What the hell happened to make the Middle East the way it is today?

Islam happened

>>288726
Ataturk

The Mongols.

>>288726
Wester neo-imperialism

>>288726
What happend to that gif?

>>288726
Sectarian violence

>>288726
The nation-state and nationalism

Made-up borders in the age of nationalism.

>>288726

I did a paper on this topic

>inb4 sjw teachers makin me feel white guilt

I chose this in order to understand the Arab position more, aaand I'm not white

Basically a good deal of this is due to the Sykes-Picot and the Brits and French trying to establish an empire without giving much though to the peoples, also, arabs were butthurt since they were promised independence but they just got a new master.

The Crusades
The Mongol invasions
Shift in ideology from "Ijtihad" (Independant thought) to "Taqlid" (Imitation of the past)
The Ottomans
Imperialism
Neo Imperialism
Oil

I mean the major reason for the most recent conflict is because foreign nations waltzed in, cut the land up into random nations, told them to rule themselves, installed a weird hostile false nation, then came back to invade when oil appeared. Supported a mad theocracy because it will provide oil, and they and themselves personally provide arms to any rebel group willing to further their interests. The toppling of stable dictators for example.
Then naive westerns scratch their heads and say "bloody islam!"

>>288765

Iran had a prime minister before the US and UK placed the Shah in power, then the modern version of Iran came into being with theocracies and all

>>288765
>The Crusades
>The Mongol invasions

Not really. The Crusades were unimportant. The Mongol invasions were bad, but the Middle East in a way recovered under the Turks.

It is not that the Middle East got worse. It just didn't improve like the West did.

(in no particular order)

Mongols and assorted steppe jerks
Fall of Otto and his men/ Sykes-Picot
Arab nationalism during the 20th century
Saudi wahabism
Dubya and the Oil Factory (yes, really)
Ten thousand years of pretty abusive, soil eroding farming

Basically it was a pretty decent place to live (at least not that much worse than anywhere else) until about a hundred years ago. We in the west are partially to blame for this, but not completely, it's like 50-50, or maybe 40 us and 60 them being pretty shit at centralized government after 500 years under strong foreign rule.

>>288810
All this.
I would also add the dominance of cultures that encourage clannish behavior, which doesn't work well with nation states.

>>288765
>Shift in ideology from "Ijtihad" (Independant thought) to "Taqlid" (Imitation of the past)


Shia islam still practices Ijtihad, its the sunni with their reliance on hadiths that dont

>>288804
The crusades still exist as a point of resentment among some people in the Middle East, more as a piece of rhetoric: "look how long these guy's have been fucking us" rather than a serious complaint. While people tend to vastly overstate their importance in the region they are a source of tension between Western and Middle Eastern cultural forces, just not one that is particularly significant compared to more modern factors.

>>288804
Yes really. The Mongol invasions were pretty catastrophic to the Iraq and Syria region which was always the heart of the Islamic empire. When something like that happens it usually takes around 500-1000 years to recover. So I'd say we're nearly there, we're probably in the final storm now before the calm.

>>288915
But Shias have always been a minority and in unfavourable positions.

I'm not an expert on this topic but I'd like to learn more.
How much did the Cold War fuck up the Middle East? It seemed like the US had a "anything is better than Communism" attitude that led them to directly and indirectly supporting Jihadists who were anti-Soviet.

Another thing I've always wondered is why the US gets a free pass for all the shit they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
If Iran shot down a US airliner off the coast of the US, we would have legit gone to war. US didn't even formally apologize.

>>288726
Isreal. The formation of Isreal destroyed the already fragile millet system. This demanded that the former millets could not live as they had used to.
>Result
Everyone trying to fuck each other over

>>288726
Israel riled them up, then the oil money gave teeth to their impotent rage

European imperialism and the redivision of Ottoman lands in such a retarded way that it boggles the mind.

It all goes back to 632.

