And I didn’t even need to blink thrice lol. But come on, admit it. The Pope does have a funny hat.
Seriously, I added that to make sure others don’t come to that conclusion.
EDIT:
Ah yes, the Western degenerate is still trying to corrupt me by showing me a video that’s age-restricted and can only be viewed on YouTube by the morally decadent. Nice try, colonizer.
In response to the taking charge gif
In many countries it is limited to this. Otherwise the punishment is jailtime.
Force applied must be considered “just” and “proportionate” to the response
In Aus if I got into a domestic incident, pulled out a gun and shot someone in the leg over someone punching me I’d be looking at jailtime.
Ditto for most European countries.
If what you say is true, these places have retrograde ideas about the basic nature of threat and reasonable self-defense conditions. I’d recommend reading up on American jurisprudence concerning lethal force.
Yes the USSR was a real communist regime. The PRC was a real communist regime. Millions died it was awful. Just because they never reach their hypothesised stateless, currency free, post scarcity utopia doesn’t mean it “wasn’t real communism”.
As for there being no Islamic state, this isn’t saying there never has been or having some utopian standards. The first four rightly Caliphs were rightly guided. We had a. Caliphate for most of our history.
There is literally no Islamic state. There is no caliphate, there is no Caliph. This means there is no one to call for Jihad. There is nowhere to make Hijra to to live under sharia. There is no zakkat, there is no state that fullfills all of its obligations or that we have an obligation to.
Inshallah we will establish one soon. Last time we did we defeated Dracula 
In most of Europe if you stab an unarmed burglar be prepared to possibly do years in prison. It is disgusting. Honestly incomprehensible how Brits conquered the wild then became a place a mother can be arrested for promoting hatred on Twitter for saying trannies aren’t women.
I see you’ve changed the language to “communist regime”. A real communist state in Marxism has no government. Saying they never reached their endgoal means nothing because based on the logic you’ve been using, this would be self-contradictory:
Unless you’re telling me that throughout history all the leaders of Islam have been fundamentally dishonest with regards to their intents, with the aforementioned “utopian standards” being a smokescreen to conceal their real motives of amassing power.
All you’re saying is that Islam has been interpreted differently by different people. Just like communism has been interpreted differently.
Was The Great Leap Forward and the establishment of yet another overt class disparity the intent of a communist regime?
Proportional force (the eye for an eye) type philosophy is generally accepted, whether it’s flawed or not that’s the way it is
If a man charges at you with his bare fists, you can use your fists or perhaps a blunt object (tire iron, stones, whatever is within your reach) to defend yourself.
A man charges at you with a blunt object like a bat. You can use your fists, a blunt object or a knife if you happen to have one nearby and/or you carry one on you for reasons besides self defence (like carrying a fishing knife for fishing or a Swiss army knife for peeling an apple/for use as a multitool).
A man charges at you with a bladed, lethal weapon like a knife, you can use your hands, a blunt object, a knife or a gun IF you happen to have one nearby.
A man charges at you with a gun, you can use a gun.
To my understanding that’s pretty much how it is here.
Still, if a man charges at you with a blunt object, you knock him down and stomp his head in while he’s incapacitated… That’s jail time, and I think that’s justified. If a man throws a drunken punch in a public place where the fight is likely to be instantaneously broken up and you jam a sharpened pencil into his throat you’re probably looking at jail time. I think that’s justified too as the force you’ve applied is excessive.
Tbh I wish Aus would let people carry things like pepper spray. Non lethal and incapacitating. I don’t think concealed carry is necessary here due to the threat of armed conflict being very minimal. If there WERE to be some sort of concealed carry agenda which I think is totally ridiculous for Aus i’d prefer the guns were carried by those who have extensive prior training (millitary personnel, off duty cops, gun club members etc). To be a member of a gun club here typically indicates you are of good character.
Have you ever sprayed yourself with capsicum extract because you were curious? It hurts quite a bit, like a 7/10 and it’s blinding
8/10 for me is multiple simultaneous third degree burns for reference. I’ve never experienced 10/10 pain. 9/10 is waking up after invasive surgery prior to a nerve block kicking in.
