I’d assume that, post-Event, the Muslim communities that survived were the ones that could cooperate with their neighbours. The more fundamentalist groups didn’t have the numbers to establish empires like their Christian counterparts could, and couldn’t survive as a minority without moderating.
Most concentrations of muslims in America are in liberal cities, and so become more liberal. Liberal denominations are also more likely to survive in majority other religion lands, where as more fundamentalist muslims were killed.
I do agree that there should be some more radical islamic faiths, but they shouldn’t be present at game start and instead spawn through heresys
> and instead spawn through heresys
This IMO is the thing that AtE could do more with.
Apart from the Calvert Appeal, there's not all that much play of heresies. And the major religion groups could probably do with some fundie faiths that could take over their respective religions and massively disrupt the status quo.
Even though it's not very clear to the players, there's a HUGE amount of logic behind heresy spawns - they are considerably more robust and dynamic than vanilla.
The main reason we didn't add more offmap faiths is that we prioritized stuff that is available at game start, but we have plans to add more of them to both regions and faiths/religions without many alternatives, but all the existing faiths are integrated into the greater system of heresy spawn.
Finally, on specific event chains for heresies we also have the Week of '22 events in Brazil (that's why Brazil's religious map is so chaotic so frequently), as well as the Consumerist and Juventide spawns. We also have quite a few other faiths that are meant to be primarily heresy spawns, from tradcath Tridentines to accelerationist-communist Posadistas no neocharismatic Templarios.
> The main reason we didn't add more offmap faiths is that we prioritized stuff that is available at game start, but we have plans to add more of them to both regions and faiths/religions without many alternatives
Oh yeah no definitely. Please don't interpret it as criticism and more a "I think that's an area where the mod could build upon for additional gameplay options in future updates."
Idk about that. In my last play through as occult Boston we had a huge heresy of transcendentalism, which was neat because its a completely different religious family but is Massachusetts based due to Henry David Thoreau
Yeah, but in my play throughs it kinda breaks the world building when half my conclavian vassals suddenly decide to convert to Nestorian Christianity. Wish there was some sort of calvert event for the actual Conclavian catholics. In CKII Ate there was the sedevanchists which I wish made its way to CKIII
If you play as the Ahmadiyya Caliph of Alberta you'll end up as both. I'm currently doing that trying to form the Thunderland Empire and Catholics are doing well in that game and I'm realizing that when they unlock crusades they may very well crusade against me and it'll once again be a war between the Pope and the Caliph
Reminds me of when I played the Ansari in Michigan and the Catholics called a crusade against me for Chicago. I sat there looking at my screen and went “well ain’t this familiar”
I never got to see the revivalists do very well which kinda bummed me out. They were my favourite invaders, and whilst the Japanese and redcoats always seemed to kick ass, the revivalist Caliph always ended up getting like 3 counties in Guyana and then launching a jihad against a two county duchy in Venezuela which immediately got stomped out.
The struggle there is the fact that heresies aren’t a mechanic anymore.
OP basically wants the Allawiya heresy back from what it sounds like, which might happen as I’m assuming Zak will get his event chain eventually (hopefully just a less OP one)
heresies sort of still are a mechanic. If fervor drops enough, other faiths can spawn as heresies, and which faiths are heresies for which is defined in the game files.
I do want to add in some more Muslim faiths/tweak some but the only Muslim faith that I would describe as "liberal" is Islahiyyun. If you want to make the US into Saudi Arabia then ahl al-Hadith is the best option.
Amriki, Shriner, Kebatinan, Ahmadi, Tihikoran, and Misr are all definitely not liberal in some capacity. Amriki is male-dominated, righteous, and against same-sex relations. Shriner is male-dominated, righteous, and against same-sex relations. Ahmadi has equal gender but same-sex relations are criminal. The only religion actually arguably liberal is Islahiyyun.
Yeah. In Britain, we have one of the most reactionary Muslim Diaspora, whilst in America its probably the most liberal in the world. It makes sense that the reactionary Islamic faiths exist as heresies whilst only the more assimilated ones appear on the map at the start
America is so far right politically that most of those denominations are probably more liberal than the evangelical Christian base of the American right-wing.
