/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5958738]

What is it about Islam that causes it to become extremist at the drop of a hat?

I almost feel like the reason the West sees it as "backward" and "medieval" is because Christianity has lost its own world-salvation objectives. If Christians really believed that Christ was the Word and Truth, then wouldn't they be just as likely to revive Christendom? Just as ISIS is reviving the Caliphate? As medieval as Islamic fundamentalism seems, don't they have a practical goal towards their paradise that Christians now lack, and which Jews are struggling to hold onto?

[Anonymous No.5958852]

>>5958738
Look up wahhabism and what wahhabis believe and how they view the world.

Then you will realise why a christian version of that is impossible for westerners.

[Anonymous No.5958862]

>>5958738
Lack of basic literacy and education. Islamic fundamentalism is in almost all examples heretics rejecting a ton of legitimate Muslim law, ignoring all established madhabs and sects even if the sects date back to Muhammad's lifetime, and substituting it with their own modern cultural bias. They're not fundamentalists, they do not follow fundamentals.

They are a clear example of barbarism, a people without education or knowledge. Islam is overtly against these people, the entire history of the Muslims jihad was them capturing cities and laying down a law, ending inner tribal conflicts and injustice plauging the region. Now fundamentalists are attempting to copy this, but they're doing it ironically against Muslims themselves. Their claim to legitimacy is fundamentalism, though one are actually fundamentalist and the entire conception of them as true Muslims in a land of false believers is the product of their own propaganda.

[Anonymous No.5958871]

>>5958862
*though no one group are actually fundamentalist.

[Anonymous No.5958895]

As much as people on /lit seem to not Sam Harris he is essentially right in that it has to do with the Quran and life of Mohammed.

In Islam the Quran is treated as the literal word of Allah. While it does contain verses about non-violence and non-compulsion of religion there are just as many if not more about forcefully converting the infidel to Islam and killing those who resist.

Attempting to say that even 1% of the Quran is not the word of Allah can get you arrested or killed in many countries. Part of the reason of why Islam is linked to violence is that its main holy book can easily be interpreted as promoting it.

And thats not even going into the life of Mohammed and the example he set, ISIS is doing much of what Mohammed himself did during his life. It is recorded in the Quran that Mohammed engaged in warfare and condoned both the murder and rape of captives.

[Anonymous No.5958917]

>>5958895

2/10 weak troll

[Anonymous No.5958932]

>>5958917

how am I trolling? Eeverything I said is pretty much either correct or hard to disagree on.

Is there anything in that post that you can provide a convincing refutation of?

I would really appreciate it if you could.

[Anonymous No.5958936]

The fact that much of the historical context of Islam is still largely unknown. There are some clues where it came from, some people believe that Muhammed was originally part of Jewish Messianism, believed that he and the Arabs lived in the end times and that conquering Palestine would bring about the Apocalypse

There's also the fact that a good portion of Arabs can't read or write

[Anonymous No.5958946]

>>5958895
>>5958917
He's right. Islam is inherently extremist. Moderate muslims are not 'good' muslims.

[Anonymous No.5958949]

>>5958932
Everything you said about the Quran could have been said about the Bible only a few hundred years ago. It's not something that's unique to Islam in and of itself, so much as it is the Islamic world in 2015.

[Anonymous No.5958955]

>>5958738
Islamism

which is not Islam

basically in the 1800s muslims saw the arab world being totally eclipsed in all areas by European colonial powers, because of the industrial revolution. the ottoman empire fell into decline and eventually collapsed, many areas of the arab world were made colonies and those that weren't were desperately impoverished and ruled by extravagantly wealthy and decadent dynasties.

muslims saw this as the muslim world being punished for being impious, not really as Europeans just advancing technologically faster than them. they developed the ideology of Islamism, which basically holds that the way for the Muslim world to return to power is to return to the fundamentals of Islam. people like sayyid jamal al-din al-afghani promoted the idea that people had to rediscover 'true islam'. other more modern thinkers like sayyid qutb put forward similar ideas.

during the cold war arabic socilaism dominated over islamism in most of the soviet-aligned middle east, but since the fall of the soviets islamism is now the primary change-promoting ideology in teh middle east.

they think they can defeat the west using pure faith, and that by being pious muslims god will somehow stop western bombs and guns from assraping them. they're completely wrong and they're dying by the hundred, but holy fuck they are committed.

