Ceasefire in Turkey-Syria


Guest MormonGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I understand tribalism in the Middle East.  I also understand Sharia Law and the role in Sharia Law of the Imam (theocratic ruler and interpreter of the law).   I understand tribal rule and how there are divisions between Sunni and Shiite.  I am suggesting that terms such as Communist and Democratic added to Islamic structures of governments is inaccurate labels of propaganda and not reflective of Islamic ideologies any more than saying that the united order is socialistic, communistic or democratic - or that G-d governs his kingdom based in socialistic, communistic or democratic principles as defined by man. 

I saw the labels in that picture @Scott shared - I am suggesting that the labels used are not Islamic.  More likely from some other source.  I am of the mind of Nicodemus - that divine law requires we hear a person speak before we judge them or attach labels or know how they are aligned.  What little I know of Islam and Islamic societies does not fit the narrative provided by our media.  I suggest we hold off somewhat with labels like Communist or Democratic in understand how they are aligned.

Okay, you are completely conflating things here.  The religion of Islam is a religion and, in the Middle East, also a socio-political culture.  Saying that Islam as a socio-political culture cannot take the form of political or economic ideologies does not make sense.

Why should we hold off on labels like Communist or Democratic when the Kurds themselves want to be identified by these ideologies?  It's like saying we can't label the UK Parliamentarian because you can't be a Church of England and be Parliamentarian when the UK themselves call it the Parliament of the United Kingdom... it doesn't make sense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, you are completely conflating things here.  The religion of Islam is a religion and, in the Middle East, also a socio-political culture.  Saying that Islam as a socio-political culture cannot take the form of political or economic ideologies does not make sense.

Why should we hold off on labels like Communist or Democratic when the Kurds themselves want to be identified by these ideologies?  It's like saying we can't label the UK Parliamentarian because you can't be a Church of England and be Parliamentarian when the UK themselves call it the Parliament of the United Kingdom... it doesn't make sense.

 

 

I base my opinion in this matter on discussions I have had with several devout Muslims (including Muslims from the very region we are discussing) and my personal reading of the Koran and Sharia Law as it has been explained to me.  It is my understanding that this very region in question has sacred symbolic meaning within All of Islam.  That at the end of times a sacred caliphate will be established in this region that will bring peace and Sharia Law to the entire world.  I also find it interesting this is the region known in Biblical terms as the land of Magog which also has important reference to Christian understanding of the end of times and the final battle of Armageddon.  

To deliberately ignore the significance of this area and the elements, especially within Islam; is not going to provide a complete picture of what is going on here and now in this place - especially with those that are inspired by Islam (or for that matter Christianity).  I also believe that attaching modern Western political symbolism will lead to misunderstandings.   What I am trying to portray is that by assigning western terms like "Communism" is very likely to lead to misunderstanding why so much of the world of Islam is so concerned, involved and extreme about what is going on and who is involved and why.  I am suggesting we are dealing with forces that not only do we not understand - but it would seem that we do not really care to understand.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I base my opinion in this matter on discussions I have had with several devout Muslims (including Muslims from the very region we are discussing) and my personal reading of the Koran and Sharia Law as it has been explained to me.  It is my understanding that this very region in question has sacred symbolic meaning within All of Islam.  That at the end of times a sacred caliphate will be established in this region that will bring peace and Sharia Law to the entire world.  I also find it interesting this is the region known in Biblical terms as the land of Magog which also has important reference to Christian understanding of the end of times and the final battle of Armageddon.  

To deliberately ignore the significance of this area and the elements, especially within Islam; is not going to provide a complete picture of what is going on here and now in this place - especially with those that are inspired by Islam (or for that matter Christianity).  I also believe that attaching modern Western political symbolism will lead to misunderstandings.   What I am trying to portray is that by assigning western terms like "Communism" is very likely to lead to misunderstanding why so much of the world of Islam is so concerned, involved and extreme about what is going on and who is involved and why.  I am suggesting we are dealing with forces that not only do we not understand - but it would seem that we do not really care to understand.

 

The Traveler

Traveler, you can say that all you want but the FACT remains... These Muslims in Greater Kurdistan are the ones calling it that and organized a movement surrounding those ideologies - not us.

 

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

My impression is that you have never read the Koran or talked to a devout Muslim (Sunni or Shiite).

My impression is that you know nothing of what you are talking about.  

I have been to many Islamic countries and have talked to hundreds (maybe thousands?) of devout Muslims.

You?    How many Islamic countries have you been to?

And I'm willing to bet that I know the Koran a lot better than you do.

Quote

It is acceptable in Islam to align with someone to fight a common enemy but such alignments are not evidence of ideological agreement. 

Obviously such alignments are not evidence of ideological agreement, but the Kurdish organizations and the idealogies are evidence.

The names and idealogies of their organizations are not secret and are stated publically.

Simple question.   What are the political idealogies of the following organizations?

Communist Party of Kurdistan Iraq:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan_–_Iraq

Communist Party of Kurdistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan

Kurdistan Workers Party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers'_Party

Worker Communist Party of Kurdistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-communist_Party_of_Kurdistan

There are a lot more than this too.

What do think are the idealogies of the above?

Quote

 I also find it interesting this is the region known in Biblical terms as the land of Magog which also has important reference to Christian understanding of the end of times and the final battle of Armageddon.  

What Biblical evidence do you have that the land of Magog is Kurdistan?

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Scott said:

My impression is that you know nothing of what you are talking about.  

