Support NeoGAF

[archnemesis]

I find it more likely that non-supernatural ideologies are based on well-reasoned arguments and supported by evidence. It's a lot more difficult to win a debate/discussion against someone who bases his religious ideology on something that is unfalsifiable. Non-religious ideologies should also be more welcoming for people with different backgrounds.

 

[Kenka]

Religion is all about faith. If you have the faith, then you can endure and accept things you wouldn't otherwise, unless forcefully druged. Having faith in something makes the rest disappear out of your sight. It can be both good and bad.

Politics is about organization of people by other people. People in the government can use your faith for their own interest. But that's cheating.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I find it more likely that non-supernatural ideologies are based on well-reasoned arguments and supported by evidence. It's a lot more difficult to win a debate/discussion against someone who bases his religious ideology on something that is unfalsifiable. Non-religious ideologies should also be more welcoming for people with different backgrounds.

So, considering the roots of rights discourse, of socialism etc. how do you find an ideology removed from religion?

Additionally, surely all political ideologies are on some level mutually exclusive? So falsafiability doesn't so much come into into it as far as I can see. Same is true with the reasoning of arguments more generally. You must surely believe some are correct and others not. If those that are not correct should not be involved then why the problem specifically with religion?

I also don't know that the assertion that non-religious ideologies are more welcoming for people with different backgrounds, something evidence by your belief that people with religious backgrounds should not take part in political process.

 

[Instigator]

I also don't know that the assertion that non-religious ideologies are more welcoming for people with different backgrounds, something evidence by your belief that people with religious backgrounds should not take part in political process.

Depends.

If a group, religious or not, tries to get its foot in the political process while also trying to subvert it, then no, they shouldn't be part of it.

I would apply this to the NPD (nazis in disguise) and the Salafists (Al Quada light) in Germany, for example. Perfectly legitimate intolerance as far as I'm concerned.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Depends.

If a group, religious or not, tries to get its foot in the political process while also trying to subvert it, then no, they shouldn't be part of it.

I would apply this to the NPD (nazis in disguise) and the Salafists (Al Quada light) in Germany, for example. Perfectly legitimate intolerance as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know if Salafism is really al Qaeda light. What would be an example of a manner in which such political subversion occur? How would Salafism in Germany effectively subvert the political process? Same for the modern Nazis. Surely they fixed the way that the system works in Germany after the first time?

It is, still, intolerance, regardless of whether you find it to be legitimate or not

 

[Instigator]

I don't know if Salafism is really al Qaeda light. What would be an example of a manner in which such political subversion occur? How would Salafism in Germany effectively subvert the political process? Same for the modern Nazis. Surely they fixed the way that the system works in Germany after the first time?

It is, still, intolerance, regardless of whether you find it to be legitimate or not

You can't be serious. If you live in a Democratic society where everybody is equal under the law, you can't let groups violently opposed to these shared values try to gain a foothold, not just to get heard, but regress society to their twisted views by force. Germany of all places has first hand knowledge of how suicidal it can be for the country to turn a blind eye to this.

So yes, fuck them.

 

[Kenka]

When a salafi tells you straight in the eyes that it is normal for him to see your folk burn, you only want one thing: to put him in prison until the end of his poor days.

If another salafi tells you that it is none of his business what people do at the other end of the world, you may want one thing: listen to him further.

 

[OttomanScribe]

You can't be serious. If you live in a Democratic society where everybody is equal under the law, you can't let groups violently opposed to these shared values try to gain a foothold, not just to get heard, but regress society to their twisted views by force. Germany of all places has first hand knowledge of how suicidal it can be for the country to turn a blind eye to this.

So yes, fuck them.

You didn't mention violence...

If we are talking about violent overthrow, then we aren't really talking about involvement in the political process are we? Your point essentially seems to be 'groups shouldn't be allowed to conduct violent coups', which is fine, but it doesn't relate much to the discussion at hand, at least as far as I can tell.

 

[Kenka]

You didn't mention violence...

If we are talking about violent overthrow, then we aren't really talking about involvement in the political process are we? Your point essentially seems to be 'groups shouldn't be allowed to conduct violent coups', which is fine, but it doesn't relate much to the discussion at hand, at least as far as I can tell.

OS, I think Instigator is hinting at the way salafi dudes use their money to promote social structures in which people live under terror. The terror being both the result and the mean to fulfill salafi view.

Salafi dudes have transformed my country in a potato field. I am not friendly to those guys. Are you one of them ?

