By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - China has just banned the burqa in its biggest Muslim city

Samus Aran said:
padib said:
Samus Aran said:

I have a Masters Degree in History, specialising in antiquity and Islam...

Many factors are at play in the Middle East, religion is a very important one of them. Islam isn't just Shia and Sunni, it runs much deeper than that. 

In the Middle East religion and politics go hand in hand by the way... Why seperate them? Do you know what khalif means? 

I respect your degree. How then can you say that the killings by ISIS are purely religious in nature? You are aware that many of the Sunni people in Saudi Arabia joined ISIS after having been frustrated by their Shia leader.

A Khalif is a religious leader of a country. Basically if the president of the united states were an imam and led the country on the basis of religion he'd be a Khalif.

I understand that religion and politics go hand in hand, but what I'm trying to say is that, with ISIS specifically, it is a political reason that led a group of violent fanatics to recruit the more moderate people to the cause. That's why I separate them, I don't just blame everything on religion.

No, a khalif is a religious and worldly leader of a community. 

According to Wiki: "caliphate (Arabicخِلافة‎ khilāfa) is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph (Arabicخَليفة‎ khalīfah  pronunciation (help·info))—a person who claims to be a political and religious successor to the prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim community.[1]"

I know people often mock wikipedia, but they're correct in this. ;)  

I never said that the killings of ISIS are purely religious in nature. I'm saying that religion and politics go hand in hand in the Middle East.

The Caliph was just a religious leader for centuries due to the political stuff becoming the Sultan's business.



Around the Network
padib said:
Samus Aran said:

No, a khalif is a religious and worldly leader of a community. 

According to Wiki: "caliphate (Arabicخِلافة‎ khilāfa) is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph (Arabicخَليفة‎ khalīfah  pronunciation (help·info))—a person who claims to be a political and religious successor to the prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim community.[1]"

I know people often mock wikipedia, but they're correct in this. ;)  

I never said that the killings of ISIS are purely religious in nature. I'm saying that religion and politics go hand in hand in the Middle East.

I don't see how that contradicts what I said. There could be two pretending Khalfs in parallel, you do know that?

A khalif is much more than just a religious leader, even from the very first khalif in history this was already established. Politics and religion are intertwined in Islam. That's a BIG reason why there are so many conflicts there.

In Europe there was always a seperation between state and Christianity (even though Christianity had a lot of political influence until the 20th century). 



padib said:
DanneSandin said:

He was catholic. The Germans supposedly even had "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) on their belt during WWII

He also murdered Polish people.

"Of the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust, six million were Polish citizens. Three million were Polish Jews and another three million were Polish Christians. Most of the remaining victims were from other countries including Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Russia, Holland, France and even Germany."

The guy was sick and it really was not a crime led by a religious person. He was just a violent man and was anti-semitic for non-religious reasons.

No doubt. The man is probably one of the sickest men that ever lived. I cannot phantom the kind of hate he must have had



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

MohammadBadir said:

The Caliph was just a religious leader for centuries due to the political stuff becoming the Sultan's business.


You're right that the caliph eventually became a mere figurehead, but that doesn't contradict anything I said. It merely shows the weakening of the caliphates (unable to hold a huge empire together). 



Samus Aran said:

A khalif is much more than just a religious leader, even from the very first khalif in history this was already established. Politics and religion are intertwined in Islam. That's a BIG reason why there are so many conflicts there.

In Europe there was always a seperation between state and Christianity (even though Christianity had a lot of political influence until the 20th century). 

I still don't see how it contradicts what I said.

The point I was trying to make is that people join violent causes for much more than religion, almost 90% of the time. Yes I pulled that number out of nowhere. What I'm saying is that people who join a violent fanatical cause is generally for questions of having a happier life, less frustration, more victory for what they feel they belong to (not necessarily religion but possibly people group).



Around the Network
Samus Aran said:
padib said:
Samus Aran said:

No, a khalif is a religious and worldly leader of a community. 

