Islam and fascism (split from IS thread)

[abradley]

Yup, no facts. It's just feedback. There's a cohort of reasonable people who hold a contempt for wnd. Sure, you can post wnd articles and then trumpet how the people dismissing it (without spending the effort to double-check wnd themselves) don't have 'open minds' or are 'lazy'. But then no real communication happens.

If it's a reasonable position, then there are sources other than wnd that one can use to back up their point. This circumvents the uphill battle of your audience overcoming their bias, and allows them to most easily consider the point you're actually trying to make.

It's basically the same reason you dress nicely for a job interview. Surely you're being interviewed in order to determine your fit with the company and the skillset you bring. But if you bias the interviewer against you right away, it's a needless uphill battle.

Yes, but what if WND is the only outlet covering it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Then it should dawn on you that it actually isn't "news" at all.

The real question is why are you reading that website in the first place? Is it like how some people enjoy reading the National Enquirer in supermarket checkout lines for amusement while they are waiting their turn?

 

[abradley]

The people need all the news, not just liberal or right wing news, how else can we make a decision?

 

[Gary Childress]

Recently saw these two opinion pieces on youtube (from back in March):

The origins of ISIS:


Link to video.

What needs to be done:


Link to video.

What a mess.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, but what if WND is the only outlet covering it?

Then you wonder why you're reading a wnd

 

[abradley]

Then you wonder why you're reading a wnd

No, I wonder why the other outlets are ignoring it.

I like the full spectrum of news, have the impression that isn't true of liberals.

 

[Tahuti]

I'm not sure I would characterize an attempt to keep the Treaty of Locarno lurching along (which in any case completely broke down after Italy invaded Ethiopia later in the year) constitutes "close to allying with Mussolini against Hitler".
I mean, that the USSR and US initially supported the UN Peacekeeping mission during the Congo Crisis doesn't make them "close to allying against Belgium".

Mussolini nearly went to war against Germany when Hitler made clear his intentions with Austria. Italy was only soothed when Germany was one of the few nations that didn't sanction Italy for its attack on Ethiopia which Britain and France did.

The people need all the news, not just liberal or right wing news, how else can we make a decision?

Don't read the news at all. Read history instead.

 

[Flying Pig]

Don't read the news at all. Read history instead.

That works only if you believe that the world is essentially predictable. Personally, I think of events as in some measure the natural consequence of circumstances and in others the result of dumb luck. If there is no luck involved at all, then in circumstances exactly identical to those of the past we would experience exactly the same outcome. If the luck accounts for everything, then in exactly the same circumstances we would get a totally different outcome. I believe we are somewhere in between those two, but far enough towards 'dumb luck' that we can't 'learn' from history - even if we were in exactly the same place, which we never are, we would never be able to say with reasonable certainty what would happen. If you say that you can logically infer events from starting conditions, you take out any space for people to make choices - and, I would argue, any means to assign praise or blame.

 

[Tahuti]

That works only if you believe that the world is essentially predictable.

I don't believe the world is predictable. However, history is inspiring. Plenty of things we are to face in the future will resemble what has happened in the past and by knowing history well, one will have a greater inventory of responses to such events. One also has a better picture of potential possibilities, for there are multiple.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, I see now. Old-fashioned, but intellectually sound.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Jabotinsky and the revisionist Zionist movement in general were actually inspired by Irish republicanism, not Italian Fascism. Yitzhak Shamir (not to be confused with Rabin) was actually nicknamed Michael Collins after one of the leaders of the Irish war of independence. There were movements who were supportive of Italian Fascism and even supported the Nazis, though these were regarded as fringe and were deeply hated.

the split between Fachist Italy and the revisionist became true when Fachist allied with Hitler not before. Jabotinsky movement created the Betar Naval Academy in Fachist Italy and even participated in the war against Ethiopia. Betar itself is an organization that resembles fachist youth and paramilitary groups.
Now concerning Shamir, he indeed asked his collegue in the Stern movement to nickname him Michael, after M collins, not because he was inspired by Irish republicanism, but because he was fighting the British like Collins did. Stern Group did even take contact with the Nazi. Revisionist movement were far from being a fringe movement.
I think people underestimate the influence of Fachist and Nazi movement outside of Germany/Italy in the years between the 2 wars, especially within the countries and movements that either fought or were targeted by the Nazis. The world in say 1935 was not divided between bad people (Italy and Germany) and good people (UK, US, etc). Nazi sympathizers were common in all countries untill the break of the war.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Don't read the news at all. Read history instead.

