[flagged]
Remind me, what happened in Iran in 1953?
It is also common knowledge [1] that more-pious followers of Islam - particularly in Middle Eastern countries - are considerably more receptive to Islam's more radical teachings and commands on the topic of the treatment towards non-believers (which makes up the bulk of Western nation populations), than Jewish or Christian followers are to their respective religion's teaching and commands in regards to the same.
1 - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-m...
Which "radical" teachings exactly? And the citation you posted says nothing of such claim either way.
You are also mistaken, the Pew Research study explicitly lays out the percentages of individuals within Islam that believe in the death penalty for apostasy. For example, in Egypt, 86% of Muslims who favored making Sharia official law supported the death penalty for apostasy; in Jordan, it was 82%; in Afghanistan, 79%.
Hardly a reasonable take. Indeed, Sharia Law is a dog-whistle in Western nation talks, but that's a luxury on our part. It's a very real belief for a very real cohort of people, however distant they are from enacting action on us today.
Ottomans even had favorable view of homosexuality, before Ibn Saud and his interpretation of Islam became a thing.
Apostasy in classical Islamic scholarship is equivalent to treason - which many present day non-Muslim countries have the capital punishment for. Scholars have discussed this topic in detail, not every apostate has this applied to them.
I'm glad we could point out pedantic semantics - if you want to be outdone, "sharia" means "way". Nonetheless, "Sharia Law" is a term that means something in jargon and in colloquial, and it is understood to most (serious inquirers) as a mechanation of law, typically from a governing body, that is inspired and sourced by a mix of verses in the Qur'an, prophetic tradition, hadiths, and scholarly consensus between all aforementioned elements.
>"Now tell me what did you read about what it dictates form its believers?"
At least try to be genuine, please:
Surah 5:51: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them."
Surah 9:5: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way."
The Jizya verse is all about sanctioning religious "freedom" and only even tolerating "People of the Book" outside Islam if they pay a special tax called a jizya.
And yes! To your point: "Apostasy in classical Islamic scholarship is equivalent to treason", it is with this belief that Islam is not predicated upon any belief of religious freedom - Western values are. Their beliefs are further predicated upon commands to treat People of The Book (Christians and Jews) with less-than-desirable behaviors, all of which I sourced above. We can talk about bans on places of worship and criminalizing proselytization outside of Islam if you're somehow not convinced?
But in any case, unless you want to play the excuse that Christians and Jews do from the other side of the aisle when they say that this was directed to a certain people at a certain time - which carries its own enormous pragmatic and theological flaws (and is often at great detriment to Muslims when logically exercised) - it is not possible to call the beliefs of a pious Muslim compatible with traditional Western Values. And this is just me appealing to the pragmatic, such conclusions follow logically what a pious Muslim's more-extreme beliefs are for religiously-tolerant cultures, and their beliefs towards the people that make them up.
Western values separated themselves from several beliefs demanded by the Christianity religions that inspired them. They self-governed and organically evolved beyond several parts of their source material (homosexuality and sodomy, slavery, religious violence, working on the sabbath, forced assimilation, torture and wartime measures, textile production).
Shocking, right? Almost like it's possible...
Do you really want me to cite what israel has been doing for the past 75+ years and justified it from their own books? What did milekowsky literally say in one of his recent speeches?
> slavery
Still exists, but it changed forms.
> religious violence
Also still exists, but is a bit more concealed
forced assimilation,
See: europe
> torture and wartime measures
American and israeli war crimes are very well documented, and continue to this day
You're clearly well-versed enough in this site's UX/UI to follow comments across a thread, presumably you saw my comment conceding Israel as a problem state now, as well:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47912061
>"American and israeli war crimes are very well documented, and continue to this day"
Yeah, so are those from Islamic States. But American war crimes didn't include sanctioning rape for prisoners of war for its history, and had a lot more regulation and moral reservations for pillage and conquest. A pretty good start - hopefully it evolves from here.
>They self-governed and organically evolved beyond several parts of their source material
Ah yes, wars, revolutions, general strikes, all famously acts of self-governance.
