Real Terrorism - Secularists Killed 87,500,000 during 20th Century Hamza Tzortzis (18 min)

[Eddie Mecca]

 

[Eddie Mecca]

I never want to hear the "religion is responsible for all the woes of the world and causes people to kill one another" argument from atheists ever again

Edited January 29, 2021 by Eddie Mecca

[Zaidism]

45 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

religion is responsible for all the woes of the world and causes people to kill one another

You can very convincingly and easily display how secularism is the root cause of any such religious disputes as well.

[smma]

2 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

I never want to hear the "religion is responsible for all the woes of the world and causes people to kill one another" argument from atheists ever again

kings who use religion as a tool to wage war are responsible, religion is the victim too. But theyre too dumb to realise that. 

[Northwest]

4 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

I never want to hear the "religion is responsible for all the woes of the world and causes people to kill one another" argument from atheists ever again

What about secularist anti-imperialists such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez? The IRI has had friendly relations with those and their successors in Cuba and Venezuela. Isn’t it a bit simplistic to argue that secularism is behind all the wars and genocides, given that a number of secularists have been anti-imperialists such as Ho Chi Minh, Patrice Lumumba, and Mao Zedong? Politically, the IRI often tries to forge alliances of convenience with the anti-imperialist left, even though the IRI adopts an anti-imperial viewpoint from the Islamic perspective. In a number of anti-imperialist conflicts the established religious institutions and the masses were on the opposite side. For example, in Vietnam the Catholic Church supported the US-backed puppet regime in South Vietnam, and the Maronite Christian elite supported the fascist Falange in Lebanon, backed up by the Zionists. Politics greatly complicates matters. Historically, moreover, religion and politics are inseparable, as in the case of the Crusades. Religion and politics only separated during the twentieth century in many countries. Up until then, however, both Judaism and Christianity, like Islam, addressed politics as much as religion, given that there was no separation between church and state.

2 hours ago, smma said:

But they’re too dumb to realise that. 

Dumb as in “deaf/blind to reason” or “dumb” as in “genetically maladjusted”?

Edited January 29, 2021 by Northwest

[Northwest]

• “Atheist” error: religion solely responsible for wars/genocides
• “Religious” error: secularism solely responsible for wars/genocides

The irony is that both of these perspectives, each of which is overly simplistic, presuppose a “hard” secularist division between religion and politics. Up until the twentieth century such a demarcation did not exist in many areas, prior to the intrusion of modern communications, industries, and ideologies. Ironically, the atheist position, while still incorrect, is slightly closer to the truth than the religious one, in that religion had something to do with politics, including wars and/or “genocides,” for most of human history. Interestingly, many of the religious people here, Muslims no less, are trying to disprove the atheist contention from a secularist presupposition that is simply not valid for most of human history. Up until very recently religion and/or religious cultural influence had at least something to do with politics, including wars and/or “genocides.” One can dispute the degree and/or extent to which religion influenced politics or vice versa, but the existence of interdependent influence seems indisputable.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Northwest

[Berber-Shia]

Ideologies kill. Secularism is also an ideology.

[smma]

5 hours ago, Northwest said:

What about secularist anti-imperialists such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez? The IRI has had friendly relations with those and their successors in Cuba and Venezuela. Isn’t it a bit simplistic to argue that secularism is behind all the wars and genocides, given that a number of secularists have been anti-imperialists such as Ho Chi Minh, Patrice Lumumba, and Mao Zedong? Politically, the IRI often tries to forge alliances of convenience with the anti-imperialist left, even though the IRI adopts an anti-imperial viewpoint from the Islamic perspective. In a number of anti-imperialist conflicts the established religious institutions and the masses were on the opposite side. For example, in Vietnam the Catholic Church supported the US-backed puppet regime in South Vietnam, and the Maronite Christian elite supported the fascist Falange in Lebanon, backed up by the Zionists. Politics greatly complicates matters. Historically, moreover, religion and politics are inseparable, as in the case of the Crusades. Religion and politics only separated during the twentieth century in many countries. Up until then, however, both Judaism and Christianity, like Islam, addressed politics as much as religion, given that there was no separation between church and state.