I think one need to do both
What is necessary to do in both cases though is to thoroughly choose its readings. Don't read the history of Israel/Palestine conflict on either Zionism.com or PLO.com because you can be sure they will both distort the truth because they both have a political agenda not an academic one. Or at least if you read one, read the other. Samewise with the news, don't take it from Jerusalem Post or Aljazeera, or again listen to both. And that also apply to other topics.
In France, I try to read Le Monde and Le Figaro to at least have an idea about how right wing journalist and what left wing journalist treat the news

 

[Tahuti]

the split between Fachist Italy and the revisionist became true when Fachist allied with Hitler not before. Jabotinsky movement created the Betar Naval Academy in Fachist Italy and even participated in the war against Ethiopia. Betar itself is an organization that resembles fachist youth and paramilitary groups.

Jabotinsky was supportive of western style Liberal democracy. And his views were arguably best expressed by the Irgun. There may have been an alliance with Italy based on common political concern and common enemies, the British and the Arabs, as well as ideological grounds based on nationalism, though Jabotinsky was far from an authorian. He may actually even be described as a libertarian, considering his economic views were essentially 'free market solves everything'.

Now concerning Shamir, he indeed asked his collegue in the Stern movement to nickname him Michael, after M collins, not because he was inspired by Irish republicanism, but because he was fighting the British like Collins did. Stern Group did even take contact with the Nazi. Revisionist movement were far from being a fringe movement.

Exactly because the Irish republicans fought the British, Irish republicanism was a major source of inspiration on Revisionist Zionism. The Lehi (the official name of the Stern group) developed an offshoot of revisionist Zionism, which was more authoritarian. There was an attempt to create an explicitly Fascist movement in the 1930s, though it was quickly discredited because of their support of Nazi Germany. And despite pursuing an alliance with Nazi Germany, Lehi was actually more closely inspired by Stalinism and took the Pro-Soviet side after WWII.

Because the founding fathers of Israel belonged to the Pro-British Zionist factions, Lehi was banned by Israel which was only overturned in the 1970s, roughly with the election of the first Revionist Zionist prime minister of Israel. Interestingly, several former Lehi members became Pro-Palestinian, remaining committed to Lehi's Pro-Soviet stance.

Addendum: The Pro-Palestinian ex-Lehi members organised around the Fighters List and Semitic Action. They even went as far as denying Israel's role in Western civilisation, advocating alliance with the Arabs and supporting the FLN during the Algerian war of independence.

I think people underestimate the influence of Fachist and Nazi movement outside of Germany/Italy in the years between the 2 wars, especially within the countries and movements that either fought or were targeted by the Nazis. The world in say 1935 was not divided between bad people (Italy and Germany) and good people (UK, US, etc). Nazi sympathizers were common in all countries untill the break of the war.

Strictly speaking, both Fascism and Nazism are specifically Italian and German movements respectively. What we nowadays refer to as Fascism are more or less a result of countries suffering the same kinds of circumstances in the aftermath of WWI.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, I wonder why the other outlets are ignoring it.

I like the full spectrum of news, have the impression that isn't true of liberals.

Well, I do go into the full spectrum, but when I see "a survey says" I don't stop my investigation there. I try to find details about that survey to figure out the credibility. And this one is shady to say the least.

When I read "Washington, D.C. think tank run by former Reagan official Frank Gaffney" I checked out Mr. Gaffney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney

Then I checked out Center for Security Policy, from their own about us page

The process the Center has repeatedly demonstrated is the unique ability that makes the Center the “Special Forces in the War of Ideas”: forging teams to get things done that would otherwise be impossible for a small and relatively low-budget organization. In this way, we are able to offer maximum “bang for the buck” for the donors who make our work possible. This approach has enabled the Center to have an outsized impact.

