You can oppose Trump’s war because it hurts the people of Iran the same way you can oppose the Iranian government because it hurts the people. These are not conflicting stances to make.
No, Mia. The religion is 100% imperialist. What this only showed is that Iran is still a capitalist nation first, the religious hazing is only a bonus.
You don’t dethrone an empire with another. That’s what campists do.
Metoo, but I don’t support Islam against people. In this very instance, capitalism won. But if Anita Papist didn’t have money, she would have left with more than just US hazing.
Are you denying Islam by doctrine isn’t imperialistic?
Yes I deny it. It’s a core part of my belief system and how I was raised and it’s completely uncontroversial among a wide segment of Muslims, if not the vast majority.
Here for example, is a snippet from the translation of the Quran by Leopold Weiss, aka Mohammad Asad:
"This and the following verses lay down unequivocally thatonly self defence (in the widest
sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims.Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta’tadu signifies, in this context, “do not commit aggression”; while by al-mu’tadin “those who commit aggression” are meant.
The defensive character of a fight “in God’s cause” - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to“those who wage war against you”, and has been still further clarified in 22:39 - “permission [to fight] is given to
those against whom war is being wrongfully waged”- which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur’anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22:39).
That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur’an is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.
In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction “slay them wherever you may come upon them” is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that “those who wage war against you” are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war “in God’s cause”).…
This is completely uncontroversial and you can find however many mainstream Muslims you want who believe in these exact words as explained by Weiss. Here is the mainstream Sunni influencer Adnan Ibrahim saying verbatim “the Quran is very very clear that there is no justification for war except in self defence.” This guy is a totally normal sunni conservative. Here is the Grand Mufti of Tripoli making the same point on Saudi tv. He explicitly states that religiously jihad is to be done only in self defence, and that this is different from what he calls “jihad by demand/order” which is fighting for a state. Again: totally regular conservative establishment guy not any kind of radical renegade thinker. This is why far right movements and thinkers in the Islamic world went to such lengths to justify attacks on the US and others by arguing that as democracies the entire population is culpable, and that by stationing military bases in Arab countries and supporting Arab dictators, they have initiated the war. That’s the standard terrorist group argument
The case of Iran’s interpretation is imperialistic: a woman was threatened with assault for not wearing something the empire demands.
This was authoritarian and hazing.
imperialism describes a relationship between a country and the rest of the world. the us is imperialist because it subjugates and loots other countries. how it treats its own people on its own territory has nothing to do with whether it is imperialist. iran is not imperialist because it does not subjugate and loot other countries. how it treats its own people on its own territory has nothing to do with whether it is imperialist.
the us is impirialist because there is a us empire. iran is not imperialist because there is no iranian empire.
You obviously do not know what “Imperialism” means. You’re not automatically right just because you use fancy big terms, especially if you use them incorrectly.
Empire don’t discriminate. They attack “bad” countries as well as “good” countries. The simple act of defense against aggression does not automatically make someone the paragon of freedom and justice, despite what some “leftists” like to think. Imperialism is not the only “sin” a country can commit. It’s a bully being attacked by a bigger bully.
Every time I want to cheer Iran for making outlr government look like the braindead idiots they are I see some shit like this.
We need plucky heroes fighting the Epstein Class and their Zionist puppeteers, damnit, not the Muslim version of MAGAts.
You can support them against imperialism, while still disagreeing with them as an authoritarian state.
Critical support should never mean complete support.
You can oppose Trump’s war because it hurts the people of Iran the same way you can oppose the Iranian government because it hurts the people. These are not conflicting stances to make.
No, Mia. The religion is 100% imperialist. What this only showed is that Iran is still a capitalist nation first, the religious hazing is only a bonus.
You don’t dethrone an empire with another. That’s what campists do.
Support Iran against American imperialism.
I don’t agree with the Iranian state, but I support them defending themselves against the US/Israel.
