Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Jordan Peterson's Message To The Muslim World

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

The Doublespeak of Hamza Yusuf and Abdullah bin Bayyah https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/the-doublespeak-of-hamza-yusuf-and-abdullah-bin-bayyah-22483

Hamza Yusuf and Abdullah Bin Bayyah are playing a major role in legitimising the UAE's actions around the world. What's behind the scholar and his student, and should they be held to a higher standard?

Last week, the United Arab Emirates concluded its fifth annual Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies, with a number of Islamic scholars, religious leaders of various faiths and Western public policy makers in attendance. 

The irony of a forum for peace taking place in the UAE was not lost on many. The UAE is part of a coalition currently starving Yemen, causing famine for up to 12 million people, according to the UN, along with being accused of an assortment of war crimes.

Many of the reactions online have centred around the unbelievable comments made by famous American Sheikh Hamza Yusuf who, while praising the UAE’s commitment to tolerance, noted that “they have a ministry of tolerance… they’re committed to civil society”.

What is most shocking about this quote for many is not the Orwellian doublespeak itself, but rather the person issuing it. 

How can Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, a man many of us not only grew up listening to, but have tremendous respect for, and his teacher Abdullah bin Bayyah, an Islamic scholar of the highest calibre, be so comfortable openly singing praises of the UAE? 

Political links

For many wishing to think the best, the immediate assumption would be to separate their status as religious figures from politics. But this ignores Sheikh bin Bayyah’s very long experience in politics. 

The sheikh was a member of the cabinet and permanent committee of the Mauritanian People’s Party, then the ruling party, for eight years. Afterwards, he took on a number of posts, rising to the level of a minister on three occasions. 

His son, Sheikhna bin Bayyah, who manages his father’s communications, didn’t fall far from the tree. In this year’s forum, his biography introduces him as a politician. 

It would seem that in the case of Sheikh bin Bayyah at least, speaking of his political thought cannot be isolated from the context of his life: someone with deep experience in politics, and therefore well aware of its real-life implications.

Much of his rhetoric is linked to the post-Arab Spring world, providing context for much of his recent political discourse. Sheikh bin Bayyah’s calls have focused on ‘peace before justice’ and elevating the principle of ‘La khurooj an al-hakim’, or ‘no violent rebellion against the ruler’, as the highest rule of relations with a ruler. 

In this last forum, Bayyah was quoted as saying: “In societies that are not ready, the call for democracy is essentially a call for war.” 

Were this quote to come from a Western commentator, he would readily be called out for authoritarianism and orientalism, and the like. 

What he’s saying is that essentially, had the people of the Middle East only realised they were not ready for democracy and obeyed their long-time rulers, none of the current chaos and bloodshed would have happened. 

This fundamentally misunderstands the causes of the so-called Arab Spring, and adds religious legitimacy and strength to insidious counter-revolutions instituted by authoritarian regimes that are slowly rewriting the history of these uprisings, and reinforcing their hold over their countries. 

Let us not forget that what we are witnessing now in the region is not a simplified case of people demanding democracy, but rather the culmination of decades of political repression, poor governance and Western interventionism. 

In other words, the very facade of “stability” that preceded the Arab Spring, against the backdrop of deep abuses of power and injustice, is itself the cause of the current instability.

To this end, the ‘peace’ this forum offers very much resembles the ‘peace’ the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s ally, Israel, offers to the Palestinians: a misleading violent peace.

The justification for this can be gleaned from one of Sheikh bin Bayyah’s many books. Hamza Yusuf recently translated the book The Culture of Terrorism: Tenets and Treatments from a speech given in Arabic more than a decade ago. 

The book begins by emphasising that terrorism is a complex phenomenon with many reasons, and soon identifies the primary reason for terrorism: ideology.

Separating politics from morality

In short, ideas have powerful consequences, and violence is born out of violent ideas. But this poses the age-old question: what came first, the chicken or the egg? 

This is especially relevant when we speak of countries like Syria and Iraq, which have been exposed to long periods of violence. Is the violence produced by violent ideologies or are the violent ideologies a result of an environment of violence? 

Analysing the sheikhs’ speeches and statements shows that what they mean by ideology: political Islam. 

In Sheikh Hamza Yusuf’s narrative, political Islam is influenced by Marxism, making them seek a utopia on earth. He opines that the true Muslim knows his utopia only exists in heaven. By jailing it in the realm of ideas, we are therefore excused from talking about the politics of it all. 

Naturally, this is quite convenient for the powers that be. We can now discuss the harms and dangers of Daesh without putting it within the context of the American invasion of Iraq.

This obsessive focus on ideology to undermine the Arab Spring not only explains the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s alliance with the Trump administration, but also the sheikhs’ courting of the right. 

In the last forum, Sara Khan, Head of the Commission for Countering Extremism, and a well-known supporter of the Prevent policy, which has teachers looking for signs of ‘extremism’ among children, was not only in attendance but was a given an award for her work.

It’s a sequence of odd political stances that define the two scholars. For instance, Hamza Yusuf has referred to Trump as “a servant of God,” yet never spoken publicly about the Muslim travel ban, which the UAE was very quick to support.

It would be one thing were the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the right simply criticising political Islam, but more often than not they’re made out to be the bogeyman lurking behind every corner, and often to promote further draconian laws, wars, or securitisation.

On the flip side, it is the ghoul of ‘Islamists’ that is used to excuse Islamophobic abuses in the West. And for the UAE and Saudi Arabia, if winning the West over means turning a blind eye to Islamophobia or racism, throwing Western Muslims under the bus is barely an afterthought. 

In 2014, the UAE designated CAIR, an organisation presenting legal support for Muslims who have faced Islamophobia - at times even from the government itself - as a terrorist organisation. 

US Senator Ted Cruz followed in their stead, attempting on multiple occasions to introduce legislation criminalising the Muslim Brotherhood while making it clear that CAIR, as well as other mainstream Muslim organisations, would fall under that designation. 

I understand full well the difficulty many have in coming to terms with this from such scholars. Muslims hold their scholars in very high regard, considering them inheritors of the prophet. We always want to assume well of them. This is a noble attribute. 

However, at the end of the day, the relationship between the scholar and the lay Muslims is just that: a relationship. 

One of the markers of a healthy relationship is boundaries and accountability. If a public relations stunt with an authoritarian government currently starving 12 million is not where we draw the line, then where shall it be drawn? 

While the sheikh’s political thought seems to suggest that peace is only attainable through authoritarianism, Bayyah’s book offers us an alternative. 

On the tenth page, he relates a story of the fifth rightly-guided Umar ibn abd al Aziz, who hearing of the now-infamous revolt of the khawarij wrote to his deputy: “Extinguish their sedition with justice.” 

