/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22529569]

who is the Sayyid Qutb of Christianity?

[Anonymous No.22529674]

There is no 20th Century Christian who was very influential and wrote a very long exegesis on the Bible in favor of political Christianity and reviving the Holy Roman Empire and went to prison for his activism. Political Christianity simply is a nonentity.

[Anonymous No.22529723]

>>22529674
Maybe some American fundie from the bible belt ? They aren't known for smart books though.

[Anonymous No.22529788]

>>22529674
thread over

[Anonymous No.22529794]

>>22529569
I've read excerpts of his work years ago and I remember the constant sense of disgust his words inspired in me.

[Anonymous No.22529819]

>>22529674
And you are now a strange bedfellow of bin Laden.

The world just gets weirder and weirder and I love it.

[Anonymous No.22529822]

Not may christian terrorists anymore

[Anonymous No.22529824]

>>22529819
I swear the right's very slow embrace of Islam in the U.S/Canada just over 2 decades after 9/11 has been one of the most fascinating political devlelopments of the 21st century

[Anonymous No.22529834]

>>22529569
Probably me desu

[Anonymous No.22529850]

>>22529824
Yeah the terries and the Trumpies have quite a bit in common really, they both comprehend themselves as beseiged by the Zionist Illuminati.

For the jihadis it's the US-Israel-Saudi unholy alliance, for the Trumpies it's Pat Buchanan's cultural marxism.

One has enormous power though, the analogy pretty much disintegrates into antithesis after that.

[Anonymous No.22529869]

>>22529850
I think it's less MAGA types and more Gen-Z groyper types who never really experienced the 00s.
They all remember ISIS as the face of Islamism, and a lot of those Fuentes types got way into openly embracing Islamists as allies after the Taliban retook Afghanistan.

[Anonymous No.22529878]

>>22529569
kent hovind

[Anonymous No.22529884]

>>22529723
>>22529674
The thing about Qutb is that he came from a bumfuck village, then went to Cairo and hung out with sophisticated literati types until he got sick of them and rebounded to fundamentalism.

I can't think of any modern Westerner, religious or secular, who fits that paradigm.

[Anonymous No.22529897]

>>22529869
Yeah the kids are into every conceivable manner of reactionary stance right now.

I seem to be a couple years ahead of the mean and am glad to be several years our of that phase.

I sympathise immensely with the search for identity, but god damn, the kids are looking for meaning in life on TikTok and the Joe Rogan podcast

How do we reach them anon? How do we tell them tha what they are really looking for is a serious reading habit or a creative pursuit?

The kids are joining neoNazis and ISIS because nobody ever handed them a guitar or bothered to comprehend a meaning for their lives. It's heartbreaking man.

I came within inches of being sucked into full on traditional Catholic partisan madness. I am not a dumb person and I recognize huge unconscious forces were acting on me, but probably everyone is vulnerable to the reactionary black hole.

[Anonymous No.22529902]

>>22529884
Ezra Pound and Evola I guess, but they were a very different type of "reactionary" with way less influence.

[Anonymous No.22529904]

>>22529674
More or less Codreanu

[Anonymous No.22529937]

>>22529674
It’s a false equivalence because Christianity isn’t necessarily a political theory like Islam and the HRE wasn’t a theocracy. Political Christianity makes no sense. There were indeed figures like Schmitt and Codreanu, which were Christian political theorists but they didn’t write exegesis on the Bible for obvious reasons (Christians are not Muslims it’s not as simple as interpreting the politics of the book like it is for Muslims). It’s not illegal to do exegesis in Christians, nor to critique Christianity or politics like it is in Islamic countries so why would someone like this go to prison? They wouldn’t obviously.

Why does there have to be 20th century analogues anyway? it’s a stupid question.

[Anonymous No.22529948]

>>22529869
The Gen Z right say nice things about Islamists purely because it annoys liberals. After 9/11 Islamism became this irredeemably evil boogeyman and this image got worse with ISIS. The post-Trump online right love evil and they love appearing to defend whatever liberals consider evil because it annoys them. Baudrillard talked about this somewhere, willingly talking up the mantle of evil because it can be an advantageous thing to do to insult your political opponent. For their part, even the most extreme jihadis aren't fond of the American right. Al-Qaeda put out a propaganda video last year mocking Trumpers as "American Kharijites." Actual jiihadis are more sympathetic to the BLM crowd.

>>22529884ty
Qutb wasn't some dumb hick who became a cosmopolitan and then slid back into a dumb village mentality. His writings are deeply misunderstood because after 9/11 liberal intellectuals looked for a Karl Marx type figure that would explain Jihadism (which they saw as something akin to fascism or Leninism, a coherent ideology) and so Paul Berman dragged out Qutb. In the process, Qutb was dragged through the mud. It became impossible to objectively write about him. Aside from his commentary on the Quran, none of his major literary work has ever been translated into English. Not his long articles on literary theory, nor his short stories, reviews, poems or romantic novels. Milestones and his article on America are carted out as proof of him being the "godfather of jihadism" which he wasn't.

>>22529897
>The kids are joining neoNazis and ISIS because nobody ever handed them a guitar or bothered to comprehend a meaning for their lives
I was in Europe when the ISIS wave happened and that's not the reason people became ISIS sympathisers or went and actually joined them. It mostly had to do with politics and the failure of the Arab Spring.