2 hours ago, Berber-Shia said:

 

 

People in power will always wage wars and try to increase their wealth and power through any means possible. For me, communist, capitalist, secular, religious are all just meaningless tags or uniforms of 2 opposing sports teams, they may try to make the other team look bad but in truth they are playing the same game. Politics and religion were a single entity as long as religion continued to serve politics. All wars which are often publicized as religious in nature had politics at their core, same applies to crusades or anything else that comes to mind. 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by smma

[Eddie Mecca]

12 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

You can very convincingly and easily display how secularism is the root cause of any such religious disputes as well.

These days groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS and all the various Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated or offshoot "jihadist" groups are being steered (either directly or indirectly) by the secularists.

[smma]

39 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

These days groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS and all the various Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated or offshoot "jihadist" groups are being steered (either directly or indirectly) by the secularists.

Only reason they're in existence is because of Democratic secular republics. There is evidence USA was both fighting and funding ISIS at the same time

[BleedKnee]

Secularism isn't the cause, but modernity definitely is. 

I really suggest people read Rene Guenon's Crisis of the Modern World, it's short and gets to the point. Modernity, with it's obsession of accumulation of material things, is completely devoid of any humanity. Hence why it isn't surprising that things like the Atlantic Slave Trade, genocides after genocides, colonization, two world wars, etc., came to occurence in the first place. 

There's no one ideology to pinpoint, it's an entire reality that we have to contend with if we want to actually move about away from this Dark Age. 

[Eddie Mecca]

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

What about secularist anti-imperialists such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez?

True, they are the exceptions to the rule

 

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

Isn’t it a bit simplistic to argue that secularism is behind all the wars and genocides, given that a number of secularists have been anti-imperialists such as Ho Chi Minh, Patrice Lumumba, and Mao Zedong?

When a small band of revolutionaries in Latin America seek to topple and overthrow a capitalist despot they MUST replace his rule with either socialism or communism ...this speaks volumes...In his book, 'The Ice Man Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources of Western Man's Sexism, Racism and Aggression' Michael Bradley says something profound...he mentions how people in the Global South (i.e. Third World) have been forcefully indoctrinated by the onslaught of foreign (i.e. Western) ideologies...none of the ideologies prevailing presently in SE Asia, Latin America, Middle East, Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Israel, Fiji Islands etc. are homegrown or natural intellectual outgrowths of the indigenous masses...rather they are introduced and artificially superimposed from the outside...revolutionary movements, political organizations etc. only gain legitimacy by the indoctrinated masses if they're seen as adhering to either capitalism. socialism or communism...these are the three choices...even alternative Western systems of life and philosophies like distributism, agrarianism, Jeffersonian democracy etc. aren't given serious consideration or even allowed to be mentioned in mainstream discourse...once again, people of color are mindlessly mimicking Eurocentric modes of behavior and thought. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

8 minutes ago, BleedKnee said:

Secularism isn't the cause, but modernity definitely is.

It's all-the-above brother...it's multifaceted...it's a combination of secularism, modernity, globalization, individualism, materialism, racism, atheism and the list goes on-and-on

[Eddie Mecca]

4 hours ago, smma said:

Politics and religion were a single entity

The Islamic narrative is that politics was originally introduced by the first man (i.e. Adam)...as time elapsed, politics became more-and-more complicated in order to keep up with the demands and complexities of society as we evolved from the hunter-gatherer/nomadic stage to the settled Neolithic agricultural phase and down throughout the ages...politics was first established by the Law-Giver prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses etc....pagans later did away the divine aspect and "secularized" it.  

