Why didn't Islam go through a Reformation like Christianity

>what is sunni-shia conflict

retard

>>2853579
a) Wahabism is exactly the Muslim equivalent to the Christian reformation.
b) Reformation wasn't exactly a good thing, it lead to lots of wars and destruction. What ultimately made the West superior was the age of enlightenment and the society turning away from religion.

File: 17a55aea0f8bfab917c8e65d9fd22ff7.jpg (330KB, 700x949px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 700x949px

>>2853585

How is that in any way related to the Reformation? What the fuck? That would be more like the Schism. Never mind the fact that there wasn't even a proper Islam when they decided to split up. The Sunni doctrine developed under Umayyad rule, while Shi'a Islam developed separately (though by no means in isolation).

>>2853579
>what is the Salafi movement
>what is the Jadid movement

>>2853585
something that is nothing like the reformation and only a retard would bring up as an answer?

>>2853598
I'd argue it wasn't society turning away from religion so much as it was turning away from the absolute authority of the religious figures.

Either way, Muslim Enlightenment fucking when.

>>2853579

>Why didn't Islam go through a Reformation like Christianity did?

>>2853617
>Muslim Enlightenment fucking when

It has already taken place in the Russian Empire: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadid

>>2853621
If only it worked on the whole Islamic world

>>2853634
Well, it did work on most of the Turkic Muslims of the ex-USSR (particularly on the Tatars, the Bashkirs and the Kazakhs), so I don't see a reason why it cannot work on the whole Islamic world.

>>2853579
It did.

It's called Alevism.
Offshoot of Batini Shia Islam

>>2853579
I would say that Islams religious leadership was never centralized enough after the early caliphate to have something to reform against. Any new teachings would.just become another sect.

>>2853579
The reformation didn't make christianity any more secular.

>>2853617
i wouldn't blame it on turning away from religion, that was an extremely minor point. The church still pioneered in a lot of research for a long time, it was mostly the value that was given to the scientific method.

but indeed islam is a medieval deathcult

>>2854081
it kinda made the catholic church more secular and the religious hotheads converted to protestantism

>>2853579
Why didn't Christianity go through a sunni/shia split?
It's completely pointless to compare such different historical process and retarded to expect the same things to happen everywhere.

>>2853617
>Muslim Enlightenment fucking when.
The ones after Enlightenment get killed by the fundamentalist Caliphate seeking fuckers the world is plagued by.

Biggest victims of ISIS and AQ ( and even Muslim Brotherhood, who are the really dangerous ones!) have been other Muslims.
Why?

To fundamentalists they rank targets in following order:

1: Apostates - nothing worse than traitors. Note you can be a devout muslim and still be branded this by another group of the same sect because you don't stand with them.
2: Atheists - godless heathens
3: Buddhists, Hindu's, Polytheists. Multiple gods is HARAM
4: Christians and Jews. Evil infidels, but at least they're monotheists.

They want the Caliphate back, and they won't stop.
Only solution is for the "moderate" muslims (of which so few true ones exist they basically are insignificant) to lead the fight against the terrorists, with as minimal western support as possible.

This won't happen because liberal atheists pander to the fundamentalists, despite everything. So the good muslims who would save islam and spare the world are at best shut out, at worst cut down.

File: Two Black men lynched by white Christian members of the KKK..jpg (127KB, 500x403px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 500x403px

>>2853579
>Reformation
Protestantism is Atheism 0.5. The Reformation didn't ''Reform'' Christianity, it simply contained it. If the West is ever to end up in an economic situation like that of the modern Middle East, we will be just as fundamentalist as modern day Muslims.

>>2855962
A fellow fan of Sam Harris. Nice.

File: Fedora Lord..png (53KB, 500x369px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x369px

>>2856009
>Sam Harris
Sam Harris despises Muslims so much, that he actually thinks America was justified in the Iraq War simply because ''we are Secular, they are not..''

>>2856030
Cherry picking a quote out of context is below you, c'mon mate, gotta be intellectually honest for both of our sakes.

I can however appreciate how Sam can be polarizing.

I don't think that he outright despises Muslims. More so that he hates what Islam makes people do. He'd be the first to tell you that Christianity and Judaism are barbaric in their own right, but you'd be flat out lying if you can't see the jarring correlation between Islam and violence in the modern world.

File: GSXRSleepinginbed.jpg (69KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x600px

>>2853579
Most people can't stomach a pill of this size but the truth is that it simply boils down to genetics. Arabs (in this context, people of that region) are predisposed to a lower intelligence quotient as it is (Mendelsohn et al., 2010) and arabs have historically and still in present day are incredibly inbred. Within the culture, marriage of the first cousin is often encouraged and this has been clinically shown to also further lower the intelligence quotient of the affected population. Similar to a dog that is not capable of recognizing itself in the mirror, the Islamics never really and more importantly can't "wake up"

>>2856092
>incredibly inbred
If true that would certainly explain a lot

>>2856058
>Cherry picking
No cherry picking in a quote that he said unironically, guy actually deludes himself into thinking Religion is literally worse than Rape and thinks Science can ''determine Morality and Ethics'', but that isn't surprising since he is part of the militant New Atheist Movement. Your Apologsim for him won't work.

>>2856092
>arabs have historically and still in present day are incredibly inbred
Cite your Evidence and Sources.

>>2856131
You're still misrepresenting his point, which alot of his critics do.

>If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.

Interestingly enough, many religions tacitly supports rape and a "rape culture" in their doctrines and dogmas. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to oppression of women as it relates to religion.

File: imagine-no-religion.jpg (52KB, 459x322px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 459x322px

>>2856192
>I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.
BULLSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEIT. Nazism, and Communism and Capitalism killed more people in the 20th century than any religion ever did in the entire history of humanity. Don't even delude yourself into that isn't true.

