>[A] form of Republican and secularist fundamentalism has become a mask to hide a new form of virulent Islamophobia.
>At stake [...] is not just solidarity but fidelity to the memory and heritage of emancipatory struggles and he writes in defence of the Muslims, just as Zola wrote in defence of the Jews and Sartre wrote in defence of the blacks. For if we are to be for the oppressed then we must be for the Muslims.
What should we do to tackle the biggest social problem of our time?
Other urls found in this thread:
Not let them into our countries. Now there is no problem.
The most important countries are already brimming with Muslims.
Where are you that there aren't any Muslims? There is even a growing Muslim population in Japan.
tell em to fuck off we're full
>Our
>What should we do to tackle the biggest social problem of our time?
Stop giving them money, guns and lists of people to kill.
People in general seem to be afraid of pain, suffering, and death being inflicted upon them for some reason. Gee, I wonder.
this
>not wanting to die can now be considered Islamophobia
This is pure retardation
Muslim extremists do all sorts of bad shit because they are extremists
Being against extremists isn't Islamophobia
The only religious extremists killing people in MY country are Muslims (and I guess Christian Scientists, but they're doing it to themselves so who gives a fuck) and pointing that out does not reflect negatively on me in any way
>and pointing that out does not reflect negatively on me in any way
Actually it does. In fact vocalising your concerns in a public space will almost certainly get you branded an Islamophobic bigot.
Start actually screening the Wahhabi fuckers that are flowing express shipped from Saudi Arabi into mosques and spreading their poisonous bullshit. In fact, just to be fair you can screen clergymen of all religious institutions to ensure none of them are preaching literal criminal activity.
Start supporting preachers that advocate a more secular form of Islam - they do exist and have existed in the past, the British empire actually generally found Muslims to be among their easiest subjects to work with until the 20th century. If you can't turn them atheist you can at least try and encourage a less fucking retarded branch of their religion.
and why should I care that a bunch of mindless drones happy to slap the -ophobia suffix on anything they can't comprehend have branded me a bigot?
>secularist fundamentalism
Because you want to function in society, not outside of it?
Unless you want to follow every statement you make with a 20 minute explanation and follow-up explanations.
maybe where he's from islamophobia aint such a big deal
>Because you want to function in society, not outside of it?
The "society" at large gives no shit about your opinions. Unless you are corpowhore who's only reason for working anywhere are contacts then you have no fucking reason to give a fuck about this shit.
> biggest social problem of our time?
you're a moron.
Hahahahaha!
Republicanism and secularism are no longer progressive now. The ride never ends!
Ban religion. Systematically wage war on all places of worship including Islamic mosques and the like. After a few generations of strife all of that stuff will be left to the wayside and we can focus on worldly problems.
>Ban religion. Systematically wage war on all places of worship including Islamic mosques and the like.
Nobody, not even the French, have the temperment, stamina and dedication to see through such a course of action.
A war that is abandoned is a war that is lost.
Call your senator
Oh wait, that would make this political, wouldn't it?
How has the West oppressed muslims besides inhibiting their ability to oppress others?
thats extremely oppressive tho
Liberalism is a mental disease.
They colonised them and gave them nothing but running water, electricy, oil drilling techniques, infrastructure, secular education(as opposed to learning quaran by heart), safety, modern military organisation, medicine... but apart from those tiny things they gave them nothing!
folks who say such have no real knowledge of the history of political struggle in the middle east
Republicanism and secularism was the de jure movement in the middle east and north africa for longer than political islam, at least for the 20th century.
There's a bit of bombers remorse over that these days, with western powers being quite a bit more amenable to the orgs they previously hated the guts of, who hated their guts, like the FLN and the PLO. Satre wrote in defense of the FLN, not the orgs that threaten to replace them. Seeing a continuance of the same struggle on the grounds of ethnicity is pure vulgar theory.
Are you quoting something?
No, that's simply off the top of my head.
Nice, it sounded convoluted and intellectual like out one of these historic-political books you can buy.