Note that they are active participants in this matter.

I for one believe that a survey should be held by an independant organisation, not one who has a stake in the outcome.

So maybe that's why the other outlets are ignoring it?

 

[Funky]

Muslims think of Mohammad less than what Christians think of Jesus though. Than again he is indeed the inventor of the religion !! Buddist think alike of Budda and I am sure most Taoist have a proufound respect of Lao Tse, I really don't see why should Muslim think different of their Prophet.

There are two specific differences between Islam and other religions in this regard. First, while people from other religions naturally view their prophets or originators of their religion in high esteem, there is a difference between the theological nature of these artificers and the degree to which they are worshipped today. I am sure that if you ask devout Christians about what they think about Jesus, they will indeed tell you that he was the son of God and a perfect moral example. However, the intensity to which he is worshipped by Christians, and the vigour they feel to follow his example and defend him from malice, are for the most part comparatively low. Christians may get upset when Jesus is mocked, or when he is the motif of what they see as vulgarised art. They don't tend to go out any kill people for it. Not anymore. Most Christians just don't take their religion that seriously anymore - a result of the enlightenment and the influence of secular progress - and hence the importance of Jesus in their everyday lives has declined significantly.

Compare that to Muslims, where a majority of them in most countries, even in Europe, think that insulting Mohammed should get you killed. And it is not just an empty threat, we have seen countless occasions of death and violence to avenge the prophet. Mohammed is constantly present in many Muslim minds, as witnessed by their own statements and admissions. His name is the most common name in the world. This is an entirely different degree of worship.

Second, the specific nature of the religious leader matters. What would happen if a Christian follows the example of Jesus to the fullest extent? He would become a pacifist hippy! When attacked, he would turn the other cheek. He would forgive the attackers. He may hold some questionable morals and backward thinking. But the character of Jesus is not that of a conquering warlord.
What would happen if a Muslim follows the example of Mohammed to the fullest extent? We can see the answer in pretty much everything al-Baghdadi does. He kills infidels, has sex slaves, and built a caliphate after waging war and performing an ethnic cleansing, just as Mohammed allegedly did.

Now you are giving a controvertial and anachronic description of him. Most of what you said is historically debatable.

It is historically debatable whether Mohammed even existed! That is not the point. My description of him is taken from the Islamic sources. They represent how Muslims think about him. The historicity of the man is irrelevant to how his legend is perceived.

Muhammad, if we want to make an anachronic argument again, did also give many new rights to women. Will you than celebrate him as a feminist?

This point is often overblown. Mohammed clearly viewed Muslim women as secondary citizens. I don't think it is necessary to cite the dozens of passages in the koran and the hadith which attest to the victimisation and oppression of women. It could well be that women had even fewer rights before him (though that is more or les speculation, as the sources don't offer much insight into the matter), but Mohammed was not a champion of women's rights, even by the standards of the time. That is not going into how he personally kept non-Muslim girls and women as sex slaves, a practise also justified in the koran.

I also don't know why we should apply anachronic judgement to religious figures and not political ones. Why are french still celebrating a mass murderer like Napoleon? and why do American still put slavers on their dollars?

I find both these examples contemptable. But clearly those French people who celebrate Napoleon do not worship him like a religious prophet.

 

[Tahuti]

I think one need to do both
What is necessary to do in both cases though is to thoroughly choose its readings. Don't read the history of Israel/Palestine conflict on either Zionism.com or PLO.com because you can be sure they will both distort the truth because they both have a political agenda not an academic one. Or at least if you read one, read the other. Samewise with the news, don't take it from Jerusalem Post or Aljazeera, or again listen to both. And that also apply to other topics.
In France, I try to read Le Monde and Le Figaro to at least have an idea about how right wing journalist and what left wing journalist treat the news

I agree. The problem is that the news usually takes a side as well. Sometimes, life is a balancing act: One side may not be the best side to take for everyone. Not everyone should be for Israel and not everyone should be for Palestine.