And it's my worldview needing refinement?
I wish you luck.
That's but one of its meanings. Arabic is a very rich language, and the word and its derivatives are used in the context of "canon".
As far as your citations, this has been responded to countless times [1]
Regarding Jizya, If you were being honest, you would know that (1) Muslims are reqired to pay more because of Zakat, (2) Jizya is only required from able males who can serve in the army, in exchange for them not serving. Women, children, elderly, and priests (regardless of age) are not required to pay the Jizya. You will find many occurrences in Islamic history where it was forgiven due to circumstances - read about cases involving the 2nd Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab for example.
> with this belief that Islam is not predicated upon any belief of religious freedom
The Quran (which you cited when you thought it served your incorrect claims), Hadiths, and classical Islamic scholarship all refute this claim. Not to mention reality - Christian/Syriac people that exist in Muslims majority lands are but one example that prove that Islam enforces freedom of belief. Jews exist in Iran[2][3] who were bombed by israel, but you won't find it in the news.I bet you have not come across these Hadith before [4][5][6]
> all of which I sourced above.
No you did not.
> We can talk about bans on places of worship
Nope. Proof: churches and synagogues exist in Muslim lands, such as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and (wait for it) Iran.
> it is not possible to call the beliefs of a pious Muslim compatible with traditional Western Values.
This is one thing we agree on. Classical liberal western values are at odds with Islam. The former has changed over time to fit the latest fad of the day; the latter is fixed at the core and root, while having branches flexible enough to encompass the needs of changing times and geographies.
[1] https://imgur.com/a/rG0ivUR
[2] https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2041531958304403746
[3] https://x.com/BBN_Press/status/2047077899790962736
[4] https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6914
So you can agree calling out someone for fair-read Arabic semantics is shallow, gratuitous and often grandstanding? Great! Look at us, stranger: Making progress.
>RE: Jiyza, Zakat
Zakat was almost never more than Jizya in practice. Zakat is also the act of charitable giving to the poor, Jizya is state-collection of funds - even during Rashidun Caliphate's times. It was a tax, with threats of state-sponsored violence when not complied with. Deals regarding Jizya were made as non-believing groups were conquered (if you believe this somehow helps your case) and didn't follow a uniform standard, but were typically on a MUST-PAY basis, unlike Zakat - which could be forgiven for impoverished persons and other circumstances.
>"[1]"
I haven't the time nor the inclination to debate clearly textualist passages in a religious text, when some religious scholar tries interpreting them "purposively" to make them more palatable to ANY audience, particularly modern ones. If you do, more power to you.
>"[2], [3]"
2's last sentence is fiercely at odds with 3's position - and these are single rabbi claims. I'm not sure what I'm looking at here?
>"No you did not."
Did you want your verses via Sunnah URL? Lol.
>"[4], [5]"
A Mu'ahid is a may-issue protection and there are plenty of believers and People of The Book that are not granted such protection, because it is an explicit and protected procedure - that requires ACTIVE action (covenant, treaty, or pledge). It is often a coerced agreement made with MUCH concessions required from the protected. And to add, its protection is not passively or implicitly granted, nor shall-issued. It is also not required of Islamic States to conscript, or to implement.
>"[6]"
Noble verse, not sure what it illuminates here though? That the Qur'an has the occasional good take?
>"Nope. Proof: churches and synagogues exist in Muslim lands, such as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and (wait for it) Iran."
Cherry-picking. "What do you mean there are minority lynchings??? I see plenty of them alive and well, working in fields!"
>"This is one thing we agree on."
Well with any reading comprehension, you'll know my position that a pious Muslim's beliefs are incompatible with traditional Western values is the entire purpose of my position and my underlying justification for each and every comment I've left in this chain - that DIDN'T resort to personal attacks. So, I'm glad we agree?
>"The former has changed over time to fit the latest fad of the day; the latter is fixed at the core and root, while having branches flexible enough to encompass the needs of changing times and geographies."