Isn’t jihadism an ideology consisting of extremist fundamentalism?
The only groups that could possibly attain the goal of establishing a modern era caliphate are millitant groups that are involved in many activities I’d call “unislamic” as they interpret the Coran in an odd way to justify committing numerous atrocities
Why do you think I asked him whether he was asserting that the Taliban was one of the only regimes that managed to pull off a “holistic Islamic governance”?
A real Marxist state has no Government… Have a rethink of that one I think you might be somewhat rusty. No the end goal of a Marxist state is a hypothesized stateless society after the dictatorship of the proletariat and the spreading of proletarian revolution to the entire globe hundreds of years in the future. The other people who disagree with that are not Marxists, they are varying types of non-Marxist communists and Anarchists etc wat Marx called the Utopians (and labelled an infantile disorder).
On the issue of an Islamic state you don’t seem to even understand the term. An Islamic state isn’t a matter of interpretation or Ijtihad it has conditions that must be fullfilled to be valid. There is no state claiming to be the Caliphate. It would be presposterous. The Islamic state doesn’t refer to a state ran by Muslims. It is a title for the Caliphate.
What does a “stateless society” mean to you? Did I not already mention above that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was akin to the period of socialism?
And, again, tell me, how was the PRC a real communist regime after they established the same class system following The Great Leap Forward? Do you really believe Mao wanted to really create a communist utopia when the Cultural Revolution started or was it just a ploy by The Gang of Four by using ideology as a massive power grab and purging political rivals?
I was simply pointing out the flaws in your logic when YOU decided to equate the “communist regimes” with Islam with regards to the intent to achieve a desired utopia.
I didn’t make any statement about Islam itself.
I also clearly stated in a previous post that a secular ideology would be much more prone to reinterpretation.
You were the one who tried to move the goalposts but still let the ball in.
I am trying not to clog up the thread but you guys keep mentioning me so I will respond to this last one. Firstly all Muslims are “fundamentalist”, you have to believe the Qur’an is the literal uncreated word of Allah SWT to be a Muslim, you must believe in Allah, the angels, the revealed scripture, the Prophets of Allah, the day of judgement and predestination. If you don’t you are outside the fold of Islam.
When Muslims say they aren’t literalist, they don’t mean they don’t literally believe in Islam as literal truth. It refers to for example reading the “apparent meaning” and in some cases refers to the Zahiri school of Jurisprudence which looks for the apparent meaning and rejects Qiyas (analogical reasoning). It is also sometimes used to refer to Aqeedah and the affirming of “the hand of Allah” etc. It doesn’t mean what non Muslims think it means.
If someone rejects the book of Allah as non literal, or rejects beliefs inthe unseen or advocates for manmade law over Islam they are Kaffir.
Jihadism isn’t an ideology, Jihad means to struggle and in the Islamic legal context it means war (jihad upon the nafs is seperate from the legal meaning). Terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda are tiny fringe groups, who lack any credibility within normative Islam, they are rejected by scholars from all normative Islamic schools of thought, they are labelled Kharijites, dogs of the hellfire.
(This video has the primary Islamic sources that show why these groups are deviant and shows their own arguments and the sources they use, highly accesible for non Muslims who have not studied Fiqh of Jihad etc)
They follow a deviant belief system from their Aqeedah to their school of thought. They target civillians which is completely haram. They commit suicide which is completely haram. They make takfir on Muslims for following normative Sunni Islam which is completely haram. They don’t make up 0.1% of the Muslim world and even Salafists and Wahhabis (this isn’t an actual term but this is just to give you a better understanding in common western parlance) denounce them as Khawariij.
Firstly all Muslims must desire a Caliphate it is part of the beliefs of a Muslim. Secondly a Caliphate will never come from small lunatic groups who have no support amongst the Ulema or the Ummah. The Caliphate will be re-established when we repel the west from the lands of Islam, remove the western backed dictators, who are installed to keep us divided and weak.
If you removed every western dictator from the Muslim lands, from Egypt, from Arabia, from Jordan, you would have the establishment of a Caliphate straight away. The proxy wars would end, these evil groups would disappear because they would no longer get billions in western funding, or have a lawless poverty stricken area to recruit and operate in.
