democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[Firdousi]

I don’t deny this. We’ve been having to deal with Western civilization’s woes since the colonial days. But the antidote is to cling to our Religious values. Without them we are destroyed. My point is that while we continue to resist Western moral degeneracy, as you describe it, we are witnessing the destruction of the latest generation of Western people who have finally hit an all time low and it seems there’s no coming back from it for them. This is a matter for us to rejoice over. Why should we bother trying to pull them out of the hole they have dug themselves into. The fact that there is the possibility that we too can fall in the same hole doesn’t necessarily mean we should pull them out of it and fill the hole up. Let them stay in it and we should simply ensure that we don’t fall in the same pit. In other words, we must continue to cling to our traditional and religious values and we’ll be just fine. The period we are living in is a transitory one. We are seeing the fall of one civilization and the very beginning of the dawn of another. I guarantee you, as East Asia rises to take the place of dominance once occupied by the West, the West itself is going to start mass converting to Islam. That means, out of the ashes of Western civilization a new Islamic nation is going to emerge. But the present Western civilization has to completely collapse first for that to happen.

Its true that the West is doomed: low birth rates, high divorce rates, lack of commitment, drug culture, lack of discipline and respect for the authority, moral relativism, its pretty obvious what will happen in a matter of few decades. But I can't be happy because i don't hate the West, I admire it.

West made huge and amazing contributions to humanity. West modernized, globalized and connected the world. The West created amazing technological, cultural and social stuff. The West is the only civilization which values individualism and reason. The West is the very first civilization to create almost "perfect countries", with almost zero crimes, no violence, "no racism", no jobless people, 100% educated population, widespread middle-class,.. those are indeed amazing achievements.

Personally I can't complain about the West. I have spent most of my life in a Western nation, and they allowed me to get an education, to go to the hospital and get treatment for free, to become a citizen and travel almost without restriction all over the world, they gave me equal rights,.. when I visit Islamic countries and I see the way we treat each other, I admiration for the West grows even bigger.

Please elaborate that point regarding the collapse of the West and how it will become an Islamic nation. I don't think that will ever happen. I do believe the West will collapse in the next 15 years, but instead of Islamisms what will raise out of the ashes will be a conservative authoritarian patriarchal system based on nation and race, not religion.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I disagree with the premise that “basic needs“ have to be prioritized before any notion of virtue can be implemented. The most important need is the salvation of the soul. What use is a full stomach if the soul burns in Hell? Is it not better the stomach is empty but the soul is saved?
Let me be quite honest with you, if you deny this principle you have nothing to do with Islam. Then you have become “Iblis” in reality. Salvation of the soul always takes precedence over any worldly or material need.

You gave the example of sayyidina Umar (R.A) but was his Khilafa a secular democracy like the Scandinavian social welfare state you are promoting?

It’s quite disingenuous to cite examples of an Islamic state suspending some aspects of Islamic law given the external circumstances as justification for supporting a form of government that is fundamentally, in its very foundations, secular and non-religious.

You say my model of Islamic government doesn’t work because it is “ideological”. Is it because in my model of Islamic government certain recreational activities will be banned? Islamic law and jurisprudence is extremely flexible and pragmatic. The institution of Ijtehad, and principles like MaslaHa (public benefit), are part and parcel of Islamic law. Islamic law is very sophisticated and scientific. One only need study the intricacies of Islamic jurisprudence to realize how vast and rich it is and understand that is a very viable alternative to the modern states. I say there is more potential for addressing modern day problems with Islamic jurisprudence than with English Common Law.

But the statutory laws of Islam can never be overlooked. What is clearly Halal and what is clearly Haram are immutable.

I recommend you come out and clearly say that you simply do not subscribe to the theology and fundamental principles of Islam, otherwise it would be futile for me to assume you are a Muslim then cite fundamental principles of Islam which you end up dismissing arbitrarily.

What use is a stomach if a soul burns in hell? Who says it will burn in hell? These are Allah(swt)'s decisions not yours. Allah will determine who is hell-worthy and who is not. Not you. Allah(swt) created the stomach, Allah also created the facility that the biody deteriorates without nourishment, that the biody cannot even perform its religious duties without proper nourishment.

To make this argument reveals what I've been saying; your ideology and movement is not something that is concerned with the betterment of humans and thus has no use for humans. In short, it is out of touch and devoid of substance. It's not even spiritual. it's only an attempt to explot people's sentimentality. It's jingoism and is actually void of spiritual content, despite proclaiming spirituality as its charter Because spirituality is very dynamic and integrated in every aspect of human life, without addressing those, one cannot make a coherent assessment of the role of spirituality, and no prolific movement can come of that.

Making grandiose proclamations about the efficacy of something is not demonstrating that it is so. What you're relying on right now is essentially emotional black mail. That people who don't subscribe to your very particular brand do are not Muslims. That won't work on me.