You said the same thing twice, and just made the one describing the ideology you agree with sound more mature and refined.
It's not fair reading, but let's leave this for now.
> Zakat was almost never more than Jizya in practice
Incorrect.
> Zakat is also the act of charitable giving to the poor, Jizya is state-collection of funds
Incorrect. Zakat is required to be paid, it's not an optional act as you are trying to imply. The state has collected it, just like how Jizya was.
> with threats of state-sponsored violence when not complied with
"violence" like what? You mean just like how any current nation throws people in prison if they evade taxes?
> unlike Zakat - which could be forgiven for impoverished persons and other circumstances.
As I explained, Jizya is waived for women, children, priests, the elderly and the disabled. It was also waived if an able man volunteered to join the army in exchange.
> I haven't the time nor the inclination to debate clearly textualist passages in a religious text,
What do you call very clearly taking something out of context?
> I'm not sure what I'm looking at here?
You're looking at zionist crimes against Iranian jews.
> and there are plenty of believers and People of The Book that are not granted such protection , because it is an explicit and protected procedure - that requires ACTIVE action (covenant, treaty, or pledge).
You're speak as if you are certain of what you are saying, but I confidently say you are 100% incorrect. Remind us, what are your qualifications in this matter, or anything you claim to refute?
> Noble verse, not sure what it illuminates here though? That the Qur'an has the occasional good take?
It's not from the Quran. I think this is sufficient to prove my point - that you have no qualifications on this matter. I think we're done here.
To pick my words more wisely: Yes, Zakat comes in the form a mandatory pillar of Islam under an Islamic state - often a tax, it is very rarely an "optional" charity. My point was more the framing between the two, and that Zakat is a financial obligation upon believers to share their wealth, while Jizya is a discriminatory tax on non-believers as a penalty for their refusal to accept Islam, paying for their "protection" from the state.
>"'violence' like what? You mean just like how any current nation throws people in prison if they evade taxes?"
Having a practice persist today isn't necessarily an argument that it's a good practice, or even a morally acceptable one (if you agree on this RE: tax, you'll find yourself agreeing with some prominient Western Enlightment thinkers, ironically). But, nonetheless, equating a religious tax to modern tax systems is a dishonest take. Modern tax regimes don't target you specifically for your refusal to convert to a state religion. The Jizya verse I mentioned earlier (though didn't cite: Surah 9:29) explicitly states non-Muslims must pay it "while they are disgraced, humiliated and belittled." It is not framed as a civil duty like most taxes; it is quite literally a religious-mandated humiliation ritual.
>"As I explained, Jizya is waived for women, children, priests, the elderly and the disabled. It was also waived if an able man volunteered to join the army in exchange."
The case remains, extorting the people of a minority group to fund an Islamic state - while politically and socially persecuting them - is morally reprenhensible.
>"What do you call very clearly taking something out of context?"
The oldest excuse in the book - and I already called this excuse out when I noted earlier that it's the exact same defense Christians use to wave away the violent commands in their own scriptures. If citing explicit, accepted verses and mainstream Sunni Tafsir is "taking things out of context", then the text is practically meaningless - and it doesn't sound like good faith in the material to me. The words are right there on the page.
>"You're looking at zionist crimes against Iranian jews."
I've already said Israel is a problem state. Doesn't change Islamic States can be, too.
>"You speak as if you are certain of what you are saying, but I confidently say you are 100% incorrect. Remind us, what are your qualifications in this matter[..]"
I don't need "qualifications" to engage in this conversation, besides understanding language. A Mu'ahid literally translates to "one who has a treaty/covenant". You cannot be a Mu'ahid without an active, explicit treaty with the Muslim state. Without that, traditional Islamic law classifies a non-believer as Harbi (at war).
>"It's not from the Quran."
Fair. I looked too quickly at your Sunnah.com links, wasn't familiar with their UI, and incorrectly referred to a Hadith as a Quranic verse. I apologize for calling it a Surah. It was a genuine slip on my part.
