Is Islam a Totalitarian Ideology?

[Beerina]

Is Islam a Totalitarian Ideology?

Take it, like Christianity, at face value. There's a god who is going to throw the vast majority of people who ever lived into Hell for disobeying arbitrary and capricious rules, rules that are dictated and not arrived at democratically, and are not supported by any modern concept of freedom.

Sounds like a totalitarian regime to me.

 

[Gurdur]

...., rules that are dictated and not arrived at democratically, ....Sounds like a totalitarian regime to me.

Except that that contradicts a stance you have taken elsewhere, Beerina, of being against democracy without arbitrarily-chosen limits.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Saddam was like Hitler, but of a less powerful country.

I never liked the Saddam / Hitler comparison, since Saddam was for my money far more like Stalin. Stalin took a (relatively) backward country, Russia, and by force of leadership and power manipulation, and a fine streak of cruelty, and a socialist/statist system, moved it into the status of power to be reckoned with.

Saddam, a Ba'athist among other things, likewise used the accretion and application of power to further boost Iraq into the status of a power, albeit regional, with a fine streak of cruelty tossed in. USSR and Iraq were far more varied (as I see it) in terms of subcultures and sub nationalities than the interwar Germany ever was. That particular problem also confronted people like Tito, Ho, and Mao as they tried to fuse their lands into a particular political model. For all of his brutality, like Stalin, Saddam did move forward toward a more modern, secular society the land called Iraq. One thing Saddam isn't/wasn't was an Islamist.

So, rather than just moan "Godwin" again, I'll offer what I think is a better model for who Saddam resembled.

For cooperative regimes like Saudi Arabia, I prefer an engagement approach. I think we should use friendly pressure to get them to allow more freedom of speech and religion in their country.

They are temporarily cooperative. That can change.

DR

 

[Lonewulf]

Except that that contradicts a stance you have taken elsewhere, Beerina, of being against democracy without arbitrarily-chosen limits.

Beerina also thinks that you can clone animals without a surrogate mother, and that we're justified in wiping out entire species as a result of it, so take his past statements as you will.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sure, why not?
After the fall of Communism there's a vacancy for the Boogeyman.

So let's start labeling Islam as a totalitarian ideology. Let's create a new term: "Islamo-Fascism", and bandy it about as though it isn't in fact nonsense.
Let's sagely pronounce on the "irrationality of middle eastern politics".
Let's liken anyone questioning the wisdom of unprovoked war against Muslim nations to Neville Chamberlain when appeasing Hitler.
Let's demonise. Let's propagandise our stupid apathetic populace.
Let's pretend we give a damn about Muslim women. (Remember all the wailing and gnashing of teeth before the invasion of Afghanistan about them having to wear Burqas?.. Well there they are again, back in their burqas.. only now they have to worry about being bombed too.)
Let's start a "public debate" about whether Muslim women in western societies should be allowed to wear the hijab. Let's try to argue that they can't communicate properly with their faces covered. Let's "protect" Muslim women by trying to prevent them working as teachers while wearing the veil.
Let's accuse them of not assimilating.
Let's install and prop up nasty and compliant dictators in Muslim nations so we can exploit their countries natural resources. Let's then criticise the Muslim world for not wanting democracy. Let's call them backward.

Folks, please listen. It's total bulls**t, and it's politically motivated.
And I'm sorry, but anyone who can't see through it all is an IDIOT

Rant over.

I listened. What you said is total bull**** as well.

Fact: There are certain countries where certain people don't have many rights at all.

Fact: Some of these countries are actually Islamic, where the religion has total control over the state.

Fact: In these countries, your human rights are not recognized, and you tend to be treated as awfully as possible.

If the Catholic Church had total control of all of the major countries today, I'd think that they would be no better. Probably would outlaw condom use, abortions, and then make prayer service mandatory. Might just go back to rooting out people that dissent and kill them.

In short: In some countries, you are hunted and killed if you fall into any of these criteria: You're a Christian, an atheist, or a non-Muslim. You're a homosexual. You're a woman who happened to get raped, wherein you're stoned to death.

But yes, I'm sure these countries are perfectly fine, heavenly places full of love and joy, and the Illuminati is just making it up. *nods*

 

[Invidious]

To the OP: No. There are many different flavors of Islam. You've selected (as you readily admit) a non-exhaustive list of those flavors that seem to lend a positive answer to your question.

Here is Wikipedia's list of Islamic denominations. It should be readily apparent by the sheer number listed in this brief article that the multitude of variations in Islamic practice make all-encompassing declarations such as "Islam is a totalitarian ideology" impossible. Are some denominations practiced in a totalitarian manner? Yes, almost definitely. Might the same denomination be practiced completely democratically somewhere else? Yes, almost definitely.