[Anonymous No.22529971]

>>22529850
No you retard it's just a reactionary response to the gynoterrorist elite.
Islam is right about women but wrong about poly relationships. It's possible to separate the wheat from the animal slop.

[Anonymous No.22529976]

>>22529937
>why would someone go to prison?

He tried to assassinate the head of state who was also a communist.

[Anonymous No.22529979]

>>22529971
Do you think sexual insecurity might be the literal center of your worldview? Because it sure looks like that.

[Anonymous No.22529985]

>>22529569
How Islam became radical and political in the Middle East is something very specific to that region. Nothing like it has happened in the Christian world and probably never will. Looking for a Christian version of Qutb is as pointless as trying to find a Jewish version of Augustine or Luther. Qutb was a product of his time, Cold War third worldism and the 1940s and 50s.

>>22529976
There's no real evidence Qutb was actually involved in an assasination plot. It's generally agreed upon that Nasser fabricated the plot to crack down on his political rivals. In fact, Qutb was allegedly offered a reprieve if he publically repudiated his views.

[Anonymous No.22529990]

>>22529985
You are wrong, Islam has very political strains throughout Africa as well as in the Caucuses and as far East as Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philosophy

[Anonymous No.22529993]

>>22529990
*Philippines

Also these regions are all much more relevant to political Islam than the Middle East is at the moment

[Anonymous No.22530002]

>>22529990
Fair enough but political Islam comes out of developments within the Muslim world. So you can't expect there to be a Christian equivalent somewhere.

[Anonymous No.22530008]

>>22530002
But secularism comes out of developments within the Christian world

[Anonymous No.22530011]

>>22529569
kent hovind

[Anonymous No.22530025]

>>22529993
Not that anon

are you familiar with the rise of jihadism in the 20th century? it is well documented and recent. It began in Egypt as a countercolonial movement. Qutb was mostly sitting in jail using his giant brain to theologically kill his enemies. He succeeded in advancing an argument about the necessity of defending the ulema that could relax some tactical and ethical restrictions within Islamic just war theory.

In particular he had to think of a way he could be allowed to revolt against the ostensibly Muslim authorities in Egypt's practically secular government.

Then the Muslom Brotherhood and associates took this up and it spread to Saudi, Palestine and Afghanistan.

Jihadi Islam is a very tiny and particular fringe theology on geopolitical steroids. A great example of why thinkers should be fucking careful what they write.

[Anonymous No.22530054]

>>22529897
>How do we reach them anon? How do we tell them tha what they are really looking for is a serious reading habit or a creative pursuit?
Healthy families and relationships are a super huge factor that is seriously lacking. I'm a Zoomer myself and even though my Dad and Mom were(my Dad still is) countercultural radicals I had a great youth because of them. I had several moments when I was younger when I was curious about both Tranny shit and Alt-Right stuff and managed to get out of both by becoming a TradCath with a stable family and strong presonal and impersonal relationships with other people in the real world.
>The kids are joining neoNazis and ISIS because nobody ever handed them a guitar or bothered to comprehend a meaning for their lives. It's heartbreaking man.
Social Media combined with the death throes of the post-WWII socio-cultural order of the West. It's easier than ever to go online and talk to large numbers of like-minded people and craft ideological Markov chains that expand and either collapse fast due to radicalism or keep expanding.
As for the next one, it's the death throes of the post-WWII boomer bureacracy trying to desperately cling on to power, and as a result alienating and often times deliberately excluding young, particularly White or religious men from society. I got out of a public speaking class earlier today where we spent the whole time talking about diversity and inclusion in speech and making sure you aren't opressing or microagressing BIPOC, LGBTQIA2S+, or women, and policing yourself before you speak in public or private. Me and another student even got into an argument with some retarded half-Black guy who was butthurt that people in the past had complimented him on his speaking ability, thinking they were all racists backhandedly insulting him. We of course called him a retard for thinking every compliment he's ever received from a white person is racially coded before the professor called us ignorant and went on her own crazy rant. That's the tip of the iceberg and you can ask me anything about the batshit insanity of that class, but it gives you an idea.
>I came within inches of being sucked into full on traditional Catholic partisan madness.
I'll forever be surprised how diverse Catholic politics are and I'm thankful I never got pulled into the crazies.

[Anonymous No.22530060]

>>22529948
>"American Kharijites."
Don't Wahhabis/Salafis like the Kharijites?

[Anonymous No.22530073]

>>22530054
I apologize sir, I overcredited your mind in my rapid assay. I am ill positioned to gain by reading you.

[Anonymous No.22530105]

>>22530073
I was just in an insufferably woke college class, I've got a lot to say about this subject lol

[Anonymous No.22530110]

>>22530105
bro he just called you stupid

[Anonymous No.22530130]

>>22529976
And you think there have never been assassins in the West? Political dissidents getting locked up? It’s merely that in the West politics are not traditionally as intertwined with theology. Theology informs the state but it’s not synonymous with the state. For Muslims, Islam is the state and the Sharia is its law. The aristocrats are theologians. That’s just not how it works here.

[Anonymous No.22530160]

>>22530025
NTA Islamism and Jihadism aren't synonymous. What even is Jihadism? It's a vague neologism that doesn't make a lot of sense. Arguably, there's no such thing as jihadi ideology anyway.