Btw, about news:

News constantly triggers the limbic system. Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocordicoid (cortisol). This deregulates your immune system and inhibits the release of growth hormones. In other words, your body finds itself in a state of chronic stress. High glucocordicoid levels cause impaired digestion, lack of growth (cell, hair, bone), nervousness and susceptibility to infections.

http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Part1_TEXT.pdf

 

[Agent327]

There are two specific differences between Islam and other religions in this regard. First, while people from other religions naturally view their prophets or originators of their religion in high esteem, there is a difference between the theological nature of these artificers and the degree to which they are worshipped today. I am sure that if you ask devout Christians about what they think about Jesus, they will indeed tell you that he was the son of God and a perfect moral example. However, the intensity to which he is worshipped by Christians, and the vigour they feel to follow his example and defend him from malice, are for the most part comparatively low. Christians may get upset when Jesus is mocked, or when he is the motif of what they see as vulgarised art. They don't tend to go out any kill people for it. Not anymore. Most Christians just don't take their religion that seriously anymore - a result of the enlightenment and the influence of secular progress - and hence the importance of Jesus in their everyday lives has declined significantly.

That's not really an accomplishment of Christianity though.

Compare that to Muslims, where a majority of them in most countries, even in Europe, think that insulting Mohammed should get you killed. And it is not just an empty threat, we have seen countless occasions of death and violence to avenge the prophet.

Well, I can think of 2 or 3 in what? 20 years? 30? Total?

Mohammed is constantly present in many Muslim minds, as witnessed by their own statements and admissions. His name is the most common name in the world. This is an entirely different degree of worship.

Hardly. It seems you don't know too many Muslims.

Second, the specific nature of the religious leader matters. What would happen if a Christian follows the example of Jesus to the fullest extent? He would become a pacifist hippy! When attacked, he would turn the other cheek. He would forgive the attackers. He may hold some questionable morals and backward thinking. But the character of Jesus is not that of a conquering warlord.

And it seems you don't too many Christians either... especially the radical ones. Since you seem to focus on radical Muslims, but not when 'comparing' these to other religions. FWIW, Christ has often enough served a a conquering warlord - most recently in WW I, when priest blessed cannons.

It is historically debatable whether Mohammed even existed!

It really isn't. Nor is the moon made of blue cheese.

 

[HannibalBarka]

There are two specific differences between Islam and other religions in this regard. First, while people from other religions naturally view their prophets or originators of their religion in high esteem, there is a difference between the theological nature of these artificers and the degree to which they are worshipped today. I am sure that if you ask devout Christians about what they think about Jesus, they will indeed tell you that he was the son of God and a perfect moral example. However, the intensity to which he is worshipped by Christians, and the vigour they feel to follow his example and defend him from malice, are for the most part comparatively low. Christians may get upset when Jesus is mocked, or when he is the motif of what they see as vulgarised art. They don't tend to go out any kill people for it. Not anymore. Most Christians just don't take their religion that seriously anymore - a result of the enlightenment and the influence of secular progress - and hence the importance of Jesus in their everyday lives has declined significantly.

I you are comparing a light "enlightened" Christian with a fundamuntalist "bacward" Muslim, than indeed very often one is going to be more strict than the other. I think you are overexagerating the place of Mohammad within muslims and underestimating that of JC within Christians. You are also forgetting about the influence of culture and societal environment on people behaviour towards their religion. Christians living in less open and backward societies are much less tolerant about "missing" with JC than Christians in Europe where people are used to free speach. I don't think it would be wise for you to go and shout "JC is a f**head" in front of a Church in say Manilla or Kigali.

Compare that to Muslims, where a majority of them in most countries, even in Europe, think that insulting Mohammed should get you killed. And it is not just an empty threat, we have seen countless occasions of death and violence to avenge the prophet. Mohammed is constantly present in many Muslim minds, as witnessed by their own statements and admissions. His name is the most common name in the world. This is an entirely different degree of worship.

That is not true, but a fantasy unless you show us a hard evidence. And Mary is the most common female name in many Christian countries, so what?
And I don't know if you realise how wrong your last sentence is: Muslims do not worship Mohummad, he is just a man for them, maybe the best human ever, but a human nevertheless. Chirtians do hoewever worship JC.