>>289037
>How much did the Cold War fuck up the Middle East?
Badly.
The cold war fucked the whole world up when you really get down to it with both the US and USSR funding opposing factions to increase their zone of influence.

>>289080
It's hard to blame everything on Islam when the Middle East calls one time period "The Golden Age" and Europe calls the same time period "The Dark Age".

>>289080
It really doesn't and that silly view point needs to stop.

You think if they weren't Islamic then Europeans wouldn't have colonised and later invaded for oil as well as all the meddling.

Don't forget the region used to be much more Christian than today which didn't stop anybody.

>>288726
A lot of shit. Unless you are more specific in your question, you will only get meme awnsers.

So here goes my meme awnser: Turks.

>>289101
Das rite. We wuz polymaths

>>289118
well meme'd my friend

The single most important factor is Britain and specifically post-WW1 British colonial policy.

>>289101
The islamic golden age is a golden age in comparison to the rest of islamic history. The (western) european dark age is a dark age in comparison to the rest of european history (and let's not forget that it was significantly less dark than the meme says).

That's how dark and golden ages work in historiography. You can't say that islam was great for the area because it had a golden age.

>>289150
Damn beat me to it son...

>>289189
Well yes that's the bloody answer.

>>289150
It's an often overlooked cause, that's right. People normally says "le americans" if they want to go full white-guilt. Often they forget that Britain, and not the USA, created Israel.

>>289150

This is what I learned at my American high school. We were taught that the Brits divided up the Middle East with no regard to cultural boundaries so all these tribes that had been in the same areas for 1000s of year suddenly were disfranchised across 3-4 artificial country borders like the Kurds are now.

>>289227
It doesn't have anything to do with kurds though. Kurds have been divided between different states for most of their history.

The mistake was to try to introduce a western style democracy based on modern nationalism, when there was none in most of the area. This created a lot of frustrations because it led to the state trying to build this nationalist identity, but cultural differences still make it very difficult. It doesn't help that the powers of the cold war (both) kinda hijacked nations that had an identity similar to european nationalism like egypt or Iran.

>>289305
>western style democracy
Where did that happen? Most Arab regimes began as monarchies (later turned to republics in revolutions or coups).

>>289324
Republic=!democracy. They were supposed to be or become constitutional monarchies like the ones in Europe. Nothing to do with the old empires.

>>289109
>Don't forget the region used to be much more Christian than today which didn't stop anybody.
Yeah, it used to be entirely christian until a bunch of radicalized bedouin ruined it during the 7th century.

>>289371
Yeah, it used to be entirely pagan until a bunch of radicalized christians ruined it during the 2nd century.

>>288733
Islam united them slightly, just not enough.

>>289378
It used to be entirely devoted to the moon goddess until some sunfags ruined it during the Nth century BC.

Ottoman Empire was a Shit Midas, everything it touched turned into shit.

Post-Ottoman Balkan, shit
Post-Ottoman North Africa, shit
Post-Ottoman Levant and Mesopotamia, shit
Post-Ottoman Saudi-Arabia, shit

Ottoman rule was despotic and unpredictable, in most of it's territory they only had nominal control with bandits harassing the countryside. Ottoman rule forbade the printing press, the more illiterate and stupid it's population the better it thought.

French and British imperialists actually promoted education, printing, health services, agricultural improvements etc.

Iran is actually a pretty cool place, with nice and polite people, democracy and women's rights unless you are American, Jewish or Sunni (but who likes those people anyway). Why is this? It wasn't turned to shit by shit Midas.

>>288726
Sykes Picot

>>289378
Christianity spread organically, with people finding solace in the teachings of Jesus Christ and converting voluntarily, despite roman persecutions.

Islam spread by the sword of a bedouin warriors.

Everyone says "muh British" or "muh Sykes Picot" but the real answer is the agreement that took place aboard the USS Quincy between FDR and King Abdel Aziz ibn Saud in 1945

>>289406
Ottomans were the best thing that happened to the Middle East Realistically.

