My liberal leftist friends (some claim to be socialist) seem to think setting up mandatory classes in language, culture...

Mandatory classes sound like sick indoctrination, at least at first. I think free classes should be offered, not mandatory. Many will begin to assimilate naturally. We should have a minimum level of humanity as Zizek says tbh, and not just embrace multiculturalism with open arms, but forcing people to fully conform is pretty spooky.

I wouldn't say it's forcing people to conform, but rather "you need to learn the language, the cultural dos and don'ts, and basic laws to not end up marginalized in this society." This is mandatory for children from age 5. Why not people who come here as adults?

Have the original version of that image?

lmgtfy.com/?q=stalin punching hitler

Are you even aware of how Islam came into being? It was revolutionary "progressive".

Pray tell what its values are, or what "progressive politics" are for that matter.

I don't think you are educated enough on the subject to have a reasonable opinion, as shown by your conflating of Islam with Wahhabism & the heavily centralised institution that is the Roman Catholic Church.

Like I said, there are countless books on the subject that go into depth on the topic. Your line of thought is more in line with Holla Forums and angelfire types than it is with academics, and that includes the Protestants (who have their cousins in Wahhabism) that you deride.

I think it's imperative for any "intellectual" in our modern age to take a balanced look at Islam rather than taking a reductionist stance based on what Porky's MSM tells us.

There comes a point where this is basically an ethnic analogue of "teach men not to rape". Isn't it pretty Holla Forums to assume them to be simpletons that don't understand the consequences of their own actions?

The sex crimes of Cologne and similar incidents were by angry, pent up young men that probably would have been seen as delinquents even in their home nations. They do not need classes, they need counseling.

This is why I don't get the conservative argument of "Islam needs a reformation". It's the "reformed" sects of religions that usually commit atrocities because everyone else in the church moved on with their fucking life. The most violent religious conflicts in human history were between Protestants and Catholics.

It's not assuming they are simpletons. It's assuming they grew up in a culturally vastly different society.

I'm not saying they don't need counseling, I'm saying they need classes too. Classes don't order them to be this way or be that way, but gives them the tools to better understand and co-adapt with the new culture. These are the same reasons we learn about foreign cultures in our own mandatory classes. To avoid cultural tensions, marginalization, and polarization.

Yes. Those are enough to survive. Not to form a society.
And if this is the only thing you have, you will form a society based only on what you know.

They are, when all you see is race/color and not class, couse you're a bourgie edgy kiddo.

And that is the main problem of the left today.
Bourgie, edgy kiddos.
They have no real problems, so the create problems that are not strong enough to shake the status quo, yet give them reason to complain and "protest.

While the working class, with actual problems, sees the kiddos and thinks "well, if that's the left, then I might as well vote Trump!"

You have no idea what OP talks about, do you?"
Unless you educate people on how the culture is their new country is, they'll end up like how gypsies are in eastern europe.
The have come to a point, where their own segregated culture is strong enough for them to not want to have anything to do with the mainstream culture of the country.
No, they are prety settled. Stop having the noble savage wet dreams.

No, relegions in general commit atrocities, because they are ideologies.
The "Reformation" of Islam is about bringing it to the 21st century.
And it cannot be done, cause it was never brought to the 19th century. Plus, it is both relegion and politics.

Exactly, comrade. Now you're on to something. Islam is far more balanced than Porky's propaganda would have us believe. Things like all music being banned, smoking being banned, fun being banned, women being beaten and oppressed, supremacy of Arabs, and terrorism (killing of innocents) being permitted are all lies being used to stoke up paranoid fear in the Western Proletariat. We on this board can put 2+2 together on this one and see why.

It is no wonder that these sects of sects of sects have been made relevant by vast quantities of oil money from the USA, who are more than intelligent enough to know that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's state religion is Wahhabism.

Though I think it can be explained using dialectics, but first:

Islam was in a more or less balanced state (which is integral to the religion) up until the destruction of the institution of the Caliphate in 1924. This was the mediating force of Islam, and had authority to denounce sects such as Wahhabism and have them boycotted and destroyed should they prove dangerous.

When this happened, there was a huge power vacuum to be filled in the Islamic world. The British Empire seized upon this and installed the Saudi royal family to power over the vast majority of Arabia, even abandoning Muhammad's descendants (who were Guardians of the Hijaz) to destruction at the hands of the Wahhabis. Now with the Saudi royal family controlling the cities of Mecca and Medina, they staked their claim to the Caliphate (unofficially).