According to Wiki: "caliphate (Arabicخِلافة‎ khilāfa) is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph (Arabicخَليفة‎ khalīfah  pronunciation (help·info))—a person who claims to be a political and religious successor to the prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim community.[1]"

I know people often mock wikipedia, but they're correct in this. ;)  

I never said that the killings of ISIS are purely religious in nature. I'm saying that religion and politics go hand in hand in the Middle East.

I don't see how that contradicts what I said. There could be two pretending Khalfs in parallel, you do know that?

A khalif is much more than just a religious leader, even from the very first khalif in history this was already established. Politics and religion are intertwined in Islam. That's a BIG reason why there are so many conflicts there.

In Europe there was always a seperation between state and Christianity (even though Christianity had a lot of political influence until the 20th century). 

Well, in all fairness I DO think there actually was more than one khalif at certain points in history. And contrary to what was first intended, the khalifs formed their own dynasties.

And there hasn't always been a clear cut line between state and church in Europe; tahat's one of the characteristics of the middle ages.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

padib said:
Samus Aran said:

A khalif is much more than just a religious leader, even from the very first khalif in history this was already established. Politics and religion are intertwined in Islam. That's a BIG reason why there are so many conflicts there.

In Europe there was always a seperation between state and Christianity (even though Christianity had a lot of political influence until the 20th century). 

I still don't see how it contradicts what I said.

The point I was trying to make is that people join violent causes for much more than religion, almost 90% of the time. Yes I pulled that number out of nowhere. What I'm saying is that people who join a violent fanatical cause is generally for questions of having a happier life, less frustration, more victory for what they feel they belong to (not necessarily religion but possibly people group).

The problem is you're trying to seperate politics and religion. Other than that, there's not much wrong with what you say. 

If Islamic countries could achieve seperation of state and religion they'd be much better off. Turkey is the only Islamic country that has achieved that. It's also the most civilized (although I don't like what Erdogan is doing there at the moment...). 



Samus Aran said:

The problem is you're trying to seperate politics and religion. Other than that, there's not much wrong with what you say. 

If Islamic countries could achieve seperation of state and religion they'd be much better off. Turkey is the only Islamic country that has achieved that. It's also the most civilized (although I don't like what Erdogan is doing there at the moment...). 

Islam teaches a lot of very good things. There are parts of the religion that can empower psychotic people, but the majority of the religion is one of values and principles.

The problem here isn't the religion. The problem is that people are not being reasonable. If the people of these countries stopped abusing each other, followed the majority of the Quran more carefully, and lived generally more gracious lives, the whole political landscape of the area would be completely different.

That's why I separate them.



DanneSandin said:

Well, in all fairness I DO think there actually was more than one khalif at certain points in history. And contrary to what was first intended, the khalifs formed their own dynasties.

And there hasn't always been a clear cut line between state and church in Europe; tahat's one of the characteristics of the middle ages.

Of course, hence the text between brackets lol. I could write an entire thesis about the relation between state and church in Europe, but I don't have that much time to waste on a forum! :) 

And yes, there have been multiple khalifs at certain points in history, just like there have been multiple popes. That's all pretty much self implied though, it always happens to huge empires. 



Samus Aran said:
padib said:
Samus Aran said:

A khalif is much more than just a religious leader, even from the very first khalif in history this was already established. Politics and religion are intertwined in Islam. That's a BIG reason why there are so many conflicts there.

In Europe there was always a seperation between state and Christianity (even though Christianity had a lot of political influence until the 20th century). 

I still don't see how it contradicts what I said.

The point I was trying to make is that people join violent causes for much more than religion, almost 90% of the time. Yes I pulled that number out of nowhere. What I'm saying is that people who join a violent fanatical cause is generally for questions of having a happier life, less frustration, more victory for what they feel they belong to (not necessarily religion but possibly people group).

The problem is you're trying to seperate politics and religion. Other than that, there's not much wrong with what you say. 

If Islamic countries could achieve seperation of state and religion they'd be much better off. Turkey is the only Islamic country that has achieved that. It's also the most civilized (although I don't like what Erdogan is doing there at the moment...). 

Maybe I'm a little ignorant here, but isn't Indonesia pretty civilized? And in theory, there's quite a few Islmic countries that have separated state and... mosque (?), like Egypt. BUT no doubt religion is still a VERY powerful influence in all these countries.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.