[Anonymous No.5958969]

You clearly know nothing about Christianity or Islam

[Anonymous No.5958971]

>>5958949

while the bible does contain some of that there is way more of that in the Quran and some of its worst behaviors were practiced by Mohammed himself while Jesus was basically a pacifist.

I agree that the large rates of poverty and illiteracy in the muslim world combined with the history of dictatorships and western intervention has encouraged extremism but its disingenuous to suggest it dosnt have anything to do wiht the Quran and the example of the life of Muhammad.

[Anonymous No.5959000]

>>5958738
>>5958955
oh yeah and i should also mention the reason that it would never happen in europe is because of the reformation.

pre-reformation europe was technically united under the pope, and this was the Christendom of which you speak. however the moment people stopped accepting the pope that completely collapsed, and since then the church and the state have only become more and more separate. Christianity in europe now is no longer a worldview, but a spiritual view.

furthermore in the 17th chapter of St Luke it is written that 'the kingdom of god is in man' so while some people used to interpret the coming of the kingdom of god as some kind of literal government or kingdom, most people see it as a state of mind or something similar

[Anonymous No.5959018]

>>5958852
good article on this:

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism

[Anonymous No.5959214]

>>5958895
>about forcefully converting the infidel

Point me to any verse from the Qur'an about
"forcefully converting the infidel."

[Anonymous No.5959236]

>>5958862
Their reasoning is that most muslims have become apostates, so it's ok to kill them.

It's why ISIS will kill anyone who opposes the caliphate, because they naturally consider themselves a legitimate caliphate, and under Islamic law, rebelling against the caliph is treason and punishable by death.

[Anonymous No.5959246]

>>5958895
According to muslims the Qur'an is eternal and an attribute of Allah. It's a manifestation of his attribute of Speech. So to say that the Qur'an may not be from Allah is very dangerous

[Anonymous No.5959248]

>>5958895
>there are just as many if not more about forcefully converting the infidel to Islam and killing those who resist
Link?

[Anonymous No.5959252]

>>5958738
It's a regigion that started with big wars and has big chinks of their holy book dedicated to killing infidels. Why do you think it is backward?

[Anonymous No.5959253]

>>5958949
Christianity isn't based on 'the bible'. It's based on the new testament writings which are basically the closest thing you can get to Buddhism that isn't Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.5959258]

>>5959214
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

2:244 Fight in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is Hearer, Knower.

5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.

[Anonymous No.5959265]

>>5959214
"I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

There's your exhortation towards beheadings.

[Anonymous No.5959292]

>>5959265
[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

[Anonymous No.5959298]

>>5958738
they're poor, dumb and have oil.

we want oil.

they die.

there you have it, in a constant state of war they cling to anything that give them legitimacy to protect themselves with whatever weapons they can muster.

[Anonymous No.5959319]

>>5959258

Sorry, there's nothing in any of these passages about "forcibly converting the infidel." Again, where are the passages that enjoin forcible conversion?

>>5959265

This is from Surat al-Anfal, a discussion of the Battle of Badr. It also contains no command to forcibly convert infidels.

[Anonymous No.5959351]

>>5959319
It's implied.

If you are going around killing and fighting people for the sake of your religion, it's because you want to either force them to convert or submit to your religion's rule.

[Anonymous No.5959355]

MY GOD
AFGHANISTAN WAS A SECULAR COUNTRY
WITH A STRONG COMMUNIST PARTY
MY GOD ITS YOU KNOW THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM WHICH SO ON AND SO ON

[Anonymous No.5959416]

>>5959351
>It's implied.