Now, back to dialectics

Basically, I believe that the extreme actions of Neo-Wahhabis across the world are reactions to the Westernisation of the Muslim world post-Caliphate, and an (unconscious) attempt to bring it back to the relative balance it enjoyed prior to World War I. They consciously believe that their sect is the true interpretation, but on an unconscious level it is dialectical in nature.

Apologies for the screed, but this is still a very basic outline.

The problem here is that the word "culture" encompasses literally everything in a given society. It's a nebulous and confusing term when used in a political, not sociological, context. Considering how completely distinct the factors it encompasses are, it is effectively meaningless, and people are afraid to ask for clarification

Let's be honest here, does anyone actually think that the word "culture" has the same connotations for everyone? It practically begs to be loaded with personal anxieties and assumptions!

Your Gypsy example is exactly what I am talking about. Do you really think the Gypsies picking everyone's pockets simply don't get how things work in modern Europe? They don't care because the liberal social-justice feelings police gives them an excuse to do whatever they want. An opportunity that no one wants to admit would be tempting.

Stop having the literal savage nightmares. Seeing as sounds much more like the guy I replied to, I will assume you are a moron. :^)

So, it's what happens when you mess relegion with politics?

Then why is Islam any different/better than any other relegion?

The idea that some things should not a part of politics is, in general, a relatively new one. His entire point is that Islam is not special and being falsely conflated with extremely authoritarian social movements in the Middle East, which have clear geopolitical roots.

Same "liberal" police is not as "liberal" when it comes to strikes and workers taking the streets.

Could it be, that said populations have enough power to make legal procedures not as sufficient, while enjoying the "empathy" of bourgie "activists", thus being rendered untouchable, or you'll be accused of racism?

Could it be, that said population represents and portion of voters and is given "privilages" to serve political concernes?

Could it be that the refugee population is equally exploited, from both ways, to serve policies?

Could it, finaly, be that "minorities" are universaly used to avoid administrating actual problems of capitalism?

People in Syria have a certain culture.
People in Afganistan have a completely different culture.
People in 1950 Iran hand a completely different culture than people in modern Iran.

Culture is not a stable thing. It's evolving.
It is how a population in a specific area generaly behaves.

"We kneel twice a day and pray do god"
"Well, we here in France don't, so, if you wanna do it you cannot do it in places where it disturbes the flow of normal life for others."

This is not racist. This is accepting reality and forming yourself accordingly.

I'm (trying) to talk about it from a sociological point of thought, and I think newcomers would benefit most from learning it from that perspective. And of course I don't think culture has the same connotations for everyone, even in the same society. But from a given perspective there are red lines, traits, values, norms, traditions, taboos that seem to be more prominent or common or important than others.

No. I'm saying that the values of actual Islam are not what you see on either MSM, or the majority of political boards on the internet; and that the perversion that is Wahhabism justifies its existence and extremism on the intrusion of an equally extreme Neoliberal Globalism that its leaders (the Saudi royal family) are secretly (to the average indoctrinated pleb on either side) in collusion with.

In truth, the Wahhabis treat Islam as a political doctrine rather than a religion. They have gone so far as to intentionally interpret the Quran to justify their pre-conceived opinion rather than base their opinion on the text. It is clear that they have no fear of betraying what they should understand as God's commands.

What we are seeing in the West (especially Europe) today are the packaging of these Wahhabi ideals as Islam™, and the importation of irreligious delinquents (Cologne, etc.) in order to create a scapegoat for the miseducated masses to abhor. The ensuing bloodbath will allow for Porky to justify his shameless crimes in the Muslim world, maintain his power in tumultuous economic times, and ultimately facilitate a transition to Fascism.

That's the plan anyway, and the irrational excuses made for these poor "Muslims'" crimes (while they chug down beers) by "Leftists" is intended to stoke up rage and hatred amongst the indigenous proletariat, and to make them reject our ideals without hearing them.

So, Wahhabis are modern Conquistadors?
Still, relegion being Ideology.
You can't have relegion that will never turn into Ideology. Sorry.

Marx was right about it being AN opium. Though we have made many more since then.

Thanks for repeating what I said. Also, that is an extremely small part of what "culture" objectively entails.
We live in a globalist world. Exposure to new ideas has made society everywhere increasingly similar, for better or for worse.