Edited January 29, 2021 by Eddie Mecca

[smma]

25 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

The Islamic narrative is that politics was originally introduced by the first man (i.e. Adam)...as time elapsed, politics became more-and-more complicated in order to keep up with the demands and complexities of society as we evolved from the hunter-gatherer/nomadic stage to the settled Neolithic agricultural phase and down throughout the ages...politics was first established by the Law-Giver prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses etc....pagans later did away the divine aspect and "secularized" it.  

Only completely flawless people like prophets are capable of ruling justly, without any greed and completely adhere to the word of god whole doing. Doesn't matter the religion of the person who is ruling, they'll always go corrupt. Do you think theocracies like Iran are innocent countries ruled by honest, god-fearing people?

[Eddie Mecca]

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

The IRI has had friendly relations with those and their successors in Cuba and Venezuela...IRI tries to forge alliances of convenience.

Islamo-leftism or red (leftist, democratic socialist, New Left), green (Islamist) and sometimes brown (far-right) axis formed from interests shared by anti-globalists, anti-elitists, anti-Zionists, anti-capitalists, anti-Atlanticists and out of sheer survivalism...I agree with everything else you said regarding secularism being a modern construct of the 19th, 20th centuries, the Catholic Church, the Crusades, Zionism etc.

[Eddie Mecca]

@Northwest'Myth of Religious Violence' Hamza Yusuf (3 min) 

[Ali bin Hussein]

Secularism is representative of governance ruled by material motives.

You back throughout history and every religion based it self on divine justice. Atrocities were always caused by those trying the gain somthing in this material world. 

Secular oppresors are like religious tyrants but without a religion to hold them accountable by. Which is worse.

 

 

 

 

[Eddie Mecca]

7 minutes ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Secular oppresors are like religious tyrants but without a religion to hold them accountable by. Which is worse.

Agnosticism is the precursor to atheism and I call atheism the prerequisite class for Satanism 101 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Eddie Mecca

[Northwest]

14 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

once again, people of color are mindlessly mimicking Eurocentric modes of behavior and thought

“Eurocentrism” and “people of colour” are concepts invented by Western (or Westernised) intellectuals and have no relation to pre-modernity.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Northwest

[Zainuu]

On 30/01/2021 at 2:01 AM, smma said:

Do you think theocracies like Iran are innocent countries ruled by honest, god-fearing people?

No. Not at all. There are many corrupt in Iranian system too. But the one on top of them is not corrupt. In the time of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) too, many governors or people in politics got sold out to Muawiya and gave up. Now, I am not comparing Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to a faqih but my point is that when 'conspiracies', 'selling out', 'bribing' etc even happened in the rule of an infallible then WF is ruled by just some people who are followers of Imam Ali (عليه السلام). It doesn't mean they don't hold taqwa or don't want justice. 

If a govt. or system is corrupt, it doesn't mean that the person on top is involved too. Yes, if that person is not doing anything about this corruption, true, he is accountable then. But I don't think that's the case.

Not only Taqwa but I believe, even Allah's will is needed to run a system with pure justice. And Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) never imposes his will in a way that people are left without a choice.

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Zainuu

[Zainuu]

Something startling. Taliban reveals that US transferred members of ISIS in helicopters to Afghanistan.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2282373/us-forces-accused-of-transporting-daish-militants-into-afghanistan?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

[smma]

23 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Something startling. Taliban reveals that US transferred members of ISIS in helicopters to Afghanistan.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2282373/us-forces-accused-of-transporting-daish-militants-into-afghanistan?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

Not startling. McCain himself said that the US was funding ISIS and fighting it at the same time. Isis was just a tool to stay in the region longer

[Zainuu]

29 minutes ago, smma said:

Not startling. McCain himself said that the US was funding ISIS and fighting it at the same time. Isis was just a tool to stay in the region longer

Startling is the transfer of ISIS to Afghanistan. Not that they are backed by US. 

It means that ISIS still is the tool.