 

[frank462]

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Islam is as Islam does." And Islam does child abuse.

Here is a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on children and marriage.
Remember he is the same guy who called for the death of Salman Rushdie.
How can you possibly justify such disgusting ideas?

Fatwa on Children and Marriage

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, while other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, and kissing are allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

 

[Darth Rotor]

How can you possibly justify such disgusting ideas?

Who is so justifying this idea? R Khomeni has been dead for some years.

Fatwa on Children and Marriage

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, while other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, and kissing are allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

Truth is stranger than fiction, if this transcription is true.

DR

 

[Invidious]

Islam is simply the vehicle with which to drive a Totalitarian Ideology....

One of many vehicles, I think. All driving on the same highway of conflicting Ideologies, constantly changing lanes and speeds over the passage of time with no resort to signal, sign or blinker, ...

er, damn. I think I broke the metaphor.

When it comes down to it, is there any message you can't communicate via religion if you're the one teaching it to your followers?

Word (to your followers).

 

[Beerina]

Take it, like Christianity, at face value. There's a god who is going to throw the vast majority of people who ever lived into Hell for disobeying arbitrary and capricious rules, rules that are dictated and not arrived at democratically, and are not supported by any modern concept of freedom.

Sounds like a totalitarian regime to me.

Except that that contradicts a stance you have taken elsewhere, Beerina, of being against democracy without arbitrarily-chosen limits.

I have no problem with using democracy to determine punishment for breaking valid laws. I also have no problem with democracy being used to determine the details of what it means to steal or murder. I do have a problem with democracy being used to justify any activity the government may outlaw whatsoever. People who defend the massive welfare state justify this with, well, The People want it.

Well, in the past, The People have wanted slavery. The People have wanted women to not be able to vote. The People have wanted abortion outlawed. The People...The People...The People.

When that is your sole justification for a law's legitimacy, you have no philosophical argument against those things. I do. It's not hard to understand.

Beerina also thinks that you can clone animals without a surrogate mother, and that we're justified in wiping out entire species as a result of it, so take his past statements as you will.

Actually, cloning, say, a mammoth, would be better done with a surrogate mother, in this case, an elephant.

Technology advances, and we can do more and more things. Within a hundred years or less, do you doubt we'll be able to program the full design of living organism's DNA on computers, and see, with a push of the button, what the result will be?

Cries of DOOM by environmentalists on this issue are very similar to the same cries by our old friends like 1InChrist about the imminent return of Jesus.

No coincidence, there.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I have no problem with using democracy to determine punishment for breaking valid laws. I also have no problem with democracy being used to determine the details of what it means to steal or murder. I do have a problem with democracy being used to justify any activity the government may outlaw whatsoever. People who defend the massive welfare state justify this with, well, The People want it.

Well, in the past, The People have wanted slavery. The People have wanted women to not be able to vote. The People have wanted abortion outlawed. The People...The People...The People.

When that is your sole justification for a law's legitimacy, you have no philosophical argument against those things. I do. It's not hard to understand.



Actually, cloning, say, a mammoth, would be better done with a surrogate mother, in this case, an elephant.

Cries of DOOM by environmentalists on this issue are very similar to the same cries by our old friends like 1InChrist about the imminent return of Jesus.

Let's name the first baby mammoth so born "Jesus."

It'll drive the Fundies nuts.

DR

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually, cloning, say, a mammoth, would be better done with a surrogate mother, in this case, an elephant.

Technology advances, and we can do more and more things. Within a hundred years or less, do you doubt we'll be able to program the full design of living organism's DNA on computers, and see, with a push of the button, what the result will be?

Cries of DOOM by environmentalists on this issue are very similar to the same cries by our old friends like 1InChrist about the imminent return of Jesus.

No coincidence, there.

Actually, the whole argument that future generations will spontaneously be able to resurrect everyone that lives today, complete with memories and everything, seems about equivalent to the whole "Jesus will Return!!111" crowd.

No coincidence, there.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, the whole argument that future generations will spontaneously be able to resurrect everyone that lives today, complete with memories and everything, seems about equivalent to the whole "Jesus will Return!!111" crowd.

No coincidence, there.

They'll only resurrect the hot chicks. That leave you and me as worm food, brother Wolf.

DR

 

[Lonewulf]

They'll only resurrect the hot chicks. That leave you and me as worm food, brother Wolf.

DR

Why bother? Make robotic sex drones, and have them all look like Lucy Liu. Instant hit.

And I plan to live that long.

 

[Puppycow]

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, while other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, and kissing are allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

OMG.

 

[Lonewulf]

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Islam is as Islam does." And Islam does child abuse.