>Qutb was mostly sitting in jail using his giant brain to theologically kill his enemies
He spent most of his time in prison working on his Quranic commentary, most of which had nothing to do with politics and even in his most radical writings he doesn't call for the open killing of his enemies. Qutb argued the defense of human freedom is an imperative and armed struggle can be used when freedom is infringed. In that sense he's no different to any other ideological radical at the time. In the Shade of the Quran, he does note that armed violence cannot be waged on innocent civilians, women, children or the elderly. What made Qutb controversial within the Muslim world was his claim that authoritarian rulers are not real Muslims, something the Brotherhood would actually reject not spread but would gain a lot of popularity in Shia Iran regardless.

>>22530060
No. Kharijite is like the word zealot. It has vague religious and historical meanings but is just a term of insult.

[Anonymous No.22530190]

>>22530110
I know anon, I know

[Anonymous No.22530206]

>>22530160
Thanks for your helpful and informative post. I have not studied Islam in years, I am very rusty. I did an intensive investigation into al-Qaeda back in the day to try and discover if Islam was violent or not.

My reading pointed everything to Qutb as the major origin of al Qaeda's just war theory.

Is what I said accurate? That Qutb needed to get around a ban on revolting againat the ostensibly Muslim Sadat/Nasr overnment? Did it have something to do with defending the ulema in some particular condition? Or how did he solve this problem?

I remember reading Zawahiri's 911 arguments in the Saudi Press, they argued the Pentagon and WTC were legitimate targets because they were symbols of the Satanic/jahilaya American government.

And I remember thinking ISIS looked like a radical break, something utterly new, that allowed for wholesale torture, rape and slaughter. Does that sound correct?

Thanks

[Anonymous No.22530293]

>>22529937
>>22529884
>>22529723
Realistically, the closest thing to Qutb would be someone from the Contrarian Tradcath sphere. Someone who saw intellectual heights, rejected them, and took up the most braindead literal positions possible. In the case of the Christian Qutb, he'd probably come from a Protestant background, he'd have a fedora tipping phase, go off to college, not hack it (due to his own mediocrity combined with the hostile Antiwhite regime), fall into Traditionalistmisticalist Catholicism, and then smuggle in as much Fundie nonsense as possible. I'm thinking this guy was really big on how FACTS and LOGIC can PWN creationists but never actually partook in those sorts of debates himself, so now that he's on the other end he sort of just regurgitates arguments from his fedora days but inverse; lots of "we don't have any evidence that Julius Caesar existed" sort of stuff.

The trouble with this comparison is that literalism in Islam is farm more deeply woven into its hermeneutics. Christianity has been fighting against actually doing what its founder said since day 1. The things that Christians actually like are all holdovers from Paganism, and taking Jesus's words literally isn't conducive to the massive sort of bureaucratic, political, and legal apparatus that results form taking the Quran literally. On top of that, Qutb was reacting against the imposition of Liberalism upon his society, and he was backing an existing Islamic establishment that had people who were willing to engage in such a project.

By contrast, Christianity and Liberalism are deeply intertwined, and Christian opposition to Liberalism is basically dead in the water. Every Christian institution and all of their adherents have gone full steam ahead on Liberalism and Progressivism. It's telling that modern tradcath larpery about monarchy this and the enlightenment that was started by a Jew. There's simply no audience for Christian Qutb in the way that there was for Qutb himself.

[Anonymous No.22530450]

>>22530293
Your mind is uncannily similar to mine. I think I have been reading you in several threads.

I could have written a lot of these sentences, and your outbursting zaniness is exactly my sense of humor and kick.

I've been ranting and fuming a bunch of outrageous anti-Catholicism everywhere, I think I have argued with you and agreed with you several times.

[Anonymous No.22530737]

>>22530206
Qutb was an influence on Al-Qaeda but he isn't some ideological godfather they strictly adhere to. Al-Qaeda's justification for its war lie in Bin Laden's fatwas where he puts forward a legal argument that killing American civillians is necessary and that the US and other Western countries are legitimate targets for attack. I don't think he cites Qutb once in any of those fatwas. He claimed that since the US kills civilians then it is necessary for AQ to do the same. The Quranic prohibition of killing innocents doesn't apply because of the realities of modern warfare. This is simmilar to the justifications for bombing Hiroshima, the other side is so bad we have no choice but to kill their civilians till they give up (somethinb OBL brought up in an interview). Its dressed up as a religious argument, and a flimsy one at that, but it really isn't one.

>I remember reading Zawahiri's 911 arguments in the Saudi Press, they argued the Pentagon and WTC were legitimate targets because they were symbols of the Satanic/jahilaya American government.
They all use rhetoric borrowed from Qutb and all look up to him more or less. But he's not some Karl Marx or Lenin type figure who their obsessed with following to the letter. They have their own beliefs, motivations and twisted justifications. Zawahiri was part of a group that split off the Brotherhood in the 70s. So Qutb was an important figure for him.

> ISIS looked like a radical break, something utterly new, that allowed for wholesale torture, rape and slaughter.
Unlike AQ, which is really just evolved out of a small group around Bin Laden and Zawahiri, ISIS claims to be a state and was a centralized hierarchical organization with its own theology, doctrine and law which it imposes. All of which evolved out of al-Zarqawi's group in Iraq and the bloody secterian war there after the US invasion.