If the participants of the forum are indeed sincere in their intentions to call for peace and an end to the bloodshed in the region, rather than expensive public relations stunts with autocrats, they should take up the mandate of calling for justice and good governance with consistency in all their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Influential Muslim scholar Hamza Yusuf criticised for backing UAE-Israel dealhttps://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-israel-muslim-scholar-hamza-yusuf

 

Hamza Yusuf, a prominent Muslim scholar based in the United States, is facing a deluge of criticism after publicly endorsing the United Arab Emirates' decision to normalise ties with Israel - a move which has in large part been condemned by Muslim religious leaders.

Yusuf, once dubbed "the most influential Muslim scholar in the western world," endorsed normalisation in a statement released by the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies (FPPMS), an organisation led by his Saudi-based teacher, Abdullah bin Bayyah, on Thursday.

The statement, which begins by heaping praise on Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed and the country's foreign minister, Abdullah bin Zayed, says normalisation "stopped Israel from extending its sovereignty over Palestinian lands," and was a means to "promote peace and stability across the world".

mountains.jpg?itok=25RXnKkf
Hamza Yusuf and the struggle for the soul of western Islam
Read More »

While Emirati officials have hailed normalisation as a successful means to stave off annexation and save the two-state solution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stressed that he remains "committed to annexing parts of the West Bank".

Usaama al-Azami, a lecturer in Contemporary Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford, told Middle East Eye that the "bizarre statement" closely aligned with the forum's history of legitimising the decisions of the UAE government. Azami also described the statement as "in keeping with the strategy of the UAE to get scholars on board and have them rubber stamp [state positions]".

On 7 June 2017, less than 48 hours after Saudi Arabia and the UAE launched a blockade against Gulf neighbour Qatar, the FPPMS issued a strongly worded statement accusing Doha of "supporting terrorist groups, inciting political instability in safe countries, and inflaming sectarian conflict".

Walaa Quisay, whose PhD focused on Islamic neo-traditionalism in the West, told MEE that the FPPMS used interfaith initiatives as a trojan horse for creating a strategic alliance between the UAE and Israeli organisations.

"In fact, if you look closely at the peace forum, there's been a constant attendance of Israeli and Zionist organisations in the peace forum with the underlying premise of tolerance, but you can obviously see from the subtext it was about promoting certain political views," Quisay said.

'Preparing for this moment'

Yusuf has previously courted controversy by positing blame on the Palestinians for their suffering, mocking the Syrian uprising, and for having referred to the UAE as country that was "committed to tolerance". In July 2019, Yusuf was criticised for agreeing to become a human rights adviser to the Trump administration.

Yusuf did not respond to MEE's request for comment or clarification. 

Still, Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, a professor at Zaytuna College, an institution founded by Yusuf, said that the statement was "not intentionally undermining the rights and hopes of Palestinians".

"It's one thing to say you disagree with his stance or think he's naive. It's another to claim him to be a hypocrite, heretic, or other demeaning terms," Ali said in a Facebook post, referring to Yusuf's teacher bin Bayyah.

"No one can deny that his dealings are risky and that his views challenge the dominant political orthodoxy among Muslims. But, to say he is intentionally undermining the rights and hopes of Palestinians is a step too far in my opinion."

Raja Abdulhaq, a Muslim Palestinian activist based in New York, said Yusuf and the forum were pawns, willingly used by the UAE to further the Gulf state's regional agenda.

"It's obvious now that for the past few years, when people like Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah have been defending the leadership of the UAE, it has been to prepare for this moment," Abdulhaq told MEE.

"And so when the time comes for [the UAE] to make such a very shameful step, the people would be ready to accept it," he said, adding that Yusuf and the other signatories to the statement "have been justifying all of [the UAE's] actions against Muslims around the world, specifically in the Arab region".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/14/2022 at 2:17 PM, SoRoUsH said:

And then there are the anti-vaxx Conspiracy Theory idiots, who support him. They're on a whole new level of stupidity. I won't get into how the fascist right is using fear and priming them to bring them on their own side. 

How the Far-Right Is Radicalizing Anti-Vaxxers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I finally gathered up some mental vigor to watch Peterson's video. And I must say, I had little expectation from him, but he fell even below the bar I had set.

"Shiites, find a pen pal and communicate with the other side. Sunnis, do the same." Seriously, Peterson? We marry one another, we eat, and we travel, and we study together without a hint of sectarianism between us. I think Peterson is befuddled between the Iranian-Saudi hostility and the supposed Shiite-Sunni sectarian 'hatred'. The bitterness between Iran and Saudi Arabia is political, it is not ideologically driven and it has little to do with one side being Shia and the other being Sunni. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Either Peterson was reading this off a piece of paper and made this kind of remark to appease to somebody or he's genuinely mentally declined and can't differentiate between international politics and historical religious ideologies anymore. And what's with the whole message to love the Jew and Christian? We never had a problem getting along with either of them. I have yet to meet a Muslim who hates a Jew just for the fact that he is a Jew. Sure, you'll get a few nutcases here and there, but this is not the general drift of the Ummah. 

Overall, extremely disappointed to hear such a condescending message from Peterson. He should just stick to ameliorating his college professor "post-modern Neo-Marxist" sort of talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This is usually what happens when someone is making observations about a culture or a belief system without actually having lived amongst that culture or religion. It's a perfect illustration of when people talk about academics speaking from ivory towers disconnected from on the ground reality.

Interestingly enough, much of it is is similar to how his good buddy Sam Harris views the Muslim world. He's less active on the topic, as he usually likes to comment on what's trending(he went pretty hard at the Covid narrative dissenters last year) but nonetheless, a lot of what Harris believed and shared about the Muslim world was drawn heavily from polls conducted from part of the Muslim world, as opposed to actually taking time to live amongst that culture and it's scholarship. He would without apology hold those polls as having all-encompassing explanatory power.

Peterson may be sincere underneath all of it, but he's anchored by the ones he relies upon and trusts on these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

We marry one another, we eat, and we travel, and we study together without a hint of sectarianism between us.

I remember reading a paper written in 2002 by an American thinktank organization that outlined the sectarian strife we're witnessing today in the ME—like magic, fast forward 2 or 3 years and az-Zarqāwī is blowing up al-Askari mosque and mainstream media is calling Saddam a "Sunni" leader and Assad a "Shi'i" leader—in the 80's and 90's, both Saddam and Assad were described as "Arab nationalist", "socialist" or "Ba'athist"—I (personally) come from a multiethnic, multiracial, multireligious household, I have a Jordanian friend who's grandfather was a Lebanese Shi'i, I have a Palestinian friend who's mother is Lebanese Shi'i, my cousin is married to a Sunni guy and the list goes on-and-on—interreligious marriages aren't uncommon in Lebanon and Iraq—sectarianism definitely exists but tensions have been exacerbated 10,000 fold since the 2003 invasion of Iraq—sectarian-minded groups (takfiris and Shirazis) are benefitting from the divide-and-conquer colonial strategies—the sectarian divide is being purposely misunderstood and overstated in order to expand policy—US, UK, France and Israel have systematically manipulated religious and ethnic diversities in the region to suit their own imperial objectives.