Dont really understand more from it then "shouldnt have bombed the baathists eh?"
*though.
Secularism and atheism directed against Christianity: progressive.
The same directed against Islam: oppressive.
It's things like this that assure me that Christianity is the true religion. These buzzwords and slogans are really nothing but empty rethoric. They don't want to ban religion, they want to ban Christianity and nothing else. This explains why radical Islam is seen as natural ally, and not and enemy, by progressives, the stranger this may seem to one who only pays attention to their words and slogans and not their actions.
>2016
>literally following the advice of a False Prophet and reading the worst book of the Desert Trilogy
wew lad famalam
I can't help it, read enough convoluted intellectual shit and you start talking like that. Gaze into the abyss, innit?
There was an internet discussion on whether or not a particularly bad Judith Butler passage was unreadable, it won an award of sorts for bad writing, and the gist was "well, sure it's bad writing, but the meaning is quite clear....."
It's like priests learning latin to confuse grumbling peasants, I suppose. That's a shitty thing to do, and I don't mean to, I'm actually sorry.
Let me try again. The arab modernists were the big guys on campus and were actually winning for a while, but they made the mistake of taking Soviet money, good cash but turned out to be totally unsustainable, those guys were idiots with their cash. The US bombed em to hell, ba'athists included, and after a few decades the only choices were link up with political islamists, make em institutional, like Saddam did, or end up becoming increasingly irrelevant. The PLO stuck with their guns, their shitty guns (fun fact, they fielded t34's against Israeli merkava's in the 80s), and now they're basically nobody.
But the problem is what this has to do with the new folks who think attacking Islam is a white thing, when the arabs themselves (the ones with political power, anyways) were totally down with doing it themselves.
> they want to ban Christianity and nothing else
Who are they? Most atheists are against both of fairy tales. Dawkins himself is more anti-Muslim, than he is anti-Christian. Islams seem like some sort of ally only by retards who would help Hitler, given a chance to push their agenda.
Ah now I see what you meant with this ethnicity stuff.
Thanks.
They=So-called progressives.
In which world do you live in? In the real world you get called every name if you criticize Islam and get applauded if you criticize Christianity.
>called names
No in fact you can actually get murdered and the so called progressives will say it's your fault for inciting "hatred".
...
I dunno. Most people around me seemed pretty angry about the Charlie Hebdo guys getting murdered.
> In the real world you get called every name if you criticize Islam
Well... Muslims are that weak to criticism, doesn't means that western people are for Islam.
1) Progressives in western societies being critical of their major religion isn't a novelty.
2) Islam is routinely criticized by those all over the political spectrum, most notably authoritarian types since it's the mode du jour.
You intolerant bigot!!!
Everyone is weak to criticisms, even those maoist groups that made self-criticism their ideological cornerstone. Turns oooouuuuut some folks end up beyond criticism.
We're mostly shut out from their internal dialogue and power struggles, and for the most part we ignore it. Both on the right and on the left, it ends up with dangerous misconceptions, of both deciding on bombing the wrong folks.
Bombs are one the modern era's most effective means of doing politics, so it sucks that our politics on both our ends are shitty.
not /his/ related
go to
It's humanities related, since muslism interact with (kill) humans
>It's humanities related
No it isn't.
Take it to
>Islam
>not related to humanities
Wow what a bigot. I just can't right now. Literally crying in anger for humanity and huggin myself.
You don't know what the Humanities are, and from the contents of your posts are clearly just attempting to incite a shit flinging contest rather than a discussion.
If you wish to discuss current political and social issues, there is a board for that. Allow me to link you once again:
> red pilling
Basically, subscribing to the trendy base dweller fantasies?
So you admit that you're here from Sup Forums starting a thread that's against the rules merely so that you can "redpill" people.
Got it.
But I'm not OP
Sure you aren't, pal.
and you are Angophobic and Whitophobic and Aryaphobic! how can you live withyoureself you fucking biggot!
I like how everything is always about the republicans and the right.
I'm an independent, fuck muslims