After the Mong invasion, it couldve fallen into Aboogabooga tribalism of the Arabs but Turkics kept them together.

Also the Ottomans did this
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Wahhabi_War
That automatically makes them way better than any local chieftain in the Arab World.

>>289101
The only people calling that period the dark ages are ignorant. The dark ages ended relatively soon after the rise of Islam.

>>289447
the deal was basically: US will provide Saudi with it's emergent large-scale industrial technology, Saudi will cough up the oil. The only condition is the US can't interfere with their religion (which, as you know, is the dreaded Wahhabi)

>>289448
Pretty sure that the rise of wahabism can't be explained without the existence of the Ottoman empire to begin with, mate.

Also they should have genocided and replaced with kurds those guys, not the armenians.

File: e313.jpg (44KB, 844x462px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 844x462px

>>288761

>muh sykes-picot

>>289478
Doesn't your picture kinda prove his point?

>>289447
>>289456

>1945

This is something I can't wrap my head around. It's 1945, US industrial development is a gorillionth of what it is today, the highways still aren't a thing and some people are still using animal power for transportation and labor. Couldn't the US have gotten all the oil it needs and then some in Texas and maybe Canada?

>>289406
middle east turned shit because the institutions that the ottomans built, that kept them peacefull, were thrown away by the brits and french, made up imaginary borders that didnt reflect ethnicities, and today we have iraq and syria thanks to them

under the ottomans most atleast had peace and their own corner, when the ottomans fell the brits and french all grouped them together and that meant the rise of secretarian conflict, especially how they made minority dictators take the lead

>>288726
The northern Arab states (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait) are basically Balkans 2.0
Hadn't had self-rule in centuries, finally get it but the borders are drawn like shit, a bunch of fighting happens because of shitting borders, and then you add Israel on top of that and you can understand why there's some butthurt and tension.

Saudi Arabia is just North Korea 2.0, except they actually matter because they have oil, and the royal family uses that oil money to spread their extremist beliefs about Islam.

Yemen and Oman were formerly some of the richest in the region because Yemen controlled the Red Sea trade and Oman was the Arab version of Portugal. Nowadays they're shit because they weren't lucky enough to be bless with black gold.

Iran and Afghanistan were actually pretty westernized and liberal, but then their shit got fucked up by the US and UK in Iran's case, and the Soviets in Afghanistan's case, extremist revolutionaries rise up during the instability, and now they're two of the most oppressive regimes in the area.

As for the Gulf Sates, the United Arab Emirates are Saudi Arabia but less insane and Qatar and Bahrain are the Arab version of Singapore and Hong Kong.

>>289430
>Crusades
>Northern Crusades
>Saxon Wars
>Reconquista
>Russian expansion eastward
>Colonization of the New World
>Colonization of Africa

>>289448
>>289500
"Peaceful" Ottoman rule my ass. Middle East was shit under Ottoman rule, it didn't really get better under the British, and not really after independence either. Middle east is not worse now than under Ottoman rule. It is exactly the same, a clusterfuck of depravity, slavery and hatred.

>>289498
The oil was just part of the transaction. The transaction itself and the allegiance that follows from it were the real necessity. FDR realized that the Soviets would be trying to increase their influence in the Middle East, and wanted to get in with the first upcoming big power player in the area.

>>289533
>Crusades
To retake stolen land...

>Northern Crusades
>Saxon Wars
Only valid examples of christianity "spread by the sword".

>Reconquista
To retake stolen land

>Russian expansion eastward
>Colonization of the New World
>Colonization of Africa
Not motivated by religion.


Anyways, you're shifting the goalposts. We were talking about the middle east.

>>289514
If the KSA and the emirates are insane, so is Qatar to be fair. Isn't it one of the main supporters of terrorism?

Also Oman has oil and gas, though less than the gulf states. This is probably why Oman is in a way better situation than Yemen (though having more ethno-religious unity is also important).

>>289498
Larger supply leads to cheaper prices.