ISIS is more of a fascist type movement or they resemble extreme religious Zionists in Israel. To them, anyone who doesn't give an oath of loyalty to their leader is an unbeliever and therefore killable. Everyone is an enemy and there's no possibility for co-existance. Cleansing the earth of unbelievers is a good deed. Gory videos of beheadings and torture come from the Iraq war era but ISIS took things to another level. It's not uncommon for armed groups to use brutality to intimidate people. American soldiers often beheaded or collected body parts of Japanese soldiers in WW2. The British used public displays of rape, torture and beheading to intimidate people in Malaya and Cyprus. Liberain rebels disfigured people or disembowled pregnant women. What makes ISIS different is the way they broadcast it through social media rather than hide it. Why? Despite appearances ISIS couldn't really attack the West except for occasional bombings, stabbings or shooting. So their only way of getting back at Americans was to chop someone up on camera and post it online.

[Anonymous No.22530750]

>>22529569
The actual answer to this post is Charles Maurras. I am very glad to see that I still completely brainmog all of you pseuds on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.22530764]

>>22529569

[Anonymous No.22530767]

>>22530750
did MAurras provide the ideological foundations for nihilistic christian terrorists?

[Anonymous No.22530788]

>>22530767
Is that how you think of Qutb? I don't really agree with that interpretation.

[Anonymous No.22530862]

>>22530025
Only a pure blooded and perfect moron would think jihad started in the 20th Century. From fighting the Arab pagans and invading Christian Syria until the Ottoman Empire, jihad was considered core to the religion. It only disappeared for a while because the Muslim stayed were dismembered by western invasions (Euro jihad)

[Anonymous No.22530882]

>>22530737
I wouldn't say ISIS was fascist as much as it was reactionary given their ambition was explicitly anti-national, theocratic, and anti-modern on all levels, three things that are objectively not fascist.
I'd say the Taliban are the only real Islamo-Fascists, they are very similar to the Iron Guard in several regards.

[Anonymous No.22530905]

>>22530206
You have never read Bin Laden. He thought the White House and pentagon were legitimate targets because duh hitting political and military leadership is completely legitimate in war. The WTC he said was a major nerve center for funding America and Israel and therefore destroying it was no less legitimate than bombing a factory during war despite civilians working there

[Anonymous No.22530907]

>>22530862
>(Euro jihad)
The last Euro Jihad were the crusades. Modern imperialism has basically nothing to do with it, even though it loves to wear all kinds of lofty clothes.

[Anonymous No.22530917]

>>22530907
That’s completely false. Christian missionary work and spreading western liberalism were major elements to European imperialism

[Anonymous No.22530921]

>>22530907
People tend to forget that the post-WWI division of the Ottoman Empire's holdings into European mandates was really a result of slapdash and awkward temporary fixes for a complicated geopolitical situation as opposed to legitimate imperial ambition.

[Anonymous No.22530934]

>>22530921
European occupation of other lands, including the Middle East, hardly started with WWI. French occupation of Muslim North Africa long predated WWI and didn’t end until after WWII

[Anonymous No.22530935]

>>22530917
The wars were not waged for the purpose of missionary work - this was incidental and peripheral. Imperialism came into being for economic reasons and because the first empires caused a security dilemma on the old continent.
>>22530921
I don't know if I would go that far. The post-WW1 arrangement was a mess by all accounts because there were all kinds of ambitions going into it - liberal-pacifist, imperialistic, stability-oriented etc. But WW1 was certainly the sunset of even that liberal-economistic imperialism.

[Anonymous No.22530952]

>>22530935
Missionary work and spreading liberalism were the main justifications. If you want to reduce every war or every political action in history to “economic considerations” then you certainly can. You might even argue if I paint my home a certain color it has only to do with property value and so on. But then you will have to write off Bin Laden himself as only motivated by economic considerations, since he felt that America and Israel are motivated by that and causing damage to their markets and economy was the best was to fight back against their business interests

[Anonymous No.22530983]

>>22530882
The Taliban are closer to the Amish or Menonites except they formed in a war torn country and became more militant and controlling. Their like the radical puritan movements you can see during the Reformation. The American war has changed them significantly but I don't know enough about the Iron Guard to comapre them. ISIS is anti-national but they treat Muslims as a nation sort of how Zionists see Jews as a nation in need of a state and land. They describe themsleves as "THE Islamic state" the way Israel calls itself a Jewish state. They have an anthem, and stick the word Islamic on everything. They describe Muslims as a nation in their propaganda. They issue identity cards and break the world up into Muslim and non-Muslim. Their like Muslim Kahanists but on steroids.

>>22530907
To say that modern imperialism had nothing to do with it is demonstrably false. Greviance against US or French etc injustices in the region come up again and again. Take Bin Laden, he argued that religion necessitated an armed response to American imperialism. US and Saudi injustices are so terrible, Muslims are religiously required to resist violently. In court, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed insisted that 9/11 was a "necessary defensive measure" in response to US imperialism. None of these people say "the West exists so we must attack it." Again, this was something Bin Laden ridiculed in his videos.