File: tmp_12607-globalcolorsmall-1676826746.jpg (84KB, 640x452px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x452px

>>2856149

File: 422857b55ad2377a9b582422ecc84259.jpg (111KB, 736x990px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 736x990px

There have been revivalist, millennial and mahdist movements like the Ahmadis and Deobandis.
Wahhabis and Salafis are more radical reformer like.

>>2856245
Hitch describes it best. ALL dictatorships are a form of religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRiQR1Vv8o

>>2853579
Also a reformation doesn't necessarily mean modernization and may actually be counter to it.

>>2856256
>Mao
>Stalin
>Hardcore Atheists who despised Reiligion.
>Somehow Religious.
The mental gymnastics are priceless.

>>2856277
Watch the video, please.

Also, religion doesn't exclusively mean Christianity or Judaism. Alot of dictators present themselves are divine beings or above humanity and fascist governments revolve around people following the ultimate authority of a higher power -- just like the Catholic Church.

>>2856192
>I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.
Bullshit. People bicker over religion. What they kill each other over is money. Scratch deep enough below the surface, and you find that religion is just the excuse that they come up with to get the morons in uniform to go along with it.

The Islamic state are ex-Baathists resisting second-class citizenship status as sunnis in their democracy which has been poisoned by Bush-era faith in identity-based sectarianism and is being taken over by Shiites.

It's no coincidence that these areas also have some of the most extreme inequality in the world. But in the largest Muslim country in the world Inequality among Muslims is lower than their Buddhist neighbors, so it just doesn't correlate that religion is the thing causing all the problems.

>>2856314
>People bicker over religion

I wouldn't call the religious conflicts throughout history "bickering."

I'm sure there is alot of class-issue bullshit going on the middle east but to say that religion has nothing to do with it is frankly disingenuous.

Tell me, why do the most secular countries in the world have the best human rights records? Better health care? Quality of life? Upward mobility? The least amount of racism? Etc Etc?

>>2856329
>best human rights records? Better health care? Quality of life? Upward mobility? The least amount of racism? Etc Etc?
All thanks to economic prosperity, not Secularism. Put the West in the same economic situation of the Middle East and they just as violent and draconian as the Middle East.

>>2856329
>I wouldn't call the religious conflicts throughout history "bickering."
It's not just class warfare. Whenever you mix politics and religion you create conditions for an arbitrary privilege, and you get a society of haves and have-nots. All classes of society are affected, not just the absolute poorest, though they do the lion's share of the suffering. The fact is, you need suffering rich people in order for there to be funding and social willpower for revolutions

At the end of the day, religion, like any other ideology, is a vehicle that can be hijacked and turned into a tool for the personal enrichment of a despot.

>>2856351
You don't find it interesting that almost all the countries to first adopt a secular society just so happened to be the most economically prosperous today?

Once Japan threw away it's last vestige of religion in their God Emperor and adopted a truly secular society through American leadership did they experience one of the largest economic booms ever seen.

>>2856361
>You don't find it interesting that almost all the countries to first adopt a secular society just so happened to be the most economically prosperous today?
No. They became Secular AFTER they became economically prosperous. Secularism isn't a right, it's a privilege.

>>2856357
I believe we half agree on the central point though. We're just arguing from different sides of it.

Authority through divine right or lineage is a driving factor in that part of the world and is deeply entwined with the suffering in that region.

>>2856374
>They became Secular AFTER

Except there was active secularization even before the Meiji Restoration. Your attempt at a correlation falls flat.

>>2856374
I would argue that secular ingenuity is what sparked the economic property. Religion notoriously stifles free thinking and challenges to the status quo.

>>2856375
But it's not the religion itself which is causing the problems, as evidence to the fact that plenty of Muslims live in countries which aren't directly related to the problems in the middle east, and you don't see radicalized young men shooting up nightclubs and bombing concerts in them.

It's human nature. If we eradicated religion from the world, people would find some other excuse to kill each other.

>>2856384
> But it's not the religion itself which is causing the problems, as evidence to the fact that plenty of Muslims live in countries which aren't directly related to the problems in the middle east, and you don't see radicalized young men shooting up nightclubs and bombing concerts in them.

I'm assuming you mean you DO see radicalized young men shooting up clubs and bombing concerts? Because that's what is happening.

>>2856382
>Your attempt at a correlation falls flat.
No, it doesn't. Japan became economically prosperous thanks to economic aid from america to help kick start the Japanese economy, Secularism had absolutely nothing to with it.

>>2856394
They're radicalized because you've got theocratic states systematically spreading religious fundamentalist militarism over the internet and among Mosques around the world. Some of these are ridiculously wealthy power brokers who have a vested financial interest in inspiring Muslims to cause as much mayhem as possible.

>>2856398
They borrowed heavily from the most secular founding document the world had ever seen.

The American Constitution.

>>2856405
Just like the Vatican did with all those fascist dictatorships.

My point stands.

>>2853579
>Why didn't Islam go through a Reformation like Christianity did?
What reformation? The violence reformation one which never existed or the theological reformation which did happen?

>>2856417
And don't forget the wholly secular communists

>>2856423
> le atheist communists meme

Almost all European and South American fascist dictatorships were in alliances with the Vatican.

I have to add that we must remember that religion doesn't exclusively mean an Abrahamic religion. Religion can take many forms. And as is the case in North Korea -- the great leader is also your god.

>>2856410
>The American Constitution.
Nothing Secular about the founding fathers, they regularly quoted things from the Bible, also America didn't become Economically prosperous because of Secularism, it became economically prosperous thanks to an abundance of resources. Lots of empty land to colonize and Protestant work ethic.

