The Atlantic: The Bad Guys Are Winning

[Omar del Sur]

All your base are belong to us.

THE BAD GUYS ARE WINNING​

If the 20th century was the story of slow, uneven progress toward the victory of liberal democracy over other ideologies—communism, fascism, virulent nationalism—the 21st century is, so far, a story of the reverse.

The Bad Guys Are Winning

If the 20th century was the story of slow, uneven progress toward the victory of liberal democracy over other ideologies—communism, fascism, virulent nationalism—the 21st century is, so far, a story of the reverse.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[repo]

It's disturbing but I'm hopeful we will put them back in their place.

 

[mr.overeasy]

All your base are belong to us.

THE BAD GUYS ARE WINNING​

If the 20th century was the story of slow, uneven progress toward the victory of liberal democracy over other ideologies—communism, fascism, virulent nationalism—the 21st century is, so far, a story of the reverse.

The Bad Guys Are Winning

If the 20th century was the story of slow, uneven progress toward the victory of liberal democracy over other ideologies—communism, fascism, virulent nationalism—the 21st century is, so far, a story of the reverse.

www.theatlantic.com

I hate those other ideologies but lets not forget liberals are the main bad guys. It was the allies in ww1 and ww2 that invaded and colonized the world. The caused some of the most horrible generational crimes.

The facists and others are shocking because of their quick numbers but the slow kill counts and death toll hiding of the liberals is worse.

For example did you know that over 5 million muslims were killed in europe during ww1 alone? These were civilians and villagers, not the soldiers. This genocide combined with the others of the era are beyond the holocaust!

France, a nation that fought against the nazis, committed genocide in algeria and was killing people since 1945, they even put a nazi collaborator in charge of operations in algiers!

Did you know that the "war on terror" killed over 1 million people in iraq, they never even had these groups until after the invasion.

Liberalism is a cancer!

 

[Omar del Sur]

I hate those other ideologies but lets not forget liberals are the main bad guys. It was the allies in ww1 and ww2 that invaded and colonized the world. The caused some of the most horrible generational crimes.

The facists and others are shocking because of their quick numbers but the slow kill counts and death toll hiding of the liberals is worse.

For example did you know that over 5 million muslims were killed in europe during ww1 alone? These were civilians and villagers, not the soldiers. This genocide combined with the others of the era are beyond the holocaust!

France, a nation that fought against the nazis, committed genocide in algeria and was killing people since 1945, they even put a nazi collaborator in charge of operations in algiers!

Did you know that the "war on terror" killed over 1 million people in iraq, they never even had these groups until after the invasion.

Liberalism is a cancer!

masha'Allah. I am with you one hundred percent, very well said.

Ideologically, I am of the "bad guy" camp, from the standpoint of the liberals. I don't remotely believe in liberalism, democracy, liberal democracy, etc.

 

[InaShaqalle]

@Omar del Sur what do you support as an alternative to democracy? Theocracy, one party communist dictatorship or something else

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur what do you support as an alternative to democracy? Theocracy, one party communist dictatorship or something else

I think the ruler should rule by Quran and Sunnah. I think Islam should be the religion of the state and the state should implement the sharia. It could be a caliphate, emirate, imo monarchy (some people are anti-monarchy but I don't think monarchy is wrong in and of itself and I think the hatred people have towards monarchy as an institution comes from Masonic ideology). I think the really important thing is they follow Quran and Sunnah and implement sharia.

 

[mr.overeasy]

I think the ruler should rule by Quran and Sunnah. I think Islam should be the religion of the state and the state should implement the sharia. It could be a caliphate, emirate, imo monarchy (some people are anti-monarchy but I don't think monarchy is wrong in and of itself and I think the hatred people have towards monarchy as an institution comes from Masonic ideology). I think the really important thing is they follow Quran and Sunnah and implement sharia.

The biggest point on that is we were always the best nations when we did that. Think about it, we only fell once secularism came.

The ottoman state stopped being ruled properly after suleiman the magnificent and before they entered ww1 they secularized and took power away from the sultan who was very against entering the war.

The muslim nations were still pretty strong but one by one we fell due to infighting and secularism.

Somali as fractured sultantates were able to defeat european super-powers like portugal and was trading into asia. Somalia was able to fend off numerically superior forces from both the abyssinians and oromos.

The somalis were great under islam, and we fell after we secularized. The sultanates were defeated because along with the kaffir (abyssinians, british, italians) somali tribes began to ally with them against us.

Also we didn't band together properly to fight them.

Under secularism we had a short period of peace but quickly decended back into anarchy and infighting. Under Islam we had hundreds of years of strength and riches.

 

[Omar del Sur]

The biggest point on that is we were always the best nations when we did that. Think about it, we only fell once secularism came.

The ottoman state stopped being ruled properly after suleiman the magnificent and before they entered ww1 they secularized and took power away from the sultan who was very against entering the war.