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 7/30/2022 at 1:24 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

I remember reading a paper written in 2002 by an American thinktank organization that outlined the sectarian strife we're witnessing today in the ME—like magic, fast forward 2 or 3 years and az-Zarqāwī is blowing up al-Askari mosque and mainstream media is calling Saddam a "Sunni" leader and Assad a "Shi'i" leader—in the 80's and 90's, both Saddam and Assad were described as "Arab nationalist", "socialist" or "Ba'athist"—I (personally) come from a multiethnic, multiracial, multireligious household, I have a Jordanian friend who's grandfather was a Lebanese Shi'i, I have a Palestinian friend who's mother is Lebanese Shi'i, my cousin is married to a Sunni guy and the list goes on-and-on—interreligious marriages aren't uncommon in Lebanon and Iraq—sectarianism definitely exists but tensions have been exacerbated 10,000 fold since the 2003 invasion of Iraq—sectarian-minded groups (takfiris and Shirazis) are benefitting from the divide-and-conquer colonial strategies—the sectarian divide is being purposely misunderstood and overstated in order to expand policy—US, UK, France and Israel have systematically manipulated religious and ethnic diversities in the region to suit their own imperial objectives.

Yeah, that's a good point. All the times the Muslim Ummah has come into the orbit of sectarian divide, it doesn't seem to be entirely home-grown, it's somehow unorganic, and interestingly magnifies much more upon contact with international parties (such as the US). Pakistan under Zia ul-Haq and Musharraf (with his engagement in the US War on Terror) are two good examples of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
On 7/14/2022 at 4:58 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Thoughts? Comments? released 8 hours ago

[This is a transcript of the video at the start of the thread].

I use the dictate function in MS Word while the video was running. Missed the first few seconds where he talks about Muslims being interested in his works. Sentence and para breaks are mine.

This is the case it is being so heartening to see that my biblical lectures for example attracted a large Muslim audience and that the comments from the Muslim watchers and listeners to my YouTube channel and podcast being so extraordinarily positive and all this is lovely to see in the aftermath of the extraordinary Abraham accords which have laid out the possibility for peace between all the people of the book in an unprecedented manner.

And I have something to say as an extension of all of this please forgive my presumption if you would it is time for those of you in the Muslim world stop fighting among yourselves and Shiites and Sunnis and also time to stop regarding the Christians and even more specifically the Jews as your enemies why not least because you have the enemy located in the wrong place.

First the best place to find Satan let's say is within if you think the true enemy is in someone else's heart then you haven't thought nearly long enough about the darkness within and you have therefore fallen prey to the most subtle temptation of the ancient demonic spirit so your best bet on the spiritual warfare front is to make of yourself and your Muslim practise something so add mirable that the light shining from your well constituted psyches and productive generous and wise actions is so intense that people convert to your faith from sheer admiration, there is a goal.

Second, far more unites you with the other people of the book as your own prophet himself peace be unto him forthrightly said than what divides you you all believe for example in a book you all believe for example in God and believe that you have noted duty to that God you are all followers of a prophetic tradition and that is a tradition that unites the wisdom of the past with the vision and voice of those willing to see and speak truly and lovingly in the present.

And you are all threatened in a very real sense by the system of vengeful lucifarian ideas it currently confronts all that is transcendent traditional and valuable on the sexual front on the familial front on the conceptual front on the psychological and sociological front Anne in the final analysis on the theological front so how about we all quit squabbling over trinkets and details and face the real problem and I should also point out that it is not the individual carriers of the woke politically correct degenerate neo Marxist ideas it should be regarded as the enemy either.

First we must take the idea that this satanic impulse within is the prime enemy with all due seriousness second we must understand that even those quite possessed by the spirit of Kane that attracts and drives confused and lost people to the lucifarian ideology's of the materialist utopians are in the ideal fully redeemable and only partially consumed even the committed student ideologues who have for example attacked me and others like me rather viciously are generally say 90% or perhaps 80 reasonable and potentially civilised people who could still see the light.

Muslims reached across the sectarian divide. Shii find a Sunni pen pal communicate with someone on the other side Sunni as do the same and then maybe reach out tentatively to a Christian or even heaven forbid a Jew because perhaps it is time for those who purport to be followers of God that like it and to be convincing in those actions even to those whose premature cynicism and scepticism I've driven them into the towers of Babel constructed by the avatar's of the resentful intellect.

Is there someone in the Muslim world willing to build an electronic system to bring people from the Sunni and Shiite community together a place where people of goodwill could reach electronically across the divide person to person and to formulate the kinds of personal trusting friendships upon which a lasting peace truly might be founded?

A place where Jews and Christians willing and eager to open communication with their Muslim brothers might do just that? There is a task for someone looking for a purpose and it's an open invitation to do just that.

If you build it they will come if you build it get in touch with me you'll figure out how to do it and all publicise it thank you all my Muslim listeners watchers and readers for your kind attention and patience I wish you well as you strive to become the light in the world that your faith truly demands let's see if we can unite as people of the book and negotiate our way toward the paradise that we might truly and jointly attain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Believers need to talk to each other more ...

 

3 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Muslims reached across the sectarian divide. Shii find a Sunni pen pal communicate with someone on the other side Sunni as do the same and then maybe reach out tentatively to a Christian or even heaven forbid a Jew

Peterson's argument is that if people talked to each other more, there would be less conflict. And the way he seems to frame the argument it seems to be as if it's the Muslims who are refusing to do the talking and that's the root cause of the conflicts in the Middle East.

I don't hold to that theory.

Anyway he sees the real enemy as:

Quote

we all quit squabbling over trinkets and details and face the real problem and I should also point out that it is not the individual carriers of the woke politically correct degenerate neo Marxist ideas it should be regarded as the enemy either

IIRC the last time Muslims made common ground with the American right to rid a region of Marxists (Afghanistan), it did not end very well for the Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 7/19/2022 at 3:33 PM, Guest Fahad said:

Dubilex, I think there's alot of value in going after woke degeneracy. There's alot of things happening especially to children in the western world that's absolutely baffling and shocking, in terms of exposure to overtly sexual content. Most people of conscious regardless of faith would reject this, but the woke cult has alot of sway.

That aside, we can't ignore that Peterson has some strange bedfellows. Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Ayan Hirsi Ali are the definition bad faith actors in the media landscape. They bring only spectacle and outrage to their entrenched audiences, and they are in my estimation enemies of Islam and Islamic civilization. It's great to see Peterson engage the Muslim audience thoughtfully with his conversation with some notable speakers/scholars, but it seems he's drifted further toward the former bad faith actors, especially his announcement of being part of The Daily Wire. I imagine his work will become even more concentrated toward that right wing neo-conservative audience.