There was a poll recently about how Muslim youth in America are more inclined to be supportive and open to LGBT issues, which suggests that they're internalizing the liberalist paradigm. Do you know how this happened? It's not because there's a lack of sound Islamic values instilled at a young age. It's because the Orthodox do not have a sound coherent intellectual response to these issues based on current information. They


I'm aware about MaslaHa and IstilaH, but these concepts were crystalized during a time when Religious Scholars did actual and sound scholarship and were deeply involved in knowledge throughout a spectrum of fields. Ironically during an era when the Mu'tazilah ruled society; not when the current structure of Orthodoxy came into existence. You can't ride on their coattails and co-opt their rich body of knowledge to supplant your own very

You have confused the manufactured ideals of human beings in their attempt to codifify and extrapolate from the sources as being "the religion". In the best case scenario it is a well informed approximation. In the worst case scenario it is a agenda driven narrative. In modern times we have the ethical duty to isolate which ones are which and evaluiate whether or not something still can hold up to scrutiny and is applicable or if something just lacks merit.

When you mention recreation, I'm assuming you're referring to art and culture. No these are not simply recreation. These are the flesh of culture. The adjudications about them from certain scholarly trends that had usurped the discourse and imposed their brand are based on very logically inconsistent analysis of evidence and numerous counter examples exist such as the Ethiopian Gathering where dancing and music were prominent. We need not take these viewpoints as immutable when there's many reasons not to take them as so.

If you want to stay relevant, you'll need to learn to adapt and not simply think you're embodying some profound spiritual concept by wearing a Kufi and getting pudgy

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

There is a curious tendency these days to conflate religion with civilization. The value of a religion is being judged against the vibrancy of the civilization associated with it. I reject this paradigm. The subject of Religion, particularly Islam, is the cosmic struggle between the forces of Heaven and Hell (Light vs. Darkness, Good vs. Evil, however you want to describe it). You reduce Islam to being a mere facilitator for improving Near Eastern civilization? Your division of Islam into levels is another curious idea. You must tell me where you have derived such an idea from. Being on the margins is the natural state of true Religion.

I know that there can never be a perfect society or civilization. The world was never meant to be perfect, if it was there would be no use for the Afterlife, the "Next World". This ideal Islamic state I'm describing itself is predicted to last only momentarily followed pretty much by the End of the World. It's more of an apocalyptic idea. The truth is our calling in the meanwhile is simply to create a counterculture or at the most a 'state within a state' in order to preserve our practice of the Faith and ensure the Faith for posterity

If Islam is not meant to improve the human condition; then there's no need to worry about whetheer there is hell or heaven, because such a view will foster hell on Earth.

If you have such a nihislitic attitude about the role of Islam; then there's no need to worry about society or politics or power. In reality, that's what it boils down to for the Orthodox, who has power. A society that is aware are harder for the Orthodox to manipulate and exploit. They don't have unmitigated authority anymore. Anything less than that ...then the world can be torn into oblivion for all they care. It's very pathological.

Where do I draw my views? I draw inspiration from the aspirations of the Mu'tazilah, while I don't want to recreate their society, and some of their views I think were short sighted, their vision reveals great insight into the dynamism of human society and understanding problems rationally rather than simply on faith.

[ذو الفقار]

Its true that the West is doomed: low birth rates, high divorce rates, lack of commitment, drug culture, lack of discipline and respect for the authority, moral relativism, its pretty obvious what will happen in a matter of few decades. But I can't be happy because i don't hate the West, I admire it.

West made huge and amazing contributions to humanity. West modernized, globalized and connected the world. The West created amazing technological, cultural and social stuff. The West is the only civilization which values individualism and reason. The West is the very first civilization to create almost "perfect countries", with almost zero crimes, no violence, "no racism", no jobless people, 100% educated population, widespread middle-class,.. those are indeed amazing achievements.

Personally I can't complain about the West. I have spent most of my life in a Western nation, and they allowed me to get an education, to go to the hospital and get treatment for free, to become a citizen and travel almost without restriction all over the world, they gave me equal rights,.. when I visit Islamic countries and I see the way we treat each other, I admiration for the West grows even bigger.

Please elaborate that point regarding the collapse of the West and how it will become an Islamic nation. I don't think that will ever happen. I do believe the West will collapse in the next 15 years, but instead of Islamisms what will raise out of the ashes will be a conservative authoritarian patriarchal system based on nation and race, not religion.

Well I too admire many of the things you described that are unique about Western civilization, especially exploration of the imagination, individualism, reason and civil liberties. But one flaw of modern Western civilization which was always there since the Enlightenment and Renaissance was its movement away from Theocentric to an Anthropocentric outlook. This slowly but surely is what doomed Western civilization into reaching the logical conclusion of moral relativism. One sees the evident traces of anthropocentric mentality very clearly in the remarks of Mr. Iblis. That is my main bone of contention with him.

My prediction that as the West declines rapidly many Western people will suddenly start converting to Islam is based on the fact that in time of turbulence and crisis people need to find some kind of stability and assurance, which is best offered by Islam. Islam, despite the popular impression that is a laborious and austere practice, is actually the most doable of the world religions. It is designed for the ordinary person to practice, unlike Christian monasticism or the Eastern religions which are way too demanding, and explains why their adherents have never, on a massive scale, practiced such religions intensely or seriously. In America the dominant religion is Protestantism, but mainstream Protestantism and Evangelical Christianity are all about abstract theology and creed, it has virtually no legal dimension, practice or spirituality associated with it. This is why more experiential alternatives like Pentecostalism are gaining traction, but even that is quite limited and is more or less a way for people to release their pent up emotions every Sunday. It doesn’t offer them a disciplined routine that can actually transform their lifestyle.

