrahamic faiths. Selectivity runs rampant in some circles.

Note that the media, in particular, love to denigrate “white, Western, ‘straight,’ Christian” civilisation and extol “brown, non-Western, ‘queer,’ pagan” ways of life. Anti-racism or “ANTIFA/BLM,” for the media, is a good excuse to be antinomian, promulgate reverse racism, and tear down all morality, decency, law and order, custom, etc., to the extent that humanity itself is the enemy, trans-humanism is in vogue, and the very genetics of humanity need to be changed in order to stamp out the fitrah, in the name of globalist one-world neoliberal government. All this is taking place amid the rampant destruction of non-Western, particularly Muslim, societies by the ruling Western elites—the very elites who are just as responsible for the destruction of the West itself. The entire project is about uprooting, deviating, destroying, altering, and fabricating, turning things inside out, inverting, going “post-truth,” transcending reality, etc.

Don’t fall for the “pro-Muslim” side of the elites’ Janus-faced NWO project. Remember: their aim is divide et impera.

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

The problem with comparing Islam with 'Right Wing' or 'Left Wing' ideologies is that these terms are a moving target. They mean very different things depending on which group you are talking about. For example, the 'Britain First' people in the UK and the 'MAGA' Trump supporters in the US would disagree on many things. Probably the only things that would unite them is the fact that they are both anti-immigration and blame immigrants for most of the problems in their respective countries.

Islam is neither right wing or left wing. Islam has it's own ideology and political philosophy that is neither one of these. If you look at hadith from Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) from the time he was in charge of the government in the Muslim World or hadith from Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) when he was head of State of Medina, this was Islamic Government. The goal of Islamic Government is one and only one goal, to establish Haqq in the society. To establish a society where the needs of the poor are taken care of thru collection of the excess wealth of the rich, to create a level playing field in the economy where everyone has a chance to succeed thru their hard work and effort, to make it easy for those who want to apply Islamic principles to their life to do that, to make it difficult for those who want to undermine and subvert Islamic values in society to do that, to defend the country against foreign invasions and undue influence, etc. This is all establishment of Haqq, meaning everything is given it's proper place and value. 

There have been many book written about this subject. Here are a few

https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-government-governance-jurist-ayatullah-sayyid-imam-ruhallah-musawi-khomeini/form-islamic

https://www.al-islam.org/ideal-islamic-government-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi

https://www.al-islam.org/overview-mahdis-عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف-government-najmuddin-tabasi

https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-political-theory-legislation-volume-1-muhammad-taqi-misbah-yazdi

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2020 at 11:12 AM, Setse said:

You're wrong, Immigrants almost always vote Democrat (pro welfare, pro immigration and gun restrictions) which can be seen with Virginia and Texas turning into Blue states thanks to 10 years of constant immigration ,i believe the current population in these states is around 50-60% hispanic. As for "hard working" you're implying that the people already in America arn't hard working which is false.

This just proves my point further that multi-racial societies don't work because every race wants something different; the whites want closed borders while immigrants want open borders that floods the market with cheap labour. Blacks also voted 91% for democrats last election

You're forgetting that it was Europeans that immigrated to North America that shared the same cultural and religious ideology than the already English and German settlers. Europeans are much different to the current trends of immigration that are asians/blacks and south Americans that come from socialist or economically poorer countries. They cannot/will not replicated western idealism ie the Mangna carta or the American constitution ,in fact they're actively against this with immigrants tending to be anti-guns. Also the American founding fathers were pretty racost ie slave owners so i doubt they imagined the country that they build being only 65% white in 2020

This is simply untrue, Europe has provided immigrants with much ,much more than our North American counterparts with free housing and other social welfare as well as our media (BBC) being very pro immigration. As of now the illegal immigrants are provided with a 4 star hotel in Britain which is ridiculous.

America hasn't at all integrated (non-white) immigrants. Blacks have their own slang ,own culture and the majority still live in ghettos...and they've been there the longest!. Asians have their seperate areas "china town" distancing themselves with the white population and the growing resentment between each race is widening that can be seen during the 2016 and now the 2020 elections.

it's only a matter of time before every western nation breaks out into full blown racial wars

Wow, a lot of this sounds like typical alt-Right rhetoric.