[Northwest]

On 1/29/2021 at 8:23 PM, Eddie Mecca said:

none of the ideologies prevailing presently in SE Asia, Latin America, Middle East, Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Israel, Fiji Islands etc. are homegrown or natural intellectual outgrowths of the indigenous masses...rather they are introduced and artificially superimposed from the outside...people of color are mindlessly mimicking Eurocentric modes of behavior and thought

@Eddie Mecca

One could also argue that various modern technologies, to not mention political systems, are imported from the West and adopted by the “global South.” Even Iran borrows industrial, pharmaceutical, and sundry other scientific “advances” from the West and selectively applies them to specific, local contexts, within the framework of the Iranian Islamic model. Another example: the concept of an “Islamic republic” is oxymoronic and is a concession to the influence of Westernisation that existed prior to the Revolution of 1979. In this respect even Iran still reflects the legacy of colonisation as well as cross-cultural influences. Iran’s banking, judicial, and civilian political (parliamentary) systems still retain significant vestiges of Western origin. The very fact that you are using terms such as “people of colour” and “Eurocentric” also betrays Western influence, for these concepts, as well as that of “Orientalist” imperialism, were adopted from quasi-“Marxist” (Trotskyist) bourgeois formulations in the West and therefore are not Islamic. The terms are also meaningless and misleading, given the fact that the Islamic world, at various stages, borrowed much from the West and vice versa, along with the fact that Arabs and Persians consider themselves “white” vs., say, sub-Saharan Africans, Dravidians, et al. and are indeed fair-skinned. They would probably resent being referred to as “people of colour,” given that the term is paternalistic and condescending to begin with, to not mention false in their case.

On 1/29/2021 at 10:43 PM, Eddie Mecca said:

@Northwest'Myth of Religious Violence' Hamza Yusuf (3 min) 

This argument is partly correct and is not true in its entirety. After all, it conflicts with the history of Islam itself. Conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims has existed on the basis of competing theological claims as well as material motives. Sunni extremists’ hatred for Shias is largely theological rather than, say, economic. Wahhabi–Salafi terrorists do not refer to Shias’ alleged economic dominance over Sunnis, but rather Shias’ supposedly “heretical” beliefs, according to the warped religious dogmatism of the terrorists. If one were to simply assert that religiously based violence (and bigotry) has never existed, then one may as well state that Muslims and non-Muslims can “get along to get along,” which would tend to undermine the basis for the spreading of Islam to begin with. It‘s akin to the liberal globalists’ efforts to reduce Islam to a “religion of peace” and therefore reconfigure Islam, along with other faiths, along one-world syncretistic lines.

On 1/29/2021 at 11:04 PM, Ali bin Hussein said:

Secularism is representative of governance ruled by material motives.

Atrocities were always caused by those trying to gain something in this material world.

Secular oppressors are like religious tyrants but without a religion to hold them accountable by.

@Ali bin Hussein

You implicitly admit that religious tyrants can and have existed. The Inquisition, after all, was motivated by religion rather than economics. The Crusades wouldn’t have happened without religion as a primary motive. The initial motivation for the Crusades was religious, but subsequently acquired economics as a secondary motive, while not ceasing to be religiously driven at the helm. Trinitarian Christian opposition to the Law of Moses and monotheism is rooted in religion, however “misguided,” not material motive per se. Trinitarians continue to believe in the Trinity vs. all available evidence because they blindly trust their religious authorities, just as followers of other faiths blindly trust their respective authorities. The Trinitarians’ belief in the Trinity and hatred of Judaeo-Islamic “legalism” is rooted in religious prejudice, bigotry, and superstition rather than material motive. They enjoy being wilfully blind, so to speak, like most people, whether secular or religious, who adopt a religious mentality of blind faith in “experts,” be they religious or secular.

On 1/29/2021 at 11:09 PM, Eddie Mecca said:

Agnosticism is the precursor to atheism and I call atheism the prerequisite class for Satanism 101 

For the record, I am not agnostic, but Deist (unfortunately, there are no options for “Deism,” so I chose “agnosticism”).