Also, he's a bit unhinged on twitter. It's honestly curious and dumbfounding to see a man of such intellectual stature argue like an adolescent on twitter. My personal take is the man needs an intervention, he's not right in the head at the moment.

 

Yes it's true. Jordan Peterson does have some strange bedfellows. And I do not deny that there are many people on the right wing who harbors very ugly prejudice towards Islam. If it wasn't for the woke cult, we'd probably be at odds with them. However, 99% of the rightwing people just wants to be left alone. They don't like Islam and wants to be separate from us. That is their decision and it should be respected. The rightwing isn't out to turn our kids into gays or transgender. The rightwing conservatives aren't totalitarian.

The woke cult is totalitarian and their intention is for all believers to become degenerate atheists. The woke cult wants to make muslims into the people of Lot.

Jordan Peterson is far from perfect. But there are few people who argues as eloquent against woke ideology as JP

Edited by Dubilex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
2 hours ago, Dubilex said:

The rightwing isn't out to turn our kids into gays or transgender.

That's true. But by the same measure they imposed privatisations of various industries since the 1990s in order to extract rents more effectively from developing countries.

The right wants to pick your pocket and the left wants to grope you through your pocket. (c) Haji 2003

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Dubilex said:

However, 99% of the rightwing people just wants to be left alone. They don't like Islam and wants to be separate from us. That is their decision and it should be respected. The rightwing isn't out to turn our kids into gays or transgender. The rightwing conservatives aren't totalitarian.

The woke cult is totalitarian and their intention is for all believers to become degenerate atheists. The woke cult wants to make muslims into the people of Lot.

It is high time you come out of your self-victimization mindset. No one is out to get you. No one is out to turn your good Muslim kids into anything. The 'totalitarians' exist elsewhere in the world, I don't think I need to tell you where to look to find them. It is beyond strange that you will 'respect' the decisions of people who would rather prefer that you (and your fellow believers) pack your bags and go back to your countries that they do not know the first thing about due to the fact they never leave the Dakotas, but the people who have included you and given you the benefits of living in the west are the "cultish" ones. Appalling. We need a software update on this age of information.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Dubilex said:

 

Yes it's true. Jordan Peterson does have some strange bedfellows. And I do not deny that there are many people on the right wing who harbors very ugly prejudice towards Islam. If it wasn't for the woke cult, we'd probably be at odds with them. However, 99% of the rightwing people just wants to be left alone. They don't like Islam and wants to be separate from us. That is their decision and it should be respected. The rightwing isn't out to turn our kids into gays or transgender. The rightwing conservatives aren't totalitarian.

The woke cult is totalitarian and their intention is for all believers to become degenerate atheists. The woke cult wants to make muslims into the people of Lot.

Jordan Peterson is far from perfect. But there are few people who argues as eloquent against woke ideology as JP

Salaam, I'm the Guest_Fahad that you replying to.

Anyway, I'm not too sure on the "left alone" part either. There's this often used meme of a plane carpet bombing somewhere. One is just a generic looking plane, the other has a rainbow color flag on it's tail. That's essentially the difference between the right and left wing when it comes to their engagement with the global south. 

I still remember having conversations with people around 2003-2004 when the Iraq war was in full swing. The type of vitriol and dehumanizing rhetoric you heard from clean cut, unassuming blue collar white guys would drive you insane with rage. Unfortunately, that dormant racism will always be there. These people aren't our friends, neither are they in the business of just being left alone(unless we are talking about libertarians, which make a fraction of the conservative movement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

I have thought over the matter. Strange as it may sound, Peterson's address is not aimed at Muslims at all. 

The target adressee is the anti-Muslim far right. After trying his hand at various new ventures- philosophy, religious studies, contemporary political culture, self-help and the youth, and having met with abject failure in all his attempts to establish himself as a public intellectual, or as a reputable face in the mainstream academia, this is another act of desperation by him to save his sagging popularity by shoring up his conservative credentials. Daniel Haqiqatjou is right when he says he's pushing the Abraham Accord and perennialism here. I add, he's pushing the 'civilization' rhetoric too- the gun-toting violent savages are being (surreptitiously) asked to shun their violent ways adopt the 'Western' and 'democratic' way of dialogue. It's as if he's telling his fellow anti-Muslim pundits: "Hey, look, I'm critical enough of them! "

Another attention-seeking gimmick, if you look close enough. If there is at all any sincerity in Peterson's outreach, it's very hard to find here. 

Edited by AbdusSibtayn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 7/30/2022 at 11:54 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

I remember reading a paper written in 2002 by an American thinktank organization that outlined the sectarian strife we're witnessing today in the ME—like magic, fast forward 2 or 3 years and az-Zarqāwī is blowing up al-Askari mosque and mainstream media is calling Saddam a "Sunni" leader and Assad a "Shi'i" leader—in the 80's and 90's, both Saddam and Assad were described as "Arab nationalist", "socialist" or "Ba'athist"—I (personally) come from a multiethnic, multiracial, multireligious household, I have a Jordanian friend who's grandfather was a Lebanese Shi'i, I have a Palestinian friend who's mother is Lebanese Shi'i, my cousin is married to a Sunni guy and the list goes on-and-on—interreligious marriages aren't uncommon in Lebanon and Iraq—sectarianism definitely exists but tensions have been exacerbated 10,000 fold since the 2003 invasion of Iraq—sectarian-minded groups (takfiris and Shirazis) are benefitting from the divide-and-conquer colonial strategies—the sectarian divide is being purposely misunderstood and overstated in order to expand policy—US, UK, France and Israel have systematically manipulated religious and ethnic diversities in the region to suit their own imperial objectives.

I disagree here. Saddam, or his coterie were never ever apologetic about unabashedly flashing their Sunni identity, or their surreptitious rhetoric of Sunni supremacy. This is diametrically opposite of how the Syrian Ba'ath Party operated (Ba'athism in Syria and Iraq unfolded differently because their inspirational figures were different. The Syrian branch, influenced by Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah Jedid and Osama Hatoum shouldn't be clubbed together with the Iraqi branch influenced by Michael Aflaq, and Saddam himself). 

I don't know what view people would take of the matter, but it appears too much of a coincidence that the divide between the ruling and the ruled demographics in Ba'athist Iraq coincided with sectarian fault -lines. Unfortunately for those who claim that sectarian tensions are the fallout of an imagined past projected backwards after the 2003 invasion and the debacle of failed state-building following it, the clock of Saddam's history with the Shi'a begins much farther back in time. The marginalization of the shi'a majority by excluding them from positions of power, the treatment meted out to the Shi'a conscripts and their families during the Iran-Iraq War and the ensuing exodus (both Iran and Kuwait took in a huge number of Shi'a refugees), the persecution of the Sadr, Hakim and Khu'i families, the Dujail massacre, the bloodbath following the Intifada al- Sha'baniyyah and the demolition of the Shrines of Ameer al-Mu'mineen (عليه السلام) and Sayyid ush-Shuhada (عليه السلام) -this was covered by the international press, his strictures against the Hawza at Najaf, all of these events pre-date 2003. Saddam never made his Shi'a- hatred secret. In his final address on the eve of his ouster, he referred to the Iraqi Shi'a as 'sons of Ibn'l Alqami' (the Shi'i Abbasid vizier blamed in Sunni historiography for colluding with the Mongols to destroy the Abbasid caliphate). In fact, recent research on the declassified Ba'athist documents openly show that he was trying to destroy the Najaf hawza, and to 'contain the threat from' (read assassinate;the word used in the original Arabic text is 'at-Tahjim', which is a loaded term) Sayyid al-Khu'i (rh) from as early as the 80s. Hopefully brother @Abu Nur will be able to shed more light on the matter. 

