|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Category talk:Islamic authoritarianism
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Why have this category when "it should be empty"? I am not the Ombud's man 00:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, delete. Vague category, too. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it could be useful for states and ideologies that are both Islamic and authoritarian. Like Saudi Arabia. Or the Muslim Brotherhood. I am not the Ombud's man 00:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Those should go under Islam. Making the disctinction is highly unhelpful towards understanding what this category is implying anyway: theocracy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think you can be Islamic and not be authoritarian. A rare thing in the current climate, to be sure, but not unthinkable. There is also Christian political movements / parties all the way from Jozef Tiso
to Angela Merkel. I see no reason why political Islam could not be analogous I am not the Ombud's man 00:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- You can certainly be a muslim and not be authoritarian. That being said however islamism is per definition some crank shit. And between the two lie theocracy. Regardless, my point here isn't on the "nature of Islam" (queue Sam Harris). My point here is on this category. And it's superfluous. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Angela Merkel claims to adhere to "political Christianity"; "Islamism" in its broadest possible interpretation is "political Islam" and that would include the possible equivalent of Angela Merkel. Which would not be authoritarian. And I see no reason why it couldn't happen. Maybe not now, but the AKP until quite recently tried to make people believe they were some 1950s Christian Democratic party for Islam... They aren't, but not many people knew that in 1999. I am not the Ombud's man 01:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- You can certainly be a muslim and not be authoritarian. That being said however islamism is per definition some crank shit. And between the two lie theocracy. Regardless, my point here isn't on the "nature of Islam" (queue Sam Harris). My point here is on this category. And it's superfluous. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think you can be Islamic and not be authoritarian. A rare thing in the current climate, to be sure, but not unthinkable. There is also Christian political movements / parties all the way from Jozef Tiso
- Those should go under Islam. Making the disctinction is highly unhelpful towards understanding what this category is implying anyway: theocracy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it could be useful for states and ideologies that are both Islamic and authoritarian. Like Saudi Arabia. Or the Muslim Brotherhood. I am not the Ombud's man 00:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)