>>22530921
The real myth is that the European powers carved up the area without regard for ethnic or religious populations living there. In other words, Sunni and Shia or Kurds and Arabs can't live together but the mandates forced them together. Many of the borders are roughly simmilar to the old Ottoman administrative borders. The British and French engineered their colonies to be dependant forever. They would export one or two basic resources to the mother country (like oil or cotton) and too internally weak and divided to have any real power. Why does Iraq have such narrow access to the Gulf? So they don't become a maritime trade power. Why does Lebanon's borders look the way they do? So that a Francophone Catholic minority would dominate the country and act as permanant French client state in the Mediterranean. They were countries set up to fail. The nation-state model is terrible for a region where there's a lot of demographic diversity and no clear majorities. It forced ethic and religious groups to fight each other or ethnically cleanse one another to create a pure national state and hold on to more territory. This is one of the things that make Al-Qaeda and ISIS appealing. Their desire to abolish the old borders and their ability to get people of different ethnic groups and tribes working together.

[Anonymous No.22530998]

>>22530905
I read a paperback called "the al Qaeda reader" six or seven years ago.

I remember a piece, not a fatwa, an argument published in a Saudi Paper by Zawihiri, as I say. It indeed argued the buildings themselves were legit targets and the civilians collateral damage.

I'm not a bullshitter you dickhead some of us still have self respect

[Anonymous No.22531009]

>>22530998
The Al-Qaeda reader was published by Raymond Ibrahim. A notorious anti-Islam paleoconservative fanatic. If you want a good source try Bruce Lawrence's Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden. The introduction is very good and mostly accurate and objective, minus one or two flaws.

[Anonymous No.22531021]

>>22530293
>Christianity and Liberalism are deeply intertwined
You mean de-facto or by principle?

[Anonymous No.22531028]

>>22530983
>The Taliban are closer to the Amish or Menonites except they formed in a war torn country
What differentiates the Taliban from other Islamist movements/regimes is the explicitly ethnic nationalist elements in their ideology revolving around palingenetic ultranationalism as a result of Soviet and later American wars destroying all of pre-1978 Afghanistan's institutions outside of the faith, tribe, and military. They are a group by and for the Pashtuns and want to assimilate all the people in Afghanistan into Pahstun culture as well as one day retake Khyber from Pakistan.
> They have an anthem, and stick the word Islamic on everything. They describe Muslims as a nation in their propaganda. They issue identity cards and break the world up into Muslim and non-Muslim. Their like Muslim Kahanists but on steroids.
Again, the racial/ethnic/geographic element of their ideology and ambitions makes them not fascist but neo-reactionary.

[Anonymous No.22531079]

>>22531028
The Taliban are a predominantly Pashtun movement but they never started out as ethnic Pashtun nationalists. The ethnic component was far less important than the religious element. If you look at the major Taliban writings in the 90s and early 2000s, they say virtually nothing about a great Pashtun nation. A reason for that is Pashtun nationalism is pretty secular and by the 1980s an irrelvant and unpopular ideology. The Taliban have closer ties with a kind of degenerated Deobandism practiced in the North West Frontier of Pakistan and figures like Fazlur Rahman and people associate with Dar al-Ulum Haqqania. That Dar al-Ulum was always a hadith centric place where the rational and philosophical elements of the Dars-i Nizami were cut out of the curriculum. The Taliban under Mullah Omar combined this psuedo-Deobandism with elements of Iranian and Saudi ideology. In the past they were more concerned with applying their puritan ideology to all Afghans, regardless of religious differences which is what led to conflict with the Shia. I've seen lots of ideological Taliban supporters and none of them really care about ethnic nationalism or even talk about it. Have zero interest in a Pashtun state. The Taliban publish their propaganda in multiple languages and aren't obsessed with ideas of race or ethnicity.

[Anonymous No.22531086]

>>22531028
The Taliban are a predominantly Pashtun movement but they never started out as ethnic Pashtun nationalists. The ethnic component was far less important than the religious element. If you look at the major Taliban writings in the 90s and early 2000s, they say virtually nothing about a great Pashtun nation. A reason for that is Pashtun nationalism is pretty secular and by the 1980s an irrelvant and unpopular ideology. The Taliban have closer ties with a kind of degenerated Deobandism practiced in the North West Frontier of Pakistan and figures like Fazlur Rahman and people associate with Dar al-Ulum Haqqania. That Dar al-Ulum was always a hadith centric place where the rational and philosophical elements of the Dars-i Nizami were cut out of the curriculum. The Taliban under Mullah Omar combined this psuedo-Deobandism with elements of Iranian and Saudi ideology. In the past they were more concerned with applying their puritan ideology to all Afghans, regardless of religious differences which is what led to conflict with the Shia. I've seen lots of ideological Taliban supporters and none of them really care about ethnic nationalism or even talk about it. Have zero interest in a Pashtun state. The Taliban publish their propaganda in multiple languages and aren't obsessed with ideas of race or ethnicity. It doesn't appear in their writing either, although they'll drone on about how Afghans are all pious Muslims etc.

>the racial/ethnic/geographic element of their ideology and ambitions makes them not fascist but neo-reactionary.
Semantics at this point but fine we'll agree to disagree. ISIS is a really strange movement that doesn't have a lot of counterparts.

[Anonymous No.22531153]

>>22529569
This dude went to an American college town in the 1950s and it literally made him go insane.