>"I think this is sufficient to prove my point - that you have no qualifications on this matter. I think we're done here."
Take the out if you need it. As I noted in my last comment, we already established that we agree on my foundational point: that pious Islamic beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with traditional Western values - and we should conduct ourselves accordingly..
Have a good one!
It's not optional, not even rarely. It's important to understand the system that you're arguing against.
> as a penalty for their refusal to accept Islam,
That's your words. As I said, it's not imposed non non-fighters (women, children, elderly, and priests, among others). Fighter aged men got waived for serving in the army.
> Having a practice persist today isn't necessarily an argument that it's a good practice, or even a morally acceptable one
Who defines morals? We've seen the supposed morality of the west, on full display now especially after the epestein fiasco.
> too convert to a state religion
That's beside the point. There are many other "discriminatory" practices in present day secular nation states if you're going down that route. Some of these are fundamental to how states are run.
> to fund an Islamic state
You just assumed that (1) funding is the main goal, and (2) Jizya is able to support the system, even though I explained it was much less than today's income + sales taxes, which as we see, are not able to support the usurious financial system. More claims without evidence.
> it's the exact same defense Christians use to wave away the violent commands in their own scriptures
Apples to oranges. You literally snipped the text without reading the text that came before or after it. This is disengenuous. The small image I posted literally cites the text before and after it, and you explicitly admitted that you refused to read it.
> The words are right there on the page.
Exacltly, and you refused to read them.
> Doesn't change Islamic States can be, too
But not because they're Islamic.
> I don't need "qualifications" to engage in this conversation, besides understanding language
Totally incorrect (and you also showed you didn't understand the language). Please go educate yourself on how Islamic Scholars deduce rules (e.g. Fiqh, etc.). Language is one aspect of a whole curriculum. Ironically, it is this way of thinking that gave rise to certain fringe groups I'm sure you're quite aware of, and not just in Islam.
> that pious Islamic beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with traditional Western values - and we should conduct ourselves accordingly.
Yes, and we maintain that is a good thing, very clearly so given where the world is heading especially these days.
> Have a good one!
You too.
Before diving into your link, I'll start by saying that anyone who spends time around Muslims will know they're people like everyone else and not the evil caricatures you're attempting to portray.
Your comment sounds like Muslims the world over want to kill infidels. The link says that Muslims in majority Muslim theocratic countries support Sharia being the law for Muslims. There is a lot less support in secular, majority-Muslim countries.
The survey doesn't cover Western countries, and in the countries closest to the West (Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania), support for Sharia among Muslims is 18%, and the majority of those 18% believe it should only apply to Muslims.
Some Muslims think apostasy deserves capital punishment: this is about Muslims abandoning their faith, not infidels.
Some other headings from your survey:
Extremism widely rejected Few see tensions over religions differences Widespread support for democracy, religious freedom
> than Jewish or Christian followers
Israel is an apartheid state, where ethno-religious supremacy of part of the population is law, where dehumanisation and killing of Palestinians enjoy widespread support 2.5 years into the genocide. A few weeks ago, a law was passed that allows hanging and applies, in practice, only to Palestinians.
Christian theocracies do not exist anymore, or for now, but it'd be fair to say they'll be equally as bad as any other theocracy.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastic_community_of_Mount_At...
These are very mild ... I shudder to think how the US might fare if the Dominionists there grab the reigns as Hegseth and others wish.
Although M.Atwood had a fair crack at that one.
Every thing I've said here is driven by collected data. To note, I conceded in my below-cited comment that active religious hatred towards Middle-Eastern Muslims from Westerners is often a political dogwhistle, due to how distant they are from us in almost every sense:
>>"Indeed, Sharia Law is a dog-whistle in Western nation talks, but that's a luxury on our part. It's a very real belief for a very real cohort of people, however distant they are from enacting action on us today."
But we should know - and recognize - those who identify us as an enemy to their beliefs or advancements, even if they're presently inconsequential. I am not contributing to the active Islamophobia towards Western Muslims with anything I am saying, and let's use caution when prescribing such.