 

[Instigator]

You didn't mention violence...

If we are talking about violent overthrow, then we aren't really talking about involvement in the political process are we? Your point essentially seems to be 'groups shouldn't be allowed to conduct violent coups', which is fine, but it doesn't relate much to the discussion at hand, at least as far as I can tell.

These people are much more politically astute, they have to be considering Germany's already strict anti-hate laws, but there's quite a difference between the public facade and behind the scenes. I suggest you read this link (in English):

http://www.spiegel.de/international...banning-the-far-right-npd-party-a-853564.html

 

[OttomanScribe]

OS, I think Instigator is hinting at the way salafi dudes use their money to promote social structures in which people live under terror. The terror being both the result and the mean to fulfill salafi view.

Salafi dudes have transformed my country in a potato field. I am not friendly to those guys. Are you one of them ?

You are going to need to be more specific than that. What do you mean by 'potato field'. What do you mean when you talk about social structures in which people live under terror? What country are you talking about?

No, I am not a Salafi.

These people are much more politically astute, they have to be considering Germany's already strict anti-hate laws, and they know how to play nice with the full glare of cameras. I suggest you read this link (in English):

I am familiar with the way such facist groups work. I think however that within liberal democratic theory, many would argue that the processes of democracy constitute a substitute for banning. No party that will seek to change the form of the democracy itself will be able to do so without majority support.

I certainly think that prosecuting such people for hate crime, vilification etc. is something any healthy state should do, however I don't know that banning political parties has ever been an effective tactic.

It sets a bad precedent.

 

[Kenka]

You are going to need to be more specific than that. What do you mean by 'potato field'. What do you mean when you talk about social structures in which people live under terror? What country are you talking about?

Pardon me. I'll be more specific: this is a potato field.

And this is my country:

I don't know that banning political parties has ever been an effective tactic.

This is an important question.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Pardon me. I'll be more specific: this is a potato field.



And this is my country:




This is an important question.

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Kenka]

I am.
Sorry about it.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I am.
Sorry about it.

Strange lad.

 

[Instigator]

however I don't know that banning political parties has ever been an effective tactic.

Sure it has. Germany has banned the Nazi party (denazification) for over 70 years and the country has been a prosperous, modern democracy ever since.

It all depends on the circumstances.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Sure it has. Germany has banned the Nazi party (denazification) for over 70 years and the country has been a prosperous, modern democracy ever since.

It all depends on the circumstances.

Is this a joke post?

 

[Instigator]

Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.

It's generally not seen in a good light if a homegrown, despotic government does it to prevent open dissent or some foreign power imposes it to quell rebellions. Then they're just keeping a lid over a boilling pot.

But restricting "freedoms" in certain cases (like party affiliation) can work if you have broad popular support like during wartime or if there's a specific threat requiring exceptional measures to deal with it.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.

I'm going to say yes. No way someone could simultaneously make both a confusion between correlation and causation, and also be so confused about history.

It's generally not seen in a good light if a homegrown, despotic government does it to prevent open dissent or some foreign power imposes it to quell rebellions. Then they're just keeping a lid over a boilling pot.

But restricting "freedoms" in certain cases (like party affiliation) can work if you have broad popular support like during wartime or if there's a specific threat requiring exceptional measures to deal with it.

I don't know that such a situation exists. Even in situations of widespread social unrest it would seem like an ineffective measure to say the least. Especially considering you have gotten to a point of such widespread unrest in the first place, which is something that would probably be only encouraged by further disenfranchisment.

The realities of politics force compromise upon the parties involved. Politics is dirty like that. If you want to deradicalise a group, disenfranchising them and removing them from the political process is no good way to do so, it will probably just make them more extreme.

 

[Instigator]

I don't know that such a situation exists. Even in situations of widespread social unrest it would seem like an ineffective measure to say the least. Especially considering you have gotten to a point of such widespread unrest in the first place, which is something that would probably be only encouraged by further disenfranchisment.

The realities of politics force compromise upon the parties involved. Politics is dirty like that. If you want to deradicalise a group, disenfranchising them and removing them from the political process is no good way to do so, it will probably just make them more extreme.

Who says anything about waiting for the country to fall apart before doing anything?

If you don't do it legally and publicly, you can do it covertly. Officially, various Communist parties were free to organize (as long as not violent) in Western countries, but covertly, particularly during the Cold War, many countries illegally spied on their own citizens and sowed seeds to discord in far left parties to the point of neutering most of those movements.