You argued that the book enjoins "forcefully converting the infidel," but you haven't produced any actual evidence of this. You argue that it's implied in other passages.

In a previous post, you acknowledged that there are calls for "no compulsion in religion"—this is taken from the book verbatim. If you can't provide specific evidence supporting your argument, and you acknowledge that there is specific evidence that contradicts it, why should we follow you in assuming that the command is "implied"?

[Anonymous No.5959424]

>>5959416
You are assuming multiple people to be the same person.

[Anonymous No.5959435]

>>5959351
It's directed toward the pre-Islam Arabian polythiests though, Muslims are supposed to tolerate other monothiests and Christians/Jews (they're "people of the book" and basically worship the same God)

[Anonymous No.5959445]

>>5959435
Muslims spent a lot of time debating whether or not to slaughter the Hindus when they took over india.

[Anonymous No.5959455]

>>5958738
'Christendom' is not a geopolitical entity, nor does Christianity provide an ideological framework for every facet of society, nor does Christian theology advocate military expansion to spread the Word. So, no, they wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.5959468]

>>5958862

glad to see someone else has caught on to this

Look up Arab Emirs.

These were basically the tribal leaders before Muhammad untied them under the banner of Sharia. They were not all that different from the sort of chieftains you will still find among savage peoples today in Africa.

Most all Arab strains can be traced back to the Arabic peninsula. This is also where the earliest ancestors of modern day Jews are believed to have sprung from. Alexander had planned to conquer all these tribes and bring them under common rule before he died, much like the Bactrians and the Sogdians.

This was some 600 years before Muhammad. The tribes fought ceaselessly with one another. Muhammad understood that the only thing his people could appreciate was force. He used that insight to reform Arab society, uniting the tribes by directing them against other peoples.

Take the question of woman. In tribal society, a woman has no value whatever: she can be beaten, raped, killed, maimed, or kidnapped at will, and the violator has little to fear unless she is the daughter or close relation of an Emir. Muhammad understood the fundamentals of eugenics, and grasped that epidemic mistreatment of females ultimately communicated to their offspring, weakening the tribe. The children of battered women were often unhealthy; the children of women who had been violated often went neglected by the mothers.

How did he seek to improve this condition? It was not anything like today, where we abide by abstract concepts of morality, equality and human dignity. Muhammad knew that the only way to protect women (and by extension, their children) was to turn them into a piece of property. When a woman belonged to a man, any trespass upon her person would rate a response from the man who owned her. Among other savage peoples, for instance some North African tribes that survive into the modern day, a sort of 'marriage' may take place when a woman has been captured from a neighboring tribe and is causing disruptions in the form of nonstop gang-raping on the part of the tribe's men.

cont.

[Anonymous No.5959473]

>>5959468

Muhammad had a similar insight. He conceived a kind of marriage contract, and forbade women to break it, essentially on pain of death. This was important, because he knew the institution could not and would not survive if women did not remain faithful to their husbands. Today the fanatics reinterpret this when justifying executions for adultery on the part of a woman. The truth of the matter is that a woman would likely have been killed for breaking her vow in the old tribal days, and Muhammad was again striving to protect them. Their best bet was to devote themselves to one man, becoming his property, and therefore protected against the trespasses of other men. Nor did this preclude a man taking many wives; in fact, that was probably best. More women under protection of a powerful man. Muhammad himself took many wives, often those that had been abused or forsaken by their families. His aim was to strengthen the race for conquests against other peoples, while maintaining internal calm between the Arab tribes. This is crucial for the understanding of Muhammad and the Koran, and Islam as a whole. He wanted to build a more stable and capable society. He foresaw that the Arabs would not hold up well any war against a unified invader, and he was correct.


Islam is a taming force. It takes root wherever you have dispersed, savage tribes. It succeeded among the Arabs, it succeeded among the Africans. It has never succeeded among European peoples.