It is one thing to claim that the imperialist West exacerbates and benefits from these tensions. It is altogether another thing to claim that these are created narratives projected backward in time by the West. Doing the latter does nothing substantial, it merely acts as an exercise in pushing inconvenient truths beneath the carpet, or as a temporary stop gap solution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

I add, he's pushing the 'civilization' rhetoric too- the gun-toting violent savages are being (surreptitiously) asked to shun their violent ways adopt the 'Western' and 'democratic' way of dialogue. It's as if he's telling his fellow anti-Muslim pundits: "Hey, look, I'm critical enough of them! "

On 8/2/2022 at 8:10 PM, Aloysius Pendergast said:

I still remember having conversations with people around 2003-2004 when the Iraq war was in full swing. The type of vitriol and dehumanizing rhetoric you heard from clean cut, unassuming blue collar white guys would drive you insane with rage. Unfortunately, that dormant racism will always be there. These people aren't our friends, neither are they in the business of just being left alone(unless we are talking about libertarians, which make a fraction of the conservative movement).

@Aloysius Pendergast @AbdusSibtayn

Personally, I do sense that some Muslims tend to place excessive blame on the white Western right, preferring instead to engage in signalling victimhood rather than working to better themselves and their communities. There are plenty of white Western traditionalists who simply do not want massive “Muslim” immigration and the attendant problems that it brings. Much of the immigration is also detrimental to Shia communities, in that the immigrants tend to be violent, criminal Wahhabi–Salafi elements. White people in the West largely oppose Muslims on the basis of their encounters with the Wahhabi–Salafi migrants. Instead of criticising native Westerners, Muslims, including Shias, should be more eager to limit the importation of extremist migrants and other undesirable elements, many of whom are actually sponsored by Western globalist elites, including those that run Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.

Also, if Muslims feel that they are being discriminated against by white Westerns on account of faith, why do they conflate religion and race? Why do they allege “racism” instead of religious discrimination? After all, Islam is not a race.

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 8/2/2022 at 6:20 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

It is high time you come out of your self-victimization mindset. No one is out to get you. No one is out to turn your good Muslim kids into anything. The 'totalitarians' exist elsewhere in the world, I don't think I need to tell you where to look to find them. It is beyond strange that you will 'respect' the decisions of people who would rather prefer that you (and your fellow believers) pack your bags and go back to your countries that they do not know the first thing about due to the fact they never leave the Dakotas, but the people who have included you and given you the benefits of living in the west are the "cultish" ones. Appalling. We need a software update on this age of information.

 

 

It's more time for you to stop being ignorant and see your LGBT allies for what they truly are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Dubilex said:

It's more time for you to stop being ignorant and see your LGBT allies for what they truly are

Humans. That's what they 'truly' are. They do good and they do bad. They go to work, and they eat, and they sleep, and they fall in love. Just like you. Just like me.

Seriously, go reflect a little bit. Some tafakkur will take you a long way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Aloysius Pendergast @AbdusSibtayn

Personally, I do sense that some Muslims tend to place excessive blame on the white Western right, preferring instead to engage in signalling victimhood rather than working to better themselves and their communities. There are plenty of white Western traditionalists who simply do not want massive “Muslim” immigration and the attendant problems that it brings. Much of the immigration is also detrimental to Shia communities, in that the immigrants tend to be violent, criminal Wahhabi–Salafi elements. White people in the West largely oppose Muslims on the basis of their encounters with the Wahhabi–Salafi migrants. Instead of criticising native Westerners, Muslims, including Shias, should be more eager to limit the importation of extremist migrants and other undesirable elements, many of whom are actually sponsored by Western globalist elites, including those that run Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.

Also, if Muslims feel that they are being discriminated against by white Westerns on account of faith, why do they conflate religion and race? Why do they allege “racism” instead of religious discrimination? After all, Islam is not a race.

I agree that migration is not any long term solution. But that problem, and its concomitants (such as Wahhabi infestation) is not going to be solved so long as they keep pushing their neocolonial project in the Muslim world- propping up corrupt and oppressive regimes, war on and occupation of Muslim lands, and sponsoring Wahhabism as a tactic to wreck Islam from within. That is the logos of our argument- the anti-Muslim Pundits otheriwse have no problems with the Wahhabis. Reagan created the Taliban and al-Qaeda in cahoots with Zia ul-Haq and the Saudis in Afghanistan. Both Bush and Obama created ISIS under their own watch, as the former saw the insurgency led by al-Qaeda (ISIS's parent outfit) well up in Northern Iraq with Zarqawi as its face, and as the latter armed the Wahhabis for his proxy war in Syria and destabilizing Iraq (justification for prolonged occupation) and taking on Iran and Hezbollah. The anti-Muslim right and the Wahhabis (Gulf Arab monarchs as well as their so-called antagonist 'Jihadist' ones) geopoliticaly share a symbiotic relation, and it is only when the chickens come home to roost that they have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Humans. That's what they 'truly' are. They do good and they do bad. They go to work, and they eat, and they sleep, and they fall in love. Just like you. Just like me.

Seriously, go reflect a little bit. Some tafakkur will take you a long way.

Hmm, reading the Quran and Nahj al-Balagha would do a lot of good for you. See what Islam says about defending that which is haram.

 

Hope you will wake up from your jahiliya and ignorance

Edited by Dubilex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Humans. That's what they 'truly' are. They do good and they do bad. They go to work, and they eat, and they sleep, and they fall in love. Just like you. Just like me.

Seriously, go reflect a little bit. Some tafakkur will take you a long way.

This is a kind of red herring, which has been disproven many times. No one has claimed they aren't humans. Just because people do good and bad, that doesn't make their ideology good or something to sympathise with. If they fall in love that's not problematic, but if they commit a haram action like zina or sodomy because of that love its problmatic. If love was a justification for bad actions, then I'm sure the LGBT community should have no issue with two brothers or two sisters falling in love and having sexual relations. 