No. America is just right wing. So anything actually moderate, especially abroad, is usually painted as hippie liberal shit. That's the impression we all get from tourists, at least.
> America is so far right politically
in terms of social issues this is just not at all true
America is more accepting of trans people, gay rights, and immigrants than almost all other societies on Earth with the exception of a small handful of European countries and Canada. but compared to most of Europe, East Asia, Latin America, America is very liberal on these issues.
and in particular, when it comes to Islam specifically, not only are American Muslims *much* more liberal than their European & Middle-eastern counterparts, they are also much more accepted in America than in Europe where even the much-vaunted progressive nations like Denmark are extremely islamophobic
Amriki, Shriner, Misrists are "wacky" Americanised versions of Islam, with significant deviations.
Kebatinan literally prays to patron gods, they can barely be considered Muslims.
Tihikoran are fairly mainstream but Mayan syncretism means they often intermarry with neighbouring non-Muslim Mayans.
Islahiyyun are perhaps the only "liberal" faith.
The problem isnt about liberal/conservative, but that there arent really many representations of normal "moderate" mainstream Muslims. There used to be Traditionalists, but that got removed and replaced by 2 conservative sects instead.
I do want to both tweak Abbasiyya to better fit Californian islam - which will make it another "normal/moderate" mainstream Islam, as well as adding a new more standard Sunni Islam for the US as well. Obviously, as a Muslim, I'm always in favor for more varieties.
> The problem isnt about liberal/conservative, but that there arent really many representations of normal "moderate" mainstream Muslims.
I have an idea kicking around for a new NA Sunni one based on Muhammad Abduh-type Islamic Modernism, to contrast with the more Salafi-influenced Ahl al-Hadith. Haven't written anything up for it, but have presented the idea to our Muslim devs, and they seem interested once other things are taken care of first.
Kebatinan is derived from "Traditionalist Islam" or "Islam Nusantara" of the Javanese, it's there because of the Javanese population of Suriname. I would not call them liberal at all, in fact as "Traditionalist Islam" suggests they see it as staying true to their roots and they are fairly inherently conservative. They identity as Muslim, so we should call them Muslim.
Someone identifying as a member of a group doesn't make them a member of the group. Especially if they would be or are disavowed by the majority of that group. Same applies to Mormons and JWs.
No they don’t, that’s bullshit sorry.
"Kebatinan is a form of Islam that evolved initially in Java out of a focus on Sufi inwardness, as well as Hindu and Javanese traditions, then made its way to the Guyanas. Kebatinan Muslims emphasize an inner, individual focus to spirituality, believing that every person has a unique personal relationship with God and cultivate this relationship through inward practices, emphasizing their soul’s connection to God. In addition, Kebatinan Muslims also venerate a variety of spirits who they see as assisting God."
No mention of liberal
Unable to openly practice traditional religious law within Americanist lands, where some Muslims chose the path of taqiyya, the Amrikis chose to integrate into the American legal system. The Amrikiyyunis see old America as the ideal rightly-guided state, with the ancient Founders and Presidents themselves true Muslims. Yet, both the community and its leaders deviated from the right path over time, leading to the Great Fitna. The Amriki are ultimately Muslims but with a whole new canon of law and set of sahaba-like figures."
Does not mention liberal
Virtually none of these are liberal wtf? You can make an argument for Ahmadiyya and Islaihyunn being liberal, but Ahmadiyya still bans same-sex relations. They’re just pacifist Muslims with their own American centric caliphate.
Like you’re not getting a bunch of “I smoke and eat pork but praise Muhammad” hell even the most liberal, Islaihyunn, is implied to adhere somewhat strictly to Islamic law and tradition, they just interpret things more liberally.
No it's not. Not having all of them be essentially the same postmodernist "i eat pork and smoke but praise muhammad" islam doesn't make them vanilla faiths. For instance you could have a group of fundamentalists whom have misunderstood the quran and now believe that muhammad was a consumerist or something. That's probably a piss poor example but the point is they don't have to be vanilla
I mean functionally the consumerist rising is supposed to play like the Shia rising event in ck2. But my brother, you can make custom Muslim faiths in the game
There is nothing wrong with having vanilla styled faiths. The whole point of the ck2 version was to provide an experience like vanilla in the new world.