With that in mind, let's quote you more directly:
>"I'll start by saying that anyone who spends time around Muslims will know they're people like everyone else and not the evil caricatures you're attempting to portray."
Yes. Western Muslims are good people, and you'll see points in my comments on this thread directly support that, I was predominantly talking about the beliefs of Middle-Eastern Muslims, which overwhelming hold beliefs that are incompatible with my - and most Westerners - moral framework, even if you can get along with them at a corner market or when asking for directions. I even say this in my first comment:
>>"It is also common knowledge [1] that more-pious followers of Islam - *particularly in Middle Eastern countries* - are considerably more receptive to Islam's more radical teachings and commands on the topic of the treatment towards non-believers"
You also say:
>"The link says that Muslims in majority Muslim theocratic countries support Sharia being the law for Muslims. There is a lot less support in secular, majority-Muslim countries."
No, it supports it being the official law of the land and within the jurisdiction of the respectively-polled nation. It was not a poll to see what standards Muslims desire to hold themselves and fellow Muslims accountable. It is a poll about the percentage of Muslims in various Middle-Eastern countries support Sharia as their nation's official law. Your motivation for skewing the dataset's conclusion? I remain unsure.
>"Some Muslims think apostasy deserves capital punishment: this is about Muslims abandoning their faith, not infidels."
Most*
>"Israel is an apartheid state"
I'll concede Israel is now another one. The original scope of this discussion was a country - and its inhabitants - religious actions and consensus beliefs for the last decades, and Israel has only brazenly shown its hand for the same within the past 5 years, so they weren't on my mind when I wrote my comment. But good point bringing them up
>"Christian theocracies do not exist anymore"
Another commenter called this out well.
The high ranking Shia mullahs/religious teachers that run the Islamic Republic ordered 3,000-30,000 of their own murdered in the streets for not wanting religious police to rape/murder them/their children/their sisters/moms if they didn't wear hats.
The highest of the Shia religious leaders don't need much 'justification' they happily order their religious police/religious proxies to carry out acts of mass violence.
> Nov. 4, 1979 Iran took fifty two American's hostage and held them for 444 days.
That was 47 years ago, yet this act still burns in your memory. For Iran, it was 26 years prior that the US & Great Britain replaced their democratically elected primer minister Mossadegh with a tyrannical monarch. Why? Because the US was afraid of Iran 'turning red' and for cheap oil.
When the king of Iran publicly toughened his stance on oil and the Israel lobby (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RH2wXQtFdo), the US in response did nothing to stop Khomeini from taking over.
When Iranian students took the US embassy, embassy staff was actively shredding documents proving US' role in the 1953 coup. The Iranians dropped mountains of shredded docs into elementary schools and asked the kids to 'solve the puzzle,' which they did. The US didn't acknowledge its role in the coup until Obama threw them an olive branch during his second term.
If the embassy takeover was that bad, then maybe you should be upset at Reagan for working out a secret deal with the mullah to NOT release the hostages in order to make President Carter look weak, which cost Carter the election. The hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in. In exchange, Reagan sold weapons to these muslim 'america-haters.' I've never seen Republicans upset at Reagan for selling weapons to Iran, have you?
> call for my and my families deaths and the destruction of my civilization my entire life
Words matter, actions matter more. The US supported the monarchy for years when it was killing and torturing Iranians. The US funded and armed Saddam against to kill Iranians between 1980 and 1988, including with chemical weapons. In 1988, the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane 655. Iranian families have lost many more people to the US than vice versa. That's probably why you've "never seen huge protests in the US calling for Iranian deaths."
You also might not know that post-9/11, Iran's moderate Khatami government and the US worked closely together in special operations in Afghanistan. That's because Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and were in fact natural enemies of the Sunnis who did 9/11. That is, until George W. Bush was instructed by his team to include Iran in the "axis of evil." In response to Bush, the mullahs ensured that the next president was equally tough (Ahmadinejad). When Obama was elected, the Iran chose the moderate Rouhani to make a deal. I looked, but couldn't find one instance of Iran chanting 'death to america' before Bush's 'axis of evil' comment.