I have been to many Islamic countries and have talked to hundreds (maybe thousands?) of devout Muslims.

You?    How many Islamic countries have you been to?

And I'm willing to bet that I know the Koran a lot better than you do.

Obviously such alignments are not evidence of ideological agreement, but the Kurdish organizations and the idealogies are evidence.

The names and idealogies of their organizations are not secret and are stated publically.

Simple question.   What are the political idealogies of the following organizations?

Communist Party of Kurdistan Iraq:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan_–_Iraq

Communist Party of Kurdistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan

Kurdistan Workers Party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers'_Party

Worker Communist Party of Kurdistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-communist_Party_of_Kurdistan

There are a lot more than this too.

What do think are the idealogies of the above?

What Biblical evidence do you have that the land of Magog is Kurdistan?

I've been to many 'Islamic Countries' as you would put it (though in reality, those defined specifically under a theocratic type rule or government are much more limited than those nations which may have an Islamic population but are not strictly theocratic in it's enforcement). 

I think the actions of those in the Kurdish region do NOT back up many of the statements others have made in this thread regarding how "communistic" they actually will be when left to their own devices.  The areas that were governed by the Kurds did not indicate that their brand of "communism" was going to be like China's or other oligarchical communistic governments, at least from what we have seen thus far.

In fact, they were far more democratic in action than many of our 'democratic' allies are in how they were running their pseudo government thus far.  How it will turn out now...I do not know.  Part of why things were run as they were may have been because the US was a major force behind some of their abilities to be that independent.  With recent events, it could turn out differently, if they even keep the ability to do so.

I'd say the Law of Consecration is ultimately far MORE Communist (or as it is labeled...Religious Communism though many here cannot overcome the idea of the term Communism being used in relation to Religion, much less LDS aspects of it.  This is probably because Communism as practiced by the world is a perverted copycat of the REAL form that the Lord instituted, being created by the adversary as a mockery rather than the real practice of how the Law of Consecration would normally be run) than the type of government the Kurds were running.

AT this point, with the actions of the US, I'd say it could be hard to know what the Kurds would do eventually if they are even able to keep any form of self governance working in those areas.  I'd think they have enough factions it will be a tad more democratic than some are feeling it would be in these forums, but with US influence upon them being somewhat diminished it could turn out to be a little more socialistic than it was before...IF they even have the resources to do so (a major complication in any efforts they have).

I think strong opinions are held on multiple sides of this discussion of this topic currently though, and not sure if either side is going to budge from their viewpoint on this forum currently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I've been to many 'Islamic Countries' as you would put it (though in reality, those defined specifically under a theocratic type rule or government are much more limited than those nations which may have an Islamic population but are not strictly theocratic in it's enforcement). 

I think the actions of those in the Kurdish region do NOT back up many of the statements others have made in this thread regarding how "communistic" they actually will be when left to their own devices.  The areas that were governed by the Kurds did not indicate that their brand of "communism" was going to be like China's or other oligarchical communistic governments, at least from what we have seen thus far.

In fact, they were far more democratic in action than many of our 'democratic' allies are in how they were running their pseudo government thus far.  How it will turn out now...I do not know.  Part of why things were run as they were may have been because the US was a major force behind some of their abilities to be that independent.  With recent events, it could turn out differently, if they even keep the ability to do so.

I'd say the Law of Consecration is ultimately far MORE Communist (or as it is labeled...Religious Communism though many here cannot overcome the idea of the term Communism being used in relation to Religion, much less LDS aspects of it.  This is probably because Communism as practiced by the world is a perverted copycat of the REAL form that the Lord instituted, being created by the adversary as a mockery rather than the real practice of how the Law of Consecration would normally be run) than the type of government the Kurds were running.

AT this point, with the actions of the US, I'd say it could be hard to know what the Kurds would do eventually if they are even able to keep any form of self governance working in those areas.  I'd think they have enough factions it will be a tad more democratic than some are feeling it would be in these forums, but with US influence upon them being somewhat diminished it could turn out to be a little more socialistic than it was before...IF they even have the resources to do so (a major complication in any efforts they have).

I think strong opinions are held on multiple sides of this discussion of this topic currently though, and not sure if either side is going to budge from their viewpoint on this forum currently.

 

First off - the Law of Consecration is NOWHERE NEAR similar to Communism.  DEMOCRACY (free agency) is a basic foundation of the Law of Consecration.  This is the reason why Joseph Smith could not make it work in his time because for it to work in those days he would have to resort to Communism.

Second - the people currently governing Kurdistan in Iraq is a political party with democratic ideals.  The people currently governing Kurdistan in Syria are also a political party with democratic ideals.  But, the reason they have not achieved autonomy is due to the fact that these groups cannot maintain democracy in autonomy.  Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman's interview that I posted above acknowledges this fact - the culture in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East does not lend to peaceful governance.  Political power is still wrested by the sword.  Until that changes, democracy cannot reign in that region.  This is the biggest failure of George W Bush - he had this idea that if you just give the people the chance to freely choose their governance, they'll become democratic.  Palestine proved him wrong loud and clear.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2019 at 1:57 PM, anatess2 said:

Traveler, you can say that all you want but the FACT remains... These Muslims in Greater Kurdistan are the ones calling it that and organized a movement surrounding those ideologies - not us.