Metoo, but I don’t support Islam against people. In this very instance, capitalism won. But if Anita Papist didn’t have money, she would have left with more than just US hazing.
“the religion” being the specific interpretation of Islam promoted by and in Iran?
Why am I being replied to?
I am not confused as to how theocracies work.
Are you denying Islam by doctrine isn’t imperialistic?
Yes I deny it. It’s a core part of my belief system and how I was raised and it’s completely uncontroversial among a wide segment of Muslims, if not the vast majority.
Here for example, is a snippet from the translation of the Quran by Leopold Weiss, aka Mohammad Asad:
"This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta’tadu signifies, in this context, “do not commit aggression”; while by al-mu’tadin “those who commit aggression” are meant.
The defensive character of a fight “in God’s cause” - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to “those who wage war against you”, and has been still further clarified in 22:39 - “permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged” - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur’anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22:39).
That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur’an is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.
In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction “slay them wherever you may come upon them” is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that “those who wage war against you” are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war “in God’s cause”).…
This is completely uncontroversial and you can find however many mainstream Muslims you want who believe in these exact words as explained by Weiss. Here is the mainstream Sunni influencer Adnan Ibrahim saying verbatim “the Quran is very very clear that there is no justification for war except in self defence.” This guy is a totally normal sunni conservative. Here is the Grand Mufti of Tripoli making the same point on Saudi tv. He explicitly states that religiously jihad is to be done only in self defence, and that this is different from what he calls “jihad by demand/order” which is fighting for a state. Again: totally regular conservative establishment guy not any kind of radical renegade thinker. This is why far right movements and thinkers in the Islamic world went to such lengths to justify attacks on the US and others by arguing that as democracies the entire population is culpable, and that by stationing military bases in Arab countries and supporting Arab dictators, they have initiated the war. That’s the standard terrorist group argument
much like many religions, there are imperialist interpretations and anti-authoritarian interpretations
The case of Iran’s interpretation is imperialistic: a woman was threatened with assault for not wearing something the empire demands. This was authoritarian and hazing.
imperialism describes a relationship between a country and the rest of the world. the us is imperialist because it subjugates and loots other countries. how it treats its own people on its own territory has nothing to do with whether it is imperialist. iran is not imperialist because it does not subjugate and loot other countries. how it treats its own people on its own territory has nothing to do with whether it is imperialist.
the us is impirialist because there is a us empire. iran is not imperialist because there is no iranian empire.
Last question I have, misinformed, or dis?
absolutely agreed on iran’s interpretation
deleted by creator
You obviously do not know what “Imperialism” means. You’re not automatically right just because you use fancy big terms, especially if you use them incorrectly.
And you’re going to educate us why Iran’s usage of Islam isn’t.
Because a musician wasn’t threatened at all, right right
So “imperialism” is when you threaten musicians? Thanks for proving my point.
That Iran is?
I feel like you meant authoritrian instead, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are mental
Empire don’t discriminate. They attack “bad” countries as well as “good” countries. The simple act of defense against aggression does not automatically make someone the paragon of freedom and justice, despite what some “leftists” like to think. Imperialism is not the only “sin” a country can commit. It’s a bully being attacked by a bigger bully.
No such thing as a bad country. Just bad governments/organizations.
Regular people can be complicit in their government’s actions. Like americans for example.
Or how 75% of Israelis approve of their government and think they should continue the genocide.
https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-israeli-public-supports-wars-but-is-dissatisfied-with-the-results/
I view them as the same as our 33% that will always view Trump favorable regardless of how much self harm that involves.
Which is utterly damning to the concept of Israel. As if their state level actions haven’t already damned them enough.
There are definetely cool middle-eastern countries/regions like DAANES, but Iran isn’t exactly it.
you jewish conspiracy fundamentalists have some shitty friends
i bet you agree with piker that the copilot knife attack on dubai air was a jewish conspiracy
reality is difficult
You either become the hero you want to see,