The spread of Islam will be mainly through the greater visibility of Muslims in the West due to our increasing numbers, especially among the young. The young Western people will have a lot more interaction with their Muslim peers and curiosity will eventually lead them to inevitably be much more acquainted with Islam than their parents‘ generation was. Thus their first choice or alternative whenever they feel like adapting another lifestyle because they are disillusioned with the established one will always be Islam.

The other alternative which is emerging now is the so-called Alt-Right movement. But I think this movement is at its peak right now and will not last too long. The reason is because I have carefully studied the Alt-Right and their main leaders, and they are very intellectually deficient in providing a new vision. The Alt-Right doesn’t have the advantage of Islam of being a centuries old Religion that has developed a very detailed lifestyle and philosophy with answers to the myriad of problems people face. Furthermore, it is too closely associated with racism, and racism is always self-destructive. If it is White vs non-White now, it very soon descends into sub-racial and ethnic divisions and fragments completely. There are many other criticisms I have of what you call conservative authoritarian patriarchy which compel me to believe it will fail very quickly

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Yeah I do agree but that doesn't mean you are right. Iblis you are one of the smartest person I have ever come across in the internet. But you are failing to grasp how human emotions work. Those who have been conquered, those who have been submitted, those who have been humiliated, become "bittermen".

The West invaded and conquered 80% non Western nations. Although Western nations have "apologized" for the crimes committed by their civilization and their ancestors, those who have been defeated and colonized will never forgive. Will never forget. in the Islamic world there is a lot of frustration, anger and rage against the West. We blame for everything. Many Muslims want revenge not because the West committed crimes against us, but because they won. Our pride, our honor, our macho bravado,.. all turned out to be pure BS because white men defeated us easily. In China, manyChinese people believe its time for revenge after what they call "a century of humiliation by Western powers". In Russia, Putin is eager to destroy the West after being Russians defeated and humiliated by the West (ironically plenty of Westerners are eager to destroy their own home for the sake of Putin lol). The same hatred fuels Indians against Muslims after being systematically raped for eight centuries. N iggers in the USA can't let all the slave victim card go.

So as you can see, its more emotional and biological than rational. Westerners can afford to be "pacifist" because they won, but the rest of the world wants revenge. When Zulfikar says "our adversaries" he got a point in there basically because the West is the adversary of the Islamic world. I disagree with this behavior because I find it irrational: White people shouldn't be blamed for the crimes committed by their ancestors, but I understand why so many people are angry.

Well, I do understand, but we have to transcend that inclination because it will ultimately destroy all of us . We have to remind ourselves at the core of our essence is the Ruh of Allah and we should draw upon that as much as we can. I'm not saying we should sit back and ignore our defeat. On the contrary., but we're not against the Western Hegemony because our egoes were bruised, but because it will ultimately destroy them and us...which is what you said earlier in fact. It's our egoes that were the problem in the first place and it's ego that's the problem now.

[ذو الفقار]

What use is a stomach if a soul burns in hell? Who says it will burn in hell? These are Allah(swt)'s decisions not yours. Allah will determine who is hell-worthy and who is not. Not you. Allah(swt) created the stomach, Allah also created the facility that the biody deteriorates without nourishment, that the biody cannot even perform its religious duties without proper nourishment.

To make this argument reveals what I've been saying; your ideology and movement is not something that is concerned with the betterment of humans and thus has no use for humans.

As I said to Firdousi, I have pinpointed our divergence to being one of theocentric vs. anthropocentric. Let the people judge what Islam truly is. Your attempt to redefine it only reveals that you don't have Islam in your heart anymore, you only take its name because it is part of your cultural heritage.

There was a poll recently about how Muslim youth in America are more inclined to be supportive and open to LGBT issues, which suggests that they're internalizing the liberalist paradigm. Do you know how this happened? It's not because there's a lack of sound Islamic values instilled at a young age. It's because the Orthodox do not have a sound coherent intellectual response to these issues based on current information.

I totally disagree. Our young people have the misfortune of having to attend public schools and get indoctrinated, while their parents are too stupid or too apathetic to know what's going on in their heads, let alone counter it. The typical Mosque and Imam is totally equipped to answer any doubts a young person may have about LGBT issues. LGBT issues are nothing. Yes, there are much more "dangerous" intellectual attacks on the authenticity of Islam, but those issues are way beyond the level of an average schoolboy.

So even our mediocre religious leaders can easily handle the issues our young people are facing, the problem is the disconnect that has resulted in change of lifestyle and religiosity. Young people simply do not go to the Mosque anymore because their parents are afraid they will become too religious and maybe even radicalized.