Supporting this out of compassion isn't Islamic at all, its not really compassion, because the truly compassionate who are the Imams of Ahlulbayt want people to develop their souls and achieve nearness to God, and this includes fighting haram desires. In fact you are oppressing them if you support them, because you are telling them that their action is okay and therefore they oppress themselves. By supporting this movement, you are supporting them destroying their own souls and their connection to God, and it doesn't matter if they are muslim or non-muslim, a person shouldn't even encourage sinning in any way. Amr bil maroof is still wajib even if the person is non-muslim as long your words have an effect. Also even if we say its their own choice what they do to their souls, that doesn't mean that we have to support or encourage them in any way.
 

Dealing with the far right is like fighting an enemy on the battlefield, the way to fight them is easy enough even if the battle is difficult. Dealing with LGBT community and ideologies like feminism and red-pill is like dealing with traitors in your own army that you need to root out slowly and carefully. The battle is far more difficult because they come from a place of "compassion" and so some muslims might think that this is right because its "human". God knows best what compassion is and what treating people in a human way is. Therefore followers of ahlulbayt must follow the example of ahlulbayt in this matter. 

Many muslims are not influenced by right ideologies, instead its easy for them to see how the far right are against Islam, including the fact that we may be verbally abused or physically abused by the far right. The far left is different though, many muslims will agree with it, or embody the values of it like feminism or perhaps lgbt. There's no doubt that lgbt push some values that are in line with Islam, but it pushes other values that are in complete contradiction with Islam. The people who grow up with with leftist ideology start to look at Islam as problematic, or outdated, and think that Islam does not deal with empathy or kindness. They hate Islamic abortion laws, and Islam's stance with the LGBT or other things. Do you see how its a spiritual poison? 

Ideologies can be like a poison, and leftist ideologies have poisoned many muslims, and made them question if Allah knows best. This leads to people questioning God's infinite wisdom or at least doubting it or trying to distort Islam to make it more in line with modern values.

I will repeat this again, treat people, no matter who they are or their sexuality with akhlaq of Ahlulbayt but don't go more than that. There is no reality where the ahlulbayt would support the lgbt movement, in fact the infallibles have even termed sodomy as kufr, although this doesn't mean it makes you kafir if you perform it,  but it highlights the severity of the action. Muslims have no business interacting with sinners(ones who are open and shameless about their transgressions) beyond necessity let alone supporting them.  The same rule applies to those sinners who are open and shameless and alcohol, drugs and promiscuity and other things, muslims should stay away from such individuals. They can act with good akhlaq, but associating is not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, VoidVortex said:

Supporting this out of compassion isn't Islamic at all, it’s not really compassion, because the truly compassionate who are the Imams of Ahlulbayt want people to develop their souls and achieve nearness to God, and this includes fighting haram desires. In fact you are oppressing them if you support them, because you are telling them that their action is okay and therefore they oppress themselves.

@VoidVortex

This certainly highlights the difference between the modern secularist and premodern religious perspectives. The modern secularist views oppression through a purely material, reductive lens, in which oppression is equated with material, temporal factors such as class, sex, race, and so on. The premodern worshipper, on the other hand, viewed the world through a spiritual lens, and placed the material in subjection in the spiritual, including the Eternal. He viewed the primacy of the spiritual as so important that he even imposed laws that forbade the public practice of behaviours that would detract from the spiritual. So there was a legalistic, communal aspect as well, rather than an individualised spirituality based on autonomous, private behaviour. By contrast, modern people do not sense a spiritual dimension and instead only look at the material aspects, responding only if an action produces a sensible, perceptible impact. They are also individualistic rather than communal in orientation, and opposed to legalism.

1 hour ago, VoidVortex said:

There's no doubt that lgbt push some values that are in line with Islam

Which ones?

I am uncertain as to whether this is technically correct, since the very foundation of the worldview is non-Islamic. “Compassion” is often interpreted according to universal rather than particular standards, and Islam, like religion in general, is very particularistic. Terms such as “compassion” in fact can be quite polyvalent if severed from a particular context. An atheist‘s or a Hindu’s definition of “compassion” might be very different from a Muslim’s, depending on context a Shia’s “compassion” might differ from a Sunni’s, and so on. A believer would hold that the Creator has a very specific delineation of what does and does not constitute “compassion” under defined circumstances in the context of religious practice. Anything that hinders the creation of a committed spiritual community would not be viewed as “compassionate,” but harmful and divisive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 7/18/2022 at 8:07 PM, Traveller_ said:

I don't honestly think Peterson is controlled opposition, the biggest thing that discredits him is his lack of creed and extremely vague affiliation.

@Traveller_

There is something deeply incongruous about a man who praises the value of tradition yet himself does not seem to be very traditional, at least in a religiously observant sense. After all, Zionism did not originate among religious Jews, but among secularist or even apostate Jews, as well as evangelical “Christians.” Orthodox Judaism has traditionally been stridently opposed to Zionism, yet today most “Jewish” organisations support either Zionist nationalism or globalist atheism, neither of which is religious is outlook. Peterson should honestly learn about Judaism’s traditional opposition to Zionism, as well as distinguish between orthodox Shia/Sunni Muslims and Wahhabi–Salafi terrorists.

On 7/19/2022 at 3:20 AM, Dubilex said:

The problem is that for muslims in America, supporting Palestine has become their entire religion and faith. All these woke organizations like Yaqeen institute are closely allied with the LGBTQ fascists simply because those fascists also supports palestine. It's obvious that muslims in NA are willing to sell out their Islamic values as soon as the LGBT groomers wave the Palestinian flag during a Pride parade.

@Dubilex

There are two main currents among the global elite in regard to Israel/Palestine. Neither is ultimately religious in foundation, but represents the two wings of secularism (the so-called New World Order). One current is the “nationalist” faction that is represented by the likes of Trump, Netanyahu, MbS, et al. and their supporters, including Peterson. This faction supports the continuation of ethnically and racially “pure” nation-states such as Zionist Israel and the absolutist Wahhabi monarchies. They support secular conservatism and rightism as a force of “order” and want to maintain existing institutions. In their view religion, along with traditional forces such as the family, is to be maintained to some degree, but only as a useful means to maintain/control society, not as an end in itself. So their appeals to tradition and faith are in the end half-hearted at best.

By contrast, the “globalist” current wants to modify and abolish all existing nation-states, along with religion, the family, race, sex, and so on. Their agenda is deconstructionism and the implementation of atheistic liberalism. The “globalist” faction is dominant in banking, finance, and the rest of the service sector, including the medical industry and social media. This faction is anti-nationalist and thus opposes Zionism, along with all other expressions of nationalism. It supports mass migration, sexual deviation, disarmament, depopulation (via the destruction of the family and contraception), digital ID, mandatory vaccination, and other means of social control, including so-called “carbon taxes.” Unlike the “nationalists,” the “globalists” prefer “creative chaos” to static order: for they wish to destroy the “old” in order to build the “New” (World Order).