 

 

 

Sorry I did not find the reference to communism.  I did hear reference to independence and pleas for help from the US - but not any Communistic economy, or military force.  China and North Korea is very interested in that area -- yet there are no requests for the US to step aside and let communism (not free markets) be the flower to blossom in that area.  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Sorry I did not find the reference to communism.  I did hear reference to independence and pleas for help from the US - but not any Communistic economy, or military force.  China and North Korea is very interested in that area -- yet there are no requests for the US to step aside and let communism (not free markets) be the flower to blossom in that area.  

 

The Traveler

Of course not.  She's a member of the Democratic Kurds of Iraq.  She's a very small faction in the region.  But I guess you miss the point she was making that the culture - including Kurds - in the middle east rule by the sword and that's why Iraq (and by extension the Levant) is a failed system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2019 at 2:02 PM, Scott said:

My impression is that you know nothing of what you are talking about.  

I have been to many Islamic countries and have talked to hundreds (maybe thousands?) of devout Muslims.

You?    How many Islamic countries have you been to?

And I'm willing to bet that I know the Koran a lot better than you do.

Obviously such alignments are not evidence of ideological agreement, but the Kurdish organizations and the idealogies are evidence.

The names and idealogies of their organizations are not secret and are stated publically.

Simple question.   What are the political idealogies of the following organizations?

Communist Party of Kurdistan Iraq:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan_–_Iraq

Communist Party of Kurdistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan

Kurdistan Workers Party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers'_Party

Worker Communist Party of Kurdistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-communist_Party_of_Kurdistan

There are a lot more than this too.

What do think are the idealogies of the above?

What Biblical evidence do you have that the land of Magog is Kurdistan?

My background:

I have visited 4 Islamic countries.  I have read the Koran and discussed it with Islamic scholars.   My cozen married into a prominent Arabic family; her husband was converted to TCoJCoLdS and was an adviser to the White House under Reagan for Middle Eastern affairs.  I was part of an outreach program in the SLC area to the local Islamic community and have spent a great deal of time talking with local leaders of the Islamic community and I have been invited to speak at a local Mosque as part of their Friday worship services.

The Bible identifies Magog as in a land in the north.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints official  institute publication of the Old Testament identifies Magog as an area in Eastern Turkey and Northern Syria, Iraq and Iran to as far north as the Caucasus Mountains to the plains of the Tigris River.

 

The Traveler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Of course not.  She's a member of the Democratic Kurds of Iraq.  She's a very small faction in the region.  But I guess you miss the point she was making that the culture - including Kurds - in the middle east rule by the sword and that's why Iraq (and by extension the Levant) is a failed system.

I was unclear of her reference to history.  She said the Kurds were part of the Ottoman Empire but were multi religious background - Mostly Sunni but with some Shiite.  It is my understanding that since the division between Sunni and Shiite that there has never been a time that the two have wanted to remain under the same rule.  With the tribalism of that area - I doubt that there ever will be a single unifying country void of civil conflict.  It is my understanding that the Kurds are not allied deeply with the USA except when there has been a common enemy - which was and is Isis.  Which BTW I believe is backed mostly by Iran.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

My background:

While that's all nice, what does this have to do with the Kurds? 

And you still haven't answered the question below:

 What are the political idealogies of the following organizations?

Communist Party of Kurdistan Iraq:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan_–_Iraq

Communist Party of Kurdistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan

Kurdistan Workers Party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers'_Party

Worker Communist Party of Kurdistan:


It's a simple question.  Please stop avoiding it and answer.

 

Quote

I have read the Koran and discussed it with Islamic scholars.  

OK then.   What would you say that the views on the zakat are from the most prominent Kurdish leadership groups?   PS, I can tell if you're just googling something.  Tell us from your own words.   If you are knowlegable about both the Kurds and the Koran, this should be really easy.

 

Quote

The Bible identifies Magog as in a land in the north.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints official  institute publication of the Old Testament identifies Magog as an area in Eastern Turkey and Northern Syria, Iraq and Iran to as far north as the Caucasus Mountains to the plains of the Tigris River.

Reference?  

 

Quote

  It is my understanding that the Kurds are not allied deeply with the USA except when there has been a common enemy - which was and is Isis. 

That's what I have already said.  We are agree on this.

Quote

 Isis.  Which BTW I believe is backed mostly by Iran.

Iran does not back ISIS.   Iran backs Assad which is the enemy of ISIS and ISIS and Iran are mortal enemies. 

ISIS is Sunni.   Iran is Shi'ite.    ISIS has attacked Iran and both have vowed to eliminate each other.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. 

Quote

 My cozen

I'd highly recommend looking up the definition of cozen.  Never mind though; I knew what you meant.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Scott said:

While that's all nice, what does this have to do with the Kurds? 

And you still haven't answered the question below:

 What are the political idealogies of the following organizations?

Communist Party of Kurdistan Iraq:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan_–_Iraq

Communist Party of Kurdistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kurdistan

Kurdistan Workers Party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers'_Party

Worker Communist Party of Kurdistan:


It's a simple question.  Please stop avoiding it and answer.

 

OK then.   What would you say that the views on the zakat are from the most prominent Kurdish leadership groups?   PS, I can tell if you're just googling something.  Tell us from your own words.   If you are knowlegable about both the Kurds and the Koran, this should be really easy.

 

Reference?  

 

That's what I have already said.  We are agree on this.

Iran does not back ISIS.   Iran backs Assad which is the enemy of ISIS and ISIS and Iran are mortal enemies. 

ISIS is Sunni.   Iran is Shi'ite.    ISIS has attacked Iran and both have vowed to eliminate each other.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. 