Why do you think it's called the Islamic Golden Age, and not the Arabic Golden Age? The Arabs ruled, but the Persians ran every facet of society for them. Islam civilized the Arabs sufficiently to allow a higher culture to grow up around them.

Today we use the terms 'fundamental Islam' and 'extreme Islam' interchangeably. But they mean completely the opposite thing. The West completely misunderstands Islam and what it does. Take away Islam and all the Arabs know is tribal law. It doesn't matter what they call it themselves. That is what it is. Straight from antiquity, pre-Islamic Arab society.

Arabs are bellicose savages. Muhammad knew they needed to be tamed if they were ever going to develop any sophistication.

Look at the prayer routine. This basically forces the Arab mind to stop whatever it is doing 5 times a day and submit itself to a higher power. That is an incredibly potent means of disrupting and breaking off savage behaviors.

[Anonymous No.5959498]

>>5959473
If you've been to an arab country you would know that nowadays most people don't pray.

[Anonymous No.5959503]

>>5959473
What is it about Europeans that made them not interested in Islam, in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.5959509]

>>5958738
>What is it about Islam that causes it to become extremist at the drop of a hat?

Stop right there. This idea of extremism is a narrative that the far-right has only been pushing since the 80's.

[Anonymous No.5959511]

Well, don't forget, the Islamic world never went through a Renaissance or Enlightenment like we did. We were just as bad 500 years ago. They were goat fuckers who've had their world turned upside down by these huge powerful nations trying to dictate their fate for nearly 70 years now and its pushed them the other way. If Russia had never invaded and Britain had never forced them off their land to build Israel, they'd probably be a bit less hostile.

[Anonymous No.5959525]

>>5959503

Preeminence of Christianity at the time Islam emerged, for one thing. Also the isolation of Europe.

Islam is spreading in Europe today in consequence of mass immigration. There are really not many European converts.

Nietzsche would say that European peoples had already been sufficiently 'tamed' by the time Islam arrived on the backs of conquering invaders. What good could Islam have done a people who already possessed so much cultural sophistication that they were beginning to wax decadent?

[Anonymous No.5959549]

>>5959525
Besides Christianity? Christianity was the religion in the Mediterranean areas until Islam showed up. There must be something about European culture and the European mindset that made it reject Islam.

I've actually met a lot of white converts to Islam. They tend to be ignorant of their Christian roots and have emotional problems, or experienced some kind of trauma.

[Anonymous No.5959551]

>>5958738
I doubt its the religion itself. Its all about their culture, it they were Christians or Jews instead it would probably be more or less the same

[Anonymous No.5959557]

>>5959551
Christianity preaches compassion, and to love your enemies.

Islam and Judaism don't. I think Arabs would be better off as Christians.

[Anonymous No.5959561]

>>5959416

Building on this, only Arab polytheists were fought until they converted. Even then, the majority of them were brought into Islam through Muhammad's alliance-building or through their own volition. You can argue that Abu Bakr's Ridda Wars were forced (re)conversions of Arabs, but as he saw it, he was merely holding them to agreements that they'd abandoned upon Muhammad's death.

The fact is that Islamic law has always regarded the religious communities mentioned in the Qur'an—Christians, Jews, Sabeans, and Magians—as protected peoples in principle. Disagreement arose over who can be considered part of those communities (especially the latter two) and over the proper conduct toward religious communities not mentioned in scripture.

The prevailing opinion, advanced by Malikis and especially Hanafis, came to be that any non-Arab religious community could be tolerated in principle. This was the approach eventually taken up by huge, diverse empires like the Ottomans and the Mughals.

Some other scholars argued that unnamed religions have the same status as Arab polytheism, but the practical implications of this view generally prevented it from being taken seriously by political leaders.

This is only really relevant to ISIS insofar as its dealing with the Yazidis are concerned. Even ISIS cannot get around the universally-acknowledged obligation to tolerate Christians, though it can certainly fail to uphold this in practice.

