Christian vs. Muslim universalism

Holla Forums has decided it likes "universalism", "the Enlightenment", and "Christianity" as antidotes to idpol, all while having a garbage-tier understanding of these three things (as if they watched a few Zizek ramblings and immediately decided they like "Christian universalism").

My question is, why not take up Islam as the theological paradigm for a new socialism instead? Muslims are the only group of people actively fighting against capitalist and imperialist domination. Islam, unlike Christianity, was never spread by the sword, and a major tenant of the faith is no compulsion in religion (making it closer to egoist virtue ethics than a religious dogma). Christianity always had a church hierarchy and priests whereas priests and ontological hierarchies are prohibited in Islam since they get in the way of an individual's relationship with Allah. Plus the Islamic World had its own Enlightenment centuries before the west which was NOT the result of colonialism or plunder.

Other urls found in this thread:

lol. read Hoxha though

A lot of the fundie scourge that most of the Islamic world is fighting or funding was kickstarted by the US, but a significant part of it (for instance, the Siege of Makkah and the resulting changes to the Saudi government) rose up organically from Muslim countries and were spearheaded by religious leaders who wanted to seize more power for themselves. The Muslim world is facing some serious problems, and desperately needs a larger and more radical Arab Spring along with a resurgence of pic related.

Why essentialize our universalism? Okay, we get it, historical Christian and Islamic philosophy played a role in the elaboration of universalism just like alchemy did for the scientific method — thank you Jesus and Muhammad. Doesn't mean you need to seek the philosopher's stone if you want to become a physician.

The Abrahamic religions, at least, all have the Tower of Babel contained in them. This story is so fundamentally anti-republican and anti-progressive that I don't think it's sensible to rehabilitate the religions without twisting them to such an extent that they wouldn't be the same entities. Jewish/Christian/Muslim ideas and aesthetics can be useful, but the religions themselves? Probably not.

What makes Hoxha an expert on Islam?

We have?

1. Gonna echo "we have?" poster on this. Afaik, most of us do not advocate religion at all.

I was raised universalist.

Having a fetish for unhindered "universalism" - where all differences and antagonisms are ignored in favor of muh productive forces muh MoP - is just as useless as the most fascistic forms of nationalism.

You can't have universalism until that historic rupture. Very few people are going to abandon their cultural differences, especially when all the humanistfags preaching "muh universalism google Bookchin" aren't providing any tangile cultural alternative. There is no neutral culture at this point.

Also, neither Christianity nor Islam was originally universalist. After Paul preached to the Gentiles they became increasingly anti-Jewish; arguably it was the early goyish Christians who rejected the Jews, not the other way around as the Church likes to claim (the Talmud actually goes over the real reason Jeebus was crucified and it's not what you think). Christianity in the East, which is older than the Roman Catholic Church, is staunchly nationalist and tied up with ethnicity, hence why "Greeks" are Christians and "Turks" are Muslims. Likewise, Islam originally was against proselytizing and has always remained an Arab-centric religion.

He lived in an Islamic country and was from a family with a long-line of Imams for starters…

Because the historical role of Abrahamic faiths in advancing universalism was progressive, but must be secularised to be progressive today.

Pretty sure OP is talking about a secularized Islam.

Hoxha was Shia, not Sunni.

A good segment of posters here are critical of enlightenment fetishism and humanism actually

Waiting for response-

There is no such thing today.


No one gives a shit about universalism except for a few western and western-educated intellectuals (Badiou, Zizek, Chibber). Look at most socialist revolutions across the globe and you'll see most of them are nationalist.

…in what universe has Holla Forums "decided" this?

Shi’a Islam is absolutely the most based form of Islam and Hoxha still saw that shit as being reactionary idealism in the end. Strive hard to live up to him, kids…

Kys retard

Shia was formed due to succession problem and evolved in a Clergy. then when Mu'tazila get destoryed by Mongols, they incorporated some philosophy thinking in there doctorine.

it's was spread throw diplomacy,sword or throw rebeling like visigoth in spain, like christianity same shit.

I'm as big a Nazbollah fan as anybody here but come on m8

Peter Lamborn Wilson is a heretical Muslim and makes it no secret. He has called out Islamic orthodoxies multiple times.


What are you reading?
Very depressing reading

10/10 anti-imperialism


Universalism is a joke.


color me surprised

Not this shit again.

and where are those revolutions now?

Go pick up a copy of the Quran from a bookstore. Try reading it and get back to us.

Nothing worse than what's in the Bible.

yea theyre both trash. Big surprise, which is why no one gives a fuck

in the shitter because you can't have socialism in one country.


Reading only the Tanakh to understand what Jews believe would be like reading only the Manifesto to understand what Marxism is, FFS goyim.

No, at worst Jesus was a delusional hippie cult leader. Muhammad was an outright Ron Hubbard-tier conman turned bandit king (not to mention a colossal sperglord), and the Quran is an embarrassing mishmash of plagiarism.

Now I like Hoxha even more. Thanks for sharing, user.

Fucking gold. Saved both.