Then 20, 30 or 40 years down the line, the truth is known but hardly any uproar because they were marginal groups after all (and were kept that way).

 

[OttomanScribe]

Who says anything about waiting for the country to fall apart before doing anything?

I guess my point is that the kind of situation where a violent coup would occur is already going to be a problematic situation in terms of the health of any democracy.

If you don't do it legally and publicly, you can do it covertly. Officially, various Communist parties were free to organize (as long as not violent) in Western countries, but covertly, particularly during the Cold War, many countries illegally spied on their own citizens and sowed seeds to discord in far left parties to the point of neutering most of those movements.

This isn't true. They were banned in many as far as I recall, and in many there were massive witch hunts. Some of the lowest points for US political life occurred in the name of supressing communists.

If we are talking about banning parties that are viewed as undemocratic, then there is already a problem, as usually banning such parties is itself undemocratic. Something about security and liberty and neither being deserved?


Note: I'm not a liberal democracy kind of dude, but I'm playing devil's advocate as I am familiar enough with their political theories in order to be able to do so.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Good or bad?

http://www.religionnews.com/blogs/o...fering-prayers-at-the-democratic-national-con



I disagree. I hope the Khilafa gets based there. Sha'riah compliant gundams shall conquer the world.

I don't mind that, based on the latest mecha thread it seems like gundams are not at all viable in combat

 

[Instigator]

This isn't true. They were banned in many as far as I recall, and in many there were massive witch hunts. Some of the lowest points for US political life occurred in the name of supressing communists.

If we are talking about banning parties that are viewed as undemocratic, then there is already a problem, as usually banning such parties is itself undemocratic. Something about security and liberty and neither being deserved?

But that doesn't refute what I argued before. You don't need an absolute, literal application of liberal democracy in its purest form to have a functionning liberal democracy.

In the case of the US, it's not like a clandestine commie movement was simmering just below the surface, some red guerillas causing mayhem in rural regions or large sections of the public disgusted with the political process just because Commies were mistreated in the 50's. It might make some good Hollywood drama, particularly with those wrongly accused, but most of America was never Communist. The movement, if it even had a chance in that country, never really took root.

So anyway, back to Germany, ban the NDP and kick the Salafists out!

Note: I'm not a liberal democracy kind of dude, but I'm playing devil's advocate as I am familiar enough with their political theories in order to be able to do so.

So, what are you anyway?

 

[OttomanScribe]

But that doesn't refute what I argued before. You don't need an absolute, literal application of liberal democracy in its purest form to have a functionning liberal democracy.

This is true, however when you get to the point of banning a bunch of parties arbitrarily determined to be a threat to democracy, then your democracy is already threatened by that action itself.

In the case of the US, it's not like a clandestine commie movement was simmering just below the surface, some red guerillas causing mayhem in rural regions or large sections of the public disgusted with the political process just because Commies were mistreated in the 50's. It might make some good Hollywood drama, particularly with those wrongly accused, but most of America was never Communist. The movement, if it even had a chance in that country, never really took root.

Exactly, it never took root because it was a marginal group. Marginal in the same way that the NDP are. However as soon as the threat of that marginal group was used to justify a bunch of laws that would suppress them, then immediately those were used against other than them, specifically political opponents.

You see the same thing in the US today, with 'anti-terror' laws used not just against random Muslims (guilty or not) but a range of protest movements, most of whom are non-violent.

Adding the ability to ban parties to that general grouping of oppressive laws is not going to make any democracy more healthy.

So anyway, back to Germany, ban the NDP and kick the Salafists out!

Interesting, ban one, deport the other? Why the distinction? Why not ban both or kick out both?

So, what are you anyway?

Not easy to pick a word and say 'this is everything I believe'. Pick an issue and I'll tell ya.

 

[Salih]

Religion is all about faith. If you have the faith, then you can endure and accept things you wouldn't otherwise, unless forcefully druged. Having faith in something makes the rest disappear out of your sight.

I do not agree. I am a student of science; i study chemistry here germany but i am also muslim. As a science person you always think criticial about knowledge and its source. It makes you a critical thinker which is a good thing! I also think critical about Islam; for me Islam is a science like mathematics or chemistry and the more i study about it the stronger my iman (creed) gets. I would drop out of islam if i would find something with which i wouldn't agree with wholeheartedly. I am serious. Believe me, being a muslim is not easy. You have to put your own needs and desires under the rules of your Creator Allah (swt). Faith alone wouldn't make that happen. It is also reason, logic and truth.