I'm aware about MaslaHa and IstilaH, but these concepts were crystalized during a time when Religious Scholars did actual and sound scholarship and were deeply involved in knowledge throughout a spectrum of fields. Ironically during an era when the Mu'tazilah ruled society; not when the current structure of Orthodoxy came into existence. You can't ride on their coattails and co-opt their rich body of knowledge to supplant your own very

I agree that religious scholarship in Islam has sunk to the lowest depths and is not even a shadow of what it once was. But even at its height, Islamic scholarship never dared to go beyond the fundamental principles and boundaries of the Religion. Even the Mu'tazila never questioned the fundamentals of Islam like the Oneness of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the reality of divine Revelation, truth of the Quraan, and the resurrection of the dead and the Afterlife. Nor did they challenge the statutory laws of Shari'a, the prohibition of drunkenness, of pork, of adultery, the obligation to pray five times a day and fast in the month of Ramadan, etc.

The Mu'tazila are part of our intellectual heritage. We passionately disagree with them on many points of theology and on their tendency of preferring rationality to revelation. It is a mistake, though, to think that we owe the richness and greatness of Islamic jurisprudence solely to the Mu'tazila, when the greatest juristic minds in the Islamic world were orthodox Sunnis, likewise our greatest theologians and thinkers.

Staying relevant is not about keeping up with the latest trends for that is a futile effort, but setting the trend yourself.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

As I said to Firdousi, I have pinpointed our divergence to being one of theocentric vs. anthropocentric. Let the people judge what Islam truly is. Your attempt to redefine it only reveals that you don't have Islam in your heart anymore, you only take its name because it is part of your cultural heritage.



I totally disagree. Our young people have the misfortune of having to attend public schools and get indoctrinated, while their parents are too stupid or too apathetic to know what's going on in their heads, let alone counter it. The typical Mosque and Imam is totally equipped to answer any doubts a young person may have about LGBT issues. LGBT issues are nothing. Yes, there are much more "dangerous" intellectual attacks on the authenticity of Islam, but those issues are way beyond the level of an average schoolboy.

So even our mediocre religious leaders can easily handle the issues our young people are facing, the problem is the disconnect that has resulted in change of lifestyle and religiosity. Young people simply do not go to the Mosque anymore because their parents are afraid they will become too religious and maybe even radicalized.



I agree that religious scholarship in Islam has sunk to the lowest depths and is not even a shadow of what it once was. But even at its height, Islamic scholarship never dared to go beyond the fundamental principles and boundaries of the Religion. Even the Mu'tazila never questioned the fundamentals of Islam like the Oneness of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the reality of divine Revelation, truth of the Quraan, and the resurrection of the dead and the Afterlife. Nor did they challenge the statutory laws of Shari'a, the prohibition of drunkenness, of pork, of adultery, the obligation to pray five times a day and fast in the month of Ramadan, etc.

The Mu'tazila are part of our intellectual heritage. We passionately disagree with them on many points of theology and on their tendency of preferring rationality to revelation. It is a mistake, though, to think that we owe the richness and greatness of Islamic jurisprudence solely to the Mu'tazila, when the greatest juristic minds in the Islamic world were orthodox Sunnis, likewise our greatest theologians and thinkers.

Staying relevant is not about keeping up with the latest trends for that is a futile effort, but setting the trend yourself.

The fact you used the word "trend" , as if present bodies of research and our current body of knowledge on all sorts of issues from evolutionary biology to cosmology and things relevant to present state of human awareness ...is nothing more than an arbitrary fashion choice simply subject personal preference only further reveals that the Orthodoxy is simply intellectually unqualified to handle the challenges that these thinhgs present. Simply being dismssive is not going to make things go away.

Giving inflated self congratulationary remarks is vacant about the Orthodoxy.Not even the Greatest Scholars of today can tackle these issues and this is evident by the fact that the scholars offer no similar weight of counter evidence for much of their claims. They reply simply on tradition, not research. I doubt Orthodox understand how scientific studies are conducted and I doubt they have the knowledge base the The people you claim were Orthodox Sunni were heavily under Mu'tazilah tutelage and influience. Even the Most prominent Hanafis were Mu'tazilah. did you forget that Mu'tazilah were primarily Hanafi and Shafi'i in Fiqh? You're probably unaware of the thumbprints of Mu'tazilah philosophy among classical Hanafi Texts like Mukhtasar Quduri, Durr Al Mukhtar. Zamakhshari was a Hanafi Jurist himself. Of course they never challenged the coire fundamentals, but their construction of them and their understanding vastly differed. They established that belief with a foundation in reasoning is simply just paying lip service and trying to appease social trend (ironic based on what you were saying a moment ago) and not a sound resolved state of belief. When it comes to A Great deal of the Orthodox view as literal the Mu'tazilah looked as as "majaz". Now I'm not saying I endorse all Mu'tazilah views, but there is something to many things and our understanding of Qur'an and literalism.

Orthodoxy is the New Jahiliyah and your insistence of avoiding anything that doesn't fit into the ideology rather than being able to counter it intellectually with actual relevant information and data, reflects this incompetence by the Orthodox. They're unprepared and their only resort is to run and hide ....isn't that what you were advocating basically? Running and hiding.

