Where Did This 180 on Islam Come From?

Guys, I don't use Holla Forums much outside of this board and half chan's lit. FIVE times today on Facebook and 4chan I've seen an interest in Islam with a particular interest with Sufism. Every-time they compared Sufism to wahhabism and quoted Rumi or other Arabic thinkers.

,Granted I don't care because I'm not paranoid about Islam but where did this 180 come from? It's clearly a meme based on the consistent fixation with Sufism as an "appropriate" form of Islam complete with a need to distinguish from bad kinds of Islam like Wahhabism and Sunni Islam (even though they clearly don't understand that Sufism is not a different branch).

Has the "Islam is the cure for fun" meme taken off? Is it the new edge lord religion for would be neo-pagans?

Sufiism has a history in America. It was huge in the seventies or eighties I believe. I have a great uncle who converted back then and he's pretty devout still

I've seen a few people mention this, is this the first time you've mentioned this here?

Yeah, I just noticed this trend today. What gives?

Sufiism is the most "[email protected]/* */" of all the Islamic sects dude. Rumi and the rest of the poets were drunk all the fucking time and did gay stuff with each other. They also allow music and dancing

islam is the light

Yeah but its the "soft" form of Islam when compared to Wahhabism.

These people don't have to be educated to come up with a meme. I saw one guy not realise you could by a Shia Sufist.

If they wanted to push the "Islam cures muh degenewacy meme" why would they push the most degenewate of all the sects, dumbass? Your logic makes no sense

Given how quickly it's cropped up I'd say there could be a few causes
1) People need something contrarian to move onto now that Holla Forums's white nationalism has been found to be a dead duck
2) Concerted paid shills from one of the oil rich countries
3) 4chan for some reason has gained large amounts of reach recently, also explaining why quality has dropped in the last month (according to other users here) across the board. Muslims have been dragged in too.

Not unless you don't know that its not just mystical bullshit, like some of these posters do.

Anyway where does it come from? What's why I am asking?


That's probably it. Has anyone esle noticed this trend?

...

I've seen the odd person having a little kek over theory 1, I've seen others complaining about the quality drop in theory 3.

you have no idea what u talkin about.

The Najdiyya Kharijites are the only true sect of Islam.

tbh I'd rather they become Sufis instead of neo-pagans, so I don't care.

It's just a fad. Some time ago, halfchan was all over orthodox christianity for some reason.

Oh no! Someone call the morality police!

Not a fucking chance. You have no idea how those countries feel about emancipatory strands of Islam

I suppose that, for people still spooked by religious thought, Sufism is to Islam what Trotskyism is to Stalinism for a kid who just read Animal Farm and 1984: a good version of a good idea badly executed.

If any form of Islam becomes homegrown in the west (as in western natives becoming the largest demographic practicing it) It’s obvious that said sect wouldn’t have the islamic morality police.

literally the least harmful sect of Islam, the biggest pacifists and most thoughtful Muslims. Atheism is pure faggotry, its just endless outrage manufacturing and posturing.

Atheism is the only correct position on religion.

(ironic)
no its a way of posturing that you know something but then pleading the 5th intellectually when the philosophers come calling for proofs of knowledge. That's why everyone including Dawkins is a "soft atheist" or "weak atheist" or "agnostic atheist" you can't be a gnostic atheist or a Strong Atheist (well you can but your papers won't be published or cited)

The less insane religious people get, the easier it is to put up with them.

It'll take a lot of effort to undo all the harm to Moslem secularization that the west did throughout the Cold War.

...

Hard atheism is no less legitimate a position than "there is no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster".

Sure, you can't prove a negative, but since there are an infinite number of unprovable positive statements, all of them can be lumped into the same bin of "not deserving serious consideration".


Eh, better than them killing each other all the time. Also, I was kinda' also somewhat thinking back to pre-WWI under the Ottomans. If they'd become an ascendant superpower western modernism with their traditional culture like Japan.

FUSING western modernism with their traditional culture

or the Mughals, without the Buddhist genocide and general culture destroying fuckery. They'd keep the retarded extremist gangsters in check much better than the Kleptocratic modern "islamic republics" do.

...

apatheism would hold that it doesnt matter if there is a teapot there or not and even if there were it would have no impact over my daily life.

This is /r/atheism tier trash, i'm not even gonna bother
spineless

Im not sure why you're surprised

No that's religion.

Nice "no u", but the proposal here is that the only defensible philosophical position is agnosticism

Reminder for everyone.

"For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.
The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."
t. Marx

Are you "agnostic" about Nessie?

Remember the same axiom applies to science itself. For instance, string theory can't be disproved, but the fact that it fails to make any falsifiable predictions means it's worthless as a concept.

Just like noninterventionist gods.

Sure we can't know for sure what's out there, but I know for sure it isn't Yahweh or Allah or Vishnu. It's better to base our ideas and philosophies on what we know now, rather than what could be out there.

I'm not saying it's wrong to consider other possibilities, but at the end of the day we have to come back to reality user.

Dogmatic theism is one thing but from a classical theist perspective the argument usually goes observable universal properties → rules and ideal → determined by some independent force/entity → label that god, whereas you're arguing against non philosophically based arguments that go in reverse (starting position of a god of some kind and then derive universal properties and ideas from the descriptions given of the god(s) and their decrees)

I'm not arguing here for either but I really wish people would speak more precisely on these issues so they don't get muddled. The lack of understanding here, or perhaps the refusal to understand or even engage, is most of the reason atheist proponents have gotten so dogmatic recently when in the past they had no fear of engaging philosophical arguments honestly and openly.

Just to add, part of the problem is arguably also that classical theism has also deteriorated and you won't find many theists engaging with those ideas honestly from the other side either.

I get ya. I got nothing against agnosticism or any belief that isn't dogmatic.


Got some recent examples of this? Not doubting you, just curious.