In the end, neither of these controlled “oppositions” is necessarily desirable for those who consider themselves Muslims (or Shias). However, Islam in general is a conservative and constructive rather than destructive force. The “nationalist” faction might represent a deviant order, but it still represents order. By contrast, the “globalist” faction is intrinsically opposed to all order and all morality. Also, the “globalist” faction, as the left wing of the NWO, clearly dominates international and domestic affairs, especially in the West, hence the almost universal antipathy of the mainstream media, “religious” institutions, etc. to figures such as Trump and his allies, be they within or without the NWO’s right. If the left wing has its way, the very meaning of “man” will be abolished, as former humans will be turned into hedonistic cyborgs. The “deconstruction” of biology highlights this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Northwest said:

Which ones?

I am uncertain as to whether this is technically correct, since the very foundation of the worldview is non-Islamic. “Compassion” is often interpreted according to universal rather than particular standards, and Islam, like religion in general, is very particularistic. Terms such as “compassion” in fact can be quite polyvalent if severed from a particular context. An atheist‘s or a Hindu’s definition of “compassion” might be very different from a Muslim’s, depending on context a Shia’s “compassion” might differ from a Sunni’s, and so on. A believer would hold that the Creator has a very specific delineation of what does and does not constitute “compassion” under defined circumstances in the context of religious practice. Anything that hinders the creation of a committed spiritual community would not be viewed as “compassionate,” but harmful and divisive.

I kind of meant it in a generic sense. I think nearly every ideology has some values it advocates that fall in place with Islam, even if the application of those values are not Islamic. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, VoidVortex said:

This is a kind of red herring

No, it is not. What anyone "truly" is is not gay, straight, black, or white, it is human. You can absolutely hate their sexual orientation or their "satanic ideologies" or what have you, but the moment anyone says that it makes them who they "truly" are is a big problem. At least in my eyes. It's time to grow up.

As for the rest of your comment, yeah, look, you have already established, due to the information you have read, that being anything other than heterosexual is haram and kufr. However, I have not found such an idea established in my deen. So for me, it does not just stop at treating them with compassion and respect while secretly hating their sin; for me, it is important to accept them as well. Through and through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
21 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

I kind of meant it in a generic sense. I think nearly every ideology has some values it advocates that fall in place with Islam, even if the application of those values are not Islamic.

I’m not so certain that classical Islamic scholars would agree. Nor am I certain that those of other religious traditions would.

Values in this world, as opposed to the Hereafter or a transcendent equivalent, are relative and have no meaning if decontextualised. Otherwise the values become generic and lose meaning. For instance, everyone can then devise his own subjective concept of “compassion.” Without content, and hence context, the word is meaningless. All too often language and conceptualisation have been twisted to suit various agendas. A secular liberal’s definition of “compassion” is completely different from an orthodox Muslim’s.

The mere fact a religion is all-encompassing does not mean that it embraces everything. As you yourself admitted, the Divine definition of “compassion” would be qualitatively different from the human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

As for the rest of your comment, yeah, look, you have already established, due to the information you have read, that being anything other than heterosexual is haram and kufr. However, I have not found such an idea established in my deen. So for me, it does not just stop at treating them with compassion and respect while secretly hating their sin; for me, it is important to accept them as well. Through and through. 

I clearly said being other than heterosexual is not haram in itself, but acting on lust and desires is haram, and sodomy is described as kufr, meaning it is a vile act that Allah despises. The idea is established in the ahadith of ahlulbayt and is part of my deen and your deen, 

Quote

 

Huzaifa ibn Mansur says:

“I enquired regarding sodomy which is a Greater Sin from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (‘a)”. The Imam replied:

“To press the sexual organ between the thighs in an illegal way”

I asked, “Who is the person who commits sodomy”.

Imam (‘a) replied;

“One who has disbelieved in what Allah has revealed to his Messenger (the Holy Qur’an).”4

Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (‘a) was queried by Abu Basir regarding the verse:

 

Quote

 

“Sodomy is a Greater Sin and carries punishment when a man mounts upon another man but does not penetrate. If he penetrates, it is kufr”.3 - Imam Ali // side note, I emphasise that kufr here does not mean the sodomiser is a kafir, but the language is highlighting the severity of the action.

Both hadith are from the book greater sins by Ayatollah Dastghayb

 

Quote

So for me, it does not just stop at treating them with compassion and respect while secretly hating their sin; for me, it is important to accept them as well. Through and through. 

What would you define as accepting them dear brother?

Edited by VoidVortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
20 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Aloysius Pendergast @AbdusSibtayn

Personally, I do sense that some Muslims tend to place excessive blame on the white Western right, preferring instead to engage in signalling victimhood rather than working to better themselves and their communities. There are plenty of white Western traditionalists who simply do not want massive “Muslim” immigration and the attendant problems that it brings. Much of the immigration is also detrimental to Shia communities, in that the immigrants tend to be violent, criminal Wahhabi–Salafi elements. White people in the West largely oppose Muslims on the basis of their encounters with the Wahhabi–Salafi migrants. Instead of criticising native Westerners, Muslims, including Shias, should be more eager to limit the importation of extremist migrants and other undesirable elements, many of whom are actually sponsored by Western globalist elites, including those that run Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.

Also, if Muslims feel that they are being discriminated against by white Westerns on account of faith, why do they conflate religion and race? Why do they allege “racism” instead of religious discrimination? After all, Islam is not a race.

Salaam,

The example I gave was from 2003-2004, about regular folks in the U.S. wishing we nuke Iraq because some of their boys were killed(turned it they were blackwater contractors).

Anyway, I don't disagree with you. I think it is strange that the Western world is supposed to bypass it's self-preservation instinct and open their borders to an influx of immigrants, without considering the impact on security, culture, politics and so forth. Muslim countries aren't nearly as forgiving, so it is curious to see the demands of Muslim immigrants for open borders given how woefully short our own countries fall when it comes to these things.

That aside, my point was just to say that "the right" aren't our friends. There's some really principled libertarians that are worthy of admiration for their anti-war stance, and same with a fringe element on the left, but by and large, these people aren't principled our friends, even if our interests often align when it comes to family values, tradition, morality and so forth.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
47 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

I clearly said being other than heterosexual is not haram in itself, but acting on lust and desires is haram, and sodomy is described as kufr, meaning it is a vile act that Allah despises.

Yeah, so it's the "hate the sin, not the sinner" all over again. It's the "your feelings are OK, but my religion has no concrete solution for you, so you may just have to suppress your feelings for the rest of your life."

That doesn't cut it for me, sorry. 

1 hour ago, VoidVortex said:

What would you define as accepting them dear brother?

Well, for one, it's to validate their feelings as I would validate my own. It's to not make it sound like they chose to be gay for the fun of it or that Allah made them gay to "test" them. It's to realize that they will, and probably should, seek to express and fulfill their "desires" as I and every other human will seek to do as well. And while they're at it, I can go without sticking my nose in their business like I would expect others to keep their nose out of mine. It's really not that arduous, man. 