The muslim nations were still pretty strong but one by one we fell due to infighting and secularism.

Somali as fractured sultantates were able to defeat european super-powers like portugal and was trading into asia. Somalia was able to fend off numerically superior forces from both the abyssinians and oromos.

The somalis were great under islam, and we fell after we secularized. The sultanates were defeated because along with the kaffir (abyssinians, british, italians) somali tribes began to ally with them against us.

Also we didn't band together properly to fight them.

Under secularism we had a short period of peace but quickly decended back into anarchy and infighting. Under Islam we had hundreds of years of strength and riches.

I honestly don't know very much about Somalia but I know with Pakistan, there is a lot of potential for division.

One of my really good friends is from Pakistan and he told me Urdu is his mother tongue and that actually this is rare among Pakistanis. Most Pakistanis actually have a different mother tongue (such as Punjabi and I think Baloch have their own language, for example).

But in any case, with Pakistan you have these totally different ethnicities with their own mother tongues and Urdu is really basically just a lingua franca.

Pakistan potentially could become like Yugoslavia or go the route being seen in Ethiopia- if these various ethnicities were to all go up against each other.

This is one reason Islam is so important for Pakistan. Islam is the glue that holds Pakistan together. Without Islam, they would quite possibly balkanize.

Imo diversity can work but only under Islam. If there is Islam, people of different ethnic groups and tribes can come together as one. If not then what holds them together?

Another issue I have is people from Third World backgrounds thinking what works for Europeans should work for people in the Third World.

That is crazy. Secularism is bad in general. But secularism in a poor Third World country? It's a recipe for chaos. With religion, people can happy and content even while they are poor. You cannot be happy in that situation once you've lost your faith. Then you are totally without hope because you believe the material is all there is. People will kill each other and commit crime. The country will become dangerous.

 

[Periplus]

I hate those other ideologies but lets not forget liberals are the main bad guys. It was the allies in ww1 and ww2 that invaded and colonized the world. The caused some of the most horrible generational crimes.

The facists and others are shocking because of their quick numbers but the slow kill counts and death toll hiding of the liberals is worse.

For example did you know that over 5 million muslims were killed in europe during ww1 alone? These were civilians and villagers, not the soldiers. This genocide combined with the others of the era are beyond the holocaust!

France, a nation that fought against the nazis, committed genocide in algeria and was killing people since 1945, they even put a nazi collaborator in charge of operations in algiers!

Did you know that the "war on terror" killed over 1 million people in iraq, they never even had these groups until after the invasion.

Liberalism is a cancer!

How were Liberals the bad guys in WWI or WWII.

They didn’t even start the conflict.

 

[NordicSomali]

Putin is soon retiring

 

[mr.overeasy]

How were Liberals the bad guys in WWI or WWII.

They didn’t even start the conflict.

In ww1 they did the most genocide, in europe alone over 5 million muslims killed.

the allies also started that war. It was a war between serbia and austria-hungary but russia intervened. When germany backed austria against france joined the war against them. Britain only joined later due to germany also fighting belgium. The ottomans joined after the secular liberal coup, the muslim sultan wanted no part of ww1.

only britain and germany had legitimate reasons to join, france and russia were the bad guys.

after it britain and france, the liberals, irreparably ruined the world and invaded and destroyed many nations!

in ww2 that was facism that caused it but the allies took advantage of and abused people on a bigger level.

the allies didn’t act as good guys, they fought another ideology then went back to evil. France literally committed genocide shortly after ww2!

the liberals in france allowed nazi collaborators to get in charge of the occupation and abuse of alge

 

[Periplus]

In ww1 they did the most genocide, in europe alone over 5 million muslims killed.

the allies also started that war. It was a war between serbia and austria-hungary but russia intervened. When germany backed austria against france joined the war against them. Britain only joined later due to germany also fighting belgium. The ottomans joined after the secular liberal coup, the muslim sultan wanted no part of ww1.

only britain and germany had legitimate reasons to join, france and russia were the bad guys.

after it britain and france, the liberals, irreparably ruined the world and invaded and destroyed many nations!

in ww2 that was facism that caused it but the allies took advantage of and abused people on a bigger level.

the allies didn’t act as good guys, they fought another ideology then went back to evil. France literally committed genocide shortly after ww2!

the liberals in france allowed nazi collaborators to get in charge of the occupation and abuse of alge

Dude your knowledge of WWI history is wack.

Let me tell you this, Germany was agitating for a world war for years. The Ottomans were also keen to get more land in Europe.

The Von Schlieffen (Google it) plan was designed by Germany as a way to take over Western Europe years before the events of 1918 happened. The UK intervened once they started to implement that plan.

 

[Periplus]

Read this.

The Germans literally planned out WWI over a decade before Duke Ferdinand was killed. All they needed was a reason to start a world war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan

 

[wheel]

Read this.