[Eddie Mecca]

17 hours ago, Northwest said:

with the fact that Arabs and Persians consider themselves “white” vs., say, sub-Saharan Africans, Dravidians, et al. and are indeed fair-skinned. They would probably resent being referred to as “people of colour,” given that the term is paternalistic and condescending to begin with, to not mention false in their case.

No shortage of self-hating Semites and S. Asians...no argument there...Only Uncle Tom, Brown Sahib and white-wannabe types would resent being referred to as people of color...most Middle Easterners are not pale in color or complexion...the fair-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Persian, Arab, Chaldean, Assyrian, Kurd, Turk, Berber etc. is the exception to the rule...imperialism has heavily influenced beauty standards in the MENA region... yes, colorism in Western Asia is exacerbated by the Arab desire to emulate their European colonizers...classic Stockholm syndrome response.

Edited January 13 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

18 hours ago, Northwest said:

You implicitly admit that religious tyrants can and have existed

Of course religious tyranny has existed throughout history...but secularists are shrewdly deflecting attention away from modern atrocities being perpetrated globally by the materialist machine and onto a bygone era of religious rulership...blue smoke and mirror tactics

18 hours ago, Northwest said:

The Inquisition, after all, was motivated by religion rather than economics. The Crusades wouldn’t have happened without religion as a primary motive. The initial motivation for the Crusades was religious

Starting to notice a trend? It would seem that the European has an ingrained predisposition to xenophobia and fanaticism...in the premodern era this zealotry would materialize in a religious cloak or garment since a scared orientation ruled the day...in the modern context (however) it presents itself in examples of substantialist savagery (Italian coast guard turning a blind eye to Syrian refugees on rafts during "Syrian Civil War" and mercilessly allowing them to drown in the Mediterranean Sea, Israelis dropping white phosphorus on Palestinians during Gaza War 2008 etc.)

Edited January 13 by Eddie Mecca

[Northwest]

5 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Only Uncle Tom, Brown Sahib and white-wannabe types would resent being referred to as people of color

@Eddie Mecca

Is there any evidence that sayyids during the Safavid era intermarried with, say, sub-Saharan Africans? I haven’t located evidence thus far, but am interested in additional sources.

5 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

the fair-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Persian, Arab, Chaldean, Assyrian, Kurd, Turk, Berber etc. is the exception to the rule...

Collectively, Persians, Arabs, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Kurds, Turks, and Berbers encompass a significant chunk of the total population in the MENA. Also, a number of these groups are fair-skinned yet feature dark hair and dark eyes. Look at Imam Khamenei, for instance. His skin is clearly fair, yet his hair (excluding beard) and eyes are dark. He is neither blond-haired nor blue-eyed despite having fair skin. I am Caucasian yet consider the Imam to be more “white” than “nonwhite,” notwithstanding certain Europeans’ prejudice vs. considering Semites to be “white.”

4 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Of course religious tyranny has existed throughout history...but secularists are shrewdly deflecting attention away from modern atrocities being perpetrated globally by the materialist machine and onto a bygone era of religious rulership...blue smoke and mirror tactics

It is hardly “bygone” in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei, and a number of other “Sunni” (Wahhabi–Salafi) states, to not mention Turkey’s bigoted Islamist leadership. It is hardly “bygone” among traditionalist Christians in the West; look at the Catholic–Protestant divide, evangelicalism, and so on. Currently the U.S. is supporting religious tyranny more than secular tyranny abroad, given its preponderant support for bigoted Zionist missionaries, Hindu fascists, and Wahhabi–Salafi terrorists, to name but three. Outside the West, the feminist, sodomite, and other “progressive” (degenerate liberal) groups tend to affect only a narrow, upper-class stratum of the non-Western population. Most Iraqis, for instance, have nothing to do with these secularist elements. Among the non-Western masses the West relies more on spreading religious and racial sectarianism. At this very moment the U.S. under Biden has begun financing the Taliban once again. The usual “but the secularists do it too/are worse!” is not sufficient to excuse religious tyranny, much less that which is Western-sponsored.