---

and what is EXACTLY wrong with the salafiyya here in germany? Saying 'al-Qaeda Light' is pretty weak. don't forget the sources

and no, i am not a salafi. i am a muslim, alhamdulillah.

 

[Kenka]

My experience with Salafis is limited but disastrous. But let me tell you why I think their influence in Germany would not represent an opportunity for ze Germans. Salafi people I have heard of and dealt with have a big confidence in their message. They are so comfortably living with and through it that they gain a remarkable peace of mind. Their intellectual, social and technical faculties are all turned towards the objective of building a world in which masses are entirely devoted to God and them. I don't remember having talked with a salafi that was not genuinely dedicated to his cause.

Also, they are so willing to realize their vision that they are profoundly detached from their past existence, people they used to know included. They have the ability to internalize various needs (not sex as far as I can tell, but there are several bits of explanations) and have a remarkable capacity of abstraction. The problem is that this leads them to be unaffected by events that are not in strict relation with their aim, and by the means it takes to complete their vision.

As an Afghan, I have seen it. As an European, I've heard and seen of such behaviour also, in it was precisely during the dark hours of nazism.


Loose moral frame is the consequence of focusing one's attention on a single matter. It might be comfortable to care about only one thing in your entire existence but it certainly is hazardous for your surroundings, and the world also and eventually your soul.

 

[malingenie]

Faith alone wouldn't make that happen. It is also reason, logic and truth.

Fascinating point of view. Specially coming from a scientific mind.

 

[Darackutny]

Kenka, are you talking about individuals who happen to be Salafis or specific groups/political parties? If you are talking about the latter, then are you referring to the Taliban by any chance?

 

[Kenka]

Wut. Taliban are drug dealers who employ local youth to fight for control. I quite don't think of them as "religious". They know quite nothing of any religion for that matter.

I was talking of my own experience of salafi. Of course, I don't know all salafi but the qualities/bad points I mentioned are pretty consistent over the board. Yes.

 

[Salih]

thank you alot for your reply Kenka

My experience with Salafis is limited but disastrous. But let me tell you why I think their influence in Germany would not represent an opportunity for ze Germans. Salafi people I have heard of and dealt with have a big confidence in their message. They are so comfortably living with and through it that they gain a remarkable peace of mind. Their intellectual, social and technical faculties are all turned towards the objective of building a world in which masses are entirely devoted to God and them. I don't remember having talked with a salafi that was not genuinely dedicated to his cause.

very good point. You are absolutely right. Indeed, they are very confident in their belief. Yes, they want to establish a so called 'islamischer Gottesstaat" (islamic theocracy, but the german term is way more common in my head, cause the mass media keeps saying that ^^) here in germany with Sharia as the law. Listen, if that ever happens, i would have nothing against it. However, do i work my life towards that goal? No. Do i have to do this as a muslim? No. Is it my responsibility as a muslim? No. Sharia should not implemented here because of a crazy and stupid revolution, but because the majority of the people want it. Right now, maybe 3-4% of the population want it here; and i bet one third of them are too lazy to vote
Our responsibility as muslims is so called 'Dawah'. It basically mean 'invitation' to islam and is spreading the word of islam. We don't even go housedoor to housedoor like the jehovah's witnesses and say: "Good day, sir. Do you have time to talk with us about god and you?"; and mashallah our brothers here give free Qur'an translations away in the public and talk to those who have interest. Nothing more. Right now they only want to get out the message of islam to the people. what is so scary about that? Unlike the nazis, they don't go to our schools here and give racist music cds to the kids.
Listen, if the salafis ever do something that is against the German Basic Law they need to be arrested and punished for their crime. Simple. We muslims live in this country, we need to accept the laws of this country. Yes, obviously we love and appreciate the Qur'an more than the German Basic Law, but that doesn't mean, we should disregard the German Basic Law. If some muslims are not satisfied with the life here, they should leave. Simple.

I am living a great life here in germany - i am really thankful to Allah (swt) and to the germans that i can life my religion here peacefully; that i have the same rights as every other religious person in this country. I can pray at home or at a mosque. germany has been good to us and we muslims should be really thankful for that. Right now they allow us muslims to build a central mosque in cologne, alhamdulillah.