The Germans literally planned out WWI over a decade before Duke Ferdinand was killed. All they needed was a reason to start a world war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan

Everyone knew another war was gonna pop out after the Franco prussian war, the french were still bitter about losing alasce lorraine (in hindsight it was a mistake for Bismark to have taken without completely crippling France). The two countries relationship was for the most hostile and were attempting to encircle eachother with alliances. Nothing wrong with the krauts preparing themselves for a inevitable war with a war plan.

 

[Removed]

@Omar del Sur what do you support as an alternative to democracy? Theocracy, one party communist dictatorship or something else

Nobody cares for direct democracy except maybe switzerland. You will almost always have representatives of peoples and regions forming some sort of council.

The question is how much power do they have in comparison to the head of state and how are they officially picked. Large parts of democracy can work within Islam.

I think the ruler should rule by Quran and Sunnah. I think Islam should be the religion of the state and the state should implement the sharia. It could be a caliphate, emirate, imo monarchy (some people are anti-monarchy but I don't think monarchy is wrong in and of itself and I think the hatred people have towards monarchy as an institution comes from Masonic ideology). I think the really important thing is they follow Quran and Sunnah and implement sharia.

Monarchy? Do you believe people should inherit leadership.

“Ruling by the Quran and Sunnah” is very broad there isnt a chosen government structure within it.

 

[Shimbiris]

“Ruling by the Quran and Sunnah” is very broad there isnt a chosen government structure within it.

Not to mention the Shura for things like selecting a new Caliph in early Islam:

Shura

Islam is pretty compatible with democracy at its core.

 

[Removed]

Not to mention the Shura for things like selecting a new Caliph in early Islam:

Shura

Islam is pretty compatible with democracy at its core.

I agree there are core things in Islam that can never be “put up for a vote” which is the main counter but those things can just form a constitution of sorts.

Although its flexible and we are able to I still think everyone voting is a terrible system. Maybe a test or certain level of education requirement would be better.

What do you think about power sharing most ahadith seem to be very adamant on obeying the ruler. Maybe a sort of swearing in oath that every leader must accept the authority of the Shura if they have a majority? How do we ensure checks and balances within the Shariah?

 

[HiraanBorn]

All your base are belong to us.

THE BAD GUYS ARE WINNING​

If the 20th century was the story of slow, uneven progress toward the victory of liberal democracy over other ideologies—communism, fascism, virulent nationalism—the 21st century is, so far, a story of the reverse.

The Bad Guys Are Winning

If the 20th century was the story of slow, uneven progress toward the victory of liberal democracy over other ideologies—communism, fascism, virulent nationalism—the 21st century is, so far, a story of the reverse.

www.theatlantic.com

Liberal democracy is being blamed for many of the numerous ills in the West. Migration into Europe and political strife in the US have liberal agendas behind them and so naturally there is a reaction to it.

Unfortunately, the reaction to liberalism is more often than not coming from the far-right.

Two extremes that can't see eye to eye only leads to conflict and potential violence.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Not to mention the Shura for things like selecting a new Caliph in early Islam:

Shura

Islam is pretty compatible with democracy at its core.

I don't know why people are still making this shura = democracy argument.

Concept of democracy in Islam - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

Some people think that the word democracy is equivalent to shoora (consultation) in Islam! This is a mistaken notion for many reasons, including the following:

1. Shoora has to do with new matters that arise or with matters that are not explained in detail in the texts of the Qur’an or Sunnah. With regard to the “rule of the people”, the people may discuss what is well-established in religion, which may lead to refusing to acknowldge the prohibitions on that which is forbidden, and to forbidding that which Allah has permitted or made obligatory. So the sale of alcohol is permitted according to these laws, as are fornication/adultery and riba (usury), but these laws put pressures on Islamic organizations and the activities of those who call people to Allah. This is diametrically opposed to sharee‘ah, so what does this have to do with shoora?

2. The majlis ash-shoora (consultative committee) is to be formed of people who have a deep knowledge of fiqh, Islam and sharee‘ah, fahm, and have a high level of piety and good character. So no one who is of bad character or foolish, or is a disbeliever or atheist, is to be consulted or involved in the shoora process. As for the democratic councils of representatives, they pay no attention to any of the con ditions mentioned above. The representative may be a disbeliever, or of bad character or foolish. What does this have to do with shoora as prescribed in Islam?

3. Shoora is not binding upon the ruler; the ruler may give precedence to the view of one member of the council that is supported by proof, and prefer his view over that of the other council members, whereas in the case of representative democracy, the agreement of the majority becomes legally binding upon the people.

 

[Omar del Sur]

-Surah Al-An'am 6:116


the Quran specifically warns against following the majority. yet you have people so influenced by the West, they want to argue in favor of democracy even though the Quran specifically warns against following the majority. go with the Quran or go with the West, you decide. I urge you to go with the Quran.