Islam and Muslims will prevail; but we're leaving the Orthodox behind, to get Fat and just wear Kufis ....

[Firdousi]

Well, I do understand, but we have to transcend that inclination because it will ultimately destroy all of us . We have to remind ourselves at the core of our essence is the Ruh of Allah and we should draw upon that as much as we can. I'm not saying we should sit back and ignore our defeat. On the contrary., but we're not against the Western Hegemony because our egoes were bruised, but because it will ultimately destroy them and us...which is what you said earlier in fact. It's our egoes that were the problem in the first place and it's ego that's the problem now.

You know man, all this conversation reminds me of this:

"If the pandas won't f uck to save their own species, f uck the pandas."

-Stefan Molyneux

If the Westerners won't breed enough kids, fix their flaws, tackle the growing decay of their societies and people.. f uck them. Why should we care about the West when Westerners are not willing to defend their home and values? Its sad whats happening in the West and its sad because most of Westerners are nice people but they don't seem to really care or understand whats going on. They want to go down the path of self-destruction? Let them have it.

[Firdousi]

Well I too admire many of the things you described that are unique about Western civilization, especially exploration of the imagination, individualism, reason and civil liberties. But one flaw of modern Western civilization which was always there since the Enlightenment and Renaissance was its movement away from Theocentric to an Anthropocentric outlook. This slowly but surely is what doomed Western civilization into reaching the logical conclusion of moral relativism. One sees the evident traces of anthropocentric mentality very clearly in the remarks of Mr. Iblis. That is my main bone of contention with him.

My prediction that as the West declines rapidly many Western people will suddenly start converting to Islam is based on the fact that in time of turbulence and crisis people need to find some kind of stability and assurance, which is best offered by Islam. Islam, despite the popular impression that is a laborious and austere practice, is actually the most doable of the world religions. It is designed for the ordinary person to practice, unlike Christian monasticism or the Eastern religions which are way too demanding, and explains why their adherents have never, on a massive scale, practiced such religions intensely or seriously. In America the dominant religion is Protestantism, but mainstream Protestantism and Evangelical Christianity are all about abstract theology and creed, it has virtually no legal dimension, practice or spirituality associated with it. This is why more experiential alternatives like Pentecostalism are gaining traction, but even that is quite limited and is more or less a way for people to release their pent up emotions every Sunday. It doesn’t offer them a disciplined routine that can actually transform their lifestyle.

The spread of Islam will be mainly through the greater visibility of Muslims in the West due to our increasing numbers, especially among the young. The young Western people will have a lot more interaction with their Muslim peers and curiosity will eventually lead them to inevitably be much more acquainted with Islam than their parents‘ generation was. Thus their first choice or alternative whenever they feel like adapting another lifestyle because they are disillusioned with the established one will always be Islam.

The other alternative which is emerging now is the so-called Alt-Right movement. But I think this movement is at its peak right now and will not last too long. The reason is because I have carefully studied the Alt-Right and their main leaders, and they are very intellectually deficient in providing a new vision. The Alt-Right doesn’t have the advantage of Islam of being a centuries old Religion that has developed a very detailed lifestyle and philosophy with answers to the myriad of problems people face. Furthermore, it is too closely associated with racism, and racism is always self-destructive. If it is White vs non-White now, it very soon descends into sub-racial and ethnic divisions and fragments completely. There are many other criticisms I have of what you call conservative authoritarian patriarchy which compel me to believe it will fail very quickly

Good points, but I believe there is a lot of wishful thinking in your comments. Its true that Islam is superior to other faiths but I find hard to believe that there will be "mass conversions" to Islam due to the social instability. I have witnessed how many people here in Europe become Muslims because they find the "testosterone " appearance of Islam were appealing. People like those things related to strength, power. Thats what Islam means to many people and thats the reason so many people love it or hate it.

Christianity can't compete with Islam basically because its boring AF. I mean Christianity has dress code, no philosophy, no martial values, no proper social, legal or political code,.. nothing. When you say "Christianity" it reminds me of empty churches turned into discos and old virgin ladies. Who the hell wants to be part of that? lol

Nationalism is on the raise in Europe. Yesterday there was a massive nationalist rally in Poland, where nazi groups from all over Europe gathered in there. Also other phenomenon in Europe such as the Catalan conflict, Brexit, Ukraine, Le Pen,.. are related to nationalism. But as you pointed out, Nationalism unlike religion, is not an universalist ideology but rather a self-destructive irrational madness that will eventually destroy Europe like it did severals times in the last century. So this means that the "cure" is even worse than the "disease".

[Firdousi]

Well I too admire many of the things you described that are unique about Western civilization, especially exploration of the imagination, individualism, reason and civil liberties. But one flaw of modern Western civilization which was always there since the Enlightenment and Renaissance was its movement away from Theocentric to an Anthropocentric outlook. This slowly but surely is what doomed Western civilization into reaching the logical conclusion of moral relativism. One sees the evident traces of anthropocentric mentality very clearly in the remarks of Mr. Iblis. That is my main bone of contention with him.