File: 6dd02590da33591f54abb2f02c0eab94.jpg (50KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 850x400px

>>2856434
>> le atheist communists meme
They underwent a systematic effort to remove religion from their society.

It didn't work. As soon as they stopped trying, rates of religious attendance returned to their pre-oppression levels

>>2856436
>Nothing secular about the foundign fathers

Are you serious? Federalists used to call Jefferson the "howling atheist."

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches … appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

- Thomas Paine

>>2853579
It did. It's called Wahabism.

The difference is that it didn't evolve the way you wanted it to. Instead of decentralizing and diversifying, modern Islam is doubling down on fundamentalism and becoming more extreme. This is natural reaction and the correct response to incursions by Western powers in Islamic domain.

People who say Islam should have a reformation have no fucking idea what they're talking about. It's undergoing one as we speak, and it's not a "good" one for Christians.

>>2856149
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East

Shits real bro

>>2856445
>Thomas Paine
And then he goes on to quote things from the Bible, Thomas Paine didn't hate Religion, he just hated attempts of controlling it to support your own interests.

>>2856443
Linen capitalized on the generations bred culture of servility and servitude to the Czar who was believed to be higher than a human but just below God. Replace the Czar with the Great Leader and God with The State and you have the same fucking thing. That is not secularism.

>>2856456
>This is natural reaction and the correct response to incursions by Western powers in Islamic domain.

Wahhabism is being funded by the Saudi royal family. They're in desperation mode because the moment that the west weans itself off of their oil, nobody will have any more use for them. ISIS are Salafists and would mock you if you called them Wahhabi.

>>2856468
>he just hated attempts of controlling it to support your own interests.

Which is to say, meddling with matter of the state and markets to a non-altruistic end.

>>2856483
>Which is to say, meddling with matter of the state and markets to a non-altruistic end.
Still doesn't refute my that Thomas Paine didn't Religion, Just attempts to use it for you own selfish needs.

>>2856490
Point*, hate*.

>>2856477
It's not like Gulf Arabs are the pillar of piety either. They probably know all the affluence and development will lead to increasing irreligiousity anyway.

>>2856475
>That is not secularism.
Sure it is. You're replacing faith in something intangible with faith in something tangible: in this case, the leader.

You're telling people to trust their government, which actually does exist. You could get in your car and go see for yourself. Faith is literally just the Latin word for trust, and trust by itself is not a bad thing.

You know, unless the person telling us to trust them is some right-wing nutjob with "Gott Mitt Uns" Stamped on his belt buckle. But when I read stories about Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin celebrating mass on the moon (having even taken their own communion along with them), I don't doubt that the story actually happened because I trust the competence of NASA.

>>2854686
>Why didn't Christianity go through a sunni/shia split?

It did you retard. It's called the Great Schism, which led to the Catholic/Orthodox split. Please don't comment on religion if you know nothing about it.

Because different "civilizations" have different circumstances.

As I'm sure you're aware there's quite a bit of fracturing in Islam, there are many, many sects. In the same way, pre-Reformation Christianity had lots of very small heresies and sects, many of which pushed the same sorts of ideas as Protestantism. clearly, however, these didn't really lead to the same kinds of revolutionary changes that Protestantism did.

Why? Because, simply put, there was no social impetus for such a revolutionary change at the time. when Martin Luther came around, society was already changing in a certain way. The manorial/feudal relations of old were beginning to decay and as a result the first estate in northern Europe was beginning to decline as well. The Reformation gave states like England and the Scandinavian states, which never really had feudalism in the manorial sense, an opportunity to do away with the hierarchical church structure for the benefit of the realm.

Such situations did not quite develop in Islam. the socioeconomic impetus was not present.

>>2853579

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/02/islam-will-not-have-its-own-reformation/

TL;DR Totally different historical context and different ways to organize the religion. The reformation was in essence a movement against the power of the pope and catholic church,none which apply to Islam

>>2856544
Kek. That's a nice why of saying 'genetics'

>>2856552
What

File: the Hand of God destroys communism.jpg (136KB, 942x1200px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 942x1200px

>>2853579
>Why didn't Islam go through a Reformation like Christianity did?

We need reactionary muslims as cheap and disposable anti-socialist shock troops.

>>2853579
Islam is going through a reformation right now. I know egotistical westerners like to think that everything revolves around them, but right now the Arab world is fighting massive wars of religion to determine whether Islam should be a political theocratic system like it was in the past, or a more moderate religion that takes a backseat in politics and modernise to fit in with a modern secular society.

Westerners just exploit the conflict

>>2854081
It along with the Renaissance helped usher in the Enlightenment. With the taboo of criticizing the Pope already done with, and seeing the horrors of the Religious Wars, that and the Scientific Revolution, it helped set the environment for the Enlightenment.

I'm secretly hoping for the Chinese to sort this thing out somehow.

>>2853579
They did, it's called wahhabism

>>2856009
>Harris
Who?

I'm not jumping on anyones bandwagon.
I've just read around the subject, including a few books by jihadis themselves like Brig. SK Maliks Koranic Concept of War etc.

An Islamic reformation is the only way for the world to win out, as if it doesn't happen, the actions of the caliphate desiring jihadi's will bring about religiously motivated wars/fighting like it already is in Burma and Africa and elsewhere.

>>2856131
>Religion is literally worse than Rape and thinks Science can ''determine Morality and Ethics'', but that isn't surprising since he is part of the militant New Atheist Movement. Your Apologsim for him won't work.
I'm definitely not a fellow then. I'm pro-christian, more or less soft anti-atheist (let them do what they want, but I don't agree they're right. That said I'm not exactly a christian myself..)
And I don't think religion is in the same arena as rape. Rape is something that transcends religion, its more a cultural and legal thing.