>>5959424

That doesn't really change anything.

>>5959445

This is sort of true, but ultimately not that important for two reasons:

a. The people who actually ruled India realized that Muslims were very much a minority, especially when they first arrived. They knew that force-converting the Hindu population would be totally impossible even if they wanted to do it, which they probably didn't because...

b. The Mughals (and probably other dynasties) privileged Hanafi jurisprudence, which tolerates any religious community.

[Anonymous No.5959579]

>>5959549

And I've met a lot of male converts to feminism. Cultural guilt is a powerful force.

Islam is, as aforesaid, a civilizing force. It presumes barbarism and faction, harsh living conditions, violence and the complete absence of obstetrics. To a people that has already achieved civilization, Islam must sound like an anachronism whose purpose can no longer be fathomed. Here after all is another set of instructions for domesticating and improving mankind; Europeans intuitively felt themselves already long past the need for this process. Islam would also have faltered among Europeans during antiquity.

[Anonymous No.5959597]

>>5958738
>What is it about Islam that causes it to become extremist at the drop of a hat?

Because contrary to what you hear repeated ad nauseum in the media, Islam is very clearly not a religion a peace (and not just because >hurr durr All I need to know is 9/11! All Arabs are terrorists!) and many many ex-muslims will testify to that fact. All the peaceful quotes come from early in Mohammad's life which was more or less "canceled" when the call to Jihad (which was NOT defensive) was made when Mohammad became a warlord bandit king.

[Anonymous No.5959622]

>>5958738
>What is it about Islam that causes it to become extremist

Hmmmm...let's see...

>Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you.
--Quran (2:216)

>The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.
--Quran (5:33)

>Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger...
--Quran 9:29

These are just three out of over 100.

[Anonymous No.5959628]

>>5959622

That's Abrahamic religion in general. Judaism and Christianity have very similar ideas about what to do with infidels.

[Anonymous No.5959631]

>>5959628
Nobody claimed otherwise.

[Anonymous No.5959648]

>>5958738
>then wouldn't they be just as likely to revive Christendom

What makes you think they aren't? There have been massive amounts of work done in the 20th century to unify all the churches in schism into one church with ecumenical dialogues.

>What is it about Islam that causes it to become extremist

Because Islam is ~political~ and not just a religion. Church and State can not be divided and other religions must be suppressed if you are to follow Islam to the letter.

[Anonymous No.5959671]

>>5959468
>>5959473

I'm glad to see that you've taken an interest in these things, but you're off the mark. You've misapprehended the nature of pre-Islamic Arabian society, the problems that Muhammad perceived in it, and the steps that he took to address them. Without elevating them fully to the status of men, he DID make women legally and financially independent individuals. His stipulations about dowries should make it clear enough that women are not to be the property of their male relatives or their husbands.

Your whole analysis also seems to be built on some silly, essentialized view of 'races' that make no sense as units of historical analysis. Most 'Arabs' today (Arabic-speaking populations) are worlds apart from the people denoted by that term 1400 years ago. 'European' is too large and ill-defined to be useful, and plenty of Europeans did convert to Islam besides.

[Anonymous No.5959675]

>>5958862
>the entire history of the Muslims jihad was them capturing cities and laying down a law, ending inner tribal conflicts

The cities they captured were often Roman and already civilized. You're white washing most of Islamic history.

[Anonymous No.5959702]

>>5959597
>All the peaceful quotes come from early in Mohammad's life which was more or less "canceled" when the call to Jihad (which was NOT defensive) was made when Mohammad became a warlord bandit king.

Your Medinan verse is part of a discussion of a specific battle (Badr.) Anyway, a facile 'Meccan-Medinan' dichotomy isn't enough to do away with every verse in the Qur'an that we deem not sufficiently violent. Nor has Islamic law ever recognized a total eclipse of 'peaceful' verses by later revelations.