My prediction that as the West declines rapidly many Western people will suddenly start converting to Islam is based on the fact that in time of turbulence and crisis people need to find some kind of stability and assurance, which is best offered by Islam. Islam, despite the popular impression that is a laborious and austere practice, is actually the most doable of the world religions. It is designed for the ordinary person to practice, unlike Christian monasticism or the Eastern religions which are way too demanding, and explains why their adherents have never, on a massive scale, practiced such religions intensely or seriously. In America the dominant religion is Protestantism, but mainstream Protestantism and Evangelical Christianity are all about abstract theology and creed, it has virtually no legal dimension, practice or spirituality associated with it. This is why more experiential alternatives like Pentecostalism are gaining traction, but even that is quite limited and is more or less a way for people to release their pent up emotions every Sunday. It doesn’t offer them a disciplined routine that can actually transform their lifestyle.

The spread of Islam will be mainly through the greater visibility of Muslims in the West due to our increasing numbers, especially among the young. The young Western people will have a lot more interaction with their Muslim peers and curiosity will eventually lead them to inevitably be much more acquainted with Islam than their parents‘ generation was. Thus their first choice or alternative whenever they feel like adapting another lifestyle because they are disillusioned with the established one will always be Islam.

The other alternative which is emerging now is the so-called Alt-Right movement. But I think this movement is at its peak right now and will not last too long. The reason is because I have carefully studied the Alt-Right and their main leaders, and they are very intellectually deficient in providing a new vision. The Alt-Right doesn’t have the advantage of Islam of being a centuries old Religion that has developed a very detailed lifestyle and philosophy with answers to the myriad of problems people face. Furthermore, it is too closely associated with racism, and racism is always self-destructive. If it is White vs non-White now, it very soon descends into sub-racial and ethnic divisions and fragments completely. There are many other criticisms I have of what you call conservative authoritarian patriarchy which compel me to believe it will fail very quickly

BTW what do you think is going to happen in the West in the next two decades? My own prediction is that the current liberal systems will collapse sooner than expected. Western states are drowning in debt which is growing so fast that its almost impossible to stop. There is a growing social and political polarization in Europe and the USA, that will eventually lead to violent clashes. And then an "European Spring" might happen in Europe, of course much less harsher because unlike the Arab states European nations have older populations and poverty is not that widespread so people have many things to lose.

I know when I tell my friends about this, they don't believe me. They seriously think that nothing will ever change in the West. They don't realize that a decade before the Perestroika, URSS seemed undefeatable and strong,.. and then it suddenly collapsed. I believe Western nations are going through a similar process right now.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

You know man, all this conversation reminds me of this:

"If the pandas won't f uck to save their own species, f uck the pandas."

-Stefan Molyneux

If the Westerners won't breed enough kids, fix their flaws, tackle the growing decay of their societies and people.. f uck them. Why should we care about the West when Westerners are not willing to defend their home and values? Its sad whats happening in the West and its sad because most of Westerners are nice people but they don't seem to really care or understand whats going on. They want to go down the path of self-destruction? Let them have it.

Well that part is something we can't control obviously, what I meant is scheming to cause harm to them, what they choose to do to themselves is their own doing. We're not responsible for that. Otherwise I agree. Their choices will ultimately be their own undoing. I guess in that sense we can only save ourselves.

[maneatinglizard]

The fact you used the word "trend" , as if present bodies of research and our current body of knowledge on all sorts of issues from evolutionary biology to cosmology and things relevant to present state of human awareness ...is nothing more than an arbitrary fashion choice simply subject personal preference only further reveals that the Orthodoxy is simply intellectually unqualified to handle the challenges that these thinhgs present. Simply being dismssive is not going to make things go away.

Giving inflated self congratulationary remarks is vacant about the Orthodoxy.Not even the Greatest Scholars of today can tackle these issues and this is evident by the fact that the scholars offer no similar weight of counter evidence for much of their claims. They reply simply on tradition, not research. I doubt Orthodox understand how scientific studies are conducted and I doubt they have the knowledge base the The people you claim were Orthodox Sunni were heavily under Mu'tazilah tutelage and influience. Even the Most prominent Hanafis were Mu'tazilah. did you forget that Mu'tazilah were primarily Hanafi and Shafi'i in Fiqh? You're probably unaware of the thumbprints of Mu'tazilah philosophy among classical Hanafi Texts like Mukhtasar Quduri, Durr Al Mukhtar. Zamakhshari was a Hanafi Jurist himself. Of course they never challenged the coire fundamentals, but their construction of them and their understanding vastly differed. They established that belief with a foundation in reasoning is simply just paying lip service and trying to appease social trend (ironic based on what you were saying a moment ago) and not a sound resolved state of belief. When it comes to A Great deal of the Orthodox view as literal the Mu'tazilah looked as as "majaz". Now I'm not saying I endorse all Mu'tazilah views, but there is something to many things and our understanding of Qur'an and literalism.

Orthodoxy is the New Jahiliyah and your insistence of avoiding anything that doesn't fit into the ideology rather than being able to counter it intellectually with actual relevant information and data, reflects this incompetence by the Orthodox. They're unprepared and their only resort is to run and hide ....isn't that what you were advocating basically? Running and hiding.