>>2856261
That is a very good point

>>2856314
>Bullshit. People bicker over religion. What they kill each other over is money.
That isn't true. Please don't say you think the Crusades were about money as I've heard some historians claim.
For some nobles and freemen joining the hundred thousands of people taking part, sure they were doing it as they had nothing better back home. And im not claiming they were about religion solely, but both the Crusades, and the Islamic expansion that preceded it were religiously motivated. Hell Islam all but destroyed the Zoroastrians because they didn't convert.
Religion is an extension of culture and beliefs. And most conflict is about clash of culture and beliefs.
Money has only really been a thing for the rich in antiquity, and even then it was mostly about power not money itself. And since the industrial revolution as it was then that economics entered the battlefield as well.

>>2857401
Chinese policy towards Islam is extremely retarded, it is the primary reason why so many Muslims living in China are abandoning al-Maturidi's peaceful teachings and are adopting Salafi jihadism instead.

>>2857597
>That isn't true. Please don't say you think the Crusades were about money as I've heard some historians claim.
The crusades were nothing more than a cynical land-grab, and the Ur-example of shameless realpolitik masquerading as religious fervor by a ruling class which conveniently happens to benefit from both.

If it were really that much about religion, then how come the biggest loser of the crusades were the Byzantines?

>>2857791
how is it a shameful landgrab when they were retaking formerly Christian lands, and a Christian holy site.

Jerusalem wasn't a holy site for Islam until mohammed said it was late in the islamic conquests of NA and the Levant.

There is some cynicism there, as they were not Roman Catholics that owned the land, but Christianity was a mess without a real strong hold on religion back when that was relevant.

>If it were really that much about religion, then how come the biggest loser of the crusades were the Byzantines?

2 parts, first, they were on the frontlines against the muslim forces, and then the turkic invaders too.
And second was more cynical as you point out, a shameful landgrab. But that is one crusade of several.

But it was more or less allowed by the Catholic church as that gave them more power and influence, and importantly nigh absolute hegemony over the Christian faith.

NOTE: I never said it was totally about religion, in fact i stated exactly the opposite of this. But it was not about money, and the religious differences made up a significant part of it for the vast majority of the people taking part, on both sides.

Religion is a facet of culture, and culture of civilisation. The wars over religion were really wars over disagreeing viewpoints, same as all other conflicts.
The modernist revisionism of the crusades as being motivated by money, or just "a land grab" are spurious at best, with very little primary sources to support this, and what is available is extremely ambiguous.

>>2853617
When most of the Muslims realize they're sick and tired of killing each other or watching their family members blow themselves to bits. And not a moment before.

>>2855998
>Christianity contained
>promptly spreads across the globe

>>2857624
>Chinese policy towards Islam is extremely retarded
Towards the Uyghur, dumbasses.

The Hui and the Southern Chinese Muslims don't get shat on by the government because they aren't rebellious shitlings.

>>2856256
Harris is a secular humanist fundie so he's not exempt either.

>>2855998
> Protestantism is Atheism 0.5
Monotheism itself is like an atheism 0.4 before that nobody was autistic enough to start systematically deny gods.

>>2857995
>retaking
Owned by whom, the repressive and autocratic Byzantines, who only owned it in the first place because their Roman granddaddies fucked over the Jews?

By the time of the Crusades any Christian, Jew, or Muslim would be allowed to travel unmolested to these holy lands, if peaceful religious ferver was what motivated them. From a strictly religious standpoint there was no more reason for those lands to be owned by Christians than by the local Palestinians who had been living there since the Romans put them there

>a real strong hold on religion
There were two "strongholds" of Christianity in those days: the Holy See of Rome, and the Holy See of Constantinople. They had no legitimate claim to the holy land any more than Muslims or Jews did.

> on the frontlines against the muslim forces, and then the turkic invaders too.
And they were shamelessly stabbed in the back by other Christians, and literally that was the only long-term by-product of the crusades: a Middle East united by hatred under the Ottoman Turks; and the Byzantine Empire disintegrating after the other Christians completely screwed them over

>more power and influence,
Ultimately, their motivating factor was secular: more bodies putting more money in the offering plates.Take away the profit motive and see how long before all the warhawks turn into deficit scolds.

>Religion is a facet of culture
Religious belief nowadays is more and more understood to be a facet of genetics; some people naturally feel a very strong connection with the idea of the supernatural, others don't feel anything at all, and for one to try and force the other to adopt the same identity is simply to invite resentment. And even in the absence of religion, the rulers found that secular ideology worked just as well in motivating people to kill each other.

>>2860039
>Owned by whom,
Egypt was christian long before Islam was a thing.

Those North African christian 'nations' were conquered by muslim generals and forced to convert. Like they did with the Zoroastrians and Jews.

>by crusades.. holy land was free to be visited
No it wasn't. A major complaint was brigands and banditry by muslim tribes on pilgrims.
After Saladin it was largely safe though as that guy actually did guarantee it and kept his word as best a man could.
From a strictly religious standpoint there was no more reason...
They were Christian lands. Palestinians were Christian before the expansion of Islam. Just like Lebanon was Christian before Hezbollah and Hamas etc.

>They were shamelessly....
I did actually provide an answer for you regarding this in the post you linked, but you seem to have missed it in your indignation.

> their motivating factor was secular
I also address this. But its not about money.
Money isn't the same as power, even a fool should know that. The Catholic Church has always done nefarious shit in the name of power. Its why it fought with Frederick II, and many others. It had nothing to do with money. Just influence and power (monopoly over Christianity)

>Third Crusade
Worth noting that a lot of dissent was received by those responsible from the rest of the Christian community. It was literally hijacked by a greedy and canny noble who had a claim to the Empire and paid for the boats from Venice that transported the crusade.