Also, they are so willing to realize their vision that they are profoundly detached from their past existence, people they used to know included. They have the ability to internalize various needs (not sex as far as I can tell, but there are several bits of explanations) and have a remarkable capacity of abstraction. The problem is that this leads them to be unaffected by events that are not in strict relation with their aim, and by the means it takes to complete their vision.

As an Afghan, I have seen it. As an European, I've heard and seen of such behaviour also, in it was precisely during the dark hours of nazism.

i think, i get what you are implying. Correct me, if i am wrong. Basically, the germans made a huge mistake with letting the nazis have control over them because they followed them blindly and therefore the germans shouldn't do it again - now with the salafiyya. I do agree. But as i said; the muslims here are in tide control. The 'Verfassungsschutz' ('protection of the constitution') really monitors a lot of the smaller islamic associations and clubs.

Problem is, sometimes they really want to provoke the muslims here in this country. Last week, this was in the news: Our Minister of the Interior wants to to spread out these posters/placards, which resemble missing person's reports, to the public.

It says: "MISSING - This is my brother Hassan. I miss ihm, because i don't recognize him anymore. He withdraws more and more (from life) and get more radical every day. I am scared of losing him - to religious fanatics and terror groups. If you experience the same thing, call us"

I don't really care about that. You won't get me angry with that, but some are short tempered because it basically criminalizes the muslims living here.

 

[Kinitari]

Just wanted to jump in to the interesting discourse happening here and add my opinion. I think some political ideologies have no reason to be given legitimacy - call it intolerance if you will, but I think fundamentally - deep down - everyone has their tolerances. What we deem to be right and wrong varies from person to person, nobody has a 1:1 mirrored morality with anyone else. Knowing that, I appreciate and understand that my morality is the morality I want to see perpetuated - and in fact everyone works this way. Nobody fights for the ideology of someone else if that ideology is something they vehemently disagree with - even when people fight to give people they disagree with the ability to... lets say participate in 'free speech' - they do this because they value the fundamental nature of free speech, not the ideology of their opposition.

That's a bit rant-y, but I wanted to basically come to this point. I understand and appreciate that there are a lot of religious elements in politics who want to also perpetuate their ideology, because they feel what they think is the 'right' thing should be spread - but I would fight tooth and nail to remove their ability to do so. If given the power to, I would completely remove their voice from the socio-political sphere. I don't really have any particular grand fondness for unchecked free speech and political representation - it has it's time and it's place.

 

[OttomanScribe]

My experience with Salafis is limited but disastrous. But let me tell you why I think their influence in Germany would not represent an opportunity for ze Germans. Salafi people I have heard of and dealt with have a big confidence in their message. They are so comfortably living with and through it that they gain a remarkable peace of mind. Their intellectual, social and technical faculties are all turned towards the objective of building a world in which masses are entirely devoted to God and them. I don't remember having talked with a salafi that was not genuinely dedicated to his cause.

Also, they are so willing to realize their vision that they are profoundly detached from their past existence, people they used to know included. They have the ability to internalize various needs (not sex as far as I can tell, but there are several bits of explanations) and have a remarkable capacity of abstraction. The problem is that this leads them to be unaffected by events that are not in strict relation with their aim, and by the means it takes to complete their vision.

What it sounds like you are describing is the conviction of youth. I too have come across this, and watched it burn out. You find that there are huge rates of 'Salafi burn out' (as one Sheikh called it) where those of the youth to whom it appeals (as something they believe gives them dignity in a world where that is denied to them) cannot sustain the kind of anger that it often requires. This is one of the flaws of literalism, and their spartan interpretation of Islam: it is not something that can readily be sustained.

There are of course those who take it on into old age, but they are few and far between, at least in my community. The brother I took shahadah with and the Sheikh I now follow were both Salafis in their youth, and it didn't last long for either.

As an Afghan, I have seen it. As an European, I've heard and seen of such behaviour also, in it was precisely during the dark hours of nazism.

I think that this is a strange link. Godwin's law before the discussion even starts? The rise of Nazism was not about the conviction of the Nazis, it was about the position that Germany was in at the time. Nazism drew upon an ideal past to contrast with the degradation of the day, which the Salafis do as well, but that past appealed to the Germans and was based in the German tradition. The Salafis aren't in Germany quoting Tacitus and Nietzsche!

Similarly Germany is not currently what it was after the treaty of Versailles. The threat of Salafism is real in many places, and for different reasons, but the threat of it making any serious impact upon Germany's political system is nothing more than a baseless moral panic.