Why are we not just using these words? Ones that have real meaning in politics? There is a world of difference between them.

What I am getting at is that I think there is a false assumption that all aspects of a society are mutually inclusive in some way. You might not think it, but a hell of a lot of people do.

In particular, normies tend to think "culture" is the same thing as "values".

It IS making it, unless war or crisis brakes out, and people become reactionaries cause otherwise they'd have to blame capitalism.

Thus, they turn to Ideology and allahu akbar.

And you seriously think a societal "culture" has to do with it? This shit happens literally everywhere.

Do you know what cops in the US are most afraid of? Not Islamic terrorists–they are afraid of the "sovereign citizens" movement of domestic lolbert terrorists, and the psychology of these people is starkly similar to that of the jihadis.

You never hear about them, of course, because they are not an effective Other, even though they are profoundly more dangerous to American citizens.

So, it's pure Ideology.
/thread.

Cringed hard.

So glad I read all of my books on a tablet so nobody can cringe at me.

Dawkins did nothing wrong.

...

"O Allaah bestow your blessings on our Shaam. O Allaah bestow your blessings on our Yemen." The people said, "O Messenger of Allaah, and our Najd." I think the third time the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said, "There (in Najd) will occur earthquakes, trials and tribulations, and from there appears the Horn of Satan."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Saud

Pray tell who supported the Al-Saud dynasty over all others, including the Caliphate and Muhammad's descendants (Hashemites) in Mecca & Medina? How relevant were they prior to this?

Educate yourself, comrade.

Spotted the muslim.

The 'progress' of Mo killing all his neighbours and building an empire? Much progressive.

Since it's inception Islam has been spread by the sword. It is cancer and has to FOAD. Unfortunately thanks to greatest allies (saudi and Israel) Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet expecting to be a quarter of the worlds population by 2030.

Why does OP's friends sound like the Holla Forums stereotype of what they think leftists actually believe

Because sadly such people do exist, and they tend to have the means to drown out people of lesser means

It's generally an "upper" "middle" class affectation, with some porkies blending in >>661968

s/class/"class"

Polite sage

- Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts

Unless you have a problem with these sort of things. Which I'd guess you do considering you're spouting Holla Forums rhetoric and childrens' memes.

The main issue that I deal with is that most of my friends assume that since I am a leftist, I agree with Black Lives Matter or SJW bullshit.

I just hate that Liberals are the automatic assumption when talking about the left.
But its not like they are much better.
Most of them just jump on the Trump Meme Bandwagon and want to build walls.

Yet when I give my opinions on issues about the refugee crisis and general political discussion they agree.
I just don't understand anymore.

you all need to realise that the left as a collective was hijacked by elites to promote their interests trough coherent goals.

I rarely see leftists doing what they should, organising strikes and similar things of favor to the workers or farmers,

instead they just go to the streets and act like a bunch of fuckin monkeys waving jihadist flags and fag symbolism.

The left has become the tool, not the enemy of the elites, and if you try to change that,

youre no longer a leftist,

but a statist, a tankie, a crypto-nazi

or shit like that.

right now i cant decide who to hate more in my country,

the neonazis or the "leftists"

They can't because it's an anonymous imageboard where you can't take a peek and see what people are busy posting on other communities. The mods are so ban-happy though I think they would if they could.

Man this is perhaps the biggest redbull I've seen on this board in years. Upboated and subscribed.

>My liberal leftist friends
Why do you think we should deal with your shit choices?

Are you seriously arguing that the Martin Luther doesn't deserve any credit for modern secularism, and the Catholic church, if left unmolested by schismatics, would've simply withered away to give the rennaisance enlightenment the sunshine it needed to take root and sprout?

You can argue that the Cold War, and to a lesser extent the Ottomans collapsing under their own ineptitude, shifted power in the Muslim world against secularism. But you are insane, delusional, if you seriously attempt to argue against the fact that cultural regression has spread deep throughout the hearts and minds of the Muslim world today.

Notice how this user's counter-arguments all consist of genealogical and transcendent claims ("but it differs from the ideal!") from unreliable/biased sources (either crit theorists or Muslim scholars), and nothing about immanence and what is happening right now.

Reminder that this the rhetorical style of the liberal. You disagree with me, and you are uneducated and dumb. One small step away from beheadings, I guess. Probably why liberals love Islam so much.