Both of us will have weighty arguments, I am not going to get into them. You want to believe that a man cannot romantically hold hands with another man; you want to believe that sex between two men is haram, and that this was from the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt, then that's good for you. Keep at it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Aloysius Pendergast said:

Salaam,

The example I gave was from 2003-2004, about regular folks in the U.S. wishing we nuke Iraq because some of their boys were killed(turned it they were blackwater contractors).

@Aloysius Pendergast

Americans do tend to regard foreigners as less-than-human “Others,” but so do people of every culture and society, to an extent. If one regards his enemies as subhuman, as being devoid of any redeeming aspect or quality, then he is liable to respond as harshly as possible to any perceived transgression against his countrymen, as well as to regard his race as representing a “superior” civilisation, granted by Providence the “right” to conquest, including the expropriation of foreign nations and the appropriation of scarce resources. Exploitation is thus part of the “will to power,” to dominance.

Part of the problem is that Americans consume a lot of beverages and meats—including alcohol and pork—that contribute to a bellicose and uncouth demeanour. But aggressiveness and assertiveness is perceived as “manly” in the face of hostile outsiders, the “frontier spirit” and integral to “Manifest Destiny.” In America one is often considered effeminate for refusing hard drink and raw meat. Of course, much of the country was colonised by lower-class whites who were often of criminal background, expelled from their homelands and sent overseas as indentured servants.

America was founded on colonisation and discrimination. But the Americans, like the early Muslims, were conquering a pagan society, in this case that of the Indians, and in both Christianity and Islam pagans are not allowed religious liberty, instead being liable to forced conversion after a certain period of “grace.” Part of the problem also lies in the fact that some Muslims who do not understand their own religion criticise American Christians for treating the pagan Indians harshly—as though Muslims would have acted substantially differently. People view the past through modern eyes.

Also, historically the Catholic Church tolerated Jews as a distinct community, however grudgingly, but regarded Muslims as heretics, for the latter believed in Jesus’ Messiahship but denied his divinity. This attitude persisted among other Western Christians following the Reformation, not to mention the racial antagonism between Europeans and Semites. Subconsciously, the old religious and racial attitudes persist, and arguably the racial and/or ethnic aspect is even stronger than the religious, along with the natural tendency to see one’s own lineage as better than all others.

2 hours ago, Aloysius Pendergast said:

Anyway, I don't disagree with you. I think it is strange that the Western world is supposed to bypass it's self-preservation instinct and open their borders to an influx of immigrants, without considering the impact on security, culture, politics and so forth. Muslim countries aren't nearly as forgiving, so it is curious to see the demands of Muslim immigrants for open borders given how woefully short our own countries fall when it comes to these things.

It is also interesting that the Western elites, who are notoriously pro-Zionist and/or pro-globalist, are also largely supportive of open borders. On this matter the demands of the Muslim migrants curiously coincide with those of their (ultimate) enemies. Ironically, many of these migrants claim that the West is “racist,” yet it is the West, especially Europe, that accepted and continues to accept millions of migrants, many of whom were and are unassimilable, e.g., drug traffickers and Wahhabi–Salafi terrorists. These very elements were also largely despised and rejected by traditional Muslim societies, but accepted and even promoted by the West, in order to divide and rule at home and abroad.

The problem with open borders is that they are a double-edged sword. The West wants to weaken Muslim societies such as Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan by siphoning off native elites and their talents. In doing so the West undermines the ability of these societies to resist subjugation. Many Muslims criticised Trump’s ban on the admission of Syrians, Iranians, and Yemenis to the U.S., yet arguably such a ban would have been mutually beneficial for both sides. Also, Islam and traditional Muslim culture heavily frown on “Muslims” who flee to their enemies’ lands rather than stay, fight, and contribute to their own native societies’ struggle(s) against foreign imperialism. So Muslims should praise the ban.

2 hours ago, Aloysius Pendergast said:

That aside, my point was just to say that "the right" aren't our friends. There's some really principled libertarians that are worthy of admiration for their anti-war stance, and same with a fringe element on the left, but by and large, these people aren't principled our friends, even if our interests often align when it comes to family values, tradition, morality and so forth.

As my profile indicates, I am not a Muslim, but I am critical of globalism, including imperialism, and find that forces such as open borders are harmful both to Muslim and non-Muslim societies. As I noted above, I think that Muslims’ negative response to Trump was based in part on misconceived notions. Trump’s ban on emigration from “terrorist-sponsoring” states arguably would have forced Iranians, Syrians, Yemenis, and so on to stay and assist their own communities rather than seek lucrative opportunities in the U.S., thereby helping their own nations survive Western incursion(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@Ibn-e-Muhammad, @Dubilexboth rightwing and leftwing belong to the same bird (i.e. capitalist vulture)—Muslims agree and disagree partially with both parties but both camps have gone to extremes and Islam commands us to remind them of moderation and balance 

download.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/4/2022 at 3:24 PM, Northwest said:

preferring instead to engage in signalling victimhood rather than working to better themselves and their communities

Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Hezbollah, Houthis etc. are trying to do precisely that but they're encountering a tremendous amount of difficulty due to the meddlesome nature of Western hegemony and American foreign policy—countries, movements and individuals can do both you know—work to better themselves while simultaneously calling out imperialist practices/policies and white racism etc.—we can chew gum and walk at the same time—and it's actually an Islamic injunction—a man asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), “What is the best form of jihad?” and the Prophet replied, “A word of truth in front of a tyrannical ruler.”

On 8/4/2022 at 3:24 PM, Northwest said:

There are plenty of white Western traditionalists who simply do not want massive “Muslim” immigration

Because they're either closet racists or overtly racist—Lol—the entire American Experiment was based on immigration from European and non-European countries—legislation encouraged immigration from any country during the 1900's when the US required industrial development and families could earn a sustainable/living wage (hence strengthening the economy and infrastructure)—US "multinational" companies then decided to export all manufacturing jobs abroad and immigrants fell into two extreme ends of an earnings/income potential—now they still require immigration but they're highly selective about it (e.g. surgeons, engineers from MENA and SE Asia)    

On 8/4/2022 at 3:24 PM, Northwest said:

Much of the immigration is also detrimental to Shia communities, in that the immigrants tend to be violent, criminal Wahhabi–Salafi elements

Most immigrants are good people who are simply trying to better themselves

On 8/4/2022 at 3:24 PM, Northwest said:

Also, if Muslims feel that they are being discriminated against by white Westerns on account of faith, why do they conflate religion and race? Why do they allege “racism” instead of religious discrimination? After all, Islam is not a race.

I think a lot of people use the term "racism" as a sort of loose synonym for prejudice, discrimination etc.—also, it's usually whites who dictate the conversation and confuse terminology and persons of color (POC) simply accept the confused definitions and respond in kind—hence Arabs and Muslims and Middle Easterners and Asiatic brown people are seen as the exotic, dangerous, temperamental and uncivilized "other" and lumped together in one broad category.  

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
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...