Just wanted to jump in to the interesting discourse happening here and add my opinion. I think some political ideologies have no reason to be given legitimacy - call it intolerance if you will, but I think fundamentally - deep down - everyone has their tolerances. What we deem to be right and wrong varies from person to person, nobody has a 1:1 mirrored morality with anyone else. Knowing that, I appreciate and understand that my morality is the morality I want to see perpetuated - and in fact everyone works this way. Nobody fights for the ideology of someone else if that ideology is something they vehemently disagree with - even when people fight to give people they disagree with the ability to... lets say participate in 'free speech' - they do this because they value the fundamental nature of free speech, not the ideology of their opposition.

Agreed.

That's a bit rant-y, but I wanted to basically come to this point. I understand and appreciate that there are a lot of religious elements in politics who want to also perpetuate their ideology, because they feel what they think is the 'right' thing should be spread - but I would fight tooth and nail to remove their ability to do so. If given the power to, I would completely remove their voice from the socio-political sphere. I don't really have any particular grand fondness for unchecked free speech and political representation - it has it's time and it's place.

Honesty is good. And I will fight Ak-47 and BM-21 to do the same to those who are the same as you

Not really.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Just wanted to jump in to the interesting discourse happening here and add my opinion. I think some political ideologies have no reason to be given legitimacy - call it intolerance if you will, but I think fundamentally - deep down - everyone has their tolerances. What we deem to be right and wrong varies from person to person, nobody has a 1:1 mirrored morality with anyone else. Knowing that, I appreciate and understand that my morality is the morality I want to see perpetuated - and in fact everyone works this way. Nobody fights for the ideology of someone else if that ideology is something they vehemently disagree with - even when people fight to give people they disagree with the ability to... lets say participate in 'free speech' - they do this because they value the fundamental nature of free speech, not the ideology of their opposition.

That's a bit rant-y, but I wanted to basically come to this point. I understand and appreciate that there are a lot of religious elements in politics who want to also perpetuate their ideology, because they feel what they think is the 'right' thing should be spread - but I would fight tooth and nail to remove their ability to do so. If given the power to, I would completely remove their voice from the socio-political sphere. I don't really have any particular grand fondness for unchecked free speech and political representation - it has it's time and it's place.

Personally, I don't think political ideologies should be banned unless they are directly breaking the law.
Sweden got a pretty good deal, and they even give all parties over a certain minimum size money for political materials, regardless of their political stance (so long as it is legal).
I believe they even got quasi-nazi parties (the difference being that they want to deport immigrants and "non-swedes" rather than put them in camps) and I'm fine with them getting money for propaganda.

Part of being a successful democracy is having faith in the people, believing in them keeping these parties minor, and if they ever do let one of these extremist parties come into power - well, then they deserve the results.

If these salafists are hate-speechy, then fine, disband their party or use it as a honeytrap to capture individual salafists that break the law. Otherwise, leave them be and let public discourse handle it. So long as they're not breaking the law, they're bringing some interesting cultural diversity to the political playing field.

 

[Salih]

Fascinating point of view. Specially coming from a scientific mind.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

 

[Forsete]

I believe they even got quasi-nazi parties (the difference being that they want to deport immigrants and "non-swedes" rather than put them in camps)

Quasi-nazi? Deport? Not true.

Social conservative. Does not want to deport everybody but they want to limit the number of unskilled immigrants. A fair proposition seeing how things are falling apart.

 

[OttomanScribe]

If these salafists are hate-speechy, then fine, disband their party or use it as a honeytrap to capture individual salafists that break the law. Otherwise, leave them be and let public discourse handle it. So long as they're not breaking the law, they're bringing some interesting cultural diversity to the political playing field.

Additionally, most Salafis aren't interested at all in engaging with political processes of democracy. A lot of them believe to do so constitutes khufr (disbelief, as it entails man-made laws).

The whole thing is quite bizarre to be honest. If they are a threat to somewhere like Germany, the closest thing it would be to would be maybe an internal violent thing, but that isn't going to be prevented by disenfranchising them!

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Quasi-nazi? Deport? Not true.

Social conservative. Does not want to deport everybody but they want to limit the number of unskilled immigrants. A fair proposition seeing how things are falling apart.

Hm, yeah, I think you're right.
I was thinking of the National Democrats, who have a publication that is getting funded by the government, but wikipedia is at least not mentioning any deportation policies.