[Anonymous No.22531159]

>>22529979
Just because a man doesn’t want his high school sweetheart reamed by the entire San Francisco 49ers you go right to “baa baa INSECURE CHUD”

Real tiresome

>>22529897
I mean I’m 41 and more reactionary than I was twenty years ago

>>22529723
I kind of fall into that category

[Anonymous No.22531181]

>>22530952
>Missionary work and spreading liberalism were the main justifications.
In what circles, and what kind of liberalism? Ideas of enlightened government were generally much more popular, especially in Britain. The whole idea of a 'mandate' is just that. "We govern in your stead while you prepare yourself for democratic self-rule." Not very jihad-like.
I can't say much on Bin Laden as I am not very familiar with him. My impression is that he didn't have a very clear understanding of politics and lashed out in the simplest way conceivable at an enemy he truly hated.
>>22530983
>To say that modern imperialism had nothing to do with it is demonstrably false.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I meant that modern imperialism has nothing to do with "Euro (!) jihad". Modern imperialism likes to pretend it has noble, spiritual aspirations, but more typically is economic or opportunistic. Modern imperialism is not jihadistic, that is to say, a holy war. European ideas of holy war fell out of favour in the early modern period.

[Anonymous No.22531220]

[Anonymous No.22531224]

>>22531153
>me but a Slav studying in London
Literally left me mindbroken.

[Anonymous No.22531230]

>>22531159
>Just because a man doesn’t want his high school sweetheart reamed by the entire San Francisco 49ers you go right to “baa baa INSECURE CHUD”
Sounds like she got ''49
>I'm 41
Being a Zoomer with a Gen-X parent I've noticed this trend among a lot of Gen-Xers. They've grown very conservative lately.

[Anonymous No.22531244]

>>22531224
>me but a tradcath studying at a community college in MN
Nothing radicalizes the religious rightward quite like literally any personal experience with higher education in the West

[Anonymous No.22531261]

>>22531244
Honestly, it's the society here that drives me mad. You're allowed to deconstruct everything, everything is fair game. Nothing at all is held sacred, or even considered moderately respectable. Everything can be spat upon and dissected. Western higher education is kind of interesting though, if you learn its methods but refuse to accept its principles you become a 100% certified weirdo. Since coming here I have drifted very much to the right, but I have also picked up quite a few tricks from leftist schools like postmodernism etc.
Good luck with your studies my friend. I like to think of it like this: if you ingest the poison voluntarily, you can turn it into medicine and master its use, develop an immunity to it. It really makes you stronger. But you need strength and conviction to be able to both cede ground and take ground as you adapt and master the new methods.

[Anonymous No.22531285]

>>22529979
Hebrew claws typed this post

[Anonymous No.22531329]

>>22531261
I already did before going to the school, the school is just confirming all my worst preconceived notions and stereotypes about it. It's nice getting up close and personal with the culture and system however. It feels like a weird mirror version of the school from The Wall, except instead of a stoic patriarch literally beating you into accepting his musings it's a bunch of insecure middle-aged white women emotionally manipulating you and everyone else into compliance or else they destroy your reputation and make you persona non-grata. Funny how times change.

[Anonymous No.22531358]

>>22531285
hear me out

Satan is a Jew Patrolman... they had to make him so they could blame Jews for not converting to their Monstrosity-Religion (Elaine Pagels' argument). The Trinity is a fucking Abomination, it gained traction by declaring anyone who opposed it an evil demonic Jew loving heretic.

Then they expanded Satan into the trickster deceiver that tempted others. Augustine had to rebrand the serpent as Satan, all the sneakiness of the snake image got transferred to Satan. It does not fucking help that the snake is phalic so that Christians literally have sinister penises crawling around their minds.

Then the New Testament Jew lover Satan got fused with the sneaky snake. Satan is the cause of Jewish "stubborn pride" and also kinky sex.

Is this the origin of the association of Jews with the "homosexual agenda"? That could certainly be a modern version of Satan. As I said, Devils=Jews=heretics in the Christian mind.

Christianity continues to exercise enormous influence over the minds of western people. They are still haunted by the idea of the demonic thought, the demonic impulse. And most importantly, they associate Satan with doubt itself (reason).

A mind that labels some of its halls "Devil's Voice" is indeed haunted by the Devil.

[Anonymous No.22531421]

>>22530060
No as the Kharijites, or as they called themselves the Muhakkima or al-Haruriyya, are a largely extinct sect who even rejected the Caliphates of Uthman (ra) and Ali (ra). They persist only in Oman through their most moderate sect, the Ibadis. When non-Salafis call Salafis Kharijites (or for that matter when any Muslim calls another Muslim a Kharijite), they are saying that that Muslim or group of Muslims is far too liberal in their use of takfir. Takfir, or the declaration that someone who was a Muslim is now an apostate, is seen as a very serious charge meant to be applied under very stringent circumstances. Salafis will deny they do this, and while I don't think all Salafis do this, there is a reason they have this negative reputation among non-Salafi Muslims. That and the fact that so many of their groups are so clearly funded by some federal agency or another, but that's also true of other groups that oppose Salafism under the banner of "Moderate Islam".

[Anonymous No.22531430]

>>22531421
Ah. So it's basically the same thing as calling a Protestant a hyper-calvinist or a Catholic sedevecantist. Got it.