Islam and Muslims will prevail; but we're leaving the Orthodox behind, to get Fat and just wear Kufis ....

Neither of the writers of Mukhtasar al-Quduri not Durr al-Mukhtar (Abul-Husain al-Quduri and Ala’ ad-Deen al-Haskafi) wrote any works on Aqeeda, but nothing they did write suggests they were Mu’tazili. Imam al-Haskafi in particular lived long after Mu’tazilism was dead, so it’s hard to imagine him being one without him writing about it or others noticing.

And while many Mu’tazilis were Hanafi, the reverse is not true. The imams of the school, as well as the majority of its most important scholars, were orthodox Sunnis. Furthermore, Ma’tazilism is a school of ‘aqeeda, not fiqh, so even those Hanafis who did belong to the school would not have deviated much, if at all, from orthodoxy in fiqh. And where they did, the orthodox scholars pointed it out and refuted it.

As for people like Zamakhshari, while he was indeed a Hanafi and Mu’tazili, his fame is for his mastery of Arabic, and his tafseer. He’s quoted for his linguistic analyses of the Ayat of the Qur’an, not his fiqh.

Frankly, I find this interest in the Mu’tazilah among some modern Muslims odd. They were defeated intellectually by ahl as-Sunnah, and many of their beliefs now even go against current scientific thought (like the universe being infinitely divisible). They basically came about because they took the works of Greek philosophy too seriously. In that sense, they’re similar to the modernists of today whom foolishly apply Western philosophy to Islam without any serious reflection. They aped the beliefs of the Greeks uncritically, just like today’s modernist apes the beliefs of feminists. The orthodox Islamic philosophers, on the other hand, didn’t completely reject Greek philosophy, but rather utilized aspects that were rationally sound and in conformance with Islamic revelation to answer questions that were not given a detailed answer in the Quran or authentic Ahadith.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Neither of the writers of Mukhtasar al-Quduri not Durr al-Mukhtar (Abul-Husain al-Quduri and Ala’ ad-Deen al-Haskafi) wrote any works on Aqeeda, but nothing they did write suggests they were Mu’tazili. Imam al-Haskafi in particular lived long after Mu’tazilism was dead, so it’s hard to imagine him being one without him writing about it or others noticing.

And while many Mu’tazilis were Hanafi, the reverse is not true. The imams of the school, as well as the majority of its most important scholars, were orthodox Sunnis. Furthermore, Ma’tazilism is a school of ‘aqeeda, not fiqh, so even those Hanafis who did belong to the school would not have deviated much, if at all, from orthodoxy in fiqh. And where they did, the orthodox scholars pointed it out and refuted it.

As for people like Zamakhshari, while he was indeed a Hanafi and Mu’tazili, his fame is for his mastery of Arabic, and his tafseer. He’s quoted for his linguistic analyses of the Ayat of the Qur’an, not his fiqh.

Frankly, I find this interest in the Mu’tazilah among some modern Muslims odd. They were defeated intellectually by ahl as-Sunnah, and many of their beliefs now even go against current scientific thought (like the universe being infinitely divisible). They basically came about because they took the works of Greek philosophy too seriously. In that sense, they’re similar to the modernists of today whom foolishly apply Western philosophy to Islam without any serious reflection. They aped the beliefs of the Greeks uncritically, just like today’s modernist apes the beliefs of feminists. The orthodox Islamic philosophers, on the other hand, didn’t completely reject Greek philosophy, but rather utilized aspects that were rationally sound and in conformance with Islamic revelation to answer questions that were not given a detailed answer in the Quran or authentic Ahadith.

Well get's one thing clarified, Mu'tazilah are Ahl Al-Sunnah, I know that's not the contemporary narrative, but All Mu'tazilah followed Sunni Fiqh. Most were Hanafi, some were Shafi'i. The Modern conception of Ahl Al-Sunnah was more a response to Mu'tazilah. I find the idea of "intellectual defeat" greatly exaggerated. The Fall of Baghdad during the Mongol Invasions was what allowed Orthodox thinkers to become prominent. But we're examining history retrospectively.

While greek Philsophy and Logic was definitely greatly admired by Mu'tazilah, I'm not sure where you get the notion that they adopted it uncritically. In fact Mu'tazilah wrote refutations to Greek Philsophical treatises, so that doesn't make sense to say. What they adopted however was the notion that you NEED reason as a Key epistemological foundation. We can't simply take faith as some nebulous intangible notion, we have to be clear on the concept of its abstraction before we can claim to have "faith" in it. I feel this suggestion that it's simply "Modern Muslims". and "Western Philosophy on Islam" a bit erroeneous. There really wasn't much in the way of "Western" or "Eastern Philosophy" at that time. As for certain claims about Mu'tazilah, I'm not sure where this notion that they believed the universe is infinitely divisible comes from, I guess you mean he denied atomism?