Same deal for the Party of the Swedes:

1, Sweden should also in the future be Swedish: Only people who belong to the western genetic and cultural heritage, where the ethnic Swedes are included, should be Swedish citizens.

I think it is fair enough to say that even quasi-nazi parties can get funding in Sweden (so long as they are big enough).

 

[Kenka]

thank you alot for your reply Kenka

if the salafis ever do something that is against the German Basic Law they need to be arrested and punished for their crime. Simple. We muslims live in this country, we need to accept the laws of this country. Yes, obviously we love and appreciate the Qur'an more than the German Basic Law, but that doesn't mean, we should disregard the German Basic Law. If some muslims are not satisfied with the life here, they should leave. Simple.

Yeah, living in a place in which people live calmly and peacefully AND that welcome foreigners in need is a blessing, no less. Living as a plague ridden sucks unexplored depths of balls. If you can't figure out how lucky one is to live in Germany, you'd better pack and leave because at this point you are nothing but a nuisance. If you have problems with a fraction of the Germans, and want to stay, you need to do whatever the law deems as acceptable to have a better life, as in any common situation.

Right now they allow us muslims to build a central mosque in cologne, alhamdulillah.

Oh wow, looks like one nice building, regardless of its nature 0_o.
EviLore would have liked to have that to contemplate in Cologne.

i think, i get what you are implying. Correct me, if i am wrong. Basically, the germans made a huge mistake with letting the nazis have control over them because they followed them blindly and therefore the germans shouldn't do it again - now with the salafiyya.

Yes. The Germans know first hand that ideologies that require the full involvement of their followers can have megabad consequences when the top of the hierarchy goes crazy. And since the salafi have stirred shit all around the globe, you get why they are not exactly welcome.

What it sounds like you are describing is the conviction of youth. I too have come across this, and watched it burn out. You find that there are huge rates of 'Salafi burn out' (as one Sheikh called it) where those of the youth to whom it appeals (as something they believe gives them dignity in a world where that is denied to them) cannot sustain the kind of anger that it often requires. This is one of the flaws of literalism, and their spartan interpretation of Islam: it is not something that can readily be sustained.

There are of course those who take it on into old age, but they are few and far between, at least in my community. The brother I took shahadah with and the Sheikh I now follow were both Salafis in their youth, and it didn't last long for either.

Interesting points. The first bolded part is plausible and the explanation you give in the second bolded part is convincing although quite sad. It sounds like the way the Taliban recruit youngsters and it makes me rage.

I think that this is a strange link. Godwin's law before the discussion even starts? The rise of Nazism was not about the conviction of the Nazis, it was about the position that Germany was in at the time. Nazism drew upon an ideal past to contrast with the degradation of the day, which the Salafis do as well, but that past appealed to the Germans and was based in the German tradition. The Salafis aren't in Germany quoting Tacitus and Nietzsche!

Similarly Germany is not currently what it was after the treaty of Versailles. The threat of Salafism is real in many places, and for different reasons, but the threat of it making any serious impact upon Germany's political system is nothing more than a baseless moral panic.

1918: Pact of Versailles ---> German Volk goes apeshit ---> Nazis refuse to play the hideous game ---> Germans welcome Nazis as saviours of the German pride and economy
1934: Nazis ban other parties and start putting in place an ideology---> a sizeable portion of ze Germans follow them ! ---> Nazi crimes are committed, Germans are bemused ---> Have carried the burden of guilt for their blind faith in the regime/order

The second process is what conciously/unconciously prevents Germans to accept the banner of salafism on their soil, and they are pretty right. Salafi in its extremity should stick to sand grains and nowhere beyond.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Interesting points. The first bolded part is plausible and the explanation you give in the second bolded part is convincing although quite sad. It sounds like the way the Taliban recruit youngsters and it makes me rage.

A large amount of Taliban recruitment is monetary, if we are honest. While many are committed to the cause, I would say that most view the whole exercise as being in their interests, as there aren't any other jobs going.

1918: Pact of Versailles ---> German Volk goes apeshit ---> Nazis refuse to play the hideous game ---> Germans welcome Nazis as saviours of the German pride and economy
1934: Nazis ban other parties and start putting in place an ideology---> a sizeable portion of ze Germans follow them ! ---> Nazi crimes are committed, Germans are bemused ---> Have carried the burden of guilt for their blind faith in the regime/order

The second process is what conciously/unconciously prevents Germans to accept the banner of salafism on their soil, and they are pretty right. Salafi in its extremity should stick to sand grains and nowhere beyond.