All of this is to say nothing about the spurious nature of the proposed orders of revelation that have reached us. They were written long after the fact and there isn't sufficient historical evidence to confirm them.

A famous Medinan verse for you:

>No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error. So whosoever disbelieves in idols and believes in God, has laid hold of the most firm handle, unbreaking; God is All-hearing, All-knowing.

[Anonymous No.5959708]

>>5958917
>say something negative about Islam based on fact
>automatically viewed as wrong

Why is it so impossible to have an educated debate anymore?

[Anonymous No.5959713]

It's only a cultural and political difference not a religious one.
The power structures that works so well in (mainly) middle east are not convenient for us in the west. You can find the same type of religious loons here as you will find in the middle east if you care to.
See islam in Indonesia.

[Anonymous No.5959728]

>>5958949
>Clearly has never read either the Bible or Quran

[Anonymous No.5959733]

>>5959708
>Why is it so impossible to have an educated debate anymore?

Because you aren't educated.

[Anonymous No.5959764]

>>5959355
I always wondered I have a bunch of buddies that went over there to fight and all of them said dudes fucking other dudes was super popular

I figured it was to insult them because it couldn't be true In a religious area like that but man I've heard like 20 of those stories, are they all fake?

[Anonymous No.5959788]

>>5959000

The reformation is what caused Europe to go to shit and why America is filled with so many nut jobs.

[Anonymous No.5959791]

>>5959675
>The cities they captured were often Roman and already civilized.

Rather, discontent and welcoming to a change of pace. Many cities and states rejoiced that their Byzantine oppressors had been overthrown and that they had been liberated from them.

Let's not go so far in the other direction and glorify a Byzantine that wasn't.

[Anonymous No.5959797]

>>5959764
I lived in Yemen for a year and a half.

Homosexuality is very common. It's considered normal for a man to have attraction to young men/boys. Often Yemeni men would proposition foreign men, specifically Indonesians. I guess because they're more effeminate.

Once I was in a net cafe and the guy next to me was watching some yemeni dancing with a young male 'belly dancing', shaking his ass around in front of a group of men. Very gay. And the guy watching it didn't seem the slightest bit ashamed. And of course it was common to see yemenis watching gay porn on the internet as well...

[Anonymous No.5959816]

>>5959797

what were you doing living in Yemen?

shit is pretty dangerous

[Anonymous No.5959819]

>>5959764
>>5959797

Isn't this just a cultural 'meme' from Hellnic/pre-hellenic times though which never got disrupted socially?

[Anonymous No.5959823]

Some of the best Arabic poetry is about getting drunk and fucking men.

[Anonymous No.5959827]

>>5959819
I don't think Yemen was hellenised.

[Anonymous No.5959835]

>>5959816
It's less dangerous than the news would have you believe.

I was studying in a Madrassa.

[Anonymous No.5959841]

>>5959435
>Muslims are supposed to tolerate other monothiests and Christians/Jews (they're "people of the book" and basically worship the same God)

And all the crosses will be destroyed and the rocks will cry out that there is a Jew behind them, kill them!

[Anonymous No.5959844]

>>5959819
>>5959827

i think it has to the with the absence of any way for most males to meet and have casual sex with differant females in most muslim society.

with the exception of the big cities and the more liberal countries like lebanon its considered unacceptable for women to go out, meet men they dont know in public areas and then go have sex with them. in private.

thus gayness spreads and becomes normal as it is the only way for many to have non-solitary sexual experiences

[Anonymous No.5959848]

>>5958738

Its a religion that belongs to less civilized cultures. If Islam had undergone rational critique as did Christianity and Judaism during the enlightenment, it would be similarly secularized. Instead the Arabs rejected philosophy. They remain medieval.