Second, the specific nature of the religious leader matters. What would happen if a Christian follows the example of Jesus to the fullest extent? He would become a pacifist hippy! When attacked, he would turn the other cheek. He would forgive the attackers. He may hold some questionable morals and backward thinking. But the character of Jesus is not that of a conquering warlord.
What would happen if a Muslim follows the example of Mohammed to the fullest extent? We can see the answer in pretty much everything al-Baghdadi does. He kills infidels, has sex slaves, and built a caliphate after waging war and performing an ethnic cleansing, just as Mohammed allegedly did.

that is your own interpretation of both M and JC. Millions of other people had a different one and countless Christians killed raped and enslaved thinking that they were acting as JC would have wanted them to do and many millions of Muslims spent their life praying and doing good deeds and lived peaceful lives hearding goats like hippies thinking that they were acting as M would have wanted them to do. What makes you think you know better about M and JC true life style?

It is historically debatable whether Mohammed even existed! That is not the point. My description of him is taken from the Islamic sources. They represent how Muslims think about him. The historicity of the man is irrelevant to how his legend is perceived.

First of all, it is not debatable at all whether Mohammed existed! at least it is much less debatable than my own as there is more historical evidence about him than about me. You are a history professor, I am surprised you state such thing
What is debatable however is your description of him being a rapist having sex slaves etc. I 'd like to see the "Islamic sources" your claiming to take your description from.

This point is often overblown. Mohammed clearly viewed Muslim women as secondary citizens. I don't think it is necessary to cite the dozens of passages in the koran and the hadith which attest to the victimisation and oppression of women. It could well be that women had even fewer rights before him (though that is more or les speculation, as the sources don't offer much insight into the matter), but Mohammed was not a champion of women's rights, even by the standards of the time. That is not going into how he personally kept non-Muslim girls and women as sex slaves, a practise also justified in the koran.

I notice that you label "speculation" things that do not fit your opinion on the matter, and facts taken from "Islamic sources" thigs that do. That is very often a bad way of seeking the truth about a matter.
That being said, if you are arguiing that Islam in the days of Mohammad held women in a lower place compared to men by today's standard, I fully agree with you. What I don't understand is what makes you think their situation did not improve back than when Muhammad made female infanticide (a wide spread practice in 6th century Arabia) a capital crime, oulawed inheretence of spouses (free women were inhereted when thier husband died), made girls have a right to heritage, etc. Could he have done better? well sure, but it doesn't make sense to say Mohammed was not a champion of women's rights, even by the standards of the time.
As for the last sentence, I need you to show me evidence, as I do not know of any sex slave owned by Mohammad. Slavery however was indeed not outlawed by Islam, well at least not clearly which is indeed shameful but not that surprising in the 6th century.

I find both these examples contemptable. But clearly those French people who celebrate Napoleon do not worship him like a religious prophet.

No, not like a religious leader but like a military genius
An easier example for you is maybe Abraham. Abraham has the good sigularity of being "worshiped" by all three monotheist religions, named abrahamic for that very reason. Now if you think about the man by todays standard, you'd realize that Muslims, Jews and Christians alike worshiping a man who was about to slaughter his only son because he was hearing voices!!! By today's standard, and even by the standard of the time, he would be at best labeled a fool, more likely a psychopath. Now do you think, that is to say Muslims, Jews and Christians are worshiping a psycopath and therefore should be kept under surveillence?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Mussolini nearly went to war against Germany when Hitler made clear his intentions with Austria. Italy was only soothed when Germany was one of the few nations that didn't sanction Italy for its attack on Ethiopia which Britain and France did.

Italy began lurching towards Germany after the Anglo-German Navy treaty was signed. Given that the British were unwilling to hold to Lacarno, he felt the alliance unreliable. This got cemented after he felt further Anglo-French perfidy after Ethiopia.

Also a good option for "Most misunderstood historical event."

 

[ParkCungHee]

That works only if you believe that the world is essentially predictable.

Or essentially unpredictable!