>>289556
imo its much worse after the west took over, and that is mainly to the things i said, throwing away the ottoman institution that kept order and peace and grouping all ethnicities togeter in one country

>>289571
Why would that be a good thing though? Roosevelt was from NY, the state of energy moguls such as Rockefeller et al. Higher prices means windfall profit.

>>289564
>Colonization of the New World

>Pope literally said it was justified for Spain and Portugal to colonize so that they could spread Catholocism
>not motivated by religion

And whether or not the event was "motivated by religion" doesn't matter. It was still force being used to spread Christianity.

Nothing like that is really motivated by religion anyway, both on the Christian and the Muslim side. It's just an excuse used to provide justification for making land grabs. Why do you think there was so much fighting over who would get what land in the Crusades? If the Christians were truly motivated solely by religion, those arguments wouldn't have happened.

>>289575
Ottoman Empire was moribund for decades if not centuries. Plus it never had to deal with intense shit like WW2, the Cold War and Muslim radicalism. It would have been broken completely by 1940.

>>289556
>Middle East was shit under Ottoman rule
Yeah, it was so shit, there were almost no wars in the region during the Ottoman Tenure...

>>289576
For the people selling the oil. Lower prices save money for evryone else, which means they can buy more things, which is good for the economy because it allows for the existance of more jobs.

>>289595
They weren't supposed to do it militarily. What Cortez did was actually illegal by Spanish law, as the natives were only supposed to be ruled by Christians if they willingly converted to Christianity. Unfortunately, it took a great deal of time for word of what Cortez was doing to reach Spain, and then for Spain to send people to stop him.

>>289575
Ottoman empire was dissolving by itself from ethnic tension in the Balkans and from Christians in Anatolia.
It's peaceful patchwork of ethnicities didn't work, even without interference of imperial powers.

>>289596
arabs were supported by the west who later fucked them over by creating bullshit imaginary states

im not denying any of the things you say, but the west could have handled it alot better

letting dictators from a minority rule was not exactly a peacefull thing to do

like another anon said you say it didnt work yet they barely had any wars in centuries

>>289595
I was gonna answer you but someone already did

>And whether or not the event was "motivated by religion" doesn't matter
Of course it matters, you stupid fuck! That's what we're debating about!

Jesus.

>Nothing like that is really motivated by religion anyway, both on the Christian and the Muslim side. It's just an excuse used to provide justification for making land grabs.
I agree with this.

But the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity was not designed for that purpose, it was corrupted by an unscrupulous church. Islam, on the other hand, was on the get go an excuse for arab imperialism and mohammed's military expeditions.

Jesus of Nazareth was a carpenter. Mohammed was a warlord.

>>289703
woops
>>289657

>>289704
>Of course it matters, you stupid fuck! That's what we're debating about!

What I mean is that it doesn't matter whether Europe colonized Africa to spread Christianity or take resources - religious conversion by force still happened as a result.

>>289704
>Mohammed was a warlord.
He was an arbiter.

>>289657
The Ottomans were an Imperial power, don't assume just because they're Muslim that they're on another side. They fucked up the middle east too.

>>289716
>religious conversion by force still happened as a result.
Define "by force". A bunch of missionaries in Africa is not remotely the same as an army sacking your city, taking you as a slave and giving you the choice between conversion or death.

>>289716
Europeans spreading Christianity in Africa and the Americas was all part of their plan of civilizing the heathen savages.

It wasn't a primary reason for expansion, but neither was it for Islam yet everyone seems to think it was.

>>289704
>Jesus of Nazareth was a carpenter. Mohammed was a warlord.
And Moses was a genocidal maniac rapist.
Your point?

>>289704
>Islam, on the other hand, was on the get go an excuse for arab imperialism and mohammed's military expeditions.
Yeah that's totally why he spent 13 years preaching Islam on the streets of Mecca getting laughed at by the Pagans and called a faggot until he got kicked out of his home and his family attacked and finally turned to warfare.