I'd highly recommend looking up the definition of cozen.  Never mind though; I knew what you meant.

It is my understanding that the Kurds are ethnic and that the single largest segment of that ethnic group are Shiite - and that it has been mostly the Shiite that have assisted the USA military efforts in the region.   To categorize these and all other Kurdish peoples as Communists - I believe to be inaccurate.  I have stated that to my knowledge those that align themselves as Muslim (Islam) by religion desire to be governed by Sharia Law - regardless of whatever definition of economic or political alignment.  If you have any Imam quote to the contrary concerning Sharia Law from Kurdish Islamic peoples - I will stand corrected in all that I have said.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

It is my understanding that the Kurds are ethnic and that the single largest segment of that ethnic group are Shiite - and that it has been mostly the Shiite that have assisted the USA military efforts in the region.

Your "understanding" is wrong.   Most Kurds are Sunni.   Where did you ever get the "understanding" that the  "single largest segment of that ethnic group are Shi'ite"?

https://thekurdishproject.org/history-and-culture/kurdistan-religion/

https://www.newsweek.com/who-are-kurds-340029

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Kurdistan

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29702440

Quote

To categorize these and all other Kurdish peoples as Communists - I believe to be inaccurate. 

No one said that all Kurdish people are communists.   What was said is that most of the leadership of the Kurdish political groups are communists or have ties to communist groups.

Quote

If you have any Imam quote to the contrary concerning Sharia Law from Kurdish Islamic peoples - I will stand corrected in all that I have said.

We're talking about political leaders, not Imams.   

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2019 at 12:34 PM, Traveler said:

If you have any Imam quote to the contrary concerning Sharia Law from Kurdish Islamic peoples - I will stand corrected in all that I have said.

 

The Traveler

Traveler, I believe where we disagree is your position that Sharia Law cannot be Communist.  Any theocracy can be Communist when the religious observance/membership becomes the Class - in the case of Sharia Law, muslims versus infidels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Traveler, I believe where we disagree is your position that Sharia Law cannot be Communist.  Any theocracy can be Communist when the religious observance/membership becomes the Class - in the case of Sharia Law, muslims versus infidels.

Perhaps we should have defined "Communist" before determining our disagreements.  Many insist that the "United Order" was communistic or at least socialistic. 

I have thought that I owe you and @Scott an apology.  I have learned and observed that seldom will the "News Outlets" or "Information" resources accurately report concerning religious ideologies outside of theirs.   Even though journalists will specialize in specific genre - journalists are seldom as accurate as they pretend.  In all cases where I have had first hand information - I have learned to not trust reports that go against my experience - unless there are first hand sources. 

I could be wrong but until I have a source from an Islamic holy man (Imam) within the Kurdish community saying that Sharia Law is best expressed as Communistic - I will not believe it.  Perhaps I am a doubting Thomas of sorts.  I have never encountered an Islamic holy man (Imam) that does not believe in Sharia Law and that for the world to live in peace - all must abide by their definition of Sharia Law.  It is similar to my experience with various "Christian" ministers and the doctrine that someday Jesus will return and establish a order of law (heaven) that will be a era of peace to mankind and the planet earth - and they think they are directly connected to that divine law and order.  Never has someone outside such a community been able to more accurately express their belief than they can.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps we should have defined "Communist" before determining our disagreements.  Many insist that the "United Order" was communistic or at least socialistic. 

I have thought that I owe you and @Scott an apology.  I have learned and observed that seldom will the "News Outlets" or "Information" resources accurately report concerning religious ideologies outside of theirs.   Even though journalists will specialize in specific genre - journalists are seldom as accurate as they pretend.  In all cases where I have had first hand information - I have learned to not trust reports that go against my experience - unless there are first hand sources. 

The United Order was neither Communistic (form of government) nor Socialistic (form of economy).  

 

Quote

I could be wrong but until I have a source from an Islamic holy man (Imam) within the Kurdish community saying that Sharia Law is best expressed as Communistic - I will not believe it.  Perhaps I am a doubting Thomas of sorts.  I have never encountered an Islamic holy man (Imam) that does not believe in Sharia Law and that for the world to live in peace - all must abide by their definition of Sharia Law.  It is similar to my experience with various "Christian" ministers and the doctrine that someday Jesus will return and establish a order of law (heaven) that will be a era of peace to mankind and the planet earth - and they think they are directly connected to that divine law and order.  Never has someone outside such a community been able to more accurately express their belief than they can.

 

The Traveler

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.  Of course, when somebody tells you they're Communist, and they work towards enacting their Communist ideals so much so that they try to overthrow a government and get themselves recognized as a terrorist group, and you tell us - no, they're not Communist... we are also entitled to ignore your opinion.

@Scott gave you a few of the Kurdish Communist groups currently actively working in the greater Kurdistan regions.  You can continue to tell us they're not Communists... 

By the way, Kurds is like Jews.  The label is not a religious identity but cultural (nationality) one.  That said, I already gave you the name of the Muslim who is the recognized "founder" of the Islamic Socialist movement after the fall of the Ottomans.  Then there's also the history of the Sarekat Muslims in Indonesia, then there's all those Muslim Communist Parties all over the Middle East - a lot of them led by Imams.  A quick google search gives you Imam Mustafayev - the leader of the Azerbaijan Communist Party.  You can ignore all those groups and tell them - "You're not really Commnists!" or "You're not really Muslims!".  Either way, it would be like somebody telling the LDS - you're not really Christian - no matter how loudly we proclaim it and put Christ in our name.  The fact remains - there are tons of self-described Muslims, including Imams, a lot of them Kurds, fighting for Communism.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

The United Order was neither Communistic (form of government) nor Socialistic (form of economy).  