[Anonymous No.22531455]

>>22531430
Not really, there isn't exactly a Christian equivalent to the Kharijites. They're a completely separate sect from both Sunnis and Shias. It would be more like if there was a semi-Catholic group that believed only the first three Popes were valid Popes and every other Christian group was destined for hell eternally. Idk maybe the Donatists would be the closest Christian group.

[Anonymous No.22531469]

>>22531455
Khawarij believe all of the first caliphates were apostates including Ali. Most Muslim sects have no analogy to Christianity. A Christian equivalent to Shia for example would say Mary was a whore and a witch and Peter usurped leadership from John etc. Khawarij would go even further and agree with this but also say John is an apostate as well.

[Anonymous No.22531494]

>>22531455
>>22531469
WTF? Why are Muslim sects so retarded?

[Anonymous No.22531495]

>>22531469
Kharijites largely accepted the the Caliphates of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra), idk if by "Khawarij believe all of the first caliphates were apostates including Ali" you mean to say they rejected Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) as well because they did not believe that.

[Anonymous No.22531508]

>>22531495
The rafida came out of the khawrij so it is fair to say some must have thought that. The rafida and the khawarij only separated over the issue of Ali being an apostate or not

[Anonymous No.22531509]

>>22531494
I mean in fairness like I said the Kharijites barely exist anymore, even the Ibadis deny their connection to the Kharijites. The reason it's such a potent insult is because they are largely reviled to this day for killing many Muslims (Ali (ra) in particular). I would say pretty much every other sect (other than the ghulat sects, who were even more retarded) is less retarded than the Kharijites were/are.

[Anonymous No.22531522]

>>22531508
I see you are a scholar of the madhab of MI6. You forgot to spell the word rafida in some overly exaggerated way that no Arabic speaker would, like rawfidha or something like that. The Khawarij considered the rulings of Umar (ra) to very highly in particular, and there are no records that present the Kharijites in the way you view them. Or the early Shia for that matter.

[Anonymous No.22531566]

>>22531522
The khawarij killed Uthman specifically to set Ali up as caliphate. They were partisans of Ali against Utahan's house (which included A'siha, Abu Bakr's daughter, and Abu Bakr was part of that house). Muawiya later took over that house and when Ali made a peace settlement with him based on arbitration rather than fighting a prolonged war, the khawrij turned on Ali and declared him an apostate and killed him. The faction which supported killing Uthman but not Ali were called the Rafida, which means rejectors, as in they rejected the caliphates prior to Ali. Sorry if that triggers you

Rawfidha is probably spelled that way by some to reflect the phonetics since the letter ر and the letter
ض do not have precise English equivalents, they are only transliterated as r and d in a rough sense.

[Anonymous No.22531600]

>>22531566
Yes the Kharijites did support Ali, so did the Sunnis, does that make the Sunnis a breakoff sect from the Shia?

[MereAnon No.22531614]

>>22529993
Augustinian Just War Theory conquered Muslim Philippines can be applied elswhere until formerly Christian Carthage under Saint Augustine reverts to Christianity from Islam.

>In a twist of Poetic Justice. California (Which means Female Caliph in the Legend of Esplandia) which once only was a legend, became reality when Agustin de Legaspi's family who's wife was of the Bruneian Royal Family[8] and only known heir to the assassinated Legitimist Sultan Pengiran Salalila, and descended from Caliphs as they are of Sharifate blood, visited California on the way to Mexico and the center of power of the Mexican War of Independence against Spain was also, Guerrero, Mexico were many Filipinos were exiled to, making reality the only once legend of Esplandia on California when a Calipha's family set foot on California. Agustin de Legaspi's previous Islamic Muhammad Zahir al-Din name was changed when he adopted the Christian name of Agustin from Saint Augustine, the writer of the Book "City of God", of the New Jerusalem, meant to punish Fallen Old Jeruslam (Whore of Babylon), set up the future foundations of the Earthly manifestation of the City of God, Filipinas, as it is written in the Bible that the names of the Apostles where to be set in Pearly Gates, and coincidentally Philippines is named after King Philip II of Spain, who himself is named after Philip the Apostle of Christ and the Philippines is romantically known as the Pearl of the Orient. The Mixed Christian-Muslim families of newly Hispanized former Bruneian Philippines who were exiled to the Americas were on opposite sides on the issue of slavery compared to their Crypto-Muslim and Crypto-Jewish mixed Christian-Muslim and Christian-Jewish Spanish co-religionists, the Crypto-Jews and Crypto-Muslims supported slavery in the Americas done against African-Americans and Native Americans[9] whereas the Mixed Christian-Muslims of the Filipinos exiled in the Americas were firmly in support of Native American and African struggles against slavery.[10][11]

[Anonymous No.22531615]

>>22531600
Sunnis didn’t support killing Uthman however. The khawarij are largely defined as the sect that killed Uthman, and later Ali. Those who were involved in the former but not the later broke away and became rafida

[Anonymous No.22531644]

>>22531615
The first group that created confusion on the matter were people who believed Ali (ra) was involved in the murder of Uthman (ra) and fought Ali (ra) in order to supposedly avenge Uthman (ra). Later those who supported the killing of Uthman (ra) supported Ali (ra) because they believed these false reports that he supported Uthman's (ra) killing. They rejected Ali (ra) after they realized he did not in fact support the killing of other Muslims and wanted unity in the ummah. Shias, who largely formulated a separate identity in Kufa, were not involved in the Kharijite movement in the slightest. Like it said, the Kharijites supported the Caliphates of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra). They relied on Umar (ra) especially for rulings on certain matters. Not exactly rafida behavior. Their texts all support this idea.