>>289704
>But the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity was not designed for that purpose, it was corrupted by an unscrupulous church. Islam, on the other hand, was on the get go an excuse for arab imperialism and mohammed's military expeditions.


So if it was possible for Christianity to become warped and warlike, why don't you think it possible for Islam to have done the same, but in reverse?
Because historically that did happen, and there were peaceful and tolerant (relative to the time period) Muslim rulers, so blaming everything on the fact that Islam merely exists seems ridiculous.


I hold the belief that religious doctrines are more or less meaningless, people ultimately just interpret holy scriptures as they want to see them.

>>289778
> giving you the choice between conversion or death.
This is actually what Crusaders did. In Islam conversion by force is forbidden. You can conquer people and tax them, but you can't force your religion on them.

>>289778
But would those missionaries have been allowed to waltz in and spread their word had it not been state-sanctioned by the colonizers? That seems forced to me.

>>289799
>I hold the belief that religious doctrines are more or less meaningless, people ultimately just interpret holy scriptures as they want to see them.
This except basically they just ignore it rather than interpret it. Most Muslims Christians Jews don't follow their religion much or know much about it. It's a myth that Muslims are somehow all ultra religious while everyone else isn't. People are the same lazy shits all over the world. Religion only becomes important when there's something to get mad about, and if a religion isn't there people will just flock to an extreme political ideology instead.

>>289786
>And Moses was a genocidal maniac rapist.
>Your point?
Islam spread through the sword and it was designed that way.

>>289795
Right. "and finally turned to warfare." being the relevant part of your sentence.

>>289799
>So if it was possible for Christianity to become warped and warlike, why don't you think it possible for Islam to have done the same, but in reverse?
It's entirely possible for a "reform" of Islam to take place, but it's going to be very hard because Mohammed himself was a warlord who spread Islam by the sword. It would require the complete discarding of all hadiths (which are unbelievably violent), and the desacralization of mohammed. I don't think that's possible without destroying Islam altogether.

>I hold the belief that religious doctrines are more or less meaningless, people ultimately just interpret holy scriptures as they want to see them.
That's true, but some doctrines are more open to interpretation than others. For instance, it's not very hard to interpret "Jihad" as "holy war", when Mohammed himself interpreted it that way in the many massacres and forced conversions of pagans he undertook.

>>289807
>This is actually what Crusaders did.
Don't change the subject, we're talking about african missionaries.

>>289846
> It would require the complete discarding of all hadiths (which are unbelievably violent)

The entire point of hadiths is that they're just second-hand accounts of Muhammad, and hence are inherently unreliable, people have picked and choosed which hadiths to believe for centuries,And not all of them are "unbelievably violent", what the fuck are you smoking?

Islam really needs a reformation
Some new pro-west schism by a large portion of the population that forces the other sides to rethink how they do shit

>>289815
Probably not, they would've been captured, cooked and eaten by the natives.

What I meant is that the force of the colonial government had nothing to do with the spread of christianity in Africa. Force was used in colonial India yet practically no indians converted.

>>289874
>The entire point of hadiths is that they're just second-hand accounts of Muhammad, and hence are inherently unreliable, people have picked and choosed which hadiths to believe for centuries
Right, which is why for any reform in Islam to take place they should all be discarded.

>,And not all of them are "unbelievably violent", what the fuck are you smoking?
What I meant is that all the barbaric stuff in Islam stems from hadiths : stoning women, forcing them to wear garbage bags over their heads, stoning adulterers, jizya, all that stuff.

>>289875
Islam had a reformation already but in the opposite direction you're describing.

>>289846
>Islam spread through the sword and it was designed that way.
Neither are true though. You only need to open a very lightweight history book to see this. The Muslims didn't want converts, and Islam was not designed to be spread by violence, forced conversion is not allowed.

>Right. "and finally turned to warfare." being the relevant part of your sentence.
Contradicting your claim of being military from the "get go"

> It would require the complete discarding of all hadiths (which are unbelievably violent), and the desacralization of mohammed. I don't think that's possible without destroying Islam altogether.
It's totally possibly, it's called Qur'an alone and there are millions of followers of this growing sect.