 

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.  Of course, when somebody tells you they're Communist, and they work towards enacting their Communist ideals so much so that they try to overthrow a government and get themselves recognized as a terrorist group, and you tell us - no, they're not Communist... we are also entitled to ignore your opinion.

@Scott gave you a few of the Kurdish Communist groups currently actively working in the greater Kurdistan regions.  You can continue to tell us they're not Communists... 

By the way, Kurds is like Jews.  The label is not a religious identity but cultural (nationality) one.

I understand that the title of Kurds is an ethnic label.  But it is also my understanding that the vast majority of Kurds are Islamic and in particular Shiite Muslim.   I am aware that Kurds can be secular and that ethnic Kurds lived under the rule of Russian Communism and that it is possible that there is a faction of Kurds that want to return to Communism.  My experience in Russia is that the vast majority that experienced Communism there believe it failed badly and yet there are still elements that wish to reinstate Communism.  I was very surprised at how bitterly Communism was viewed in Russia when I visited - Though I admit that my experience was less than a week and hardly a scientific sample.  But it is also my understanding that the majority of Kurds that fought with and supported USA troops were Shiite Muslim and that there were few if not any that were "card caring" Communists.  

Obviously they are not Marxist Communists - so I am not sure, when the Communist label is used - what is intended or meant????  I would think that it means that such have no intent to align themselves with any American ideals or interests any more that ISIS or anyone else that is not their brand of communist.  It is not my understanding that Communists are seeking religious liberty for anyone.  So when @Scottsays there are Kurd Communists seeking for independence and liberty for all Kurds (including religious Kurds) - that appears to me to be a gross disconnect - if not a poor use of terms by someone trying to create a false impression.

But you said it well - that is my opinion.  That is why I am interested in a Kurdish Imam and what they would say about anyone touting Communism among their ranks.  But to be honest - I see a lot published about the Kurds by many outside interests - I have yet to see much at all from the Kurds (especially the Islamic Shiite majority) themselves

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But it is also my understanding that the vast majority of Kurds are Islamic and in particular Shiite Muslim.

What source are you using for this?   This is completely false and you have already been corrected.

Quote

I have yet to see much at all from the Kurds (especially the Islamic Shiite majority) themselves

Once again the Shi'ites are not the majority.

Quote

So when @Scottsays there are Kurd Communists seeking for independence and liberty for all Kurds (including religious Kurds)

Where did I say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I understand that the title of Kurds is an ethnic label.  But it is also my understanding that the vast majority of Kurds are Islamic and in particular Shiite Muslim.   I am aware that Kurds can be secular and that ethnic Kurds lived under the rule of Russian Communism and that it is possible that there is a faction of Kurds that want to return to Communism.  My experience in Russia is that the vast majority that experienced Communism there believe it failed badly and yet there are still elements that wish to reinstate Communism.  I was very surprised at how bitterly Communism was viewed in Russia when I visited - Though I admit that my experience was less than a week and hardly a scientific sample.  But it is also my understanding that the majority of Kurds that fought with and supported USA troops were Shiite Muslim and that there were few if not any that were "card caring" Communists.  

Obviously they are not Marxist Communists - so I am not sure, when the Communist label is used - what is intended or meant????  I would think that it means that such have no intent to align themselves with any American ideals or interests any more that ISIS or anyone else that is not their brand of communist.  It is not my understanding that Communists are seeking religious liberty for anyone.  So when @Scottsays there are Kurd Communists seeking for independence and liberty for all Kurds (including religious Kurds) - that appears to me to be a gross disconnect - if not a poor use of terms by someone trying to create a false impression.

But you said it well - that is my opinion.  That is why I am interested in a Kurdish Imam and what they would say about anyone touting Communism among their ranks.  But to be honest - I see a lot published about the Kurds by many outside interests - I have yet to see much at all from the Kurds (especially the Islamic Shiite majority) themselves

 

The Traveler

This whole post doesn't make much sense.  Especially since the majority of Kurds, including those fighting with the US against ISIS, are Sunnis, not Shiites.  ISIS is also Sunni.  They were fighting against Assad (a secular leader) - who is backed by Shiite Iran and Russia with the intention of ruling over the entire region of the Levant.  The Kurds who tried to overthrow Turkish government (PKK) is Sunni as well but that was not a religious fight either - it's a political fight.  The Saudis who are also fighting against ISIS are also Sunni.  The Muslim Brotherhood that the Saudis and the Kurds are also fighting against are also Sunni.  So, this is not a Sunni vs Shia fight... there are so many levels to this.  But the Kurds is fighting over one thing - sovereignty over greater Kurdistan (currently divided into 4 countries).  Theirs is a nationalism/political fight, not religious.  And that's why Trump's position of - let the people in that land decide the fate of the land instead of Westerners forcing their will on them - is the SANE position, whereas the position of those trying to impeach him over his foreign policy is the INSANE position.

 

Maybe we need to start here:

com·mu·nism
/ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
noun
 
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
 

A Communist form of government has no bearing on the religious practices of the individuals.