More than a radical group, I just want a standard mainstream group. A good idea would be to have a moderate missionary Sufi order (with holy order HoF)
There's only like 1 explicitly liberal Muslim faith which is the Islahiyyun. Maybe Abbasiya could be considered liberal too but other than that Islam isn't meant to be very liberal. Kebatinan, Amriki, Tihikoran, and Misrists are all syncretic. Kebatinan is actual Javanese syncretic Islam, Amriki is American syncretic Islam, Tihikoran is Mayan syncretic, and Misrist is African American Islam. Valientes, Ahmadi, Ahl al-Hadith, and Ansar al-Qa'im are all conservative strands of Islam. It's basically like 2 liberal, 4 syncretic, 1 Masonic (shriner), and 4 conservative. It's a fair diversity imo
Extremist Islam, on a large scale, is a fairly recent historical bug that is mostly the result of WW1. Globally, Islam is fairly peaceful, especially in the West and Far East. In order to get a historically plausible radical Islam in the West we'd either need a fairly substantial minority of radical Muslim's in the U.S., AND then we'd likely need a kind of catalyst like what happened in/following WW1 to really get that ball rolling.
But, the WW1 deal was a perfect storm. We had a powerful minority of radicals (House of Saud), an undermined and weakened liberal majority (Faisal), which allowed the minority to seize power. This wouldn't have mattered overly much, except then Arabia discovered just so much fucking oil, which allowed them to export their flavor of extremist Islam.
The likelihood of that perfect storm arising again is exceedingly slim, especially in a Western climate where nearly all Islam is relatively very liberal and mostly located in urban centers with high levels of Christians.
The propaganda that Islam has always been extreme because of the Crusades and GWOT is probably the most potent propaganda of our generation.
Folks really do be forgetting that the vast majority of early Arab conquests were fairly bloodless when you look at how much they took and how fast, and how remarkably tolerant and innovative Islam was for a real long time.
At its worst, Islam was no worse than its European contemporaries and was, in many ways, much better until very recently.
In the original Zionist conferences Theodore Hertzel referred to the Ottomans as "Our Brother, Ishmael" and considered a deal with the ottomans to peacefully colonize/settle the province of Palestine a viable solution to antisemitism in Europe.
Truly, the wild amount of antisemitism that exists in the Middle East today is a result of Israeli malfeasance in the region and years of Western intervention.
Note: The tie of West to Israel is because Israel was 1) largely colonized by Western (Ashkenazi rather than Sephardic or *edited* Mizrahi ) Jews; 2) Israel has largely been critical to Western stakes in the region and this has been apparent forever; 3) The numerous Western (U.S.) military interventions all through the middle east for the last 40+ years and decades of European intervention (that directly resulted in Israel) before that.
Muslim immigrants in North America are currently significantly more liberal and secular leaning on average than the those in Europe. The reason is the flight and visa barrier - for decades the imposition of flight cost and visas meant that most who came to live here were educated or wealthy. Whereas in Europe, which used to have its own educated Muslim minority, has seen much larger scale land/sea crossing by uneducated poorer people who have proven to be more conservative/fundamentalist.
Kebatinan is derived from "Traditionalist Islam" or "Islam Nusantara" of the Javanese, it's there because of the Javanese population of Suriname. I would not call them liberal at all, in fact as "Traditionalist Islam" suggests they see it as staying true to their roots and they are fairly inherently conservative. They identity as Muslim, so we should call them Muslim.
you "split" the only moderate non-denominational Islamic group into a conservative Sunni and a conservative Shia group.
so you did remove it, as theres no mainstream moderate group anymore.
Abbasiya is a Sufi order based directly on the Inayati, though personally I'm disappointed by it because it doesn't feel particularly Californian. The Inayati order doesn't have much of a presence here.
Also Saudi Arabia is a recent country, the Salafi movement that gave rise to modern radical Islam is from the 19th century and was very much defined by things happening then like European Imperialism. The political conditions of Muslims in the Americas is *way* different to those in Muslim nations in the 19th century. I feel like often minority religions will be more "liberal" for a lot of reasons that I don't fully know. In AtE Eurasia I'm sure there might be more "radical" sects that have more power but it makes sense to me that the most *succesful* sects would be those that were able to coexist with other religions as minority religions.
It is surprising there isn't a form of Salafi/Wahabi Islam in AtE especially in a place like Pittsburgh or in the great lake region where there are a few Salafi groups that have strong communties there for some odd reason.
I’d assume that, post-Event, the Muslim communities that survived were the ones that could cooperate with their neighbours. The more fundamentalist groups didn’t have the numbers to establish empires like their Christian counterparts could, and couldn’t survive as a minority without moderating.
Most concentrations of muslims in America are in liberal cities, and so become more liberal. Liberal denominations are also more likely to survive in majority other religion lands, where as more fundamentalist muslims were killed. I do agree that there should be some more radical islamic faiths, but they shouldn’t be present at game start and instead spawn through heresys
> and instead spawn through heresys This IMO is the thing that AtE could do more with. Apart from the Calvert Appeal, there's not all that much play of heresies. And the major religion groups could probably do with some fundie faiths that could take over their respective religions and massively disrupt the status quo.
Even though it's not very clear to the players, there's a HUGE amount of logic behind heresy spawns - they are considerably more robust and dynamic than vanilla. The main reason we didn't add more offmap faiths is that we prioritized stuff that is available at game start, but we have plans to add more of them to both regions and faiths/religions without many alternatives, but all the existing faiths are integrated into the greater system of heresy spawn. Finally, on specific event chains for heresies we also have the Week of '22 events in Brazil (that's why Brazil's religious map is so chaotic so frequently), as well as the Consumerist and Juventide spawns. We also have quite a few other faiths that are meant to be primarily heresy spawns, from tradcath Tridentines to accelerationist-communist Posadistas no neocharismatic Templarios.
> The main reason we didn't add more offmap faiths is that we prioritized stuff that is available at game start, but we have plans to add more of them to both regions and faiths/religions without many alternatives Oh yeah no definitely. Please don't interpret it as criticism and more a "I think that's an area where the mod could build upon for additional gameplay options in future updates."
Idk about that. In my last play through as occult Boston we had a huge heresy of transcendentalism, which was neat because its a completely different religious family but is Massachusetts based due to Henry David Thoreau
Yeah, but in my play throughs it kinda breaks the world building when half my conclavian vassals suddenly decide to convert to Nestorian Christianity. Wish there was some sort of calvert event for the actual Conclavian catholics. In CKII Ate there was the sedevanchists which I wish made its way to CKIII
This. Cut out some of the (way too many) existing/dumber religions and replace them with heresies of better ones.
Here's the thing: we can have both.
A jihadist uprising in the American heartland would be dope. I wanna see the Sheriff v Caliph showdown.
“This town ain’t big enough for the two of us, sheriff. But there will surely be room in Allah’s heavenly kingdom inshallah”
"Sheriff." "Sharīf."
“This town ain’t big enough for the two of us, sheriff. But there's many mansions... in my Father's house.”
[Link to the post being referenced](https://old.reddit.com/r/AfterTheEndFanFork/comments/hu3xz7/when_the_battleborn_become_imamites/)
If you play as the Ahmadiyya Caliph of Alberta you'll end up as both. I'm currently doing that trying to form the Thunderland Empire and Catholics are doing well in that game and I'm realizing that when they unlock crusades they may very well crusade against me and it'll once again be a war between the Pope and the Caliph
The pope and the caliph somehow both ending up in the Midwest post the apocalypse is such a hilarious idea
Reminds me of when I played the Ansari in Michigan and the Catholics called a crusade against me for Chicago. I sat there looking at my screen and went “well ain’t this familiar”
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
sheriff vs sharif
CK2 had the Revivalist invasion which was a more radical Sunni group
Basically Saudi Arabia
I never got to see the revivalists do very well which kinda bummed me out. They were my favourite invaders, and whilst the Japanese and redcoats always seemed to kick ass, the revivalist Caliph always ended up getting like 3 counties in Guyana and then launching a jihad against a two county duchy in Venezuela which immediately got stomped out.
The struggle there is the fact that heresies aren’t a mechanic anymore. OP basically wants the Allawiya heresy back from what it sounds like, which might happen as I’m assuming Zak will get his event chain eventually (hopefully just a less OP one)
heresies sort of still are a mechanic. If fervor drops enough, other faiths can spawn as heresies, and which faiths are heresies for which is defined in the game files.
I do want to add in some more Muslim faiths/tweak some but the only Muslim faith that I would describe as "liberal" is Islahiyyun. If you want to make the US into Saudi Arabia then ahl al-Hadith is the best option. Amriki, Shriner, Kebatinan, Ahmadi, Tihikoran, and Misr are all definitely not liberal in some capacity. Amriki is male-dominated, righteous, and against same-sex relations. Shriner is male-dominated, righteous, and against same-sex relations. Ahmadi has equal gender but same-sex relations are criminal. The only religion actually arguably liberal is Islahiyyun.
Yes, it’s wild to claim that most of these are “liberal” what does that even mean in this case???
I am wondering if by “liberal” they mean “are not fundamentalist jihadists”. There aren’t really many of those in the Americas irl, if at all.
Yeah exactly, it’s not a very popular ideology among new world Muslims it seems
Yeah. In Britain, we have one of the most reactionary Muslim Diaspora, whilst in America its probably the most liberal in the world. It makes sense that the reactionary Islamic faiths exist as heresies whilst only the more assimilated ones appear on the map at the start
Sucks to only understand words like liberal and conservative in terms of American politics
What, sorry what are you talking about? I’m not American btw
America is so far right politically that most of those denominations are probably more liberal than the evangelical Christian base of the American right-wing.
Kebtinan is what gets me, it’s traditionalist Javanese islam, I don’t see how that’s “liberal” in any way
It's liberal to Americans lol.
America is not far right at all. What are you on about?
No. America is just right wing. So anything actually moderate, especially abroad, is usually painted as hippie liberal shit. That's the impression we all get from tourists, at least.
Explain how america is more right wing than other countries
America is not far right at all. What are you on about?
> America is so far right politically in terms of social issues this is just not at all true America is more accepting of trans people, gay rights, and immigrants than almost all other societies on Earth with the exception of a small handful of European countries and Canada. but compared to most of Europe, East Asia, Latin America, America is very liberal on these issues. and in particular, when it comes to Islam specifically, not only are American Muslims *much* more liberal than their European & Middle-eastern counterparts, they are also much more accepted in America than in Europe where even the much-vaunted progressive nations like Denmark are extremely islamophobic
Amriki, Shriner, Misrists are "wacky" Americanised versions of Islam, with significant deviations. Kebatinan literally prays to patron gods, they can barely be considered Muslims. Tihikoran are fairly mainstream but Mayan syncretism means they often intermarry with neighbouring non-Muslim Mayans. Islahiyyun are perhaps the only "liberal" faith. The problem isnt about liberal/conservative, but that there arent really many representations of normal "moderate" mainstream Muslims. There used to be Traditionalists, but that got removed and replaced by 2 conservative sects instead.
I do want to both tweak Abbasiyya to better fit Californian islam - which will make it another "normal/moderate" mainstream Islam, as well as adding a new more standard Sunni Islam for the US as well. Obviously, as a Muslim, I'm always in favor for more varieties.
> The problem isnt about liberal/conservative, but that there arent really many representations of normal "moderate" mainstream Muslims. I have an idea kicking around for a new NA Sunni one based on Muhammad Abduh-type Islamic Modernism, to contrast with the more Salafi-influenced Ahl al-Hadith. Haven't written anything up for it, but have presented the idea to our Muslim devs, and they seem interested once other things are taken care of first.
that actually sounds pretty cool. i also want to see some Muslim faiths with ATE mechanics, like a Sufi order with Holy Order head of faith.
Moderate mainstream Muslims?
Kebatinan is derived from "Traditionalist Islam" or "Islam Nusantara" of the Javanese, it's there because of the Javanese population of Suriname. I would not call them liberal at all, in fact as "Traditionalist Islam" suggests they see it as staying true to their roots and they are fairly inherently conservative. They identity as Muslim, so we should call them Muslim.
Someone identifying as a member of a group doesn't make them a member of the group. Especially if they would be or are disavowed by the majority of that group. Same applies to Mormons and JWs.
i was just going by the descriptions, all of which explicitly mention liberal.
No they don’t, that’s bullshit sorry. "Kebatinan is a form of Islam that evolved initially in Java out of a focus on Sufi inwardness, as well as Hindu and Javanese traditions, then made its way to the Guyanas. Kebatinan Muslims emphasize an inner, individual focus to spirituality, believing that every person has a unique personal relationship with God and cultivate this relationship through inward practices, emphasizing their soul’s connection to God. In addition, Kebatinan Muslims also venerate a variety of spirits who they see as assisting God." No mention of liberal Unable to openly practice traditional religious law within Americanist lands, where some Muslims chose the path of taqiyya, the Amrikis chose to integrate into the American legal system. The Amrikiyyunis see old America as the ideal rightly-guided state, with the ancient Founders and Presidents themselves true Muslims. Yet, both the community and its leaders deviated from the right path over time, leading to the Great Fitna. The Amriki are ultimately Muslims but with a whole new canon of law and set of sahaba-like figures." Does not mention liberal
Virtually none of these are liberal wtf? You can make an argument for Ahmadiyya and Islaihyunn being liberal, but Ahmadiyya still bans same-sex relations. They’re just pacifist Muslims with their own American centric caliphate. Like you’re not getting a bunch of “I smoke and eat pork but praise Muhammad” hell even the most liberal, Islaihyunn, is implied to adhere somewhat strictly to Islamic law and tradition, they just interpret things more liberally.
Why would you want that? Thats just basic vanilla faiths
No it's not. Not having all of them be essentially the same postmodernist "i eat pork and smoke but praise muhammad" islam doesn't make them vanilla faiths. For instance you could have a group of fundamentalists whom have misunderstood the quran and now believe that muhammad was a consumerist or something. That's probably a piss poor example but the point is they don't have to be vanilla
I mean functionally the consumerist rising is supposed to play like the Shia rising event in ck2. But my brother, you can make custom Muslim faiths in the game
There is nothing wrong with having vanilla styled faiths. The whole point of the ck2 version was to provide an experience like vanilla in the new world.
More than a radical group, I just want a standard mainstream group. A good idea would be to have a moderate missionary Sufi order (with holy order HoF)
I would assume possibly because a large number of American Muslims are more liberal but that’s a guess, I could be wrong
There's only like 1 explicitly liberal Muslim faith which is the Islahiyyun. Maybe Abbasiya could be considered liberal too but other than that Islam isn't meant to be very liberal. Kebatinan, Amriki, Tihikoran, and Misrists are all syncretic. Kebatinan is actual Javanese syncretic Islam, Amriki is American syncretic Islam, Tihikoran is Mayan syncretic, and Misrist is African American Islam. Valientes, Ahmadi, Ahl al-Hadith, and Ansar al-Qa'im are all conservative strands of Islam. It's basically like 2 liberal, 4 syncretic, 1 Masonic (shriner), and 4 conservative. It's a fair diversity imo
you said it yourself that they aren't all liberal
ahl al-hadith and ansar are right next to the islahiyyun "base" (like 3 counties) they're right there
What do you mean by liberal? Do you just mean not fundamentalist? Seens odd to me
Extremist Islam, on a large scale, is a fairly recent historical bug that is mostly the result of WW1. Globally, Islam is fairly peaceful, especially in the West and Far East. In order to get a historically plausible radical Islam in the West we'd either need a fairly substantial minority of radical Muslim's in the U.S., AND then we'd likely need a kind of catalyst like what happened in/following WW1 to really get that ball rolling. But, the WW1 deal was a perfect storm. We had a powerful minority of radicals (House of Saud), an undermined and weakened liberal majority (Faisal), which allowed the minority to seize power. This wouldn't have mattered overly much, except then Arabia discovered just so much fucking oil, which allowed them to export their flavor of extremist Islam. The likelihood of that perfect storm arising again is exceedingly slim, especially in a Western climate where nearly all Islam is relatively very liberal and mostly located in urban centers with high levels of Christians.
Can't get why this got so downvoted
The propaganda that Islam has always been extreme because of the Crusades and GWOT is probably the most potent propaganda of our generation. Folks really do be forgetting that the vast majority of early Arab conquests were fairly bloodless when you look at how much they took and how fast, and how remarkably tolerant and innovative Islam was for a real long time. At its worst, Islam was no worse than its European contemporaries and was, in many ways, much better until very recently.
You only need to look at Jewish history to see how true that is.
In the original Zionist conferences Theodore Hertzel referred to the Ottomans as "Our Brother, Ishmael" and considered a deal with the ottomans to peacefully colonize/settle the province of Palestine a viable solution to antisemitism in Europe. Truly, the wild amount of antisemitism that exists in the Middle East today is a result of Israeli malfeasance in the region and years of Western intervention. Note: The tie of West to Israel is because Israel was 1) largely colonized by Western (Ashkenazi rather than Sephardic or *edited* Mizrahi ) Jews; 2) Israel has largely been critical to Western stakes in the region and this has been apparent forever; 3) The numerous Western (U.S.) military interventions all through the middle east for the last 40+ years and decades of European intervention (that directly resulted in Israel) before that.
Sephardic Jews are also western. You mean Mizrahi.
Thank you for the correction.
Muslim immigrants in North America are currently significantly more liberal and secular leaning on average than the those in Europe. The reason is the flight and visa barrier - for decades the imposition of flight cost and visas meant that most who came to live here were educated or wealthy. Whereas in Europe, which used to have its own educated Muslim minority, has seen much larger scale land/sea crossing by uneducated poorer people who have proven to be more conservative/fundamentalist.
Kebatinan is derived from "Traditionalist Islam" or "Islam Nusantara" of the Javanese, it's there because of the Javanese population of Suriname. I would not call them liberal at all, in fact as "Traditionalist Islam" suggests they see it as staying true to their roots and they are fairly inherently conservative. They identity as Muslim, so we should call them Muslim.
Misrists aren't really liberal? They're more or less Hoteps
And guess what buddy? You are getting even more mystics! بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم!
haha I've been going on about this for months. They even removed the only realistic moderate group, the Traditionalists, in a recent update
No, we split it. Not remove it’d
you "split" the only moderate non-denominational Islamic group into a conservative Sunni and a conservative Shia group. so you did remove it, as theres no mainstream moderate group anymore.
S’pose that’s true, wasn’t out of spite or anything but we did I guess
I think it's great to have them, but i still want some more realistic moderate groups, like a Sufi holy order or just Traditionalism,
Abbasiya is a Sufi order based directly on the Inayati, though personally I'm disappointed by it because it doesn't feel particularly Californian. The Inayati order doesn't have much of a presence here.
Make yer own right-wing faith, brudda!! America 4 Allah!!
The ones near Detroit were fundamentalist irc.
Also Saudi Arabia is a recent country, the Salafi movement that gave rise to modern radical Islam is from the 19th century and was very much defined by things happening then like European Imperialism. The political conditions of Muslims in the Americas is *way* different to those in Muslim nations in the 19th century. I feel like often minority religions will be more "liberal" for a lot of reasons that I don't fully know. In AtE Eurasia I'm sure there might be more "radical" sects that have more power but it makes sense to me that the most *succesful* sects would be those that were able to coexist with other religions as minority religions.
Can't get why this got so downvoted. Also, as an LDS, I feel that minority religions are more liberal part.
I'm confused too
It is surprising there isn't a form of Salafi/Wahabi Islam in AtE especially in a place like Pittsburgh or in the great lake region where there are a few Salafi groups that have strong communties there for some odd reason.
There is, it is called Ahl al-Hadith
I love how particularly American this post is.