The idea that bodies and space are infinitely divisible, but that's not the same as saying universe is infinitely divisible. This is more of a mathematical notion than a physical one, in the sense we can describe things as a continuum like in Math you have the idea of the derivative or integral which we approximate through infinitesimal increments. However, indeed there were probably theories of that time that have been antiquated by modern knowledge. Al-Jahiz , also a Mu'tazilah established his own theory of evolution, which is wrong in accord to Modern scientific understanding of evolution, but the concept that organisms evolve is right. The point being what we're drawing from here aren't the specific conclusions and theories that Mu'tazilah made, but the over-arching principle and method of how to extract knowledge of the universe and implement it. The Mu'tazilah did the best they could with the means they had, so of course 10th century conclusions would be no longer viable in the midst of Modern Awareness, What is viable is that epistemological foundations of Mu'tazilah philosophy, because able to abstract things constructively, rather than simply because of tradition. This is what they took from the Greek Philosophers, It had less to do with imitation and more to do with its usefulness. We should take what is useful. The future of Muslims embodies the Mu'tazilah principles than Orthodoxy, the Mu'tazilah knew how to adapt new information, The Orthodoxy do not because often new information would contest orthodox precepts. That's the difference.

As for Fiqh, Hanafi Fiqh wasn't even fully codified until the 11th century. During that time, ideas about Qiyas , which doesn't have much precedence in more Traditionalist Fiqh like Maliki and Hanbali, was prominent, This was an extention of Mu'tazili mantiq . Many Mu'tazilah approaches are enshrined in Hanafi Fiqh. Hanafis were innately Heterodox and it shows by the very broad reaching approach they had. Real Orthodox Fiqh is Maliki and Hanbali.

[ذو الفقار]

Of course they never challenged the coire fundamentals, but their construction of them and their understanding vastly differed. They established that belief with a foundation in reasoning is simply just paying lip service and trying to appease social trend (ironic based on what you were saying a moment ago) and not a sound resolved state of belief. When it comes to A Great deal of the Orthodox view as literal the Mu'tazilah looked as as "majaz". Now I'm not saying I endorse all Mu'tazilah views, but there is something to many things and our understanding of Qur'an and literalism.

How do you think the age-old debate over literal vs figurative has practical application in the discussion over the political fikr of Islam I am putting forward as an alternative to democracy and other forms of a modern state. I welcome scientific and intellectual inquiry and criticism based on rationality about the political fikr of Islam. But there is a fundamental difference in outlook. I believe mine is more faithful to the fundamentals of Islam and its basic message. That outlook is that God wants us to focus on protecting our Faith during this era of tribulation.

Orthodoxy is the New Jahiliyah and your insistence of avoiding anything that doesn't fit into the ideology rather than being able to counter it intellectually with actual relevant information and data, reflects this incompetence by the Orthodox. They're unprepared and their only resort is to run and hide ....isn't that what you were advocating basically? Running and hiding.

Not running and hiding from ideas. We have the tools and potential to address the ideas of the modern world, including the flexibility to assimilate those ideas which are good. But we have to withdraw from mainstream society and create our own counterculture based on the 'state within a state' model. This is hardly running and hiding from challenging ideas or avoiding them. It is a social phenomenon which itself is based on a very compelling thought.

You cannot prevail without the orthodox. You don't have the grounding in your tradition, and we are living in an era where identity and tradition are making a comeback.

[ذو الفقار]

Nationalism is on the raise in Europe. Yesterday there was a massive nationalist rally in Poland, where nazi groups from all over Europe gathered in there. Also other phenomenon in Europe such as the Catalan conflict, Brexit, Ukraine, Le Pen,.. are related to nationalism. But as you pointed out, Nationalism unlike religion, is not an universalist ideology but rather a self-destructive irrational madness that will eventually destroy Europe like it did severals times in the last century. So this means that the "cure" is even worse than the "disease".

Yes the cure is worse than the disease. I can only imagine far-right nationalism rising among the uneducated. The only educated ones who are part of that movement are the ones who are in clear leadership positions, using their education to manipulate the dull, dimwitted ones. But ordinary educated people have some degree of immunity from becoming far-right nationalists. Considering that in the West college-education level is quite high, I don't see far-right nationalism ever becoming the dominant force in the West. Poland and Spain aren't exactly the best countries of Western Europe. Right-wing nationalism is rising among the lower income and lesser educated, that's why in Germany it is in eastern part of Germany, and in France and Britain among the working class.

This is a reactionary movement. It doesn't have any enlightened vision on how to make the West innovative and strong again. The West is on a downward spiral and no indication that trend will be reversed. Of course they still have some advantages like great scientific minds and institutions. They have the potential to restore themselves but they will have to make some major reforms which it seems they simply don't have the stomach for at present.

East Asia is going to rise economically, but they also lack that spirit of innovation and imagination which originally made the West great. So for the next century or so I see that globally we are going to slow down. There will still be advancements in technology, but the major social problems aren't going to be solved anytime soon. Unless there is some new radical revolution that is all encompassing, i.e., intellectual, political, economic, and scientific, I don't see the world getting back to where it was a century ago. That's not to say the world was great a century ago, but it was on an exciting trajectory.