 
Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This whole post doesn't make much sense.  Especially since the majority of Kurds, including those fighting with the US against ISIS, are Sunnis, not Shiites.  ISIS is also Sunni.  They were fighting against Assad (a secular leader) - who is backed by Shiite Iran and Russia with the intention of ruling over the entire region of the Levant.  The Kurds who tried to overthrow Turkish government (PKK) is Sunni as well but that was not a religious fight either - it's a political fight.  The Saudis who are also fighting against ISIS are also Sunni.  The Muslim Brotherhood that the Saudis and the Kurds are also fighting against are also Sunni.  So, this is not a Sunni vs Shia fight... there are so many levels to this.  But the Kurds is fighting over one thing - sovereignty over greater Kurdistan (currently divided into 4 countries).  Theirs is a nationalism/political fight, not religious.  And that's why Trump's position of - let the people in that land decide the fate of the land instead of Westerners forcing their will on them - is the SANE position, whereas the position of those trying to impeach him over his foreign policy is the INSANE position.

 

Maybe we need to start here:

com·mu·nism
/ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
noun
 
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
 

A Communist form of government has no bearing on the religious practices of the individuals.

 

I believe we make progress in understanding that communism advocates class warfare based on the theories of Karl Marx and his definition of classes.  Quoting Karl Marx on religion:

Quote

Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.

Quote

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

It is my understanding that communism differs from socialism in that even the individual belongs to the state and is the property of the state.  Peace is defined as the absence of resistance to socialism - which means resistance to thinking that any resource belongs to G-d or any thought of ownership outside of the socialistic state.  I disagree with the definition above in reference to publicly owned - the public own nothing - everything is owned and controlled by the state - including the individuals of the state.

Socialism without the theories of Marx is just socialism - not Communism.  For socialism to qualify as communism it must be based upon the foundation of Marxist theories.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 2:08 PM, anatess2 said:

This whole post doesn't make much sense.  Especially since the majority of Kurds, including those fighting with the US against ISIS, are Sunnis, not Shiites.  ISIS is also Sunni.  They were fighting against Assad (a secular leader) - who is backed by Shiite Iran and Russia with the intention of ruling over the entire region of the Levant.  The Kurds who tried to overthrow Turkish government (PKK) is Sunni as well but that was not a religious fight either - it's a political fight.  The Saudis who are also fighting against ISIS are also Sunni.  The Muslim Brotherhood that the Saudis and the Kurds are also fighting against are also Sunni.  So, this is not a Sunni vs Shia fight... there are so many levels to this.  But the Kurds is fighting over one thing - sovereignty over greater Kurdistan (currently divided into 4 countries).  Theirs is a nationalism/political fight, not religious.  And that's why Trump's position of - let the people in that land decide the fate of the land instead of Westerners forcing their will on them - is the SANE position, whereas the position of those trying to impeach him over his foreign policy is the INSANE position.

 

Maybe we need to start here:

com·mu·nism
/ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
noun
 
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
 

A Communist form of government has no bearing on the religious practices of the individuals.

 

The Definition is from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

Quote
1a : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
b : a theory advocating elimination of private property
2 capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively

You are going off the COMMUNISM as in the Marxist system.  However, Communism, or communalism existed prior to Marx and was utilized in what many previously termed as Utopia or Utopian society.  These were some of the inspirations behind Marx's theories, but he changed many of the concepts to the governmental system we have today.

Religious Communism is DIFFERENT than COMMUNISM (something which people cannot understand apparently, as they simply see the word communism and decide it must be Marxist).  Saying Religious communism and COMMUNISM are the same thing is like saying a rowboat and a Three Mast 50 cannon Sailboat are the same thing.  There are similarities (they both float on water) but beyond the basic similarities, they are completely different things.

Religious Communism in part is based on the New Testament and the way that Peter and the Apostles supposedly ran the economy of the Church.  One story in particular shows how 'voluntary' it was when the Lord smote a few individuals dead who had hidden some of their assets from Peter in the hopes of keeping them while deceiving him.  They failed.

Most Religious Communism though was NOT involuntary as it appeared in the New Testament.  Instead, it was voluntary, and in many cases, voluntary to those who wanted to practice such a thing in their religion.  Most of the time they donated their property to the common membership which was controlled by whoever the leader was.  They owned no private property of their own, it was all owned by the religion.  It was given out as they needed it.

At the time it was more under the idea of a Utopian ideal, rather than being considered communism as we would phrase it, but how it was handled falls completely under the communal system as per the FIRST (and normally definition 1 is the most commonly used definition) definition in the Dictionary as opposed to the second one quoted.

The way the Church did it was unique in it's own way, but solidly falls under the idea that is now utilized as Religious Communism.  The basic tenets are that it is based upon the same communalistic system Peter utilized in the New Testament (and the Church indeed claims it's a restoration of that system, so in particular the Church would be EVEN MORE in line to have it labeled as Religious Communism than ANY OTHER RELIGION....unless of course you deny Peter, the New Testament, and the teachings of property being consecrated to the Lord and the Church in general, in which case I'd wonder what your understanding of the Law of Consecration actually is).  Second, that those who enter into this system donate ALL their property to the Church or religion and keep NONE of it for themselves as their own personal property.  It is owned and controlled wholly by the Church or it's membership.  Third, that this property is owned in common and is thus given out to each individual as per their needs to satisfy what they require for life, work, and the pursuit of their religious ideals.

So, what is the difference today between COMMUNISM and communism as it was practiced prior to Marx...mostly that those who call themselves Communist today (religious communism is rarely called communist or communism instead having whatever name the particular religion has labeled it as instead) follow the Marxist ideas rather than other ideas.  As Brittanica says...