Hopefully you can appreciate why your feelings don't trump the ground truth.
Ah, I'm a liar, they didn't say it? That is your ground truth? I didn't actually grow up in fear, fear caused by Iran's actions (historical context or not) and calls for revenge killing America? I must have imagined them saying it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America "Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, popularized the term."
And before you bring up the bullshit 'English interpretation' Iran makes the same call for Israel normally immediately after calling for death to the USA, and Iran is very explicate they want Israel's destruction. So don't project some definition on the first half that doesn't fit 'death to American death to Israel' knowing Iran want's Israels death actual.
They held those people for over 400 days.
Religious leaders, especially supreme ones, should not call for the death of entire societies. 10 years olds should not be giving the context for why it is OK to call for them, their families, everyone they knows death and destruction by supreme religious leaders and told 'actually, they are justified in their calls to revenge kill you, so relax'.
I assume that you're equally upset when the wife of the 'democracy-loving' 'crown prince of Iran' says "Death to the Left"?
Are you going to address anything else that I mentioned, or do you just do selective rebuttals?
> They held those people for over 400 days.
And? 200-500k Iranians died during the Iran-Iraq war, supported by the US. 290 civilians died when Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down.
Let me repeat a few things for you that you ignored.
Embassy staff was destroying evidence of the 1953 coup when the embassy was taken, and the US didn't admit to its role in the coup until 2009. But you trust everything Steve Witkoff says right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shredded_1979-09-01_1305Z...
You don't care that Reagan had a deal with the mullahs to keep those 400 Americans hostage?
You don't care that Reagan & Republicans sold weapons to Iran, which apparently definitely wants to murder your parents and grandparents and your best friends?
You don't care that the US helped Saddam invade and gassing Iranian cities, villages, and civilians because Iran held Americans hostage for 444 days? Are you ok?
You are doing way to much defining some caricature of me to engage with you.
"But you trust everything Steve Witkoff says right? " "You don't care that Reagan" "You don't care that Reagan" "You don't care that the US "
That is not engaging in discussion. Nor does it address what I said, it only attempts to justify calls for the death of millions by Iran (and two entire societies, the USA, then immediately the chant follows with calles for the death of Israel). I have stated elsewhere what the US did is vile. Nixon is vile. Read my comment history, I hate Reagan. But that doesn't then lead to a framework for why calling for revenge killing of millions and two entire societies is OK by a country's leaders and supreme religious experts/theologians. It is wrong. Especially coming from supreme religious leaders. Yet not one person replying to me is willing to admit that is vile coming from a religious leader. No one will admit calling for revenge killing is not acceptable, especially at the national leadership level/social death scale and against two entire societies.
And it is a call for death. It goes 'death to America, death to Israel' and Iran VERY VERY MUCH DOES want Israel dead/gone/destroyed. It would make no sense that the preceding reference to the USA (considered the great satan) would be more benevolent than that following "death to Israel" (the little satan).
You think that when Trump calls for death of their civilization it’s rhetorical bluster, but when Iran says death to America it’s real.
You think Shia are more dangerous to America than Sunni because of words, completely ignoring 9/11.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47896662
Khomeini wrote a book about his views and plans. So why did the US and the West stand by and let him take over Iran? How come when Khomeini stepped off the plane he was flanked by a US ambassador and a rabbi?
https://youtu.be/7vxNVLC8EE8?t=646&si=JgLbYTHfbVp0A3Ky
You care more about words than the actual gassing and murder of Iranian civilians by US-supported Saddam Hussein?
When I visited Iran in 2008, half of my extended family had pictures of their kids on the wall who they lost during the Iraq-Iran war.
So why should anyone care how you felt when you were 10 years old?
Israel wants Palestine gone and everyone around them weak, Iran wants Israel gone. What’s actually happening on the ground? Who’s closer to achieving their goals? Are you aware Israel funded Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS? Do you think Israel actually wants a strong secular Iran?