>Religious belief nowadays is more and more understood to be a facet of genetics;
I'd like to see sources on that, as that's retarded. There is no "belief gene", just like theres no "gay gene".
Unless you want to start addressing that different genders and races have different genetic traits too...

>repressive X
oh fuck off.
Not one group in history is innocent of repressing people. Not one.
Get your head out of your ass.

>>2855962
>This won't happen because liberal atheists pander to the fundamentalists
isn't that what Trump just did in Saudi Arabia, would you call him a liberal atheist?

File: 1247134068_maru-jumps-out-of-box.gif (1MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x300px

>>2860636
Na, the US/Western alliance with KSA is a more complicated matter.

As concise as possible:

KSA guarantees oil to USA who has more demand than supply. KSA spends its profits buying US services, especially engineering and construction, but also invests heavily in USA, into weapons and goods.
US reliance on Oil makes them somewhat beholden to KSA, especially as the petrodollar system is what keeps the US economy afloat through artificial demand for dollars, which in turn allows printing of currency without inflationary effects that should occur.

Liberal pandering is more about the fact they protect and empower the fundamentalist muslims, who keep the reformists down, or kill them, depending on where you are.

>>2860589
>Egypt was christian long before Islam was a thing.
And its dominant strain of Christianity, Monophysitism, was condemned as heresy by the Orthodox church and ruthlessly suppressed.
>Those North African christian 'nations' were conquered by muslim generals
And most of them were more than happy to throw off the shackles of the corrupt, repressive Byzantines and embrace Islam. These places were Christian because the Byzantines were flat out ruthless about converting people. Paying a small fine for having a religion besides the dominant one is much preferable to continuous repression
> brigands and banditry
You get that anywhere you get lack of powerful centralized authority. The crusading empires could have sent peacemakers to help patrol the highways, but why would they do that when the goal is to get that sweet conquest booty?
> Palestinians were Christian before the expansion of Islam.
And before they were put there the region was predominantly Jewish, who were violently extricated. Live by sword, die by the sword.
> did actually provide an answer
I know, it just wasn't particularly compelling, and you haven't addressed the fact that the only thing that the result of the crusades was making things worse for everyone, including Christians trying to go on a pilgrimage.
>Money isn't the same as power
Says those who have neither. You can't feed an army with good feelings and bible verses, nor can you use those things to finance the construction of a giant cathedral
> "gay gene".
Homosexuals don't chose to be gay, it's an innate and inseparable aspect of their psychology. This is well understood science.
>Not one group in history is innocent
I never once made that assertion; it's ALWAYS a question of relativity. You would have preferred the oppressive, corrupt Romans to savage Celtic raider culture.
>Get your head out of your ass.
You know that this kind of salty shit makes your case sound weaker, right?

>>2860636
Saudi regime is liberal atheist. If you don't think so, you know absolutely nothing about Saudi Arabia

>>2860670
>And its dominant strain of Christianity, Monophysitism, was condemned
Moving the goalposts.
It was owned by Christians. Muslims conquered by force. Crusades were about taking that land back, protecting Christians, and a number of other things.

>repressive Byzantines
Byzantines didn't own North Africa, just Egypt.
And these areas were Christian LONG before Byzantium was even separate from Rome. Talk about repression all you want, muslims forced conversion by the sword too, so its pot calling kettle, and thus pointless.

>peacemakers to help patrol the highways
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
And if the lands were once Christian, and christians are being prevented from travelling there safely because of muslims, then military force to protect people is the logical next step, given muslim nations were hostile and still expanding into christian nations at this point.

>conquest booty
its not theft if it was stolen from you

>And before they were put there the region was predominantly Jewish.
Before it was jewish is was pagan. The Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans after they kept revolting. Not saying that was correct, but it happened.
mohammed rolled up and built the mosque on the ruins and claimed it as 2nd most important muslim holy site after mecca.
You moved the goalposts again.

>I know, it just wasn't particularly compelling
Sorry it wasn't compelling for you, but facts aren't always sexy.
Things did get worse, that tends to happen when both sides have opposing views and fight for centuries. Islam had been violently expanding for 300+ years by the First Crusade.
You think the Christians should have just said "fuck it, lets just give our stuff to these invaders guys, we'll just make things worse defending ourselves!"
Do you think Neville Chamberlains' appeasement of Hitler would have eventually worked?

>Says those who have neither.
No, they are separate facets of authority, along with influence

>Homosexuals
not entering a debate on this

>>2860670
>not one group in history is innocent
>never once made that assertion;
you keep implying it was worse under Christians. It's been shitty for everyone throughout history if you weren't a noble, or a merchant and even then you weren't safe. Iqta was not better than feudalism.

I agree it is about relativity.
But then you go and use leading language to paint Romans and Celts as awful but ignore the 300+ years of violent islamic expansion that wiped out the zoroastrians, monophysites and miaphysites, jews, countless pagan tribes, and eventually catholics and orthodox christians too. Not to mention the original people of mecca.

I'd tentatively assume you are of MENA'n descent, or at least muslim. In which case from your perspective, the west IS relatively worse.
That is cultural bias.
Otherwise you're just being disingenuous, and I'd rather assume you weren't.
As objective as one can be though, islam expanded violently into Christian lands, and the violent crusades were a response to that.
Greedy and corrupt people on both sides made things worse for their own sides as well as their foes. But their beliefs and actions don't dictate the beliefs and actions of everyone involved.

>You know that this kind of salty shit makes your case sound weaker, right?
We're debating on fucking 4chan. You thought there was any sense of reputation or respectability to begin with?
And on that point you do need to get your head out of your ass, for the reasons pointed out above regarding leading language.