Quote

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.

In this, we could say that though Religious communism is more of a socialistic idea, COMMUNISM today relies more on the socialism of Karl Marx rather than the idealistic ideas put forth by Peter.

The main difference I see between those that accept the term Religious Communism and those that reject it is that those who accept it do NOT see Marxism as the same as Communism, nor that it envelopes the entirety of the idea of communism.  On the otherhand those that reject this idea are those that can only see Communism in connection with Marxism.

Thus, the disagreement could simply go down to a difference of opinion on labels rather than how the ideas actually are implemented.

Interestingly enough, I don't see this really laying into the idea of Whether the Kurds want Communist governments or not, though I highly suspect that I may be one of the few that have had some interaction with the Kurds on occasion (though not regularly by any means), but at this point figure my thoughts on what they would actually implement and desire is basically not going to be considered by some on these boards.

The BIG thing I think that it boiled down to when the discussion began was as long as the US had influence over them, I HIGHLY doubt the Kurds would have ever fully instituted a Communist government, though after the US withdrawal and betrayal of them (though this is expected to a degree as Kurds have always had this happen to them from various 'allies' over the years), I could see it as a slight possibility now.  It depends on who gives them money, how much influence that group has on them, and how much control they have on the hearts and minds of the Kurdish people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little bit more on Communism from Merriam-Webster...

Quote

Communism, socialism, capitalism, and democracy are all among our top all-time lookups, and user comments suggest that this is because they are complex, abstract terms often used in opaque ways. They're frequently compared and contrasted, with communism sometimes equated with socialism, and democracy and capitalism frequently linked.

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the word communism has been applied to varying political systems over time. When it was first used in English prose in the mid-19th century, communism referred to an economic and political theory that advocated the elimination of private property and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people; in this use, it was often used interchangeably with the word socialism by 19th-century writers.

Which is where the problems come in.  Rather than understand communism as a system where all goods are held in common, it is seen more as the political system put forth by Karl Marx, ESPECIALLY among English Speakers (and particularly in the US and the UK, though still held strongly in Canada...not quite as strong there).  Other nations in many instances tend to see things slightly differently...

That said

Quote

The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers use communism to talk about the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marx’s theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society; societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production; and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marx’s theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controlled a society’s economic and social activities with the goal of realizing Marx’s theories. Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. (The term is also often used in the phrase democratic socialism, which is discussed here.)

Communism and socialism are both frequently contrasted with capitalism and democracy, though these can be false equivalencies depending on the usage. Capitalism refers to an economic system in which a society’s means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where products, prices, and the distribution of goods are determined mainly by competition in a free market. As an economic system, it can be contrasted with the economic system of communism, though as we have noted, the word communism is used of both political and economic systems. Democracy refers not to an economic system but to a system of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised through a system of direct or indirect representation which is decided through periodic free elections. For discussion about whether the United States is accurately described as a democracy or as a republic, see the article here.)

The question then, which is completely unassociated with the actual topic of the thread, is whether the Church's system was socialistic, or otherwise, and if otherwise, WHAT worldly definition of government or economic system does it actually fall under (and anyone who says Capitalism does not understand capitalism and how it varies GREATLY from the Law of Consecration or the United Order).

If not Religious Communism, does it fall under Religious Socialism...

Quote

Religious socialism is any form of socialism based on religious values. Members of several major religions have found that their beliefs about human society fit with socialist principles and ideas. As a result, religious socialist movements have developed within these religions.

In particularly, Christian Socialism...

Quote

Christian socialism is a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Many Christian socialists believe capitalism to be idolatrous and rooted in greed, which some Christian denominations consider a mortal sin.[1] Christian socialists identify the cause of inequality to be the greed that they associate with capitalism.[1]

Which may seem to some as more acceptable then the form of Religious or Christian Communism which is seen as...

Quote

Christian communism is a form of religious communism based on Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Although there is no universal agreement on the exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible (in the Acts of the Apostles)[1] suggests that the first Christians, including the apostles, established their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection.[1] As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the apostles themselves.[2] Some independent historians confirm it.[

Thanks to Wikipedia which supplied many of these quotes.

Once again, of course, defining WHAT is communism, WHAT is religious communism, and what is or is not socialism and religion probably VARY greatly from what this thread was about.  Much of it comes down to what people term as socialism or communism and what they understand it to be.

I tend to use the term Religious Communism in reference to the way things operated back then in the Church during part of Joseph Smith's years and Brigham Young's partial usage of it, but I actually understand the various reasons people may disagree with it or that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe we make progress in understanding that communism advocates class warfare based on the theories of Karl Marx and his definition of classes.  Quoting Karl Marx on religion:

It is my understanding that communism differs from socialism in that even the individual belongs to the state and is the property of the state.  Peace is defined as the absence of resistance to socialism - which means resistance to thinking that any resource belongs to G-d or any thought of ownership outside of the socialistic state.  I disagree with the definition above in reference to publicly owned - the public own nothing - everything is owned and controlled by the state - including the individuals of the state.

Socialism without the theories of Marx is just socialism - not Communism.  For socialism to qualify as communism it must be based upon the foundation of Marxist theories.

 

The Traveler

Communism is a system of government (political).  Socialism is a system of societal/economic organization (social).  They cannot be compared to each other - it's like comparing Capitalism to Republic or Nerves to Brains.  Marxism is a socio-political application of Communist Socialism.  

Everywhere Socialism is tried, the government evolves into either Communism (USSR, China, Cuba, etc.), Revolt against Socialism (Venezuela), or Dilution of Socialist systems (Scandinavia) because for Socialism to be successfully applied, it REQUIRES the elimination of greed from society which can only be done in a fallen world through the constant force of a central government.

Karl Marx did not create the theory of Socialism nor Communism.  Socialist principles has been in existence since the dawn of time and culturalized by More's Utopia.  Communism has been defined... as most political ideologies are... by the French.  French communism was vastly influential to the French era leading to the French Revolution against the royal bourgeoisie.  Marx simply defined Marxism - ONE form of Communist Socialism.  There are many other applications of communism that is not Marxist - such as Lenin's and Stalin's applications of communism, Mongolian and Chinese application of communism, etc. etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Religious Communism is DIFFERENT than COMMUNISM (something which people cannot understand apparently, as they simply see the word communism and decide it must be Marxist).  Saying Religious communism and COMMUNISM are the same thing is like saying a rowboat and a Three Mast 50 cannon Sailboat are the same thing. 

Religious Communism is an application of Communism.  Marxism is another application of Communism.

Saying Religious Communism is different than Communism is like saying Mangoes is different from Fruit.  It doesn't make sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Religious Communism is an application of Communism.  Marxism is another application of Communism.

Saying Religious Communism is different than Communism is like saying Mangoes is different from Fruit.  It doesn't make sense.

 

Religious Communism IS a form of communism.  Marxism is also Communism.

However Religious Communism is NOT necessarily Marxist nor Marxism.

The problem most have when labeling Religious Communism and recognizing it as having been a part of the Church in the past (and one that theoretically is still on the books) is that they cannot separate the idea that Marxism or Marxist Communism is not ALL types of Communism.  It is a form of communism and/or socialism practiced by many governments.

The main difference that some use to differentiate the two definitions from what I see is that communism (first definition) is a more common term utilized in things such as Religious Communism (where a capital C is used only because it is part of the term, otherwise it would be communism with the little C) while Marxist Communism is normally Communism with the Capital C (as it is a proper noun). [Edit: I will note though, that today, MOST of the practiced forms of Communism on a greater scale within governments are based upon the principles of Marxism, whether it be from Stalin's ideas, to Mao's, they all stem from Marxist principles.  Thus, why most will automatically assume this form of communism when seeing the word Communism.  It has bad connotations due to this to many individuals and why they reject the notion of such a thing as Religious Communism).

Many of those in English speaking nations is that due to the Cold War and it's effects afterwards, they automatically associate the word Communism, big or little C with Marxism.  They cannot separate the two.  The irony is that the two can also be seen as complete opposites.  While Marxist principles of Communism reject religion and promote atheism, Religious Communism promotes religion and is the basis upon which the idea is built, while rejecting atheism.

Of course, there are those who may not lump the Church in the 1800s into this arena of Religious Communism, but apply it more as the idea of Religious Socialism (of which Marxist Communism is an extension of, though with religious communism it can sometimes be questionable in how some of the groups utilized the idea in relation to the utopian ideals of the 19th century).

One CANNOT equate the Law of Consecration or the United Order as a Capitalistic or even a Democratic system (at least in how it was run).  The question that one needs to answer then, is what system is it.  Saying it is it's own thing is NOT an answer and is avoiding the question.  It needs to be a REAL world categorization (which is why we have it, and we can actually categorize these types of systems).  What would you categorize it, socialism, communism or what system?

We already know it is a theocracy (how it was run) but that can cover a great number of other various ideas (dictatorship, different economic systems), etc.

The category I see it fall into is the religious communism though at the time it would have fallen under the idea of the religious utopian ideal which was prevalent in some parts of society during that time period.

PS: Back to the original topic...

Ironically, I will note, Marxism ideas can be applied to Religious communism (despite the idea that Marxism automatically denies religion in favor of atheism, which is one reason many would state that Marxism and Religious communism are opposite ideas of the same economic principles).  In that line of thinking, though I have disagreed with the idea that the Kurds would have actually become a Communist type government with our continued presence as it had been undisturbed, I could see with the right allies, the right power behind them, the right influence, and the right influencers a Muslim group such as the Kurds could both have a communistic government alongside their Religion and culture.  We already know that socialist governments can thrive under a dictatorial group or ruler in the Middle East, thus it is not too much of a stretch to think the same could occur with Communism to a degree.

Also, if one wants to label it more as Religious Socialism or even Religious Socialism under the banner of the Utopian societies of the time, that's an area I could also agree upon and see it equally as that idea.  I admit one reason I favor Religious Communism as the term is merely because I use it to point out the hypocrisy of many who try to present the Law of consecration as a capitalistic or other ridiculous notion when it was clearly NOT that in any way, or that was some democratic ideal.  In fact, under Brigham Young it could be ruthlessly enforced upon individuals to a degree that is only seen in dictatorships and Communist nations today.  Much of it was done out of necessity for the survival of the group that was making the colony/settlement, but it was far less than a voluntary choice except whether that individual choose to go to do that action and/or follow Brigham Young and be a member of the Church.  So, yes, I do it simply to make people think more about what the Law of Consecration entails rather than shove their own modern democratic and capitalistic notions into it.

Thus I am actually open to other terminology and ideas on what system it falls under.  I do NOT accept the answer of "it was it's own thing" though.  That's avoiding the question. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share