4 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Starting to notice a trend? It would seem that the European has an ingrained predisposition to xenophobia and fanaticism

Are you implying that European bigotry is genetically (biologically) conditioned? I don’t necessarily disagree, but that would be a racialist conclusion.

[Northwest]

@Eddie Mecca ^ Do you care to address some of my points above?

Also, I would like to add that any group is capable of extremism. Bedouin Arabs have been recruited into Wahhabi–Salafi ideology, for instance. ”Xenophobia and fanaticism” are not the sole preserve of Europeans. Every ethnic group is racist to at least some degree, or at least suspicious of outsiders. Also, at least in the West, many “Sunni” Islamists conflate religion and race. When a Westerner criticises “Sunni” terrorists, the terrorists claim that the Westerners are “racist,” seemingly implying that, in their minds, religious fanaticism is biologically inherited. For the record, while people in Iran might praise Black Lives Matter’s activities in the West, I doubt that they would tolerate BLM’s activities in Iran. After all, in Iran, as elsewhere, interracial, inter-ethnic marriage is still relatively uncommon.

To be fair, I am also not in favour of a “hard” secularism that tries to destroy any and all religious and/or traditionalist social values in society. Outside Iran, I think the best solution is a pluralist society and a secularist state that respects and promotes religious harmony as well as upholds traditionalist moral values. Examples include Syria and India. Iran’s, to my knowledge, is the only theocratic government that has managed to respect religious minorities and restrain social liberalism. All other theocratic governments have tended to tyrannise rival communities of faith. In Iran, even “Sunni” terrorism tends to inflame only a minority of the Sunnis, suggesting that most Sunnis are content with their lot in Iran. My point is that I am equally hostile to the degenerate social liberalism that I see in the West and the religious bigotry and extremism that has been all too common throughout history till the present.

Did I clarify myself?

[Eddie Mecca]

On 1/13/2022 at 4:52 AM, Northwest said:

Is there any evidence that sayyids during the Safavid era intermarried with, say, sub-Saharan Africans? I haven’t located evidence thus far, but am interested in additional sources.

Unfortunately, most people are xenophobic...it's a tribal or lower animalistic trait that we're supposed fight against and overcome...not acquiesce to..."O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into races and tribes, so that you may identify one another. Surely the noblest of you, in Allah’s sight, is the one who is most pious of you. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware." Qurʼān 49:13...I'm unfamiliar with the in-depth, interracial dynamics of the Safavid Empire...there's a good probability that a sayed, Hashemite or shareef will intermarry with one of their own...then again, this rule is not set in stone and with the onset of globalization such traditions (for better or worse) are losing traction with each successive generation (same can be said of arranged marriages and pubescent marriages)

On 1/13/2022 at 4:52 AM, Northwest said:

Collectively, Persians, Arabs, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Kurds, Turks, and Berbers encompass a significant chunk of the total population in the MENA. Also, a number of these groups are fair-skinned yet feature dark hair and dark eyes. Look at Imam Khamenei, for instance. His skin is clearly fair, yet his hair (excluding beard) and eyes are dark. He is neither blond-haired nor blue-eyed despite having fair skin. I am Caucasian yet consider the Imam to be more “white” than “nonwhite,” notwithstanding certain Europeans’ prejudice vs. considering Semites to be “white.”

I acknowledge they exist, but once again, the fair-skinned ones are in a minority...the region is characterized by its swarthy complexioned inhabitants...short to medium statures, aquiline noses...black, brown or dark chestnut colored eyes are the standard...black or dark brown hair (straight, wavy or curly and considerably thick) is prevalent...blue or green eyes are a lot less common and mostly found in the Levant region...olive complexion in addition to light, medium and dark brown pigmentations are dominant on the MENA skin color spectrum...ruddy complexions, pale or pink skin tones (incapable of tanning) are rare...more later in'sha Allah (God-willing).

Edited January 17 by Eddie Mecca

[Northwest]

12 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Unfortunately, most people are xenophobic...it's a tribal or lower animalistic trait that we're supposed fight against and overcome...not acquiesce to...

"O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into races and tribes, so that you may identify one another. Surely the noblest of you, in Allah’s sight, is the one who is most pious of you. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware." Qurʼān 49:13...

@Eddie Mecca

Regarding the verse, I have heard of alternative interpretations that suggest it supports marrying within one‘s own lineage, and identifies biological race as a sign of one’s spiritual heritage, whether good or evil, thereby indirectly supporting a kind of caste-system, in which the most righteous Semites (the Prophetic lineage) rule over non-Semites and others, while not mixing.

(Under this circumstance, there would be discrimination based on linking race to piety, but not necessarily genocidal racism per se. I think that the Qur’ān condemns deterministic, genocidal racism like that of the nineteenth-century “scientific” model [eugenics-driven Social Darwinism], but I am still unclear as to whether it prohibits other, less lethal, more “paternalistic” expressions of racial discrimination. After all, segregation in the post-Civil War U.S. and apartheid-era South Africa was based on race but did not necessarily escalate into outright genocide, unlike in, say, Nazi Germany. Also, Jewish and Christian tradition does contain references to a “curse of Ham,” but I am unsure as to how much of an influence it exerted in Islamic tradition; the “curse” in the Tanakh actually fell on Ham’s firstborn son, Canaan, and not on his other three sons, Cush, Mizraim, and Phut, so it would not necessarily apply to all blacks per se.)

This depends on how one interprets “so that you may identify (or distinguish) one another.” Other interpretations claim that the verse cannot be used to support racial discrimination, interpreting the excerpt as “come to know” (as in “mate with”) rather than “identify” or “distinguish.” After all, if man is but one race and is commanded to intermarry, then racial and tribal distinctions would become superfluous.

Also, if it is truly inclusive, the verse would have to explain the following:

12 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

I'm unfamiliar with the in-depth, interracial dynamics of the Safavid Empire...there's a good probability that a sayed, Hashemite or shareef will intermarry with one of their own...

Of course, this may have more to do with kinship rather than race per se, but closely related individuals tend to share similar biology as well. Yet why did they prefer their own?

[Northwest]

^ @Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

On 1/17/2022 at 1:35 PM, Northwest said:

Regarding the verse, I have heard of alternative interpretations that suggest it supports marrying within one‘s own lineage, and identifies biological race as a sign of one’s spiritual heritage, whether good or evil, thereby indirectly supporting a kind of caste-system

That's a completely queer (i.e. bizarre) interpretation...I've been reading Islamic books, attending lectures, partaking in Islamic study circles etc. for nearly 35 years and I've never heard of such an exposition regarding 49:13...which translator/commentator did you come across that says the verse indicates marrying within one's own tribe or lineage? Can you cite the reference or copy-and-paste it?   

On 1/17/2022 at 1:35 PM, Northwest said:

I think that the Qur’ān condemns deterministic, genocidal racism like that of the nineteenth-century “scientific” model [eugenics-driven Social Darwinism], but I am still unclear as to whether it prohibits other, less lethal, more “paternalistic” expressions of racial discrimination

Islam condemns any sort of senseless killing...Islam takes an antagonistic stance toward nationalistic, racial, tribal, patriotic, sectarian etc. bonds or allegiances...it promotes a healthy flexibility and preservation of indigenous custom...the adherence of indigenous values or folk tradition must not contradict the substratum of Islamic doctrine however...Islam trumps local custom, regional tradition etc. should a conflict arise between the two...Islam seeks to promote a tendency toward universalism...any and all forms of social snobbery (like sexism and classism) are frowned on...prejudice and discrimination based on things like complexion, height, occupation, age, disability, educational background etc. are discouraged in Islam...but then there's the human element and subsequent rebelliousness that's always difficult to subdue/tame...the Qurʼān reminds the believer of his (her) lowly origin (we derive from 1. mud 2. water 3. semen) in order to stir humility and inward reflection...it highlights a common root or genesis (Adam and Eve) to deemphasize ultra-tribal pride...more later in'sha Allah (God-willing).