I'm not ignorant of German history, though I would argue that your flow chart isn't really that good a representation..

You'd think the bolded would give people pause lol.

Stick to sand grains?

 

[Joel Was Right]

https://andalusianarts.wufoo.com/forms/send-condolences-to-ambassador-stevens-family/

Lets do this

 

[OttomanScribe]

https://andalusianarts.wufoo.com/forms/send-condolences-to-ambassador-stevens-family/

Lets do this

Done. Any idea if it works? Hopefully they send them to the other people killed as well.

 

[The Names M]

There seems to be many athiests on gaf. I have a video here I strongly encourage everyone to take a look. It will answer many questions alot of you may have.

http://www.halaltube.com/what-is-the-purpose-of-our-existence

 

[phosphor112]

I decided to roam around memritv.org , and the amount of shia/sunni hating on each other films is really depressing.

One video a shia was interrupted on TV by a sunni saying he was renounced by his family for being shia, then the shia guy mentioned something about the sunnis wife... that ended well.

Then another video, there was a prank shia caller (he was pretty vulgar in his words) and the host of the TV show said he lived in Iraq for 4 and a half years and those were the best years of his life because so many Shia were killed and how they need to still be killed.

Damn. It's depressing. Why can't we all be friends =/.

 

[victreeb3l]

I decided to roam around memritv.org , and the amount of shia/sunni hating on each other films is really depressing.

One video a shia was interrupted on TV by a sunni saying he was renounced by his family for being shia, then the shia guy mentioned something about the sunnis wife... that ended well.

Then another video, there was a prank shia caller (he was pretty vulgar in his words) and the host of the TV show said he lived in Iraq for 4 and a half years and those were the best years of his life because so many Shia were killed and how they need to still be killed.

Damn. It's depressing. Why can't we all be friends =/.

thats pretty depressing. you would think in times like these there could be some kind of unity and solidarity across the board, but nope, more hatred and enmity amongst your own people. its just...ugh.

 

[phosphor112]

thats pretty depressing. you would think in times like these there could be some kind of unity and solidarity across the board, but nope, more hatred and enmity amongst your own people. its just...ugh.

Nah man, its just people wanting death on one another. It's the worst thing ever. Like, I've heard some bad comments thrown my way, but someone saying the Saddam years were the best of his life? The fuck...

I lost several relatives from Saddam's cronies. It really hit home when he said that...

 

[victreeb3l]

Nah man, its just people wanting death on one another. It's the worst thing ever. Like, I've heard some bad comments thrown my way, but someone saying the Saddam years were the best of his life? The fuck...

I lost several relatives from Saddam's cronies. It really hit home when he said that...

damn man, sorry for all the crap you have had to put up with. i must admit im very ignorant about shia muslims. i grew up in a sunni community and no body really talked about shia other than them being "different". were both muslims, isnt that enough to stop the violence? such an awful state of affairs.

im assuming largely its a tribal/community warfare kind of thing?

 

[phosphor112]

damn man, sorry for all the crap you have had to put up with. i must admit im very ignorant about shia muslims. i grew up in a sunni community and no body really talked about shia other than them being "different". were both muslims, isnt that enough to stop the violence? such an awful state of affairs.

im assuming largely its a tribal/community warfare kind of thing?

My family is from Iraq, so there was always something greater than just a "difference." I've noticed it's a lot more prevalent in the Arab countries than in central Asia, like India and Pakistan.

EDIT: Anyway, that's all besides the point. Point is, people need to stop hating. Muslims are Muslims, stop trying to disenfranchise and disassociate yourselves with other sects and be one Ummah. Sadly, this'll never happen.

 

[Kenka]

I must say, the Shia/Sunni/Sufi difference is a non-issue in here. Yeah.

And I like it that way, why trying to enhance differences with your closer social contacts.

 

[phosphor112]

I must say, the Shia/Sunni/Sufi difference is a non-issue in here. Yeah.

And I like it that way, why trying to enhance differences with your closer social contacts.

Exactly. One of the fellows is on pediatric rotation here, and he's Sunni. He's one of the nicest guys I know, and I love it. The differences shouldn't have to be talked about. Live and let live.

 

[Kenka]

Sorry phosphor, but I feel sad just reading what you wrote.

I hope you're fine, you sound like a decent guy.