>>2856277
>Mao
>Stalin
>not creating personality cults that closely resemble religion

>>2862791
Crude reductionism anon.

Personality cults obviously existed but to reduce it to the actions of "great men" and to compare it to religion is just silly.

In reality the world is more complicated. Stalin himself tried to curb the personality cult but others found it useful to get ahead in their careers and the more peasant minded folk were simply still too backward to not venerate some kind of tsar like figure.

>>2862654
>As objective as one can be though, islam expanded violently into Christian lands, and the violent crusades were a response to that.

But this is wrong.

Why do people conflate the Reformation and the Enlightenment?

>>2862897
Because realizing that the pope is a fraud is enlightening.

>>2862890
Riiiight. They didn't do nuffin!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

Long list of military campaigns there.

About the only thing worth noting is they didn't force conversion of the common people. They knew that'd happen over time, and if it didn't they'd get jizya taxes from it anyway.

Other sources:
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t253/e17

or

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/earlyrise_1.shtml

>The military conquest was inspired by religion, but it was also motivated by greed and politics.

Islam set itself on a path of violent expansion. Christianity is far from faultless and innocent, but by and large its expansion, especially early on was timid and peaceful (though to note it happened very much like the refugee crisis in EU right now, a slow non-violent invasion with propaganda to undermine the old faith).

>>2855998
holy shit the guy on the right leaning in to be in the picture. fucking kek

>>2863234
*left not right

>>2856245
how many people did feudalism kill?

>>2853579
>What is the Sufi movement
>What is the Mutazilite movement
>What is the Ismaili movement

Islam IS the reformation you stupid fuck.

>causing wars everywhere
>burning people for "witchcraft"
>destroying art because of "idolatry"
>outlawing music
>outlawing dancing
>outlawing Christmas
>basically everything is haram
>just autistically reading this one book

The only difference is that Islam succeeded while Protestantism failed.

>>2863285
>Secular protestants
>The most anti-secular you can get

>>2863306
>Protestants
>secular

Nice meme

>>2863285
>causing wars everywhere
So the catholics are not to blame at all?

>burning people for "witchcraft"
Better than burning people for "heresy"

>destroying art because of "idolatry"
Its much better to steal all the peasants money so you can create unnecessary art, praising God

>basically everything is haram
>just autistically reading this one book
More true for catholicism, in protestantism there is only a small radical minority who do it

>>2863338

>So the catholics are not to blame at all?
Not really no.

>Better than burning people for "heresy"
No, it's actually much, much worse.

>unnecessary art
>this is your mind on Protestantism

>More true for catholicism
Literally nobody even read the Bible except for priests before proddies started sperging out about it.

File: uda.jpg (12KB, 364x550px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 364x550px

There won't be a Reformation in the Arab world.
The Culture which started with early Christianity is done and so is the Civilsation that has followed it.
Now they are in a primal state, from which a new culture can emerge.
The time of the Reformation on the other hand was the early hight of western Culture.

[spoiler]pls say something against pic related, I'm slowling starting to take it as Gospel. [/spoiler]

>>2863380
Spengler literally agrees with >>2863285

>>2863385
Reformation of early Christianity?
Of course.
But there still won't be a Reformation of Islam.

>>2863359
>prosecuting everyone who deviates from the church
>no blame when they decide to fight back

>Religous Art and big churches are more necessary than peasants lives and wellbeing
This is the reason the reformation started in the first place

>nobody even read the Bible except for priests
and everyone did what the priests said or they would be burned for heresy

>>2863394
Because Islam is the "Reformation". It's to Eastern Christianity what Protestantism is to Western Catholicism.

>>2863414

Luther cared so much about the peasants, he killed them all.

>>2863539
The catholics did that when they realized the peasants werent going to take their shit anymore

>>2856149
>>2856246
>>2856466
Cousin marriage was extremely common in the West until only some decades ago, the same is true for the far east as well.

>>2860659

The USA doesn't buy oil from the KSA at all. The USA sources all it's oil from the western hemisphere, namely itself, Canada, and Venezuela. The 70's oil crisis made the US change it's suppliers to countries it has much more influence over, and isn't likely to throw a fit because of Israel.

What the Saudis do provide is the petrodollar, by only agreeing to sell their oil in the US dollar and convincing OPEC to do the same. This mean other countries need to do business with the US to acquire dollars to buy Saudi oil. In turn, the Saudis spend their dollars to buy US goods and services. This constant demand for the US dollar to buy oil buoys the value of the dollar. Where most countries need to provide $100 worth of goods and services to the US to get their hands on dollars to buy oil, the US can get that $100 and use it to buy stuff by running it off the presses, within reason of course.

The status of the US dollar as the global reserve currency used to be backed by gold under the Bretton Woods system. Now it's backed by a variety of factors, trust in the US government and ability to buy Saudi/OPEC oil being among the most important.

File: Byzantine_and_Sassanid_Empires_in_600_CE.png (2MB, 1368x674px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1368x674px

>>2862639
>Byzantines didn't own North Africa, just Egypt.
wrong

>>2857995
The Crusade's leaders went out of their way to control lucrative trading cities...noone in their right mind believes nobles actually went to the Levant because of the Pope and God.

>>2862951
>(though to note it happened very much like the refugee crisis in EU right now, a slow non-violent invasion with propaganda to undermine the old faith).
Yeah, the romans invited barbarians into their empire and started converting them to christianity slowly

>>2863520
Exactly what I intended to say.