Permanently closed borders are as impractical as totally open borders. The present immigration system is working and should persist.

The Europeans who migrated to America, especially Italians, Irish, Jews, Poles, etc., actually had a difficult time at first integrating. Their entry was also opposed by the “nativists” White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They were considered too foreign because of their religion (Catholic or Jewish), language and culture.

I see much less cultural clash between the immigrants to the US, who are predominantly Hispanic and Asian, then what was happening in the early and mid 20th century. Nativists likewise accused the Catholics of being incompatible with America’s liberal values because their loyalty was to the Pope and the Roman Church. This was also a significant criticism of JFK, whether his first loyalty was to the US or to the RCC as President.

Integration doesn’t mean assimilation. Why should all Americans have the same culture? If Blacks have their own culture what’s wrong with it? America is diverse and loves diversity. People speak different languages, have different cuisines, listen to different kinds of music, have different religions, practise different lifestyles, all while coexisting peacefully.

I wander if you’ve ever been to America. You should check it out and see how different and better it is compared to Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Northwest said:

Another thing: the Western (media) Establishment, for the most part, is opposed to traditional and religious values. As such the media promote not just LGBTQ+I propaganda, pedophilia, incest, pornography, illegitimacy, feminism, weirdness, ugliness, perversion, the destruction of the nuclear family, etc., but also strongly support open borders, interracial marriage, “internationalism” (or at least UN-backed “multilateral” cover for Western imperialism), etc. For some reason certain Muslims criticise the media for promoting cultural and spiritual degeneracy, but promote the media’s pro-immigration, pro-miscegenation, multiculturalist agenda. One should be rightly suspicious of the fact that the ruling media actively promote the dissolution of the nation-state via massive immigration, given that everything else it promotes is antithetical to the tenets of Islam and other Abrahamic faiths. Selectivity runs rampant in some circles.

Note that the media, in particular, love to denigrate “white, Western, ‘straight,’ Christian” civilisation and extol “brown, non-Western, ‘queer,’ pagan” ways of life. Anti-racism or “ANTIFA/BLM,” for the media, is a good excuse to be antinomian, promulgate reverse racism, and tear down all morality, decency, law and order, custom, etc., to the extent that humanity itself is the enemy, trans-humanism is in vogue, and the very genetics of humanity need to be changed in order to stamp out the fitrah, in the name of globalist one-world neoliberal government. All this is taking place amid the rampant destruction of non-Western, particularly Muslim, societies by the ruling Western elites—the very elites who are just as responsible for the destruction of the West itself. The entire project is about uprooting, deviating, destroying, altering, and fabricating, turning things inside out, inverting, going “post-truth,” transcending reality, etc.

Don’t fall for the “pro-Muslim” side of the elites’ Janus-faced NWO project. Remember: their aim is divide et impera.

This also sounds like typical Alt-Right rhetoric, as though I’m reading something written by the notorious Richard Spencer.

Miscegenation is not at all discouraged by Islam. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم actually arranged mixed race marriages. He himself married a Jewish lady and a Coptic lady رضى الله عنهما the latter bore him a son عليه السلام

At the same time, Islam also respects people’s sensitivities about wanting to marry within their own lineage/ethnic group. So people are free to decide whether they want to have an interracial marriage or not. Islam has left the matter open.

The rhetoric against miscegenation sounds quite racist.

Multiculturalism benefits us Muslims in the West. In fact, people who are against multiculturalism don’t really have a problem with ethnic or linguistic diversity. What they really have a problem with is Muslims, because we are the most radically different segment of humanity, culturally and socially. Other groups easily assimilate into the host society after one or two generations, but observant Muslims do not assimilate.

So from an Islamic perspective, multiculturalism is better for us as a minority.

Majority of Muslims are “Brown”, so from a racial perspective, we will be at a significant disadvantage if a White nationalist narrative comes to dominate our host societies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/19/2020 at 5:56 PM, Cherub786 said:

The difference is, America accepted her immigrants and integrated them into the nation, while in Europe, immigrants have never been socially accepted and constantly face employment discrimination.

U.s. immigrants are discriminated against at least as much as in Canada. I don't know enough about Europe to say though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...