Here is a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on children and marriage.
Remember he is the same guy who called for the death of Salman Rushdie.
How can you possibly justify such disgusting ideas?

Fatwa on Children and Marriage

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, while other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, and kissing are allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

OMFSM, I didn't even see this.

OMFSM.

...






OMFSM.

I'm speechless.

 

[Thunder]

I see no logical reason to believe that Islam is any more or less compatible with democracy then Judaism, Christianity, or Buddhism. Germany, Spain, and Italy were Christian nations but totally embraced Fascism. Russia was devotely Orthodox Christian but embraced Communism. Meanwhile Muslim Turkey is a democracy.

China is mostly Buddhist but they are a dictatorship. Lebanon is mostly Muslim but is way more of a democracy then Buddhist North Korea or Catholic Cuba.

Those who seek to claim that Islam is uncompatible with democracy while the other religions are...are just ignoring the facts, history, and reality.

 

[plumjam]

I see no logical reason to believe that Islam is any more or less compatible with democracy then Judaism, Christianity, or Buddhism. Germany, Spain, and Italy were Christian nations but totally embraced Fascism. Russia was devotely Orthodox Christian but embraced Communism. Meanwhile Muslim Turkey is a democracy.

China is mostly Buddhist but they are a dictatorship. Lebanon is mostly Muslim but is way more of a democracy then Buddhist North Korea or Catholic Cuba.

Those who seek to claim that Islam is uncompatible with democracy while the other religions are...are just ignoring the facts, history, and reality.

well said

 

[Lonewulf]

I see no logical reason to believe that Islam is any more or less compatible with democracy then Judaism, Christianity, or Buddhism. Germany, Spain, and Italy were Christian nations but totally embraced Fascism. Russia was devotely Orthodox Christian but embraced Communism. Meanwhile Muslim Turkey is a democracy.

China is mostly Buddhist but they are a dictatorship. Lebanon is mostly Muslim but is way more of a democracy then Buddhist North Korea or Catholic Cuba.

Those who seek to claim that Islam is uncompatible with democracy while the other religions are...are just ignoring the facts, history, and reality.

Like I always say... I'm totally okay with religion, as long as it has no power.

It's hard to have a democracy when you're ran by a church.

 

[Elind]

It is in the king's interest that his people come from a common frame of cultural reference, it seems, from the standpoint of ruling them, but the dirty little secret is that Saudi Arabia has a substantial proportion of citizens who are not Arabian, and are considered by many to be second class citizens.

Second class they are, but citizens they are not. Saudi has kept it's purity right up there with Iceland as far as I understand. It was not many years ago that they first even allowed for giving citizenship to long time residents from elsewhere, and that on very tough conditions. Perhaps you are thinking of the UAE, and Dubai in particular, where I believe the majority of CITIZENS is foreign, mostly of Indian origin. However they still cannot rule.

Insofar as the societal structure, the Saud family is more like a "divine right of kings" style of ruler, family wise, whereas the leading Mllah's (Khameni at the moment) are a "divine right of the Imam club" style of ruler, wisdom/peer/maneuvering approval wise.

As in, Guardian of the holy places; self appointed title.

Of the two, I'd offer Saudi Arabia as a better example of a totalitarian system in practice, based on the close relationship between royal family and mosque, while the Islamic Republic itself corrupts a purer theocracy by inclusion of forms based on secular republics. The key difference in form is the matter of clan/tribe affiliation in Saudi Arabia, and the more varied affiliations in Iran.

Personally, I think the issue is not very significant. All rulers use the tools available to them to rule. They differ here and there, and without Mecca and oil, Saudis would still be banging goats, most of the time. The question is whether the RELIGION is totalitarian; or rather whether it is more totalitarian than some others. Personally I think yes, because of the 5 times daily prayers, the fact that prayers should be conducted with others if present, and all the other countless prohibitions and admonishments from food to how wipe your butt. I've seen it and it's totalitarian; and much more so than what the "government" says.

One can argue that due to having elections, Iran cannot be a totalitarian state, whereas in Saudi Arabia, due to clan/tribal authority lines, Saudi Arabia can be. In theory, the Islamic Republic attempts to apply the totalitarian form that communist states tended to attempt, with the State as the final arbiter of all matters in life, but in practice, there are considerable imperfections against the ideal.

Surely you can't argue, along with Bush, that all it takes to be a democracy is elections?

If Iran undertook to become a hermit kingdom, like North Korea or Burma, it might have more success in implementing a purer form of totalitarian blend of the Islamic society and the secular model.

Why did you not bring in Afghanistan under the Taliban as an example of the purest form of religious totalitarianism I can think of?