>>2863547

>an incoherent deflection of Luther's documented antagonism against the peasants

>"The peasants have taken on themselves the burden of three terrible sins against God and man, by which they have abundantly merited death in body and soul. In the first place they have sworn to be true and faithful, submissive and obedient, to their rulers, as Christ commands, when he says, ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,’ and in Romans XIII, ‘Let everyone be subject unto the higher powers.’ Because they are breaking this obedience, and are setting themselves against the higher powers, willfully and with violence, they have forfeited body and soul, as faithless, perjured, lying, disobedient knaves and scoundrels are wont to do. St. Paul passed this judgement on them in Romans XIII when he said, that they who resist the power will bring a judgement upon themselves. This saying will smite the peasants sooner or later, for it is God's will that faith be kept and duty done."

>>2853579
Wahabism is a good analogue for the Reformation save for one very important detail. The most hard line element of the reformers nearly completely won a easy victory rather then a bloody stalemate were 'lets just try to keep the peace' centrist came into influence.

>>2864268
>Wahabism is a good analogue for the Reformation
You obviously know nothing about protestantism or the reformation

>>2853579
Read the Koran and the Bible and you'll understand. Too much autistic sharia law stuff, the Bible is a lot more open to interpretation

>>2863560
>The USA doesn't buy oil from the KSA at all
you are very wrong.

>The top exports of Saudi Arabia are Crude Petroleum ($100B), Refined Petroleum ($18.4B), Ethylene Polymers ($10.5B), Propylene Polymers ($5.84B) and Ethers ($4.92B), using the 1992 revision of the HS (Harmonized System) classification.
>The top export destinations of Saudi Arabia are China ($26.7B), the United States ($20.9B)
>the United States ($20.9B)
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/sau/

>In 2016, the United States imported approximately 10.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 70 countries.
>The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2016 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

Also US has been selling lots of its oil *reserves* as its cheap to buy right now. It's demand is still higher than its own supply. The oil market is just fucky. Saudis are actually *losing* money exporting it as prices are below net cost of production.
Its why they're so panicky about diversifying their economy right now.

>petrodollar
you are right about this though.
It was the basis of the agreement made in the 79 iirc.
Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins for more on that deal.
And its not just saudi oil, its *all* oil.
It also allows the USA more fiscal options than other countries, but makes the economy very fragile.
It was the real reason behind Iraq, Libya, maybe Syria, and the renewed tensions with Russia, China, and Iran; all of whom have made moves or threatened to make moves to undermine or destroy the petrodollar system, which is catastrophic for the US economy.

>Used to be backed by Bretton Woods
Petrodollar is basically just a continuation of the Bretton Woods system but through oil instead of gold. But yeah you are essentially correct.

>>2862951
>Riiiight. They didn't do nuffin!
I didn't say 'they didn't do nuffin,' I said 'that's wrong' to the statement 'the violent crusades were a response to that (Islam expanding into Christian lands).'

The Early Arab Conquests have more in common with Europe's Age of Imperialism than the Crusades, which are closer to the rise of the Turkic ghazi movements starting in the 11th century.

>>2864457
I can tell by your post that you haven't read either

>>2864849
>I didn't say
you're splitting hairs though. The underlying reasoning for the Crusades is still in response to the Arab conquests.
A lot of that probably from the alarm the pope felt when muslims advanced into the Italian peninsular.

I may be wrong, but it also seems like you are implying I was saying the Crusades were like the islamic expansion. I wasn't saying that at all, the expansion was very much about conquest and dominion. Amd the Crusades were very much a reaction to that.


>Turkic ghazi movements
where can i read about this?

>>2853579
>why doesn't reality work like a paradox strategy game?

>>2855998
>lynched by white Christian members of the KKK
If they're Klansmen, why is it a crowd, if mixed sex, without hoods?

>>2864892
>splitting hairs
We're discussing the causes of the Crusades, it's hardly something inconsequential to be brushed off like that. My point is you are incorrect - the Crusades were not a response to the Arab conquests at all. The Arab Conquests of the 7th-9th centuries were
wars in the mold of the Roman conquests - a united coalition of urban tribes fighting in semi-professional citizen armies settling colonies throughout the Mediterranean and Near East, forming alliances and vassal relationships with native elites wherever they went, and steadily coming to see their vast network of colonies and clients as an Imperium. But it had little to do with the causes of the First Crusade and all subsequent movements.

Anooshahr Ali's "The Ghazi Sultans" is an easy starting place for the Ghazi ideology which mirrored the Crusading ideal in many ways.

>>2864311
You obviously know nothing about nothing about what Wahabism was for its first century and a half. It started as a movement aimed at removing extraneous & poorly rooted theology and to end the old system of shaira courts (its complex). On the theological side of things its big aims were removing idolatry, saint worship, mystery cults, and highly questionable documents from the expanded cannon. Does any of that sound similar to a certain christian movement?

On the old shaira courts subject it was a matter that it become arcane, costly to sue/ pay for a effective representation, and highly corrupt in much of the middle east. The disbanded the old court in many places and replaced them with a more streamlined system. Does that sound similar to a certain christian movement?

None of those things are bad really. The issue is that Wahabism has grown more extreme with each generation of theologians. Each believing themselves more focused on completing the work of the movement. They say their forefathers can not see the lingering impurity in the current practice of Islam. That those forefathers have become blinded to the problem by their own limited success in dealing with it.


Put another way it is much like the relationship of Calvinism to Lutheranism just repeated a few times over.

>>2864942
This. Wahhabism isn't nearly as bad as most people think. I used to believe that Wahhabism was primarily about imposing an extremely strict form of Sharia and justifying the killing of non-Muslim civilians, but in reality it was primarily about combatting superstitious beliefs, corruption and religious establishment that manipulated Islamic scriptures in order to please the rulers of the Muslim lands.

