Muslim Headscarves

it looks nice, hijbais are very endearing and feminine

the typical hijab wearing young muslima is the only endearing and pure feminine thing left in living in a brown reggaton multicultural shithole

when I see abrasive white feminist land whales wear them once a year on campus out of "solidarity" I feel like hitting them for defiling such a pure scion of muslim feminine virginity and purity

it grows together what belongs together

Nice insults instead of attacking my argument.

Attached: e18.gif (500x282, 490.7K)

They can wear one if they want, if not that's still OK.
I still think it's retarded either way but my personal opinion won't change what they wear.

Its as much of a basic requirement to cover your hair as much as it is a basic requirement that christians women cover their hair

1 Corinthians 11:3-16

Only if you live in a MENA country and that is still debatable. Certain strains of islam follow different rules

In all honesty the hijab/burqa thing is more cultural than it is religious. It just like how a few muslim african nobility and warlords take more than 40 wives when in the koran it says you should take only 4 and treat them evenly. Its also like how jihadis and fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan force women to marry them but the quran says women have a right to say no and have to give consent.

Islam is like Christianity and Judaism in that they can be used to justify all types of stuff that supports the ruling class. The Saudis/ Fundamentalist Jews/Likud Party /Evangelicals/ Catholic Church all are the same when it comes to this, they just differ on their religious "rules".

implying culture and religion are seperated in those countries

Not so much in Middle East but this is true in Africa, Indonesia and Central Asia. A lot of African revolutionaries in muslim majority countries/colonies/areas from 19th and 20th century would call Islam an Arab religion as much as they called Christianity a European religion.

Islam is a tribal iron age death cult founded by a slave-owning and patriarch merchant warlord. One of its most central pillars as an explicit tax based on accumulated wealth.

It is in no way, shape or form compatible with socialism no matter how often liberal orientalists try create an artificial divide between what they find attractive in Islamic civilisation (i.e. Islamic spirituality) and what they perceive to be contemporary negative stereotypes about Islam.

100%based

Attached: kebab.jpg (268x268, 27.35K)

That is total horseshit. There's a reason why the USSR went after the Catholics and the Orthodox Christians way more than it did the Muslims, and it's because Islam's barriers to entry are way lower and there is no centralized authority to tell the believers what to do beyond repeating the Shahada. Even the most lay Catholics will still do the bare minimum of going to church on Christmas.

Islam is much more compatible with socialism than other religions.

Attached: iraq_communist_arty.jpg (800x450, 54.73K)

This.
Look at how much of Soviet territory was Muslim and they still mostly went after Christians

Islamic Communism is Dialectical

Yeah Soviet Union was basically Islamic Caliphate brainlet

isj.org.uk/the-bolsheviks-and-islam/

Attached: sovi3.jpg (1200x800 237.68 KB, 177.31K)

Attached: 1527383920853.jpg (688x560, 60.91K)

Technically it's totally compatible if it's of their own free will and they don't get beat up or killed by having rocks thrown at your head repeatedly for not choosing so, realistically it's not since religion will melt away and the more radical elements will also melt away effectively destroying the social pressure and conditions for women to be forced to wear it.

Attached: enver_hoxha__the_historical_denigration_of_women.png (1024x557, 304.94K)

Attached: Gamal Abdel Nasser.webm (540x360, 6.75M)

fucking role model

Yeah no. In most muslim countries madrasas and imams control society through structures that differ little from the catholic church. Zakat collection and distribution takes social welfare out of the hands of workers in most islamic countries and puts it in the hands of a small clerical elite.

Awesome
tbh tho the guy in the crowd got in a better burn on the brotherhood than Nasser did

The reason the government encountered and dealt more with Christians was because the majority of people were Christians.
Hope your fucking joking here. There are loads of examples in multiple Muslim majority countries of centralized Islamic authority dictating proper conduct. Even the most decentralized groups still submit to a general clerical authority on level greater then your average Prot, who at the very least in its most non-denominational just straight up say "I don't need a church or group, I've got the Bible to tell me everything I need to know". I'm not the Prot user, but he would probably be having a brain aneurysm from reading that his faith has a high barrier of entry.

Is it compatible? Probably, but I don't know enough about Islam to judge that. I oppose religion by default, but I would not want people to be forced out of their religion like Hoxha
There are certain interpretations that are certainly intolerable, however. Many Muslims use their religion to try and justify fascist-tier tyranny like in Saudi Arabia.

this is the most tiresome fucking shitposting, user I hate you.

