328
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2026
328 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2485 readers
948 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great News Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You can support them against imperialism, while still disagreeing with them as an authoritarian state.
Critical support should never mean complete support.
You can oppose Trump's war because it hurts the people of Iran the same way you can oppose the Iranian government because it hurts the people. These are not conflicting stances to make.
No, Mia. The religion is 100% imperialist. What this only showed is that Iran is still a capitalist nation first, the religious hazing is only a bonus.
You don’t dethrone an empire with another. That's what campists do.
Support Iran against American imperialism.
I don't agree with the Iranian state, but I support them defending themselves against the US/Israel.
Metoo, but I don't support Islam against people. In this very instance, capitalism won. But if Anita Papist didn't have money, she would have left with more than just US hazing.
"the religion" being the specific interpretation of Islam promoted by and in Iran?
Why am I being replied to?
I am not confused as to how theocracies work.
Are you denying Islam by doctrine isn't imperialistic?
Yes I deny it. It's a core part of my belief system and how I was raised and it's completely uncontroversial among a wide segment of Muslims, if not the vast majority.
Here for example, is a snippet from the translation of the Quran by Leopold Weiss, aka Mohammad Asad:
"This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al-mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant.
The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22:39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur'anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22:39).
That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur'an is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.
In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause")....
This is completely uncontroversial and you can find however many mainstream Muslims you want who believe in these exact words as explained by Weiss. Here is the mainstream Sunni influencer Adnan Ibrahim saying verbatim "the Quran is very very clear that there is no justification for war except in self defence." This guy is a totally normal sunni conservative. Here is the Grand Mufti of Tripoli making the same point on Saudi tv. He explicitly states that religiously jihad is to be done only in self defence, and that this is different from what he calls "jihad by demand/order" which is fighting for a state. Again: totally regular conservative establishment guy not any kind of radical renegade thinker. This is why far right movements and thinkers in the Islamic world went to such lengths to justify attacks on the US and others by arguing that as democracies the entire population is culpable, and that by stationing military bases in Arab countries and supporting Arab dictators, they have initiated the war. That's the standard terrorist group argument
You obviously do not know what "Imperialism" means. You're not automatically right just because you use fancy big terms, especially if you use them incorrectly.
And you're going to educate us why Iran's usage of Islam isn't.
Because a musician wasn't threatened at all, right right
So "imperialism" is when you threaten musicians? Thanks for proving my point.
That Iran is?
That you have absolutely no clue what the terms you use mean and are not to be taken seriously.
I feel like you meant authoritrian instead, but that doesn't change the fact that they are mental
much like many religions, there are imperialist interpretations and anti-authoritarian interpretations
The case of Iran’s interpretation is imperialistic: a woman was threatened with assault for not wearing something the empire demands. This was authoritarian and hazing.
imperialism describes a relationship between a country and the rest of the world. the us is imperialist because it subjugates and loots other countries. how it treats its own people on its own territory has nothing to do with whether it is imperialist. iran is not imperialist because it does not subjugate and loot other countries. how it treats its own people on its own territory has nothing to do with whether it is imperialist.
the us is impirialist because there is a us empire. iran is not imperialist because there is no iranian empire.
Last question I have, misinformed, or dis?
i am not going to try to divine your point from two wikipedia articles that support mine. do you have something to say?
I assume you do, since you keep replying.
you are incorrectly identifying imperialism as the cause of something. being able to identify something as harmful is good, but if you can't accurately identify what caused it you won't be able to effectively combat it. gendered clothing discrimination happens almost everywhere on earth, but not everywhere is imperialist. i don't see any reason that this specific instance is the result of local imperialism if so many other non-imperialistic examples exist.
(deleted my previous reply because it was unproductive)
It's still unproductive. Iran is still an empire.
It's still rules over people, an it still interprets prophetic sovereignty as divine rule sanctified by a spaghetti monster that salts the earth.
If you feel they are wrong, take it up with them, as I am a scholar. Not your muharib.
there was an iranian empire. there is not now an iranian empire. even if the iranian government were aspiring to it, they aren't there. iran rules over people because it is a state.
what foreign nations? this singer is iranian!
this singer being fined is bad because that's gendered discrimination. the religion is doing something bad by enforcing this discrimination. you can dislike iran or discrimination or religion or states, whatever, but calling these things imperialist is incorrect. imperialism is bad and gendered discrimination is bad but they are different things. you are using the word wrong and it makes your point unclear. you should fight imperialism done by an imperialist state. you should fight discrimination done by non-imperialist states. you need to know the difference or you'll be fighting shadows.
the threat of assault really went over your head, or do you enjoy Islamic assault?
That's not what imperialism is. Imperialism is a developmental stage of Capitalism that is defined not by the "existence of an empire", but by very specific traits. You're talking nonsense in this entire thread.
absolutely agreed on iran's interpretation