[Northwest]

1 hour ago, Eddie Mecca said:

That's a completely queer (i.e. bizarre) interpretation...I've been reading Islamic books, attending lectures, partaking in Islamic study circles etc. for nearly 35 years and I've never heard of such an exposition regarding 49:13...which translator/commentator did you come across that says the verse indicates marrying within one's own tribe or lineage? Can you cite the reference or copy-and-paste it?

@Eddie Mecca

I haven’t seen it personally, but I’ve heard anecdotal reports of such. Given this, I am not taking a firm position on the matter, but merely restating. Obviously in the Qur’ān terms and expressions can and do have multiple layers/depths of meaning. It is also possible that newer translations/commentaries have been edited to be more “modern” and “politically correct” in light of globalisation. While 49:13 may well support interracial/intertribal marriage, I am surprised that interracial, if not intertribal, marriage in the MENA historically has not been as common as one might suspect, especially in light of the verse itself. I am also indirectly drawing upon the narrative of the Tower of Babel in Genesis, which indicates that the nations were split along linguistic, tribal, racial, and other lines to prevent a sort of “one-world government” from emerging. Maybe Islam discarded this Judaeo-Christian tradition, but I am unsure.

[Eddie Mecca]

20 hours ago, Northwest said:

I haven’t seen it personally, but I’ve heard anecdotal reports of such. Given this, I am not taking a firm position on the matter, but merely restating.

Fair enough

20 hours ago, Northwest said:

Obviously in the Qur’ān terms and expressions can and do have multiple layers/depths of meaning.

True

20 hours ago, Northwest said:

I am surprised that interracial, if not intertribal, marriage in the MENA historically has not been as common as one might suspect,

Here's the thing...marriage between cousins is allowed but it's not considered the preferable position (generally speaking)...intertribal marriages are allowed in many other religions and cultures as well...US, Europe etc. allow marriages between cousins...also, interfamily marriage has been practiced by the Prophet himself and his actions are considered a precedent/model for Muslims...Muhammad (peace be upon him) married his cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh (Allah be pleased with her) and he choose Ali (peace be upon him) for his daughter Fatima (peace be upon her) and there are other such examples in the nascent Islamic community...for clarification purposes, Ali is Muhammad's cousin...Muhammad had 13 wives total...only one was related to him by blood...Khadījah bint Khuwaylid (Allah be pleased with her) was unrelated to him and 15 years his senior and his only wife for 25 years (destroys notion of Muhammad as a "pedophile" and womanizer by evangelicals)...Maria al-Qibtiyyah a.k.a. Mary The Copt (Allah be pleased with her) was one of his latter wives...she was given to him (Muhammad) as a gift and as a slave from the Christian governor of Alexandria in response to his (Muhammad's) letter writing campaign to the powerful rulers of adjacent lands...she was an Egyptian Copt (ethnoreligious group native to NE Africa) and bore Muhammad a child (Ibrahim) who died during infancy...Muhammad (peace be upon him) freed her and she converted to the faith...there are important lessons to be learned from each one of his marriages (anti-ageism, anti-nationalism, interreligious harmony and interfamily union under certain conditions/circumstances...we are informed in Qur’ān 4:23 about relatives considered marriable or unmarriable..."Prohibited to you [for marriage] are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father's sisters, your mother's sisters, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your [milk] mothers who nursed you, your sisters through nursing, your wives' mothers, and your step-daughters under your guardianship [born] of your wives unto whom you have gone in. But if you have not gone in unto them, there is no sin upon you. And [also prohibited are] the wives of your sons who are from your [own] loins, and that you take [in marriage] two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful."