/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23267740]

>The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. Those who pretend that we can skip this stage in the present case are deluding themselves and asking for trouble not just in the future but in the immediate present.

Is he right? He says Islam covers women and glorifies conquest over rational debate

[Anonymous No.23267752]

>Is he right?

Yes.

[Anonymous No.23267754]

>>23267740
this isn't literature, but imagine still having a whig history view of the world in 2024.

And I can assure you that "Christopher" has never read any muslim authors. Islam is the most intellectual religion, anyone who says otherwise has not read into Islam

[Anonymous No.23267755]

Ripping out religion without having a replacement spiritual system to supplant it leaves us worse off than before the deconstructionism.

Conquest is heroic, rationalism and debate is not.

[Anonymous No.23267762]

>>23267754
Give me an Islamic reading list.
Give me an optimal translation of the Quaran.
...
Pretty please

[Anonymous No.23267763]

God punished the evil brother.

[Anonymous No.23267794]

>>23267762
Qur'an, mos translations are fine. For most purposes, Saheeh International is good, but some of the eloquence is lost, example: it translates "the colour of Allah" or "the baptism of Allah" with "the religion of Allah". If you're serious about really delving into the Qur'an, you should refer to multiple translations, Abdullah Yusuf Ali's one is good.

For hadith you can read Riyadh Al-Salihin which covers much of Islamic ethics, values and principles, the chapter on Knowledge is especially relevant.

Ibn Taymiyya Expounds on Islam is a great compilation of essays portraying the orthodox perspective of Islamic theology, life, society and governance.

[Anonymous No.23267818]

>>23267794
On hadith, and the preservation of Islamic source material, I'd recommend Al-A'zami's Studies in Early Hadith Literature.

For the preservation of the Qur'an and the modern Muslim perspective on the OT and NT, Al-A'zami's History of the Quranic Text is good.

For the Islamic perspective on Christianity, Qadi Ibn Abdul Jabbar's Critique of Christian Origins is good, though he is a Mu'tazili.

For the biography of the Prophet, everyone recommends The Sealed Nectar or Martin Lings' Muhammad.

[Anonymous No.23267837]

>>23267818
For fiqh, one should start with the direct hadith. I'd recommend reading about the development of the Maliki and Hanafi madhhabs, which were synthesized into the Shafi'i madhhab, codified in Al-Shafi'i's Risala. When reading about the differences between the rulings of the different schools, Ibn Rushd's(yes that one) "The Distinguished Jurist's Primer" is a good starting point. Read Al-Mughni for the Hanbali madhhab. When you're bored of the four madhhabs, read Ibn Hazm's Al-Muhalla like all the cool kids.

For hadith methodology and terminology, Ibn al-Salah's introduction is great. Besides that, Muslim's preface to his Sahih and Al-Tirmidhi's Al-'Ilal are important historically.

For Tafseer, Ibn Kathir's is very solid, so is Al-Sa'di's. Al-Tabari's tafsir has lots of weak hadith. Fakhruddin Al-Razi's tafseer is a good advanced work, though he was an Ash'ari.

[Anonymous No.23267864]

>>23267837
For Islamic history, I find the classical works to be very rambly, especially Ibn Khaldun's Al-Muqaddima. Al-Tabari's history is good I think, but maybe one is better off reading more modern works

[Anonymous No.23267906]

>>23267754
>Islam is the most intellectual religion

Why do you believe this?

[Anonymous No.23267912]

>>23267754
>>23267794
>>23267818
>ragheads expounding on other ragheads who wrote commentaries on on the sayings of the boss raghead
>most intellectual

no one gives a fuck about your quranic exegesis. islam at its core is the most anti-intellectual project ever devised in history.

[Anonymous No.23267989]

>>23267906
The religion in its very essence promotes intellectualism. Look at these hadith:

"Whoever takes a path upon which to obtain knowledge, Allah makes the path to Paradise easy for him." Tirmidhi 2646

"Whoever is asked about some knowledge that he knows, then he conceals it, he will be bridled with bridle of fire." Tirmidhi 2649

"May Allah gladden a man who hears something from us, so he conveys it as he heard it. Perhaps the one it is conveyed to is more understanding than the one who heard it." Tirmidhi 2657

"When Allah wishes good for a servant, he grants him understanding of the religion." Tirmidhi 2645

"Whoever takes a path upon which he seeks knowledge, then Allah makes a path to Paradise easy for him. And indeed the angels lower their wings in approval to the one seeking knowledge. Indeed forgiveness is sought for the knowledgeable one by whomever is in the heavens and whomever is in the earth, even the fish in the waters.

"And superiority of the scholar over the worshiper is like the superiority of the moon over the rest of the celestial bodies. Indeed the scholars are the heirs of the Prophets, and the Prophets do not leave behind Dinar or Dirham." Tirmidhi 2682

According to Al-A'zami in his Studies in Early Hadith Literature who takes from earlier sources, Muhammad told the muslims among him to teach their children to read and write. Hadith came about from the study groups of the companions and their students in adherence to the word of the Prophet above. No other religion is like this, especially Christianity who kept the general public from literacy for hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.23268001]

>>23267989
This spirit of intellectualism continues to this very day, despite what some say. When muslim conquered Sham, they translated Greek books both to their benefit and detriment. Despite what Al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Hazm might say about Greek philosophy, they were are well read of the Greeks and took sides in the ancient Greek debates, because knowledge can be found in every place.

Muslim scholars were often philosophers, physicians and scientists as side hustles. Today, Muslim scholars are well read in western philosophy and political science for example. Science has declined due to the lack of technology, but aside from that the spirit of intellectualism still remains

[Anonymous No.23268005]

>>23267989
>>23268001
I'm very accepting of the idea that Islam is highly intellectual in nature, but I am unconvinced that it is supreme in this regard. Thank you for your reply, regardless.

[Anonymous No.23268026]

>>23268001
>>23268001
Many of these Muslim scholars and even seekers of knowledge befor eand today are more well read than "Christopher Hitchens". Muslim intellectualism, from the very start, was very open-minded. As a seeker of knowledge, you are free to read anything and refute anything. there was no hierarchy of infalliable priests like in Christianity. Only truth matters.

Orthodox Sunnis regularly read books written by heterodox scholars and regularly publish them, like the books of Ibn Hajar, the tafsir of Zamakhshari and Ibn Sina. They never change or burn these books, but write refutations in the margins or footnotes to this very day. Like I said, no other religion is like this

[Anonymous No.23268065]

>>23267912
People who say this aren't well read

>>23268005
Compare Muslim writing to Christian writing. Catholic theology is completely self-contained and isolated, like an echo chamber. Aquinas wrote a "refutation" of Islam, but it was clear that he had very little knowledge of Islam and read very little of it, as his arguments were basically just shit-flinging and claims without citation.

Compare this with Qadi Ibn Abd Al-Jabbar, Al-Ghazali or Ibn Taymiyya who engaged directly with Christian texts, dealt with logical problems of the Trinity, questioned the historical authenticity of Christian claims. There is no comparison

[Anonymous No.23268073]

>>23268065
Catholics even made images of Aquinas trampling on Ibn Rushd, who he benefited from in theology, which is the equivalent of giving yourself a medal.

[Anonymous No.23268330]

>>23267755
Fine, but the belt in a Christian's armor is Truth not inoculation. I think hitchens is retarded because he doesn't have the ability to understand dimensions of knowledge. He's more of materialist than a deconstructionalist.

[Anonymous No.23268348]

>>23267906
the british paid him to

[Anonymous No.23268388]

>>23268065
Aquinas "didn't know" about Islam to the extent that he was several principalities removed. His usage of Maimonides and Aristotle was enough to make him, for his day, pretty wide-reaching and outward-facing.

John of Damascus was the one who literally lived through the rise of Islam so he'd be a better example of "witnessing" what he criticized in it.

[Anonymous No.23268402]

>islam is the most intellectual religion!
>starts rattling off names to prove his point
>they're all just persians
classic

[Anonymous No.23268424]

>>23267740
I wonder what Hitch would think of TradCaths, he'd probably have lost his fucking mind. They're precisely a rebellion agains the "taming and domestication of religion" he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.23268436]

>>23268402
>Christianity is the most intellectual religion!
>its own holy book is written in Greek and it has no noteworthy Hebrew thinkers

Crosscuckbros…not like this….

[Anonymous No.23268447]

>>23268330
>The belt in a Christian's armor is Truth not inoculation
Christ is not Truth. If you think it is, you are not capable of recognizing or conceptualizing Truth.

[Anonymous No.23268476]

>>23268424
If he saw 2020s London Alky Hitch would've absolutely turned into a backpedaling "cultural Christian" just like Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.23268740]

>>23268402

>He thinks he's scored some sort of epic win

[Anonymous No.23268745]

>>23267754
Hahahahaha, what is this nonsense? Islam the most intellectual religion?! HA! WHAT. A. FUCKING. JOKE. Get out of here with this bullshit.

[Anonymous No.23268750]

>>23267740
>He says Islam covers women and glorifies conquest over rational debate


Uhm sweaty, this is how the world ought to be.

[Anonymous No.23268770]

>>23268065
Ok but Aquinas was and continues to be a more impactful philosopher, he was a bigger influence on the moderns, from Descartes to Kant, than any Muslim philosopher ever was. His arguments and philosophy have simply withstood the test of time better. Aquinas engaged with all sorts of philosophers everywhere, most famously Aristotle; his theology is the most innovative even by today's standards. What you're saying simply isn't true.

And besides, Islam is extremely anti-intellectual today. The mainstream view is still to deny evolution and kill apostates. Like come on.

[Anonymous No.23268784]

>>23268770
>extremely anti-intellectual today
we have not seen proof of this

>deny evolution
does intellectualism mean accepting science and the materialist perspective unquestioningly? muslim scholars have raised fair objections towards evolution, particularly towards the supposed evolution of human intelligence

>kill apostates
this has nothing to do with intellectualism

[Anonymous No.23268796]

>>23267754
Actual muslims consider islam too self-evidently true to think it needs theology or any sort of philosophy to justify itself. It is the most anti-intellectual religion because it thinks of reason as a crutch for other religions that aren't islam.

>>23267989
You forgot to mention that knowledge in islam means knowledge of islam before it means knowledge in general.

[Anonymous No.23268806]

>>23268796
>Actual muslims consider islam too self-evidently true to think it needs theology or any sort of philosophy
I guess all those books on aqida, kalam and proofs of islam just don't exist then

[Anonymous No.23268821]

>>23268784
>does intellectualism mean accepting science and the materialist perspective unquestioningly?
As opposed to accepting some religious book written somewhere in Arabia 1400 years ago unquestioningly? Is that better? Anyway no, no one is accepting things unquestionably, nor do I mention you have to be a materialist (the Catholic Church accepts evolution and they're not materialists). There's a mountain of evidence for the reality of evolution, and to deny it would be to deny a majority of modern day biology, which is based on evolution. Muslims have simply lost the debate on this one, as they tend to.

>muslim scholars have raised fair objections towards evolution
Muslim scholars have not raised fair objections to evolution, most still think evolution says humans come from monkeys which is not what it says at all.

>this has nothing to do with intellectualism
If you can't convince someone to stay in your religion via good arguments then you kill them. Doesn't sound very intellectual to me.

[Anonymous No.23268831]

>>23268821
>Muslims have simply lost the debate on this one, as they tend to.
So what muslim book on evolution did you read to conclude this? surely you must know so much about contemporary islamic thought for you to claim such a thing

>If you can't convince someone to stay in your religion via good arguments then you kill them. Doesn't sound very intellectual to me.
Muslims have given intellectual reasons for having such a position. Most people aren't convinced with reasons but are compelled to believe in some ideology or religion, just as the secular modern man is compelled to liberalism in school, and he is prosecuted for hate speech(blasphemy)

[Anonymous No.23268836]

>>23268821
>no one is accepting things unquestionably
this is /lit/ and not /his/ or /pol/, you're expected to be at least a little bit well read. all people on all sides expect things unquestioningly, not realizing this is just a lack of self awareness

[Anonymous No.23268841]

>>23268836
>expect
i meant accept

[Anonymous No.23268851]

>>23268831
>So what muslim book on evolution did you read to conclude this? surely you must know so much about contemporary islamic thought for you to claim such a thing
Well first of all, "contemporary Islamic thought" doesn't seem to follow the scientific method, nor does it publish scientific papers, so on the topic of evolution, I fail to see the relevance here. Second, I've read arguments in blogs and articles, as well as watched videos, against evolution by various religious people, including Muslims, and they're all pretty terrible. I'm not sure I've read a whole book on it, but I'm also not sure it's unjustified to not do that, in the same way I don't have to read a book arguing the Earth is flat to know that's a false idea. If evolution really is false then where are the Muslims publishing their findings? Where are the Muslims winning the Nobel Prizes? Where are the Muslims supposedly revolutionizing our understanding of science, medicine, producing new technologies, etc? There are hardly any, and the very few that do accept evolution.

[Anonymous No.23268860]

>>23268836
Sure, I guess everyone accept certain things like "reality is real" or "murder is bad" unquestionably, but that's clearly not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about comparing theories in science. Was that not obvious? Pulling this "all sides" card doesn't make you sound smart.

[Anonymous No.23268880]

>>23268851
>follow the scientific method, nor does it publish scientific papers
are these required for intellectualism?

>Second, I've read arguments in blogs and articles, as well as watched videos, against evolution by various religious people, including Muslims, and they're all pretty terrible.
So you haven't read anything? amazing

I can tell by the way you glorify "scientific papers" and "nobel prizes" that you're not actually in science or academia. so if you're neither well read in science, nor in islam, what are you even doing talking about this topic?

the question at hand was whether Islam is anti-intellectual or not. The amount of "nobel prize winners" among muslims has little do to with this. Jews have the most noble prizes out of any religious group, is Judaism inherently pro-intellectual?

The truth is, Islam has a deep history of intellectualism from the very start and still continues to this day. Anyone who reads anything about Islam would know this. The only difference is that (You) don't recognize it as intellectualism, because it is a different tradition than the one you were born with. it has different principles, different axioms.

And there is no use debating with someone who doesn't even know anything about Muslim intellectualism other than "blogs" and "videos"

[Anonymous No.23268890]

>>23268880
>(You) don't recognize it as intellectualism
An example of this was when the Taliban banned women from getting secular education. Westerners and even some muslims were screeching saying that the Taliban banned women from education.

In actuality, the Taliban did enable women to go to religious schools. These people just didn't recognize Islamic education as actual education, which comes from arrogance and a lack of perspective for the larger world outside your bubble.

Why should we have to do "peer review" and submit "scientific articles" and do "null hypothesis testing", when we aren't part of the western tradition? This is like comparing apples and oranges and saying oranges should be red because apples are red and only apples are true fruits.

[Anonymous No.23268903]

>>23268890
These people have never known anything other than the western tradition and the western way without questioning their validity and worth, while we who inherited a completely seperate intellectual tradition, are imposed upon us a foreign way of thinking and foreign values which we never recognized before. It is muslims who truly critically look at western thought from an objective perspective, having being required to learn both.

[Anonymous No.23268914]

>>23267740
>religion is... LE BAD
yawn

[Anonymous No.23268928]

>>23268903
>>23268821
On Evolution: Any mathematician or physicist would tell you that it is far far more likely that life, self reproducing and evolving hydrocarbons came about through action rather than through spontaneous random permutations of hydrocarbons. Yet western scientists uncritically accept the latter for no reason other than axiomatic materialism and naturalism. they have historical reasons for ironically rejecting natural conclusions and rejecting religious explanations. They hold it axiomatically that the world came about by chance and through nature alone, like I said, they accept unquestioningly.

In Islamic thought, there is a concept
foreign to western thought called "ta'sub" wherein a person accepts unquestioningly and without reason an authority or belief not based upon revelation. Westerners, when they were christian were so deep in their ta'sub of greek philosophy that they used to burn scholars who taught against geocentrism.

Carl Schmitt says that it is a myth that religion or belief dies and vanishes completely, in actuality, religion evolves into ideology, and so this brand of liberal scientific positivist materialism, taught to us by the anglo, that espouses such doctrines as I have mentioned is no less religious than catholicism

[Anonymous No.23268929]

>>23267989
>"Whoever takes a path upon which to obtain knowledge, Allah makes the path to Paradise easy for him." Tirmidhi 2646

Arab inbreds rank among the lowest in terms of scientific output, only sub-saharans are below them. To be intellectual is to express curiosity about the entire world , not just the narrow contents of a very inferior book like the koran. literally no one gives a fuck about some pube bearded sheikh contemplating the legality of eating ass according to islamic jurisprudence.

[Anonymous No.23268935]

>>23268928
>>23268929
Allah makes apparent beauty from ugliness, truth from falsehood

[Anonymous No.23269045]

>>23268880
>And there is no use debating with someone who doesn't even know anything about Muslim intellectualism
Intellectuals who defend child marriage?

[Anonymous No.23269104]

>>23267912
Yes and no. It used to be, but no longer is.

[Anonymous No.23269314]

>>23268740
if islam is some kind of an intellectual religion, it's by virtue of most of those intellectuals being persian, not them being muslim

[Anonymous No.23269659]

>>23269314

oh, is that right? and tell me, how were these Persians to get a hold of greek and roman texts to translate without, you know, actually being to step west of Ctesiphon?

Just as Seneca, born in the fucking iberian peninsula, benefitted from the pax romana, so too did the persians, indians, turks etc. benefits from the pax islamica- which started with arabs but not even 100 years after belonged to muslims.

[Anonymous No.23269666]

>>23267740
>, and it contains the answers to ALL human...
to all human what?

[Anonymous No.23269694]

>>23267754
Judaism is the most intellectual religion

[Anonymous No.23269843]

>>23268831
What I'm seeing is that people just want you to read their holy book so that you can think like them...or so that you can appreciate their tradition.

>>23268935
>Allah makes apparent beauty from ugliness, truth from falsehood

How does this happen?

>>23267740
>>The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. Those who pretend that we can skip this stage in the present case are deluding themselves and asking for trouble not just in the future but in the immediate present.

If this is what Hitchens says and he sounds correct then wouldn't we have to study the Bible, Quaran etc so as to "tame" it? Or can it be in the form of criticism of the tradition.

Furthermore: how would one avoid the trap of being absorbed by the traditions one studies by virtue of becoming a philosopher or religious scholar who obviously then becomes part of the system?

Taking this to it's extreme: It seems that when Jesus tried to "tame" Judaism he was seen as a Prophet by Islam, the Messiah by Christians the stumbling block to Jews.

So how do we tame and domesticate religion without running the risk of simply being absorbed by that religion? Is it possible?

Is that what Hitchens was doing?

[Anonymous No.23269847]

>>23267754
It’s true that Islam has a hyperintellectual side to it, even as an apostate I can admit that, but it’s because Islam is fundamentally flawed from ground up.

[Anonymous No.23269849]

>>23267754
>"Alexander the Great was Muslim bro"
>"The Christian Trinity includes a mother"
>These are canon statements in the Quran
>Having any intellectual honesty whatsoever

[Anonymous No.23269854]

>>23268770
>And besides, Islam is extremely anti-intellectual today
Al-islam.org seems pretty intellectual

[Anonymous No.23269858]

motte and bailey. a hyperintellectual minority running interference for a violently anti intellectual majority.

[Anonymous No.23269872]

>>23269858
The Quran says sperm comes from the kidneys. Muslims think the Quran is infallible. They're soft in the head

[Anonymous No.23269905]

>>23267754
It is an intellectual rape of a 9 year old child.

[Anonymous No.23269937]

>>23267754
> Islam is the most intellectual religion,
nice bait

[Anonymous No.23269939]

>>23269905
to be fair...

[Anonymous No.23269947]

>>23267740
I think he’s completely correct. Religious fanatics cannot be reasoned with and they actively are destroying the world. The world is constantly broiling in conflict because of the Abrahamic religions. The world needs a change to bring them all to heel in order to move forward. China is the only real superpower doing such a think and they still are lacking in other departments.

[Anonymous No.23269958]

>>23267912
True. Of course the devout Muslim is going to tell you that their path is the best and most le intellectual in order to get you on their side.

[Anonymous No.23270087]

>>23269947
China’s ideology is enforced with more vigor than any religion and is just as harsh with anyone who dissents

[Anonymous No.23270139]

>>23267754
Kek, you're retarded (like most Muslims). Hitchens was well-versed in the work of Naguib Mahfouz and Adunis and interacted with dozens of Arab and Muslim intellectuals throughout his career.

[Anonymous No.23270394]

>>23269849
Find me one verse in the qur'an which supports the Alexander myth. Classical authors jumped on Dhul Qarnayn being Alexander despite there being no evidence in the Qur'an or the corpus of hadith. On the contrary, it seems to me as a modern observer that Dhul Qarnayn is some form of early bronze age warlord, like an Indo-European conqueror.

As for the trinity containing Maryam mother of Jesus (as), it is clearly meant in a metaphoricla way, as in the Christians have raised Mary to a place of borderline worship. But metaphor might be a little too much for someone who clearly has never read the Qur'an themselves and is in the habit of blindly parroting. I encourage you to read it yourself!

[Anonymous No.23270437]

>>23268476
>If he saw 2020s London Alky Hitch would've absolutely turned into a backpedaling "cultural Christian" just like Dawkins.
I was a Hitchensfag and I doubt it. He wasn't even a "all religions are equally bad" guy. He thought all religions were equally false (in terms of a true/false proposition), but Islam was worse, and would say things like: if you don't like Christianity then you really shouldn't like Islam, like it's the indictment of the Abrahamic religions that the last major one to emerge is the most totalitarian. Main thing is that he didn't make "lesser of two evils" arguments even though you could say that's what he was essentially doing by supporting the wars. Instead he'd say the anti-war leftists who'd go "Saddam was a bad guy but" were doing a lesser-evilism and were therefore wrong.

>>23268424
>I wonder what Hitch would think of TradCaths, he'd probably have lost his fucking mind.
Look up what he wrote about Mel Gibson. He was also a Trotskyfag and I wonder if he ever read Trotsky's writings about Freemasonry as a cosplay attempt by the petit bourgeoisie to restore a sense of moral discipline by dressing up like medieval guilds while the walls were caving in on them. But the ideas still reeked of staleness. Sometimes it's easier for people to retreat back into an older building rather than trying to construct a new one.

[Anonymous No.23270439]

>>23270394
>it is clearly meant in a metaphoricla way
You are very clearly just pulling this out of your ass to justify yourself. This doesn't even get into the issue of Jesus being part of the Quran because it acknowledges he exists and was a prophet, but that means he would be heretical within Islam. It makes no sense as we know he preached he was the son of God. So either he's preaching about being the son of God and is revered by Allah for it as a great prophet, or he's not doing anything any of his followers and historical accounts say and the Quran is the only one that's right. Despite significantly more proof of the former including letters from people who literally knew him.

[Anonymous No.23270556]

>>23270087
That is China, The Party, which has logical and sound commitments and goals. The ideologies of Confucianism and whatever else they abide by is not, it’s not the same as cucked religion groveling in the dirt.
>enforced with more vigor than religion
Not really. Muslims become crazy terrorist extremists, you don’t see Chinese people doing this sort of thing. In fact many of them are fine with marrying outsiders.

[Anonymous No.23270694]

>>23268424
What does tradcath mean at this point? Just traditional catholic or specifically the online larpers?

[Anonymous No.23270787]

>>23270556
>communism
>logical and sound

No. China has in fact always prospered the most when they betrayed their own goals. There is nothing “Confucian” about a state that outlawed having more than one child, you dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.23270915]

>>23267740
>Is he right?
No. Religion evolves on its own and doesn't need the singular input of a snarky drunk to do so.

[Anonymous No.23270966]

>>23270139
>yeah he's interacted with Muslim intellectuals
>names a secularist and an outright atheist

[Anonymous No.23270970]

>>23267794
>Ibn Taymiyya
>orthodox

[Anonymous No.23270993]

>>23270556
Chinese state atheism is quite something but I wonder how many people who say they like it would actually support doing that in their own country. Well, maybe some would. But for starters, you'd have to:

Ban politicians from having any religious beliefs. Ban the army from having any religious beliefs. Ban the schools from having religious education (except instructions that are based on anti-religion). Ban conversation of people under the age of 18. Ban proselytizing and any religious activity in public places. Nationalize media to regulate and end the promotion of religious groups in the media. Place religious places under observation with partial guidance / management from the government. Send party members to every religious place to surveil their activities. Promote the "young" generation rather than the orthodox "old" generation inside the religion to turn them against each other.

There's more. Lower the price of certain foods and activities, such as alcohol, pork, beef, and cigarettes to end religious taboos. Encourage and promote cross-religious marriages based on unequal gender ratios -- so if mostly Muslim men who marry non-Muslim women, then the state should encourage non-Muslim men to marry Muslim women (this actually happens in Xinjiang). Promote Muslim women who marry non-Muslim men as nationwide celebrities to set a positive example.

Encourage traditional culture against religion, to make religious politically incorrect and racist. Teach women the traditional dance, music and dress of their ancestors to counter Saudi-invested teachings so they'll believe it's Arab brainwashing rather than a religious thing. Send any religious leader who refuses the official state-approved interpretation of a religion to a re-education camp. If an imam believes an apostate should be killed, he should be asked to pick up soap in the bathroom. Also cut off funds from foreign NGOs unless the government approves it. Make any religion a traditional and cultural thing than a "faith" thing. Then bring urbanization, modernization and industrialization to the poor areas.

Have police scan the cellphones of the people on the street by implementing an app. It will take only a short time and be deleted quickly after that. What the app did is to see if the person had any content relating to extremism and terrorism. For instance did he support terrorism in the internet? Did he store the terrorist propaganda in cellphone? Does he support separatist movement? If so, then this person will be taken into the camp for sure. (This also applies to Evangelicals and Christian cults.)

[Anonymous No.23270997]

>>23270787
They would probably say something like "as Xi Jinping emphasized in his speech in Confucius's hometown: We must study Confucius's and Confuciunism's philosophy by the standard of historical and dialectical materialism, apply the principle of the ancient knowledges for modern use, get rid of the raw material but extract the essence of it, get rid of the fake but save the true, utilize and guide it by following the modern trend, deepen the study, make it work in the modern time by positive effect and contribution."

Now replace "Confucianism" with "Islam" and it's the same idea. Partly adopt some principles while reject others that don't fit the 21st century. Also in the schools, use historical and dialectical materialism to teach the nature of religions such as that why an idea couldn't exist in the first place without the establishment of materials, or why a specific religion says a specific thing in the book -- like women covering themselves -- in terms of geography, agricultural civilization, and the failure to industrialize; or the belief in Trinity in the background of an attempt to save the fall of the Rome Empire, or the belief that life is a cycle to explain why lower-class people tend to peacefully protest rather than promote social class struggle against the elite to explain why this group in history always failed to defend against foreign invaders.

[Anonymous No.23271061]

>>23267740
I'm not a religious person at all, was raised 100% secular and can probably never be a "believer" in the proper way. But every time I read a New Atheist quote I feel like I need to go to church. Like Kierkegaard was an idiot, like essentially every important thinker for 2000 years wasn't as insightful as a fat alcoholic neocon who wrote an entire book seething about Mother Theresa. They are all Amazing Atheist-tier clowns, if I was a religious person I might think that God was making them so unlikeable to bring souls to Him. But I'm not, so I'll just assume this sort of thing only appeals to retarded faggots.

As empirical theories, religions have some serious and intractable shortcomings. But these guys all seem fucking deranged, and I really dislike the association.

[Anonymous No.23271078]

>>23270970
He’s the very definition orthodox. The original schools of Islam were Athari and ahlul hadith, and Mutazilla. Athari and ahlul hadith were considered the champions of orthodoxy

[Anonymous No.23271103]

>>23270556
>groveling in the dirt.
No, chinkshits just do that to their superiors instead.

[Anonymous No.23271108]

>>23269849
>all these people trying to refute my posts with uncited assumptions presented as facts

[Anonymous No.23271123]

>>23271061
all atheists and secular people are far from human nature, if you think you are not deranged, you will definitely think your children and grandchildren are deranged, because human ideology, being borne from human intellect and emotion, is naturally flawed and self-destructive.

[Anonymous No.23271194]

>>23270966
>implying there are any intelligent people who remain Muslim after coming to maturity
there are no muslim intellectuals, only apostates who escaped the barbarism

[Anonymous No.23271290]

>>23271123
Yeah I don't feel like I'm that deranged, I just don't think that religious people are deranged either and I think they frequently have very good points which I agree with, although not in so many words. Lots of them are dumb, too, but that doesn't bother me. There are insights about the world which can be gained within or without religion (often more efficiently within desu, but which one?), Nü Atheists just seem hostile to any kind of insight that isn't specially theirs. Lots of atheists aren't like this, but you never hear from them because normal people atheism isn't something to have a jihad about.

[Anonymous No.23271291]

>>23267740
This is my experience as an ex Muslim. Most of it is crap. Allah forbade his worshippers from having more than 4 wives, Muhammad had 10. To me, this strikes as a person who is not disciplined enough to follow their own rules thus defying his own belief of god.

Moreover, the religion is extremely misogynistic. None of the teachings help bring inner peace since the land of Arabia, of which I am from, has so much rape, violence, pedophilia, xenophobia compared to atheist societies. As for spirituality and the existence of a creator, I believe in it but not in the Islamic sense, I don't believe it would sit on a throne (no butt) because it is beyond physics.

I can write more and more on Islam but there are people who can express it better like Apostate Aladdin on YouTube.

[Anonymous No.23271310]

>>23271123
>human ideology le bad
>also follows human ideology that a human saw in his human visions and wrote his ideology with his human hands that other humans try to apply today

[Anonymous No.23271408]

>>23271194
Then you shouldn't have said he interacted with Muslim intellectuals then

[Anonymous No.23272346]

>>23267740
There is glory in conquest and none in rational debate.

When God converted Constantine he said “in this sign you will conquer” not “in this sign you will win debates.”

[Anonymous No.23272785]

>>23272346
what is glory