>Things in the East have to occur exactly as they did in the West even though the socio-historic and theological contexts are way different

Why are you interested in history?

>>2864938
>We're discussing the causes of the Crusades, it's hardly something inconsequential to be brushed off like that.
I'm not trying to brush anything off. I'm saying I think you are going into such detail on what the campaigns were like, ie more like the Roman conquests as you say, and by doing so missing the point that these lands were christian lands then conquered by muslims.
The crusades were a response to this expansion into those formerly Christian lands. That is how the crusaders (and the pope and patriarch) saw it, as an invasion of their christian imperium. The crusades unified Christian states who (the pope especially) were seeing that if they did not act against the muslim expansion, they would be next.

>Anooshahr Ali's "The Ghazi Sultans"
Thanks for the recommendation, just ordered a copy of amazon.

>>2864970
>Wahhabism isn't nearly as bad as most people think.
wouldn't that be "wasn't nearly as bad as most people think", because whatever it was, it is bad now.
If not, name a more violent and still active sect if you don't mind?

>>2864980
>and by doing so missing the point that these lands were christian lands then conquered by muslims.
But that's just it. This had little to do with the reasons behind the First Crusade. This isn't a position that any Crusades historian has seriously held and argued, and for good reason. We have a lot of sources on what was happening in the second half of the 11th century and afterwards to confidently say that the events of the Arab conquests were far from people's minds. The Crusaders and the Pope were out to secure sacred geography, not Christian Imperium, which would come a few centuries later as the kings of Europe took Crusading ideology for their own purposes.

And they did not unify Christian states who somehow believed they would be next on the chopping block of a supposed Muslim expansion, because they culminated at the height of several generations of Muslim retreat throughout the Mediterranean, and it wouldn't be until the Ottomans that this would change at which point it still did not unite Christendom out of fear of being their next targets, and in fact further divided it as these states were more than happy to see their rivals go down while they would sweep in and take what was left for themselves.

I recommend Riley-Smith's "What Were the Crusades", Tomaz Mastnak's "Crusading Peace", and Frankopan's "The First Crusade" for some more details.

In short, the Crusades didn't happen because contemporaries at the time believed that lands that had been Christian were now Muslim, and that this was unacceptable according to some geopolitical ideal, but rather because of theological and social issues internal to the Frankish Catholic Church and the political collapse of the Byzantine and Islamic Mediterranean which presented opportunities for adventurers and prophets alike.

>>2853579
If you look at all the writings of Islam, the quran, the hadiths, and the sunnah, about 85% of it is about Mohammad.

So 85% of Islam is never going to change, because it's all going to be about Mohammad.

The 15% that is about allah is useless once you realize that he's just the same god the Arabs have worshiped for thousands of years, Ba'al.

>>2865056
I can't tell if this post is ironic or not

File: 3188f0d97d0ec942bf847f3e08ad89b8.jpg (15KB, 236x311px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x311px

>>2862639
>Moving the goalposts.
You tried talking about how happy and wonderful things were in Christian Egypt like you don't know shit about the history of that region during that time.

>It was owned by Christians. Muslims conquered by force. Crusades were about taking that land back, protecting Christians, and a number of other things.
Christians took those lands by force, and were in turn deprived of them by force. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Period.

>christians are being prevented from travelling there safely
That's flat wrong. Muslims were far more tolerant of religious minorities than the Christians had ever been, and didn't start restricting Christian behavior until AFTER the crusades gave them a good reason

>its not theft if it was stolen from you
You want to try that again?

>You moved the goalposts again.
No, you're just mad because generations after generations of conquest empires don't actually achieve that much good for humanity, and your particular favorite isn't that much different from the rest

>facts aren't always sexy.
your logic is spurious, that's why I didn't find it compelling.

>. Islam had been violently expanding for 300+ years by the First Crusade.
So do as I say, not as I do? Lets ask the pagans what they thought about the first 300 years of Christianity. Oh wait, there aren't anymore.

>Neville Chamberlains' appeasement of Hitler
No, because he was dealing with that same conquest empire mentality that drove the crusades.

>No, they are separate facets of authority, along with influence
It's like you have no idea how the world works. Money is what gets armies to march, it's what you need to commission public works projects, pay your police officers. If you don't have enough money then all of your "authority" is a whole lot of hot air until somebody gets tired of the broke has-been bossing them around.

>not entering a debate on this
Then my point stands: just like sexual preference is innate, so too is religious feelings.

>>2862654
>you keep implying it was worse under Christians.
They were.

Byzantines actively repressed minorities.
Muslims made them pay a fine but otherwise didn't fuck with them

>It's been shitty for everyone throughout history
It's a question of contrasts. See above: people found life under the Muslims marginally less shitty than they did under the Byzantines and Sassanid Persians, that's why that religion spread like a fucking wildfire throughout the middle east. Happy populations don't turn on their overlords like that.

>as awful but ignore the 300+ years of violent islamic expansion
Oh yeah, because Christians were SO lovely to people during their own age of expansion.

ALL EXPANSIONS ARE VIOLENT AND SHITTY. Even when it's a "defensive" action being waged by disingenuous Christians looking to enrich themselves.

>I'd tentatively assume you are of MENA'n descent, or at least muslim. In which case from your perspective, the west IS relatively worse.
No, just Catholic, and I know enough of my own history that people used to give Catholics the same shit that they currently give Muslims, right down to pigeon-holing an entire religion based off the activities of a violent minority, like the Irish Republican Army.

If you're going to convert someone from Muslim to Christian, you don't do it by invading

>We're debating on fucking 4chan. You thought there was any sense of reputation or respectability to begin with?
The rules of logic still apply. Ad Hominens are not an argument, they simply suggest a lack of creativity on your end.