The FBI concluded that the biggest innocualtion from joining these groups is a classical orthodox Islamic education. ISIS attracts reverts and people who were not practising and joined after an identity crisis after degenerate lives. Graeme wood the author of the way of the strangers and the Atlantic article what ISIS really wants really delves into this in his book.
ISIS recruitment manuals literally say not to bother with trying to recruit “learned sunnis”.
To sum up, the only way to establish a Caliphate is to get the Bayah of the Ulema and the Ummah. These groups demanded Muslims make Hijrah and pledge Allegiance. Less than 0.1% of the Ummah did. A Caliphate will come when we correct ourselves and Allah sends us a leader and the Muslims choose to give him bayah.
Until then self purification, prayer, doing good deeds and showing mercy to all humans is all a Muslim can do. defensive Jihad is allowed anyone is allowed to defend themselves. So Jihad in Palestine, in Kashmir, in Afghanistan and Iraq where Muslims are under attack is the right of every Muslim. But I as a Muslim also denounce any group claiming to wage Jihad who:
1.Target noncombatants
2.Use suicide as a tactic
3.Don’t grant the rights of non Muslims under their control
All of these transgress the limits of the sharia and must be and are condemned by all Muslims, especially the scary Orthodox “fundamentalists” who actually believe in Islam and as such condemn those who go against the laws of Allah SWT.
How can a state have no Governemnt. You need to actually do some basic studying. A communist regime has a state. The end goal of a communist is a stateless society. You keep making oxymoronic statements.
There never will be a stateless, moneyless, classless post scarcity society. So saying a regime isn’t communist until it fullfills the impossible end goal of communism is circular.
Alright, perhaps I should have used the term “communist country” or “society”.
I would have left your previous post at that and wrote it off as a misunderstanding despite you repeatedly dodging my questions but you persist in misconstruing my words when it was pretty clear that I was saying that those so called communist regimes were using ideology as a power grab.
WHO has said the end goal of communism is possible? I clearly stated THERE WAS NO REAL COMMUNIST “COUNTRY” IN EXISTENCE, both explicitly and implicitly.
I can accept that you may have interpreted my use of the word “communist STATE”, which I can admit was not the right terminology, as something else, but the points in contention were the INTENTS of the aforementioned regimes. If a regime’s INTENT isn’t to fulfil the end goal of communism, then it is not a COMMUNIST REGIME.
If I claim I’m a Muslim even though I don’t believe in Allah but use words in the Quran to gain influence and control over a group of Muslims, am I a Muslim?
You can call it whatever you want. Socialist. Authoritarian dictatorship using ideology to maintain power. Whatever.
@dt79 take the convo to my war on drugs thread. That thread is dead whereas on here there are those who want to talk about gun control. Out of respect for them and because I don’t want trouble with the mods I say we go back to that topic on here
The people who ran the soviet state were a mix of true believers and psychopaths. Which is what every state is.
The end goal of communism is country-less, stateless, without government, monetary system. Until the utopian end goal (which will never happen) all communist regimes following a Marxist ideology have countries, states, governments. That isn’t evidence of a power grab and the people running the regime not actually believing in the end goal.
And none of the current Muslim majority nations claims to be a Caliphate. It’s not a matter of interpretation. You are not making sense.
Salam. Message me if you want to discuss it outside of the thread so we don’t derail it.
Do you think it is odd the people most preoccupied with defending gun rights are usually also the ones claiming the police killings of black men were totally justified and imply people concerned with the dystopian US police state and military worship culture are secret communists?
Don’t tread on me but kneel on my neck till I die and it will be my fault type folks.
The second amendment isn’t for hunting or self defence. It is to give power to the populace to revolt against the state. Granted the founders never envisioned non rich white males ever having rights to vote and participate in democracy. So I think the 2A arguments are a bit funny considering most people making them wouldn’t be qualified to be able to vote.
I’d add on the discrepancy regarding firearm power/capacity back then vs now
I sometimes wonder what James Madison would think if we could re-incarnate his essence and bring him to modern era USA.
Would he be pleased or horrified with the result of the document he initially proposed.