[Anonymous No.22531658]

>>22531644
No one thought Ali was involved. The issue was whether or not Ali would hand over those who were. Ali said he would hand them over but required recognition of his authority first. Muawiyya and A’isha said he had to hand them over before they would recognize his authority.

The khawarij began with the killing of Uthman, which rafida considered a righteous act. Many of those involved or supported it were partisans of Ali—in fact they are were. The point of the killing was to establish Ali as caliph since with Uthman gone he would be a shoe in. The Muslims involved in this or supporting it later split into the khawarij and Rafida

[Anonymous No.22531689]

>>22531658
>No one thought Ali was involved
Some among the Banu Umayya believed this.
>The issue was whether or not Ali would hand over those who were
This is a technically correct statement yes.
>The khawarij began with the killing of Uthman, which rafida considered a righteous act. Many of those involved or supported it were partisans of Ali—in fact they are were. The point of the killing was to establish Ali as caliph since with Uthman gone he would be a shoe in. The Muslims involved in this or supporting it later split into the khawarij and Rafida
Like I said the Shia were not involved in these events as they were largely centered around Kufa and not entirely a sect so much as a group of mawalis and other groups that grew to oppose the Banu Umayya as they revolted against Ali (ra). In the early days they very likely did not reject the previous Caliphs uniformly, this seems to not be a prominent view among them as late as the Zayd ibn Ali's revolt against the Umayyads. Even if we were to assume I am wrong in believing this, as it is debated among scholars of the period, you still haven't explained why Kharijite texts exclusively accepted the Caliphates of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra), using Umar's (ra) opinions in their juristic rulings in particular, if they were supposedly the progenitors of the rafida. You can look at Ibadi texts and surviving accounts of the accounts of the beliefs of non-Ibadi Kharijites to confirm this fact.

[MereAnon No.22531727]

>>22531358
You need Shaytan to bring out your best debater, best fighter, best philosopher in you. An adversary to spar with.

Just how Spain's Captains where labelled with the Arabic tinged term Adalid. And the Rajah in Philippine culture is merely a power broker in some Precolonial kingdoms but in other cultures means King.

Mahardika in India-Indonesia but Maharlika in Philippinized Sanskrit.

Maka-Tao.

[Anonymous No.22531793]

>>22531727
What does this general point about Satan have to do with my argument in the post you are replying to. It seems irrelevant to anything I described.

[Anonymous No.22532472]

>>22531358
>Elaine Pagel
opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.22533460]

>>22532472
Please tell me all about why you didn't like Pagel's book on Satan. Oh, you didn't read it? Then go away.

Oh, you have an opinion to share? You are clever and know things? You have Google? Ah, you best Pagels then. Of course. We are all fools to you and your mighty wits and their great reach.

[Anonymous No.22533469]

>>22533460
fuck off dimwit for even suggesting a woman on a religious matter (or any matter really). her biography starts with her renouncing faith because the pastor tell her that a dead jewish friend would not go to heaven. how can a story be more stereotypically american?

[Anonymous No.22533549]

>>22533469
There is no biography of Elaine Pagel in print. Thanks for regurgitating your Wikipedia trivia to me, I had no idea where to get such information and see you are indeed well versed on the subject.

[Anonymous No.22533696]

>>22533549
it is her biographic narrative even if it is not published in a book. go take her books and stuff the pages in your ass if you're so into reading the modern female academic™.

[Anonymous No.22533718]

>>22533696
I am mistaken, I did not realize she published a memoir in 2018. I don't know much about her, I read her book to learn about the history of Satan. I apologize for accusing you of ripping wikipedia information and stating she had no biography in print.

I am not particularly feminist. There are a lot of excellent lady scholars. I think it is incredibly stupid of you to be so dismissive of half of humanity's thoughts.

Have some respect, at least for your mother.

[Anonymous No.22533739]

>>22533718
I apologize for my aggressive tone.

>Have some respect, at least for your mother.
I respect my mother as a mother. no further further respect is correct to give by me here.

[Anonymous No.22533770]

I'm not sure if there are christian equivalents of alqueda with equivalent ideologues like qutb. They were uniquely nihilistic

[Anonymous No.22533814]

>>22533739
Do you roll your eyes and chide your mother's stupid opinions? Try to stop. It hurts her and makes her afraid to share her thoughts.

Look for the intelligence in what people say, not the stupidity on their faces.

[Anonymous No.22533854]

>>22533814
>makes her afraid to share her thoughts.
life is not so much about thoughts. it is about order.

[Anonymous No.22533889]

>>22533854
w-what?

So do you forbid her from speaking? You are a very strange man

[Anonymous No.22533920]

>>22533469
Not every American is a woman. OP asked for Christian equivalents. It would be a bible belter like me. Sneed.

[Anonymous No.22533925]

>>22531230
41 isn’t technically Gen X but very early millennial despite me mostly identifying with Gen X more closely.