Well if its her own choice then whatever. Islam is still a very stupid religion. Why do liberals and leftists defend it so much?

lol whats it like to have no fucking clue about what you are talking about, go watch more fox news and read more infowars to get your info socdem reactionary shit

islam, like christianity can both be used for political means. when not used for political means islam is way more compatible with socialism (as we've seen by the muslims in the USSR who didn't split like the catholic reactionaries)

ramadan is about fasting in solidarity with the poor. and zikat is everyone being forced to give like 20% of their total wealth to the poorest members of society once a year.
Islam is all about the poor and equality.

of course its still an abrahamic religion so it has its problems and is totally un-dialectical but to buy into this bullshit media narrative of islam being a violent evil force that somehow is more backwards and reactionary than christianity and judaism is sheer stupidity. Burgerbux tier retardation and ill-information

Attached: marxist leninist left wing death squad levant.jpg (1024x768 41 KB, 176.6K)

I some of the quran. stupid age old fairytale.

based

sex isn't a commodity you dolt

They only didn't because they were given a separate Sharia based court. That's also being awfully selective given that there were other Christians and Catholics who didn't split as well.
Catholics and some Christians have similar things as well
Taxes and Charity=/=Socialism, but Christians donate money and assist the poor as well.
If this is how you define if something is more compatible with socialism, then I guess Catholics are compatible given the Corporal and Spiritual works of Mercy they are required to do.
It would be unmaterialist to imply people are violent because of their religion in the first place. My point of contention was that you straight up said
And
which I disagree with. I have no doubt there are Muslims who are socialists, but your saying Islam is the most socialist. Don't confuse me with the user you were initially responding to.

Religion is anti-materialist and must be repressed as soon as conditions allow it.

abahlali.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frantz-Fanon-A-Dying-Colonialism.pdf

Chapter 1, page 35 to the end of the chapter is generally how I feel about it.

Religion is "just" a belief system, and one with no evidence to justify a particular way or system. It's impossible to nail down Islam. Just try Christianity, some believe in the trinity, some don't. Some believe angels are warriors, some believe they are healers. Some believe a mix, some believe an offshoot you never heard of. Religion is at its heart divorced from reason, and thusly can not be targeted in broad swathes like "Islam". Religion has no connecting character throughout it, outside of its absolute insoluble core of faith over reason.
Not to make an excuse through obfuscation, I think all religion is reactionary at it's core, but it would be ridiculous and wrong to legislate against religion. People should give it up on their own, not because the Communists attempt to exorcize it.
So in short, religion is compatible with the establishment of Communism, but only because of the absolutely "freeform"trying to be positive nature of religion. Some religious beliefs are simply incompatible with any right standing way of life, however. Definitely won't ever be a thing to force people to wear Burkas in a Communist society.

I personally think the hijab look is ok (would look better with cat ears on top though). I'm no Muslim and I'm not even sure whether the Quoran specifically mentions the hijab rather than a more general advice about dressing modestly. I find something off about just saying: Let each individual woman decide. I think that would be a liberal take. Many women aren't orphans, they have brothers and a father. When a woman says she wants to wear it on her own volition and she says that while in the hearing range of male relatives, how can I be sure that is her real opinion? Issues like these make me think of the value of anonymous balloting. Yassamine Mather who hails from Iran probably wrote an article about the issue for the British "Weekly Worker".

...

Islam being much more younger than for instance Christianity is not only religion but a political doctrine. It strives to control every aspect of life, it's basically a destructive totalitarian sect. So, do you think it's ever compatible with communism? Soviets were so delicate dealing with Muslims solely because harsh measures would aspire antagonism, not because it's so socialism-friendly.

Attached: 24-ой Самарской Железной дивизии.jpg (320x606, 49.74K)

no.

if stalin, mao and the kim dynasty outlawed it all, it's probably for a good reason

...

Do you believe this to be the proper state of things?

5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.

There's a big difference between this requirement for women and having their head covered all the time,
So are you doing False equivalency or Taqyia?

The short answer:

The long answer:

The trend towards head scarfs in the middle east is a direct result of western imperialism. Part of the civilizing efforts of these colonial empires was to "liberate" Islamic women from the "patriarchal suffocation" that they supposed their society enforced on them. Ignoring the obvious hypocrisy, the headscarf at this time period was mostly a cultural garment, and was of no real repression to the women wearing it. However, by the colonial enforcement of disrobing, the imperialists turned the hijab into an anti-colonial icon. It also, arguably, turned it into a feminist icon as well, since "West approved feminism" was Victorian femininity under the guise of liberation.

As of late though, Islamic socialism is dead (RIP Gadaffi) [inb4 I am banned by BO], and all that is left is Islamic extremism and Arab nationalism. So no, it has lost much of its liberating status. There is no reason why someone shouldn't wear it if they like it though, either for cultural identity or bodily privacy.

Based.

Based Nasser. :(

All that shit is what Christians in the US have always been saying: from women being incapable of becoming pregnant due to rape, to creationists, who have far more retarded shit than even the flat Earth stuff, to blaming gays whenever a natural disaster happens. How is it any fucking different?
Who, Muslims in general or Muslim fundies in particular? Actually, it doesn't matter, because Muslim fundies have actually got awarded Nobels, along with Christian fundies, albeit both lag far behind atheists. Religiosity, as it turns out, is a far more important factor than adherence to any specific religion.