I do believe you’re traumatized by what you heard when you were little, which is probably why you’re stuck at a child’s pathos-based reasoning, and you block out anything that doesn’t your childhood memory.
I think both statements are vile. But the people who who called out Trump aren't willing to admit that when Iran says 'death to America, death to Israel' that is vile and evil as well.
Again, multiple things can be evil. You keep trying to imply only one thing can be, and that me caring about X means I don't care about Y when I simply am keeping to the discussion about X. You are free to start a separate discussion about Y or bring to light other horrible things. We have finally reached the point where you don't deny that 'death to America, death to Israel' means what it says but instead have to redirect so as not to address it.
No, never did I imply that. I'm educating you on the the major arguments against your position which you seem unaware of.
Just here I agreed with you that Oct 7 and the Israeli response to it are both wrong. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47921011
> We have finally reached the point where you don't deny that 'death to America, death to Israel' means what it says but instead have to redirect so as not to address it
No, we haven't reached any such point. Death to the oppressor is a very reasonable thing to say. How you follow through is what matters. Reacting to actual violence with violent words is reasonable too. I know it's inconvenient, but there is in fact a rhetorical aspect to "death to XYZ" but you have not been informed of it because the US wanted you to be scared for life of Iran. Just like the US didn't tell you that they were helping Saddam gas Iranians.
The US (amongst other western powers) is responsible for the current situation in Iran, they have blood on their hands, and every time they do damage the regime or to the country without actually toppling the regime, they are strengthening the islamic republic, like a bad venereal disease that never goes away.
I wasn't redirecting, you keep selectively answering my replies and ignoring what's inconvenient. In terms of redirection though, here is a fun read about the immune system from the point of view of bacteria:
The Acquired Immune System - A Vantage from Beneath https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(04)00307-3
I think there is a lot to learn from how the body actually deals and effectively tames the trillions of microbe present on every mucosal surface of the body.
Key quote: "By selecting for evermore-devious parasites, the immune system is the cause of its own necessity."
It turns out that the solution is not to try to kill them or physically exclude them (that works only as long as they are not starved, they turn suicidal if they start dying too fast, and we actually need them around - just like we need Iran's oil), but to remove the cause of them trying to cross our barriers. That's what mucus does - it actually gives bacteria a slow but continuous source of energy (O-glycans) that they can live on but is too complex to digest quickly so that they can't take over. I'll spare you the details unless you're interested but it's kind of poetic the way natural selection came up with its version of "turn the other cheek" millions of years before us, then went on to ignore it for short-term gain - and now it's unclear again if the microbes or the vertebrates will win in the end.
Religious leaders calling for death is wrong, 100% of the time. You aren't going to convince me to change that position, ever.
You never explained why 'death to Israel' means actually working for the death/destruction of Israeli society but the proceeding 'death to the USA' is just impassioned rhetoric.
You seem to think that calling for destruction is worse than actual destruction. We’re never going to agree.
Death to America and death to Israel is not a Shia policy, it’s an Iranian self-defense slogan. Hence why Ayatollah Sistani and his ilk never really chanted those slogans. Khomeini is a Shia usurper who used existing anti-Western sentiment to get power for his specific brand of Shi’ism. Try reading any book on the Iranian revolution.
Yeah, death to people who are killing me. Makes sense to me. Religion is obviously just a multiplier and a way to control people and that’s why I’m against all theocracy and most religions in general. I don’t see how it’s better if a secular leader says it, which is what you’re implying.
The continuing bombing/killing of civilians in the middle east by Americans further highlights to me that the United States will never be able to overcome the violence it has inflicted on the world by continuing to inflict more violence.
was to say that there was actions and intent to act behind the supreme religious leaders calling for the death/destruction of my entire country/society (they weren't just words), not to say an entire peoples/society is irredeemable (as the Islamic Republican of Iran and it's supreme religious leaders have labeled mine).
America has been kidnapping, killing and torturing Iranian civilians since before you were born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK