🔥🔥🔥 Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants

Tuesday, December 14, 2021 12:28:19 AM

Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants



Archived from the original on 2 December The image below offers a visual Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants all this. The fact that the UK Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants the US use different languages from the one I was used to presented a big challenge since I Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants to learn the language again. Liberty is a key underlying principle of western democracy, but true Liberty can only be accessed through laws pure freedom is anarchy, not what most people think of when they say liberty. All acting as one tyrant, sometimes under a single tyrant. Articles like these with an obvious bias from Comparing Emerson And Thoreaus Self-Reliance beginning actually make me Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants to think Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants other way after the writers Shermans Definition Of Total War becomes obvious. Gatsby," she suggested.

How to Write a Compare and Contrast Essay - Advance Writing

All educated people start looking down upon the forcible conversions and even started objecting to their very basis. Since then some naturalist Mohammadis [Muslims] are trying, rather opposing falsehood and accepting the truth, to prove unnecessarily and wrongly that Islam never indulged in Jihad and the people were never converted to Islam forcibly. Neither any temples were demolished nor were ever cows slaughtered in the temples.

Women and children belonging to other religious sects were never forcibly converted to Islam nor did they ever commit any sexual acts with them as could have been done with the slave-males and females both. Mahatma Gandhi , the moral leader of the 20th-century Indian independence movement, found the history of Muslims to be aggressive, while he claimed that Hindus have passed that stage of societal evolution:. Though, in my opinion, non violence has a predominant place in the Quran, the thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the Muslims fighters as a body. They are therefore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit. Jawaharlal Nehru , the first Prime Minister of India , in his book Discovery of India , describes Islam to have been a faith for military conquests.

He wrote "Islam had become a more rigid faith suited more to military conquests rather than the conquests of the mind", and that Muslims brought nothing new to his country. The Muslims who came to India from outside brought no new technique or political or economic structure. In spite of religious belief in the brotherhood of Islam, they were class bound and feudal in outlook. Iranian writer Sadegh Hedayat regarded Islam as the corrupter of Iran , he said:. Every aspect of life and thought, including women's condition, changed after Islam. Enslaved by men, women were confined to the home. Polygamy, injection of fatalistic attitude, mourning, sorrow and grief led people to seek solace in magic, witchcraft, prayer, and supernatural beings.

Nobel prize -winning novelist V. Naipaul stated that Islam requires its adherents to destroy everything which is not related to it. He described it as having a:. Calamitous effect on converted peoples, to be converted you have to destroy your past, destroy your history. You have to stamp on it, you have to say 'my ancestral culture does not exist, it doesn't matter'. Nobel prize -winning playwright Wole Soyinka stated that Islam had a role in denigrating African spiritual traditions. He criticized attempts to whitewash what he sees as the destructive and coercive history of Islam on the continent:.

Let those who wish to retain or evaluate religion as a twenty-first project feel free to do so, but let it not be done as a continuation of the game of denigration against the African spiritual heritage as in a recent television series perpetrated by Islam's born again revisionist of history, Professor Ali Mazrui. Soyinka also regarded Islam as "superstition" , and said that it does not belong to Africa. He stated that it is mainly spread with violence and force. Tatar Tengrists criticize Islam as a semitic religion, which forced Turks to submission to an alien culture. Submission and humility, two significant components of Islamic spirituality, are disregarded as major failings of Islam, not as virtues.

Further, since Islam mentions semitic history as if it were the history of all mankind, but disregards components of other cultures and spirituality, the international approach of Islam is seen as a threat. It additionally gives Imams an opportunity to march against their own people under the banner of international Islam. Even before accepting the religion of the Arabs, the Turks were a great nation. After accepting the religion of the Arabs, this religion, didn't effect to combine the Arabs, the Persians and Egyptians with the Turks to constitute a nation.

This religion rather, loosened the national nexus of Turkish nation, got national excitement numb. This was very natural. Because the purpose of the religion founded by Muhammad, over all nations, was to drag to an including Arab national politics. Sami Aldeeb , Palestinian-born Swiss lawyer and author of many books and articles on Arab and Islamic law , expressed various positions critical of Islam, for example, he positioned himself for a ban on the erection of minarets in Switzerland , since in his opinion the constitution allows prayer, but not shouting. He holds the theory that the Quran was written by a rabbi. Originality of Quranic manuscripts. According to traditional Islamic scholarship, all of the Quran was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive during — CE , but it was primarily an orally related document.

The written compilation of the whole Quran in its definite form as we have it now was not completed until many years after the death of Muhammad. Nevo argue that all the primary sources which exist are from to years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events. Imperfections in the Quran. Critics reject the idea that the Quran is miraculously perfect and impossible to imitate as asserted in the Quran itself. Critics, however, argue that peculiarities can be found in the text.

For example, critics note that a sentence in which something is said concerning Allah is sometimes followed immediately by another in which Allah is the speaker examples of this are suras xvi. Many peculiarities in the positions of words are due to the necessities of rhyme lxix. Judaism and the Quran. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia , "The dependence of Mohammed upon his Jewish teachers or upon what he heard of the Jewish Haggadah and Jewish practices is now generally conceded. Some of this negative reaction is undoubtedly due to its radicalness Wansbrough's work has been embraced wholeheartedly by few and has been employed in a piecemeal fashion by many. Many praise his insights and methods, if not all of his conclusions.

Bernard Lewis describes this as "something like what in Christian history was called a Judaizing heresy. Mohammed and God as speakers. According to Ibn Warraq , the Iranian rationalist Ali Dashti criticized the Quran on the basis that for some passages, "the speaker cannot have been God. Furthermore, it is also known that one of the companions of Muhammad, Ibn Masud , rejected Surah Fatihah as being part of the Quran; these kind of disagreements are, in fact, common among the companions of Muhammad who could not decide which surahs were part of the Quran and which not. Critics point to various pre-existing sources to argue against the traditional narrative of revelation from God. Some scholars have calculated that one third of the Quran has pre-Islamic Christian origins.

Hadith are Muslim traditions relating to the Sunnah words and deeds of Muhammad. They are drawn from the writings of scholars writing between and CE, more than years after the death of Mohammed in CE. The four schools of Sunni Islam all consider Hadith second only to the Quran, although they differ on how much freedom of interpretation should be allowed to legal scholars. The Shi'as accept the Sunnah of Ali and the Imams as authoritative in addition to the Sunnah of Muhammad, and as a consequence they maintain their own, different, collections of Hadith.

It has been suggested that there exists around the Hadith three major sources of corruption: political conflicts, sectarian prejudice, and the desire to translate the underlying meaning, rather than the original words verbatim. Muslim critics of the hadith, Quranists , reject the authority of hadith on theological grounds, pointing to verses in the Quran itself: " Nothing have We omitted from the Book ", [] declaring that all necessary instruction can be found within the Quran, without reference to the Hadith. They claim that following the Hadith has led to people straying from the original purpose of God's revelation to Muhammad, adherence to the Quran alone. A fatwa , ruling, signed by more than a thousand orthodox clerics, denounced him as a 'kafir', a non-believer.

John Esposito notes that "Modern Western scholarship has seriously questioned the historicity and authenticity of the hadith ", maintaining that "the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad were actually written much later. Orthodox Muslims do not deny the existence of false hadith, but believe that through the scholars' work, these false hadith have been largely eliminated. The traditional view of Islam has also been criticised for the lack of supporting evidence consistent with that view, such as the lack of archaeological evidence, and discrepancies with non-Muslim literary sources. They tried to correct or reconstruct the early history of Islam from other, presumably more reliable, sources such as coins, inscriptions, and non-Islamic sources.

The oldest of this group was John Wansbrough — Wansbrough's works were widely noted, but perhaps not widely read. In a cache of ancient Qurans in a mosque in Sana'a, Yemen was discovered — commonly known as the Sana'a manuscripts. The German scholar Gerd R. Puin has been investigating these Quran fragments for years. His research team made 35, microfilm photographs of the manuscripts, which he dated to early part of the 8th century. Puin has not published the entirety of his work, but noted unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography. He also suggested that some of the parchments were palimpsests which had been reused. Puin believed that this implied a text that changed over time as opposed to one that remained the same.

Kaaba is the most sacred site in Islam. In her book, Islam: A Short History , Karen Armstrong asserts that the Kaaba was officially dedicated to Hubal , a Nabatean deity, and contained idols that probably represented the days of the year. The others also allegedly had counterparts of the Black Stone. There was a "red stone", the deity of the south Arabian city of Ghaiman, and the "white stone" in the Kaaba of al-Abalat near the city of Tabala , south of Mecca. Grunebaum in Classical Islam points out that the experience of divinity of that period was often associated with stone fetishes , mountains, special rock formations, or "trees of strange growth.

According to Sarwar, [] about years before the birth of Muhammad, a man named "Amr bin Lahyo bin Harath bin Amr ul-Qais bin Thalaba bin Azd bin Khalan bin Babalyun bin Saba", who was descended from Qahtan and was the king of Hijaz had placed a Hubal idol onto the roof of the Kaaba. This idol was one of the chief deities of the ruling tribe Quraysh. The idol was made of red agate and shaped like a human, but with the right hand broken off and replaced with a golden hand. When the idol was moved inside the Kaaba, it had seven arrows in front of it, which were used for divination. They depict it as a city grown rich on the proceeds of the spice trade. Patricia Crone believes that this is an exaggeration and that Mecca may only have been an outpost trading with nomads for leather, cloth, and camel butter.

Crone argues that if Mecca had been a well-known center of trade, it would have been mentioned by later authors such as Procopius , Nonnosus , or the Syrian church chroniclers writing in Syriac. The town is absent, however, from any geographies or histories written in the three centuries before the rise of Islam. Muhammad is considered one of the prophets in Islam and as a model for followers. Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf wrote a poetic eulogy commemorating the slain Quraish notables; later, he had traveled to Mecca and provoked the Quraish to fight Muhammad. He also wrote erotic poetry about Muslim women, which offended the Muslims there. Other sources also state that he was plotting to assassinate Muhammad. Muhammad ibn Maslama offered his services, collecting four others. By pretending to have turned against Muhammad, Muhammad ibn Maslama and the others enticed Ka'b out of his fortress on a moonlit night, [] and killed him in spite of his vigorous resistance.

According to scriptural Sunni's Hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated. Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari , born in Persia years after Muhammmad's death, suggested that she was ten years old. Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi , born about years after Muhammad's death, cited Hisham ibn Urwah as saying that she was nine years old at marriage, and twelve at consummation, [] but Hisham ibn Urwah 's original source is otherwise unknown, and Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi 's work does not have the high religious status of the Hadith. In the twentieth century, Indian writer Muhammad Ali challenged the Hadith showing that Aisha was not as young as the traditional sources claim, arguing that instead, a new interpretation of the Hadith compiled by Mishkat al-Masabih , Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, could indicate that Aisha would have been nineteen years old around the time of her marriage.

Colin Turner, a UK professor of Islamic studies , [] states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among the Bedouins , Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries. Marriages conducted in absentia to seal an alliance were often contracted at this time between adults and minors who were even younger than Aisha. According to some critics, the morality of the Quran appears to be a moral regression when judged by the standards of the moral traditions of Judaism and Christianity it says that it builds upon.

The Catholic Encyclopedia , for example, states that "the ethics of Islam are far inferior to those of Judaism and even more inferior to those of the New Testament" and "that in the ethics of Islam there is a great deal to admire and to approve, is beyond dispute; but of originality or superiority, there is none. In The End of Faith Harris argues that Muslim extremism is simply a consequence of taking the Quran literally, and is skeptical that moderate Islam is possible.

Henry Martyn claims that the concept of the Houris was chosen to satisfy Muhammad's followers. Bernard Lewis writes: "In one of the sad paradoxes of human history , it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire. According to Brockopp, on the other hand, the idea of using alms for the manumission of slaves appears to be unique to the Quran, assuming the traditional interpretation of verses [ Quran ] and [ Quran ]. Similarly, the practice of freeing slaves in atonement for certain sins appears to be introduced by the Quran but compare Exod The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time.

Critics argue unlike Western societies which in their opposition to slavery spawned anti-slavery movements whose numbers and enthusiasm often grew out of church groups, no such grass-roots organizations ever developed in Muslim societies. In Muslim politics the state unquestioningly accepted the teachings of Islam and applied them as law. Islam, by sanctioning slavery, also extended legitimacy to the traffic in slaves. According to Maurice Middleberg, however, " Sura 90 in the Quran states that the righteous path involves 'the freeing of slaves. He did not set out to abolish slavery, but rather to improve the conditions of slaves by urging his followers to treat their slaves humanely and free them as a way of expiating one's sins which some modern Muslim authors have interpreted as indication that Muhammad envisioned a gradual abolition of slavery.

Critics say it was only in the early 20th century post World War I that slavery gradually became outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France. By legitimizing slavery and — by extension — traffic in slaves, Islam elevated those practices to an unassailable moral plane. As a result, in no part of the Muslim world was an ideological challenge ever mounted against slavery. The political and social system in Muslim society would have taken a dim view of such a challenge. However, In Islamic jurisprudence , slavery was theoretically an exceptional condition under the dictum The basic principle is liberty al-'asl huwa 'l-hurriya , so that for a foundling or another person whose status was unknown freedom was presumed and enslavement forbidden.

The issue of slavery in the Islamic world in modern times is controversial. Critics argue there is hard evidence of its existence and destructive effects. Others maintain slavery in central Islamic lands has been virtually extinct since mid-twentieth century, and that reports from Sudan and Somalia showing practice of slavery is in border areas as a result of continuing war [] and not Islamic belief. In recent years, according to some scholars, [] there has been a "worrying trend" of "reopening" of the issue of slavery by some conservative Salafi Islamic scholars after its "closing" earlier in the 20th century when Muslim countries banned slavery and "most Muslim scholars" found the practice "inconsistent with Qur'anic morality.

Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri of Karbala expressed the view in that the enforcement of servitude can occur but is restricted to war captives and those born of slaves. In a issue of their digital magazine Dabiq , the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant explicitly claimed religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women. According to Islamic law apostasy is identified by a list of actions such as conversion to another religion, denying the existence of God , rejecting the prophets , mocking God or the prophets, idol worship, rejecting the sharia , or permitting behavior that is forbidden by the sharia, such as adultery or the eating of forbidden foods or drinking of alcoholic beverages.

The kind of apostasy which the jurists generally deemed punishable was of the political kind, although there were considerable legal differences of opinion on this matter. Laws prohibiting religious conversion run contrary to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which states that "[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Bosworth suggests the traditional view of apostasy hampered the development of Islamic learning, arguing that while the organizational form of the Christian university allowed them to develop and flourish into the modern university, "the Muslim ones remained constricted by the doctrine of waqf alone, with their physical plant often deteriorating hopelessly and their curricula narrowed by the exclusion of the non-traditional religious sciences like philosophy and natural science," out of fear that these could evolve into potential toe-holds for kufr , those people who reject God.

At a human rights conference at Mofid University in Qom , Araki stated that "if an individual doubts Islam, he does not become the subject of punishment, but if the doubt is openly expressed , this is not permissible. In 13 Muslim-majority countries atheism is punishable by death. This principle was upheld "even in extreme situations", such as when an offender adopts Islam "only for fear of death", based on the hadith that Muhammad had upbraided a follower for killing a raider who had uttered the shahada. The penalty for apostasy in Islamic law is death. Islam is conceived as a polity, not just as a religious community.

It follows therefore that apostasy is treason. It is a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty. Any sustained and principled opposition to the existing regime or order almost inevitably involves such a withdrawal. The four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence , as well as Shi'a scholars, agree on the difference of punishment between male and female.

A sane adult male apostate may be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to the majority view, or imprisoned until she repents, according to others. The Quran threatens apostates with punishment in the next world only, the historian W. Heffening states, the traditions however contain the element of death penalty. Muslim scholar Shafi'i interprets verse Quran [] as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in Quran.

William Montgomery Watt , in response to a question about Western views of the Islamic Law as being cruel, states that "In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer. Some contemporary Islamic jurists from both the Sunni and Shia denominations together with Quran only Muslims have argued or issued fatwas that state that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances.

Montazeri defines different types of apostasy. He does not hold that a reversion of belief because of investigation and research is punishable by death but prescribes capital punishment for a desertion of Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim. According to Yohanan Friedmann , an Israeli Islamic Studies scholar, a Muslim may stress tolerant elements of Islam by for instance adopting the broadest interpretation of Quran "No compulsion is there in religion Similarly neither Judaism nor Christianity treated apostasy and apostates with any particular kindness". The real predicament facing modern Muslims with liberal convictions is not the existence of stern laws against apostasy in medieval Muslim books of law, but rather the fact that accusations of apostasy and demands to punish it are heard time and again from radical elements in the contemporary Islamic world.

Some widely held interpretations of Islam are inconsistent with Human Rights conventions that recognize the right to change religion. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion of his choice. The right for Muslims to change their religion is not afforded by the Iranian Shari'ah law , which specifically forbids it.

In , the Iranian representative to the United Nations , Said Rajaie-Khorassani , articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. The prosecution of converts from Islam on the basis of religious edicts that identify apostasy as an offense punishable by death is clearly at variance with this obligation. Abul Ala Maududi , the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami , [] wrote a book called Human Rights in Islam , [] in which he argues that respect for human rights has always been enshrined in Sharia law indeed that the roots of these rights are to be found in Islamic doctrine [] and criticizes Western notions that there is an inherent contradiction between the two.

The September 11 attacks on the United States, and various other acts of Islamic terrorism over the 21st century, have resulted in many non-Muslims' indictment of Islam as a violent religion. On the one hand, some critics claim that certain verses of the Quran sanction military action against unbelievers as a whole both during the lifetime of Muhammad and after. The Quran says, "Fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you.

Orientalist David Margoliouth described the Battle of Khaybar as the "stage at which Islam became a menace to the whole world. Montgomery Watt mentions another reason for the battle. He believes Jews' intriguing and use of their wealth to incite tribes against Muhammad left him no choice but to attack. Jihad , an Islamic term , is a religious duty of Muslims. Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving for the sake of God al-jihad fi sabil Allah ". A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam , though it occupies no such official status.

The Quran calls repeatedly for jihad, or holy struggle, resistance, against unbelievers, including, at times, Jews and Christians. The Quran: : " Another aim and objective of jihad is to drive terror in the hearts of the [infidels]. To terrorize them. Did you know that we were commanded in the Qur'an with terrorism? Allah said, and prepare for them to the best of your ability with power, and with horses of war. To drive terror in the hearts of my enemies, Allah's enemies, and your enemies. And other enemies which you don't know, only Allah knows them So we were commanded to drive terror into the hearts of the [infidels], to prepare for them with the best of our abilities with power.

Then the Prophet said, nay, the power is your ability to shoot. The power which you are commanded with here, is your ability to shoot. Another aim and objective of jihad is to kill the [infidels], to lessen the population of the [infidels] David Cook, author of Understanding Jihad , said "In reading Muslim literature — both contemporary and classical — one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible.

Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non- Western language such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu , would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. According to Fawzy Abdelmalek, "many Muslim scholars speak of Islam as a religion of peace and not of violence. They say that the non-Muslims misunderstand the Quran verses about Jihad and the conduct of war in Islam.

Dennis Prager , columnist and author, in responding to a movement that contends that Islam is "a religion of peace," wrote: "Now, Islam has never been a religion of peace. It began as a warlike religion and throughout its history, whenever possible, made war on non-Muslims — from the polytheists of North Africa to the Hindus of India, about 60 to 80 million of whom Muslims killed during their thousand-year rule there.

Neuman, a scholar on religion, describes Islam as "a perfect anti-religion" and "the antithesis of Buddhism. Charles Mathewes characterizes the peace verses as saying that "if others want peace, you can accept them as peaceful even if they are not Muslim. Lawrence Wright , author of a Pulitzer-prize-winning book, argued that role of Wahhabi literature in Saudi schools contributing suspicion and hate violence against non-Muslims as non-believers or infidels and anyone who "disagrees with Wahhabism is either an infidel or a deviant, who should repent or be killed.

Beheading was a standard method of execution in pre-modern Islamic law. Though a formerly widespread execution method, its use had been abandoned in most countries by the end of the 20th century. Currently, it is used only in Saudi Arabia. It also remains a legal method of execution in Iran, Qatar and Yemen, where it is no longer in use. Most international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International , condemn Islamic laws that make homosexual relations between consenting adults a crime.

In May , the sexual rights lobby group Lambda Istanbul based in Istanbul , Turkey was banned by court order for violating a constitutional provision on the protection of the family and an article banning bodies with objectives that violate law and morality. In 10 Muslim-majority countries homosexual acts may be punishable by death, though in some the punishment has never been carried out. The ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq states that the Quran's condemnation of homosexuality has frequently been ignored in practice, and that Islamic countries were much more tolerant of homosexuality than Christian ones until fairly recently.

The duration of this type of marriage is fixed at its inception and is then automatically dissolved upon completion of its term. Ibn Kathir writes that "[t]here's no doubt that in the outset of Islam, Mut'ah was allowed under the Shari'ah". No other school of Islamic jurisprudence allows it. For example, it has been narrated from Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja'far al-Sadiq that they said "regarding the [above] verse, and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed. Sunnis believe that Muhammad later abolished this type of marriage at several different large events, the most accepted being at Khaybar in 7 AH CE Bukhari Most Sunnis believe that Umar later was merely enforcing a prohibition that was established during Muhammad's time.

Women must observe a period of celibacy idda to allow for the identification of a child's legitimate father, and a woman can only be married to one person at a time, be it temporary or permanent. Some Shia scholars also view Mut'ah as a means of eradicating prostitution from society. Misyar has been suggested by some western authors to be a comparable marriage with Nikah mut'ah and that they find it for the sole purpose of "sexual gratification in a licit manner" [] [] According to Florian Pohl, assistant professor of religion at Oxford College , Misyar marriage is a controversial issue in the Muslim world, as many see it as practice that encourages marriages for purely sexual purposes, or that it is used as a cover for a form of prostitutuion.

Professor Yusuf Al-Qaradawi observes that he does not promote this type of marriage, although he has to recognise that it is legal, since it fulfils all the requirements of the usual marriage contract. They agree that the wife can at any time, reclaim the rights which she gave up at the time of contract. For Al-Albani , misyar marriage may even be considered illicit, because it runs counter to the objectives and the spirit of marriage in Islam, as described in the Quran: "And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your hearts …" [] Al-Albani also underlines the social problems which result from the "misyar" marriage, particularly in the event that children are born from this union.

The children raised by their mother in a home from which the father is always absent, without reason, may suffer difficulties. Ibn Uthaymeen recognized the legality of "misyar" marriage under Shariah , but came to oppose it due to what he considered to be its harmful effects. Many scholars [] [] claim Shari'a law encourages domestic violence against women, when a husband suspects nushuz disobedience, disloyalty, rebellion, ill conduct in his wife. One of the verses of the Quran relating to permissibility of domestic violence is Surah On the other hand, scholars and commentators have stated that Muhammad directed men not to hit their wives' faces, [] he said in Farewell Sermon not to beat their wives in such a way as would leave marks on their body.

Shari'a is the basis for personal status laws in most Islamic majority nations. These personal status laws determine rights of women in matters of marriage, divorce and child custody. In legal proceedings under Shari'a law, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's before a court. Except for Iran, Lebanon and Bahrain, which allow child marriages, the civil code in Islamic majority countries do not allow child marriage of girls. However, with Shari'a personal status laws, Shari'a courts in all these nations have the power to override the civil code. The religious courts permit girls less than 18 years old to marry. As of , child marriages are common in a few Middle Eastern countries, accounting for 1 in 6 of all marriages in Egypt and 1 in 3 marriages in Yemen.

However, the average age at marriage in most Middle Eastern countries is steadily rising and is generally in the low to mid 20s for women. Sharia grants women the right to inherit property from other family members, and these rights are detailed in the Quran. The status of women in classical Islamic law compared favorably to their status under laws of other contemporaneous cultures such those of pre-modern Europe, both in terms of financial independence and access to divorce, but the situation is different if it is evaluated against modern conceptions. Sharia recognizes the basic inequality between master and women slave, between free women and slave women, between believers and non-believers, as well as their unequal rights.

Slave women under sharia did not have a right to own property, right to free movement or right to consent. However, manumission required that the non-Muslim slave first convert to Islam. Starting with the 20th century, Western legal systems evolved to expand women's rights, but women's rights under Islamic law have remained tied to Quran, hadiths and their faithful interpretation as sharia by Islamic jurists. The immigration of Muslims to Europe has increased in recent decades.

Friction has developed between their new neighbours. Conservative Muslim social attitudes on modern issues have caused controversy in Europe and elsewhere. Scholars argue about how much these attitudes are a result of Islamic beliefs. Some critics consider Islam to be incompatible with secular Western society, and that, unlike other religions, Islam positively commands its adherents to impose its religious law on all peoples, believers and unbelievers alike, whenever possible and by any means necessary. Statements by proponents like Pascal Bruckner [] describe multiculturalism as an invention of an "enlightened" elite who deny the benefits of democratic rights to non-Westerners by chaining them to their roots.

They believe this allows Islam free rein to propagate what they state are abuses, such as the mistreatment of women and homosexuals , and in some countries slavery. They also state that multiculturalism allows a degree of religious freedom [] that exceeds what is needed for personal religious freedom [] and is conducive to the creation of organizations aimed at undermining European secular or Christian values. Emigrants from nearly every predominantly Muslim country have immigrated to Canada. In the United States, after the Boston Marathon bombing , the immigration processes in the country are assumed to be harder. In , speaking to the Acton Institute on the problems of "secular democracy", Cardinal George Pell drew a parallel between Islam and communism : "Islam may provide in the 21st century, the attraction that communism provided in the 20th, both for those that are alienated and embittered on the one hand and for those who seek order or justice on the other.

Writers such as Stephen Suleyman Schwartz [] and Christopher Hitchens , [] find some elements of Islamism fascistic. Malise Ruthven , a Scottish writer and historian who writes on religion and Islamic affairs, opposes redefining Islamism as " Islamofascism ", but also finds the resemblances between the two ideologies "compelling". French philosopher Alexandre del Valle compared Islamism with fascism and communism in his Red-green-brown alliance theory. John Esposito has written a number of introductory texts on Islam and the Islamic world.

He has addressed issues including the rise of militant Islam , the veiling of women, and democracy. He thinks that "too often coverage of Islam and the Muslim world assumes the existence of a monolithic Islam in which all Muslims are the same. Watt argues on a basis of moral relativism that Muhammad should be judged by the standards of his own time and country rather than "by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today.

Karen Armstrong , tracing what she believes to be the West's long history of hostility toward Islam, finds in Muhammad's teachings a theology of peace and tolerance. Armstrong holds that the "holy war" urged by the Quran alludes to each Muslim's duty to fight for a just, decent society. Edward Said , in his essay Islam Through Western Eyes , writes that the general basis of Orientalist thought forms a study structure in which Islam is placed in an inferior position as an object of study. He argues the existence of a very considerable bias in Orientalist writings as a consequence of the scholars' cultural make-up.

He states that Islam has been looked at with a particular hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons, all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity. Cathy Young of Reason Magazine writes that "criticism of the religion is enmeshed with cultural and ethnic hostility" often painting the Muslim world as monolithic. While stating that the terms " Islamophobia " and "anti-Muslim bigotry" are often used in response to legitimate criticism of fundamentalist Islam and problems within Muslim culture, she argues that "the real thing does exist, and it frequently takes the cover of anti-jihadism.

In contrast to the widespread Western belief that women in Muslim societies are oppressed and denied opportunities to realize their full potential, most Muslims believe their faith to be liberating or fair to women, and some find it offensive that Westerners criticize it without fully understanding the historical and contemporary realities of Muslim women's lives. Conservative Muslims in particular in common with some Christians and Jews see women in the West as being economically exploited for their labor, sexually abused, and commodified through the media's fixation on the female body. Bernard Lewis maintains that though slaves often suffered on the way before reaching their destination, they received good treatment and some degree of acceptance as members of their owners' households.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Overviews and criticism of the Islamic religion. Texts Foundations. Culture and society. Related topics. By religion. By religious figure. By text. Religious violence. Main article: Medieval Christian views on Muhammad. This section contains too many or overly lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by presenting facts as a neutrally worded summary with appropriate citations. Consider transferring direct quotations to Wikiquote or, for entire works, to Wikisource. September Main article: Criticism of the Quran. Main article: Criticism of Hadith.

See also: Historiography of early Islam. Main article: Criticism of Muhammad. See also: Criticism of Muhammad Aisha and Child marriage. Main article: Islamic ethics. Main articles: Islamic views on slavery and Sexual slavery in Islam. Main article: Apostasy in Islam. See also: Sharia. See also: Human rights. Main article: Islam and violence. See also: Quran and violence and Islam and war. Further information: Beheading in Islam. Main article: Nikah Misyar. Main article: Women in Islam. Main article: Islam and domestic violence. See also: Multiculturalism and Islam and Opposition to immigration. Unfavorable views of Muslims, [] Country Percent Slovakia. Islam portal Religion portal. See Migne. Patrologia Graeca , vol.

Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. Prometheus Books. ISBN Moshe Perlmann Berkeley and Los Angeles, , pp. Retrieved 16 April The New York Times. Retrieved 16 January Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2 April The Independent. Retrieved 15 March McDonald, Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22 April Islamic Imperialism: A History. Yale University Press. In John L. Esposito ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 23 February Retrieved 23 February The New York Review of Books.

Ghosh claimed Muslim immigrants in India are now attacking Hindus and forcibly seeking to convert Hindu girls to Islam. He has demanded that the Indian government halt illegal immigration from Bangladesh and deport undocumented Muslims back to Bangladesh. Archived from the original on 15 December Archived from the original on 25 December Retrieved 25 March John of Damascus's Critique of Islam". Writings by St John of Damascus. The Fathers of the Church. Retrieved 8 July Religions , 10, Harper San Francisco.

Retrieved 13 July International Journal of Middle East Studies. Justice and Democracy. University of Hawaii Press. UNC Press. Why I Am Not a Muslim , p. Prometheus Books, Retrieved 29 April Epistles of Maimonides: crisis and leadership. Jewish Publication Society. This spherical shape, or double horseshoe, shows how similar extremely authoritarian positions can be and it shows how similar non-authoritative positions can be. Social left-right differences aside, there is only a thin line between extreme authoritarian ideologies and only a thin line between different left-right flavors of stateless governments… Still, the line is there, and these ideologies can be discussed issue-by-issue using the terms left and right.

Each modern American ideology favors a mix of left-right views, this can be understood by understanding classical and social liberalism and conservatism , where generally speaking:. On a left-right chart that uses our liberty and equality paradigms , those identities look like this. These complexities are indicative of why we want to consider multiple paradigms when discussing left-right politics, and why we should use comparative terms and discuss left-right ideology issue-by-issue.

TIP : In America, we tend to call the Republican party, with all its many ideological factions with differing stances, right-wing and conservative. Likewise, we call the Democratic Party, with all its ideological factions with differing stances, left-wing and liberal. In America, the liberal-left tends to err on the side of collectivism and social equality they tend to be socially liberal , and the conservative right on the side of individualism and social hierarchy they tend to be socially conservative , but the reality is most people, parties, and factions within parties hold beliefs that span the political spectrum. Bill of Rights.

TIP : When denoting a stance on an issue, terms like classical liberal-left, social liberal-left, classical conservative-right, and social conservative-right , and then add in terms of social issues, in terms of economic issues, or in terms of political issues of liberties and rights to provide clarity. From here we can then create a robust left-right spectrum of possibilities between extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing by charting and plotting the above paradigms and other related ones featured below … and subsequently, things can get a little complex.

Feel free to skip around the page or quest questions in the comments below. Below we discuss some complexities that we have only noted above, but which are central to understanding left-right politics and political spectrums. Our core terms liberty and equality generally relate back to what it means to be left liberal or right conservative , both in their classical and social forms , be we talking about politics, economics, or other issues, and thus all other paradigms we create will all generally relate back to these two terms at the heart of the French Revolution, liberalism and by extension conservatism , and democracy and by extension Monarchy and the other classical forms of government.

These sub-paradigms include all of those listed above in the introduction, the following examples, other paradigms listed on the page, and paradigms in the section below. For example, they include : free-market vs. The vital concept here is that 1. TIP : There is more to say then I can say quickly. One thing to note is that issues like economics and who has legislative power are realist factors and liberty and equality are idealist virtues. We root our system in idealism, but extend it into realism when we consider the multiple paradigms.

Only unlike Plato, we also draw from Aristotle and root our system in realism too. In fact, as you can see above, we can treat the idealist v. Just consider these extremes, a collective with no authority is bound to dissolve into anarchy, a society of individuals with absolute authority is anarchy, an individual with complete authority is a despot, and a state with absolute authority is a despotic state.

Simply put, pure left, pure right, and even extremes of mixed-left-right are some of the worst ideologies in practice for large groups although some pure forms work in sub-groups in very specific situations; such as in a rule-abiding and elite unit of Marines or a small communal democracy. The idea here is to start simple by looking at liberty, equality, and the roots of left and right in the French Revolution. The goal of all this is to be able to consider and compare specific left-right paradigms with policy stances in the political sphere, in the economic sphere, in the social sphere, etc issue-by-issue to get a true sense of the leftness and rightness regarding a given policy or ideology.

The following 2-point left-right paradigm which tries to consider everything at once, but which we can say is considering the paradigm globalism left vs. Or, 2. Neither of those paradigms are fully wrong, but neither aligns fully with what we mean when we say left and right , and that is why a more complex theory is being used here. On some issues, communism and fascism are polar left-right opposites, but on other issues like their stance on liberty , they often find themselves holding the same authority-right position.

In this respect, placing broad ideologies with many different stances on a simple 2-point chart that tries to consider everything at once is always going to miss the mark in some ways. TIP : Another popular choice is to use economy as one paradigm and authority-libertarianism as another. The problem with this is discussed in a few places on this page, but the basic complaint I have is that economics is complex, and although it is foundational to governments, it is not a single A…B issue that speaks to the heart of what it means to be left or right rather nearly every real life economic position is a complex mix of left and right positions.

It is for this reason that we consider economy to be a very important sub-paradigm, perhaps even the third most important, but it is an awkward replacement for the general sentiment of equality… as the desire for equality is more fundamental to the human condition and is not purely economic. This is the main problem I personally have with the political compass and Nolan chart. I explain this more in the next section. It is a work in progress. From this point forward the information is still useful and insightful, but it is slightly disorganized for the moment while I re-work the page an ongoing effort … e. Our theory expands upon and in my humble opinion improves upon these models it adds to, not replaces these excellent and useable models.

Consider, our model treats economy as a paradigm that can be laid over our basic model just as easily as a paradigm related to church and state or realism vs. Meanwhile, their models require us to always focus on the realist and empirical sphere of economics for every issue! In focusing on economy, and focusing on it as one absolute thing and not a thing that differs issue-by-issue in terms of trade, social programs, military spending, etc , their paradigms miss the bigger picture and thus invite in confusion when discussing complex mixed ideologies like social liberalism or fascism. However, it does have an equality and a liberty measure.

If we just consider economy and authority, then Stalin and Hitler both call for an authoritative planned economy for nationals only, and thus a left-right chart that only considers economy and authority would paint these two in a similar way. However, when we go issue by issue, we find real left-right differences in terms of social issues between despotic fascism and despotic communism even if both are equally authoritative.

I get that people want to speak in terms of economy, as it is a very central issue regarding politics, but I am being left in terms of idealism here and pointing out that we have to consider the ethical and moral spheres; not just empirical senses right , but idealist sensibility left …. Notes on political identities and left-right politics : An anarchist is for total liberty, but can be left or right on social issues.

To be anarchist, or libertarian for that matter, or classically liberal, or non-authoritative social conservative means to be toward liberty but it does not set all left-right issues in stone… even if it does inform them. Now, generally a social conservative will be toward the right of a social liberal on most social issues, but certainly not on every one. Further, the reality is, in comparative terms, some socially conservative groups are to the left and right of each other issue-by-issue. We can call fascists right-wing and an anarchists left-wing, but if we dig in issue by issue we can see that this is oversimplifying things. A given ideology will have members and groups that are comparable to the social, political, or economic left and right of each other with stances that change per issue.

If we compare only Communism to Fascism, then generally communism is left and fascism is right, however if we go issue-by-issue and group-by-group, we can see clearly that positions change group-to-group, wing-to-wing, and issue-to-issue. We could probably sum this up by saying ideologies tend to span a range of positions on a 4-point left-right chart in general and can span the whole chart in some cases if we go issue-by-issue. Any issue we can consider, nuanced or broad, can have a left-right stance applied to it in terms of at least liberty and equality. In all cases, our basic 2-point and 4-point spectrums can inform which position is which. The result should be a left-right label that lines up with our modern semantics and the cannons of philosophy.

Notes on economics, taxation, and left-right politics : Economics is complex when it comes to left-right politics, and in no one place is this more clear than on the subject of taxation. Semantically, and in terms of our model, favoring freedom from government is liberty-left, yet at the same time favoring taxation for the common good is equality-left. On the same token, favoring freedom from government also ensures social hierarchy-right and its implied social inequality-right , yet at the same time favoring taxation for the common good is also authority-right. In this respect, the best way to denote stances on taxation would be classical liberal-left, social liberal-left, classical conservative-right, and social conservative-right. If we accept this as true, then we can confirm that our model which uses that two way and then four-way basic split is the correct model.

When we consider economics, we want to consider that vital paradigm as at least one sub-paradigm, if not many for example, the paradigm of trade, the paradigm of taxation in terms of liberty, the paradigm of taxation in terms of equality, the paradigm of spending, the paradigm of how much say people should have, etc. While he was left-wing in terms of favoring social welfare for his nationals, he also favored social hierarchy, extreme authority, nationalism, a mostly planned economy, and protectionism. We call that socially conservative, but authoritative, collectivist ideology fascist. NOTE : One might note that unlike other left-right theories, we do not treat economics as a fundamental left-right paradigm.

Instead, we treat it as multiple paradigms as social spending, as taxation, as trade, as monetary policy, as a position on central banking etc to which the above paradigms can be applied to determine the leftness, rightness, or centrism of a position. These views can connect or conflict, for example one could want total liberty, but not inequality, or one could want total equality, but favor liberty even if it means hierarchy as a result.

Still, any given position can be described as right-wing or left-wing, as can ideologies in general. In this way a left-right stance can be denoted on any sociopolitical issue. The tension and conflict simply speaks to why left-right politics is tricky to get, should be considered issue-by-issue, and is hard to break down in a single two-point chart as that would force one to consider liberty, social equality, economics, and favored government type at once for example. There are, with all the above in mind, other ways to frame the core concepts behind left-right politics.

We get four flavors of left-right that differ by stances on authority and social equality. A liberty vs. This left-right chart shows the core theory of considering a liberty paradigm and equality paradigm. A four-point chart again, but this time denoting terms to describe each quadrant where pure right-wing is at the top right corner, and pure left-wing is at the bottom left corner, and moving toward either from a more centered position denotes moving toward the political left or right respectively :.

The philosophical point of the United States and the U. Likewise, the Tyrant Stalin or Hitler may say they are acting upon the will of the collective, but may strip the people of their rights and liberties, thus they would be acting far-right in many respects despite their on paper ideology. Real systems are very complex, and specifically individualism vs. Our model is meant to help us to decode complex real systems. This left-right model with explainers is one way to look at the basic 4 point left-right spectrum. Left-right paradigms can be applied within different left-right spheres. Understanding this helps us to understand why, for example, an ideology might be left in terms of social issues, right in terms authority, but left in terms of economics i.

Left-Right Politics the paradigms of the left-right political sphere. We can discuss this sphere in terms of left-right social issues, left-right economics, left-right governments, etc as noted below. This section is all about making distinctions so we can differentiate between left-right views in politics, economics, social issues, etc. Left-Right Governments the paradigms of the governmental sphere : Another way to look at it is that popular governments like Democracies are left and authoritative governments like Monarchies are right although this is somewhat tautological as the government types relate directly to the above underlying factors in general; as both democracy and liberalism are the ideologies of liberty and equality and conservatism and monarchy the ideologies of authority and inequality AKA hierarchy.

Left-Right Economics the paradigms of the economic sphere : When considering governments and political ideologies, it makes sense to consider economics as it is very foundational to a society. Likewise cost assistance may be left, as it favors low-income, but right, as it means more government-mandated taxes. Issues of economics should be considered separately from social issues and issues of personal liberties, as they are different aspects of an ideology. Of course, any of these should be compared against social equality paradigms, as a nation that does not care for the social welfare of the collective is by its nature more right than one that does the way in which big government and taxation can be socially left despite its right-wing aspects.

TIP : Consider also left-right globalization paradigms, where we can denote free trade vs. Left-Right Classism the paradigms of the class sphere : Another way to describe the factors underlying the left-right spectrum is by a classist divide. This would include looking at the paradigm: populist left vs. So again, things get complex, but like with the governments left-right paradigm, it is all analogous to the equality and liberty paradigms in that, generally speaking, a populist movement is a collective movement against the authority of another group or individual whether it is left or right-wing. See our breakdown of the modern American left and right for a little more nuance or see the original meaning of the party names.

Given the above, we can say there is not one primary left-right factor to consider, but at least two that must be considered simultaneously! Consider, an authoritative collectivist, a liberal monarch, and a free-trading-republic with a strong central government. Each is left on one paradigm, but right in the other. In practice, one must typically either sacrifice liberty for collective social welfare, or sacrifice protections for more individual liberties. This speaks to the balance needed in governance and politics, and makes giving accurate left-right labels complex in absolute terms.

TIP : Keep in mind, as noted above, all collectives are comprised of individuals. The liberty of libertarianism is left, but the focus on the individual is right. The authority of a collectivist ideology may be right, but its favoring of the collective is left. Again, to expand on an above example, a benevolent monarch is right in terms of individual authority, but may be left in terms of their treatment of the collective. The more nuanced we are, and the more we discuss left and right qualities issue by issue, the better we can understand an ideology on paper and in practice and compare it accurately to other ideologies.

We covered this above, but musing on it a bit more in the next section will help the skeptical reader to re-confirm we are on the right track. And this of course fits with the models presented on this page. This will help put things in context. The opening chapter of the book describes the French origins of the terms in vital detail. Even though individualism is right in absolute terms, its effects can be very left liberal and equal if all are free in their right to pursue their unique life, liberty, and happiness.

These complexities speak to why this page is long and not short, not to the validity of the theory. We grapple with complexities below. The image below offers a visual of all this. With the above in mind, in terms of origins, we can also look to the philosophers of pre-Hellenistic Greece to confirm the basics of the theory. To help frame the types of governments. As you can see this lines up with our theory perfectly and it should, we built our theory around the origin stories and what we mean when we speak. From this one could create a full picture on not only the correctness of the action, but its left-right properties.

This could help one understand if the ends were a just balance of forces, or were skewed perhaps resulting in undesired outcomes. TIP : There is no one way to understand left-right ideology, but our paradigms especially the simple ones are fairly accurate none-the-less. When we add in additional paradigms below, we will see things get even more complex. As noted above, historically speaking, the simplest way to understand left-right ideology is: liberal is left and conservative is right. These three types then break into four types as socialism informs liberalism and creates social liberalism and then social conservatism stands against that.

We break this down in detail on our liberalism vs. Without getting into further details, here is how the types of liberalism and conservatism look on a left-right spectrum chart:. As you can see, like other aspects of the theory, these terms fit neatly on the chart. However, these terms are complex. Social conservatism uses classical liberal liberty and classical conservative authority, social liberalism uses classical liberal and classical conservative principles, classical conservatism all but classical liberal, and classical liberal all but classical conservative. In other words, each type is rooted in one quadrant but pulls from two other quadrants, really only opposing one quadrant. That complexity helps explain the key to finding balance in general and applies to other charts , but also makes it too complex a spectrum to lead the page with.

Try comparing the above chart to the one below with important American figures on it. This left-right spectrum is showing our basic spectrum model, using popular political figures as examples see our comparison of presidents. TIP : Left and right are largely comparative terms, and are thus best applied specifically to an issue rather than broadly to a party, period, or nation. Who is Left and Right in American Politics? For instance, Republicans have a lot of classical liberal beliefs regarding individual liberty and deregulation, while taxes favored by the Democrats can be considered authoritatively right, despite funding programs that are socially left.

See our page on the basic political parties if you feel unclear about what we are saying. You can also get a deeper understanding by looking at the difference between individualism and collectivism. This next chart considers socialism and libertarianism, rather than just liberal and conservative. Thus this chart moves some things around, is more complex, and is more opinionated than the above charts the more examples we give, the more likely there will be disagreement. These quadrants can be named using modern language and our model of basic political parties. TIP : The chart below uses different terminology than the other charts.

No single chart is absolutely correct, they instead should be contrasted and compared. An updated basic left-right political spectrum which shows the type of liberalism and conservatism. As noted above when discussing sub-paradigms, we can add further complexity by considering other left-right paradigms and applying them per issue to a government type, political party, platform, piece of legislation, or ideology. This helps explain why, for instance, modern American liberals are often seen as authoritative, using executive power to push progressive legislation, or are seen as favoring the collective and small groups like unions or vulnerable minority groups. The left-right political spectrum can be expressed as overlaying individual paradigms related to political ideology.

It is my opinion that these paradigms are the key to truly understanding left-right politics. My theory may not be perfect, but given the Nolan chart and my research, I am very sure we are on the right track here. TIP : This left-right paradigm table is like the one near the top of the page, but phrases things a little differently and uses some different paradigms not covered above. Empathy and Ethics idealism. Liberty is a key underlying principle of western democracy, but true Liberty can only be accessed through laws pure freedom is anarchy, not what most people think of when they say liberty. Anarchistic communes and individual anarchy do not recognize laws and only work in small groups, not as government systems that want to promote liberal principles.

TIP : The empathy vs. All we mean here is that where a mother may act with compassion, a father may take a more rational approach. Both are acting out of love, but one is taking a more realist stance. Still, here reason is best equated with empirical evidence, as Pure reason has a certain idealist quality. We can also look at other aspects like rationalism left and empiricism right. Feel free to contribute to the overarching theory by commenting below. The moral roots of liberals and conservatives — Jonathan Haidt. This video looks at the moral differences between liberals and conservatives. It looks at five moral factors: purity, in-group, authority, fairness, and harm, any of which can be compared as a duality in a fashion similar to the above paradigms.

Of course, just like in real life, the lines blur. If you want know more about how I relate left-and-right back to the male and female characteristics, see a page on the left and right as naturally occurring. TIP : There is more than one way to express the concepts in this chart. One could easily place mob rule under Democracy. This is a simplified chart to express left-right and basic types of government. Most governments are complex variations of these. The following image compares the basic government types discussed above into a more complex chart illustrated based on the authority vs. Notice the authoritative democracy that Conservatives fear, and the lawless isolationism that Liberals fear? Notice how both are versions of authoritarianism?

TIP : Consider how government types work for different size groups. A bigger group needs more authority than a smaller one to function well. In real life, we have to factor in bias. TIP : Consider that most governments, especially large Democratic ones like America, use many different government styles and embrace ideas from across the political spectrum. In the infographic, we see how each government type needs at least two left-right qualifiers to describe their left-ness or right-ness. For instance, a Dictatorship is right-right as a single individual has complete authority, and Mob rule is on the opposite side of the X axis, it is left-right because everyone has complete authority.

Both types are tyrannical, one born from Democracy and one from the authority of a ruling class. We can compare this chart to any of the other qualifiers mentioned in the table above. Notice how, no matter how we compare and contrast, the extremes are not a good thing. A quick glance at the graphic makes it apparent that most people are centered left-right. America is a type of mixed Republic that employs elements of all the quadrants. How Big Should Government Be? Left vs. Right 1. This YouTube series by PragerU takes another look at the left-right paradigm. This is a right-leaning video and a good lesson on rhetoric. See how their theory contrast with or theory of left vs.

Hamilton knew as the Greeks did that freedom can only be found in a centered law, to find the center we must have balance and avoid extremes. The American Republic is meant to strike a balance between law and liberty or Authority and Anarchy. Here is some Chomsky to balance out the PragerU. To end, I want to stress the theme that when we look at the spectrum, we have to look at each issue and not get side-tracked by ideology and bias. When Lincoln freed the Slaves, he was using an authoritative form of democracy and executive power for the benefit of the collective on behalf of his supporters roughly half the country.

For instance, Social-liberalism favors collective authority of the state to ensure collective liberty of all people as a group. It does this at the expense of individual liberty of a given person as an individual and individual authority the freedom of individuals to be their own boss ; Think socialist utopia and central planning as extremes. Depending on context both the above ideologies could be described as left or right, because ultimately liberty always requires some amount of authority to ensure. In politics, the sociological dividing line between Right and Left can be traced back to two obsessions: — the first the torment of the Right is a phobia of elements perceived to be incompatible with commonly used models in society — the second the bane of the Left is intolerance of models that appear to be imposed by society.

In order to capture the meaning of these lines, we need to step back in time and recall the turmoil we experienced early in life as we began the process of blending into society when, as kids, we entered Planet School — or more precisely, Planet Classroom. He came from a good family, he always sat in the front row, paid attention in class, gave a helping hand to less fortunate people, had good manners, dressed smartly, respected the teachers, sported perfect hairstyles and neatly organized books.

In fact, Peter popped up — in more or less obvious ways — any time our parents scolded us or our teacher criticized us. You can see how Peter goody — two — shoes bothers people who are emotionally Left — wing, while an aversion to bad Johnny is the hallmark of Right — wingers. Interesting metaphor. One note, your theory speaks to a paradigm we present on the page, which can be summed as empathy vs. I would then, just apply left and right qualifiers to the means, the ends, and the ideology behind the means and ends. Right Note: Because different Libertarians believe in different amounts of government, we have spread Libertarianism over the right end of the chart.

As our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Rothbard called the standard view. Thank you for taking the time to put this together. Hopefully people from all political persuasions will find this useful. Commendable analysis, thank you for that, though I feel it proves the maxim that individual bias Is inevitable.

Indeed and Indeed. With that note I will strive to take out bias over time. Not the intention, but am for sure only human. Good analysis, I agree with many of your points here, but come on man.. Remove your left wing bias or go work for CNN! A conservative wants Monarchy and values individuals unequally? Articles like these with an obvious bias from the beginning actually make me want to think the other way after the writers agenda becomes obvious. Consider this, that initial introduction is speaking to the roots of the classical liberal left vs classical conservative right ideology where democracy is left and monarchy right AND the socially liberal social left vs socially conservative right where progressives like Bernie sanders are left and people like trump, the tea party, Murray rothbard, and bannon are more toward the right.

So its trying to describe four unique things as a two way split. Then when i break it down i go into how social conservatism, in its rejecting of social progressive liberalism, tends toward individual liberty in its opposition to say the expansive welfare state which is itself classically conservative in many ways. So to be clear I consider the modern democrats and republicans to each be a left-right mixes, and I consider Republicans to be classical liberals in many ways in many ways more than those we call liberals today.

This is really, for me, just the complexities of the different forms of liberalism and conservatism paired with the complexities of having a two party system in the U. S… paired with perhaps some of my own bias in explaining all this which may well be resulting in me not painting the different forms of right-wing in the best light. Perhaps the main point to make is that social conservatism draws from classical conservatism and classical liberalism and social liberalism draws from those as well, but they both create very different mixes which then oppose each other.

Then in America we end up taking sides over these social forms and sort of butt heads over who is being classically liberal or conservative on a given issue. Ill think of how to best convey these ideas early on and will check the article for bias… the point is not to turn readers off, its to come to an acceptable definition and model of the left and right. In other words, I tried to address bias that may have been distracting by clarifying terms. Wo are you people? Do you not know anything at all? I was taught the same thing in college, not realizing how wrong it was. That is the reasoning though, and you learned this in college because it is essentially correct historically and philosophically. But you cannot have social equality or favoring the collective without using employing a severe authority.

The most egalitarian societies which favor the collective are communist societies, by definition of communism. But these are also the most totalitarian and authoritative regimes because you cannot achieve the goals of equality and collectivism without authority. What do you do with the people who choose not to participate? Likewise, a state cannot claim to favor individualism and also be authoritarian. Authority inhibits the pursuits of individuals. So, I understand that you are not attempting to represent the U. Very astute. The social and classical left are contradictory, as are the social and classical right. This tension is what creates much of the confusion over the terms left wing and right wing.

But in short, this is why the 4-point is so vital to understand and why the social and classical are so important to denote and further why we should denote stances per issue. Alan, if you read Marx he describes communism as state-less and something much closer to anarchy. Your line of questioning here assumes a communist system enforced and confined by a statist system. This is illogical. You are also overlooking the differences between hierarchical authority with democratic authority, which is partially a fault of this article. Authority always exists, it just takes on different forms in different systems. Likewise, individualism also comes in many different forms and degrees.

Notably in extreme-right authoritarian states, individualism is pushed feverishly as the singular reasoning for ones own privilege or poverty. In fact, authority is often seen as a means by which individuals can acquire more individual power and freedom. Interesting comments. Thanks for sharing. We try to differentiate between different forms of communism, for example statist Stalinist communism and the idea of utopian commune a collective much closer to state-less anarchy. Hay man that was really informative. I think the diagrams are not working though.

You Da Man! This way, your argument will be strengthened Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants textual Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants. Consider this, that initial introduction is speaking to Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants roots of the classical liberal left vs classical conservative right ideology where Substance Abuse Persuasive Speech is left and Disadvantages Of Empowerment right AND the Racial Equality liberal social left vs socially conservative right where progressives like Bernie sanders are left and people like trump, the Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants party, Murray rothbard, and Universal Background Checks are more toward the right. Plymouth Court Records—, Wilmington, Del. Compare And Contrast Columbus Day And Dia De La Raza on Compare And Contrast Essay On New Immigrants Vs Old Immigrants Writing.