Attached: 037c588b7877d4706ea615c957b6ac267f93eac54e6fe4ba64c6e26701ee49de.png (657x539, 110.46K)

60% of Nobel prize winners are Christian, wtf are you on about?

Hijabs are fine. Niqabs and Burqas are not. Also under socialism rapists would be punished regardless of their cultural background or relation to tribal leaders so the need for women in those rural muslim areas to cover up would be lessened considerably.

Head coverings from ancient Arabia symbolise the mans ownership of his numerous wives. They were used to prevent other men looking at their wives beauty.
So if you think about it, Muslims are the only group who owns the means of repruduction.

reproduction

BASED HOXHA

Liberals are hipster conservatives, so they stick to their conservatives by pooing on Christianity, which conservatives love, and parading Islam, which they hate. Also, only liberals defend Islam. Liberals may also claim to be communist to troll conservatives epic style.

I give zero fucks about a headgear

islam needs to be wiped

Attached: erdoroach.jpg (720x883, 75.15K)

Nothing really wrong with the clothing itself.
What's bad about it is the religion behind it and that's its often forced on women.

Hijab is needed by all feminists crying about harassment and the fact that women's beauty should be a commodity in modern society

Like pottery, or something,
But yes, you are correct.
Fuck the 3 abrahamic cancers.

Well Islam community calls itself ummah (commune) so in this case, they invented communism before someone else start thinking about it

[Citation Needed]

not by force, it'd be a PR nightmare.

Zig Forums plz

It's 65% actually.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates

I like them. Women need to know their place. It helps maintain order. Humans need structure and roles. Oppression is the problem. A niqab tells a woman her sexuality is sacred and needs to be protected - what could be LESS oppressive than being worshipped?

I mean, communism DOES mean everyone will get sex. I can use my UBI to buy a sex worker's time.

I'm not sure how this would work with his last point about mandatory monogamy. Doesn't add up.

You couldn't do it anyway. Muslims are too organized, too strong, and too dedicated.

it's not fuck off incel

Obviously not

Attached: B39zv2iIcAAK02w.png (978x550, 485.65K)

Nein.

Based
Who SuicideBol Gang here

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729425/

Lolno, you can't be revolutionary in the worldly sphere and reformist in the spiritual one.

But communism loves islam.

Islam is cancer, just like every other religion. If you see a "marxist" defending it, he/she isn't a marxist

ummm, no.

t. never read marx

I don't care what people choose to wear but no one should be forced to wear a specific article of clothing. So it depends on if it's their choice.

Wrong. Women should be forced to wear high heels to appease my fetish.

without religion you have nihilism and various forms of idolatry. Reconsider your worldview user, this world didn't happen by "chance" as some materialists claim.

Attached: DOBF0dCV4AAbts4.jpg (1200x675, 64.86K)

Attached: tempfl.jpg (572x580, 70.96K)

t. incel

t. marx drone with no opinions of his own

Shitposting flag but it's fitting i guess

Translation:
Daughters of Uzbekistan.
During "backwards" socialism, during "progressive" capitalism.
20 years without the USSR.

Every religion is essentially law-giving in that it proposes rules on how society should be organized. Muslims just emphasise that part of their faith more. And for the love of Allah stop misusing liberal propaganda terms like totalitarian.

without reading theory, you have stupid posts like this. reconsider not opening a book user

dunno what's funnier, that you write liberal viewpoints like this or that you belong to organized religion and think it's an original thought

Because they can pat themselves on the back for defending a minority

Zakat is 2.5%
Ramadan has a bad form of fasting. Not eat during day light hours. Eat everything in sight in the evening and before sunrise. Repeat for a month

Thanks for the translation.

>"progressive" capitalism.
Seems like like a misnomer

Islamic clothing has changed in recent years. It used to be relatively benign, and had obvious non-religious appeal in sandland, since large baggy covering is comfortable in desert climates. But the recent trend of women looking like ninjas and walking tents is pure ideology.

This, before like the 1930s the burqa was this weird thing only a few afghan tribes did. Then al saud adopted it and spread it.

...

Pointless drivel, considering that at least two-thirds of the Koran is paraphrasing the Bible.

This. There's literally nothing wrong with Islam itself. All the bad things about it come from American aligned countries or those who are trying desperately to prevent America from turning them into the next Libya.

If you read his text, it's more than likely a salafist writing it instead of Not Socialist.

Why did the USSR invade Afghanistan instead of allowing the Taleban to take control of the entire country?

For the board owner, why don't you have Afrikaner Nationalist as a flag option?

If it wears hijab, then it is guaranteed to also have bomb, so we kills it with extreme prejudice. Death to all sand niggers. Praise mother Russia.

...