[Anonymous No.5959864]

>>5958738
#stopsexual deviation #stop/b #stoppatriarchy #stopinappropriatedsexualcontent #stop4chan

4chan users your site must be PURGED by deleting /b or establishing stricter rules and norms. We noticed an exceeding level of injustice, racism, prejudices and abusive behavior. Be ready

[Anonymous No.5959876]

>>5959844
>i think it has to the with the absence of any way for most males to meet and have casual sex with differant females in most muslim society.

Homosexuality between males even where females were common and could literally be bought did exist in many societies pre-Islam and where Islam never stepped you know.

muh sexual frustration' isn't the best answer either considering in these 'Muslim' countries like Egypt they harass women and would damn well rape if they wanted to not suddenly jump over to homosexuality.

[Anonymous No.5959880]

>>5959841

And the context of that passage is...?

[truman !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.5959893]

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a functioning constitutional democracy with a predominantly sunni muslim population.

If there's hope for a reformation in the politics of Islamic countries, it lies in the model of BiH.

Curveball: this country wouldn't exist without the intervention of the United States.

[Anonymous No.5959898]

>>5959893
Funny how the only functional Sunni state is in Europe

[Anonymous No.5959899]

>>5959791
North Africa used to be the equal of Europe. Now it's a god forsaken hell hole. The spread of Islam ruined much of the known world.

You would realize it too if you were such a blinded Muhammadan.

[Anonymous No.5959903]

>>5959848
>enlightenment
>good

top kek

[Anonymous No.5959906]

>>5959899
Actually, you can blame Rome for the state of North Africa. If the Romans had lost the Punic Wars, the world would be a very different place.

[Anonymous No.5959912]

>>5959551
They were Christian before Islam came in and they weren't anywhere near as war like.

[Anonymous No.5959932]

>>5959903
Neoreactionarie are scum.

[Anonymous No.5959949]

>>5959880
>And the context of that passage is...?

Muhammad descends from the heavens to rule with an iron fist

>inB4 I don't like that hadith therefore it's not true because I say so

[Anonymous No.5959971]

>>5959468
Muhammad didn't invent nor spread marriage in Arabia. They weren't savages and Mecca was a hub of highly civilized trade before his life.

[Anonymous No.5960027]

>>5959473
>He conceived a kind of marriage contract, and forbade women to break it, essentially on pain of death

Except people during his time were already getting married in the usual sense and Mohammad never condemned the common practice during his time of "temporary marriage" where you could be married for one night/week/month and free afterwards for some amount of money. He tamed and civilized nothing.

[Anonymous No.5960062]

>>5959899

>North Africa used to be the equal of Europe

kek.

The Romans built some coastal cities with there and never bothered engaging much with the native population—at least not to the extent that the Arabs did.

Powerful, productive, indigenous states only arose after the area's Islamicization. A number of states there before the European Renaissance surpassed any of their contemporaries on the other side of the Mediterranean.

Even today, most of it isn't a shithole it all. Morocco is lovely.

[Anonymous No.5960063]

>>5960027
>"temporary marriage"
>not a good thing

[Anonymous No.5960082]

>>5959733
because you have been told you can't criticize Islam?

[Anonymous No.5960094]

>>5959764

Afghanistan is pretty fucked up like that, from what I understand, though I've never been there. I never really saw anything like that in the Middle East or North Africa.

[Anonymous No.5960102]

>>5959898
It isn't functional and the Muslims there are really starting to get into aggressive nationalism.

[Anonymous No.5960163]

Read the Qur'an for information about Islam. No other source can be trusted. Read it and judge on your own.

[Anonymous No.5960170]

>>5960082

What do you mean? I study this stuff. Nobody can claim to be completely objective, but I try as hard as I can to see things impartially and from different perspectives. None of the 'mudslimes are ebil' folks that I've encountered on /lit/ seem to have taken up any serious study of the religion at all. They form opinions and mine the internet for 'supporting evidence.'

[Anonymous No.5960185]

>>5960170
>Criticize Islam, the theology and writings
>Made out to be a bigot that wants to shove Muslims into ovens

[Anonymous No.5960191]

Christians in this thread should look into the Albigensian crusade.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Béziers

That's some straight up ISIS shit.

[Anonymous No.5960276]

>>5960027

There were multiple kinds of marriage in pre-Islamic Arabia, some of which were less savory than others. The main thing that Islam attempted to do was make the individual family unit self-sufficient. The tribe of the husband (or wife) no longer had any right over children or inheritance.

[Anonymous No.5960279]

>>5960185

Where have I done this?

[Anonymous No.5960354]

>>5958738

I think, we, humans, tend to oversimplify what we understand not.

I also think that "All texts have different interpretations. This is a property outlined by Hermeneutics and Semiotics. You can bend any set of words, to support your way of seeing the world, or to justify your acts [...] Human Rights are a definite set of rules, and therefore, can be exploited, just like any other set of rules [...] There are good things in the history of every civilization that has walked this earth. Unfortunately, there are also human beings, who insist in reviving the worse ones, instead of looking up to the stars."

I thank you however, for the invitation to exercise my mind.

[Anonymous No.5960378]

>>5960354
>You can bend any set of words, to support your way of seeing the world, or to justify your acts

That's a very chicken-egg question with respect to motivations for and why people do things and the role of religion in their life.

[Anonymous No.5960381]

>>5959788
> and why America is filled with so many nut jobs.

The US would look a lot more like Africa/South America if there was no reformation

[Anonymous No.5960390]

>>5958738
Why are /lit/erati so anxious to defend people who would happily take away their freedom to be effeminate intellectuals (via beheading)

[Anonymous No.5960398]

>>5959788
The reformation was one of the things that made Europe great. Protestant countries swelled in power/knowledge compared to their Catholic contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.5960403]

>>5960378

I guess that you realize you reached a core question, because it often presents itself as "chicken eggish".

As thinkers, students, scholars, or simply wanderers, we can think our purpose is fulfilled when we make the right questions, not when we answer them for anyone.

:)

[Anonymous No.5960406]

>>5960062

What is Carthage? What is the Ptolemaic kingdom?

[Anonymous No.5960453]

>>5960381
You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.5960482]

>>5959000

>since then the church and the state have only become more and more separate

This really isn't true at all, read Earthly Powers by Michael Burleigh. Basically church was still overtly a branch of the state in much of Europe between the Reformation and the French Revolution, and the rise of the ancestors of modern political movements in the 19th century was very much informed by religious sentiment. Naziism and Leninism both have their roots in belief in state of state-sponsored eschaton, it's a form of Christianity turned to support political violence. And the reason why Islam can do the same thing is because it is the same thing as Christianity, it sells itself to followers on the promise of perfect future state for members of the club. Current phase of violence is direct result of the power vacuums created by USA's recent toppling of Middle-Eastern states, which have empowered warlords answerable to no one. Don't kid yourself that this can't happen with Christian people as well, look at the Lord's Resistance Army.

[Anonymous No.5960492]

>>5959702

[Anonymous No.5960500]

>>5960279
>the 'mudslimes are ebil' folks

[Anonymous No.5960634]

>>5960492
>Everything I need to know about Islam I learned from media coverage of muh ISIS

>>5960500

It was an innocuous potshot, not an attempt to shut down criticism.

>>5960406

Phoenician and Hellenistic? You tell me.

[Anonymous No.5960678]

>>5960634
>Phoenician and Hellenistic? You tell me.

They were powerful North African kingdoms that played a significant role in the history of Rome,

[Anonymous No.5960689]

>>5960678

Yeah. What should we make of this?

[Anonymous No.5960695]

the west experienced a little something called THE FUCKING ENLIGHTENMENT!

[Anonymous No.5960699]

>>5960689

We should acknowledge that North Africa was significant in the days of the Roman Republic.

[Anonymous No.5960712]

>>5960699

Can we acknowledge that it was every bit as significant after it became Islamic?

[Anonymous No.5960724]

>>5960712

I know much less about that period.