>when Mohammed himself interpreted it that way in the many massacres and forced conversions of pagans he undertook.
When did he do that? 500 Jewish traitors were executed by his men under the religious law of the Torah (Ironic). I don't see where any forced conversions or other massacres happened.

>>289887
No Islam is experiencing a Schism. Try looking at it in political terms. ISIS and their kin are essentially Fascists, there's a large middle ground unsure what to do, and then there's a lot of liberal leftists muslims, who don't get any media coverage because they're not exciting, nor are they violent which admittedly makes their cause a lot more hidden. However i believe ISIS will be defeated and most Muslims will slide to the left as it's just much more appealing.

>>288726
Ww1 and American backed coups/resistance movements relying on extremist elements

Oh and Saudis, fuck those guys

>>289889
>Neither are true though.
They are absolutely true.

>The Muslims didn't want converts,
This is John Green tier memery. The "we can make more money with Jizya" mentality appeared only when the caliphate was already established.

>and Islam was not designed to be spread by violence,
Read up on "Jihad".

>Contradicting your claim of being military from the "get go"
Jesus, you're not bright are you? This is like saying that National socialism was not violent from the get go because Hitler at one time was a struggling artist. By the "get go", I mean "by the time it was formulated in its final form", which is when Mohammed died.

>It's totally possibly, it's called Qur'an alone and there are millions of followers of this growing sect.
Even the Quran contains questionable parts which will need to be purged, although it's already far better than the hadiths. However, my second part stands : mohammed will need to be exposed as a pedophile warlord, and as a "not true muslim", ironically.

>When did he do that?
Banu Qurayza

> 500 Jewish traitors were executed by his men under the religious law of the Torah (Ironic).
That's one way of interpreting it...

>>288726
Bush

File: 1431935122139.jpg (66KB, 576x566px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 576x566px

>>288771
>then the modern version of Iran came into being with theocracies and all

I wonder who could be behind that?

Countless empires and Islam-Arabic tradition fucking up a smooth transition into moderately sized nationstates as the Enlightenment suggests. I think that's why countries like Egypt, Israel, Turkey and Iran have an easier time since there is a stronger national foundation separate from pan-Arabism.

With that said, I don't like this hunt for some unique properties in the middle east to explain the current situation. It's simpler. The overall problem today is not Islam, demographics, borders, or anything of that nature. It's simply that they aren't allowed to stabilize, recover and prosper. Foreign powers fuck shit up in order to pursue their geopolitical objectives through rebels and interventions far too often which WILL drag countries and regions down for a good a while, just like it did in Yugoslavia and other places.

>>289925
You didn't say much i hadn't just refuted, you just repeated your earlier point.
Read up on Jihad? Try reading the entire Qur'an and then reading it in Arabic.
No it's like saying Islam didn't start warlike and then became involved in war, Hitler always had plans for violent conquest, Muhammad did not, or else he wouldn't have spent 13 years fucking around on the streets getting poorer and poorer. He would have done it after a few years like Hitler.

>Even the Quran contains questionable parts which will need to be purged, although it's already far better than the hadiths.
Taken as a whole there is not much disagreeable with western society, that which is are still compatible, you can live in the west and not eat pork or drink alcohol.
>However, my second part stands : mohammed will need to be exposed as a pedophile warlord, and as a "not true muslim", ironically.
If you disregard the hadith Muhammad is no longer anything as all these things about him being a pedophile are contained in those. Warlord is just a useless derogatory term people like you throw around. He was the head of a newly formed religion state and was appointed to that position peacefully by the people of Medina. That is not a warlord, a warlord is a guy with soldiers loyal specifically to him, Muhammads men were loyal to Islam, not him. It states this in the Qur'an, should he die would they give up and go home or continue in the cause of God? Something like that.

>>289704
Merchant actually


>Islam is capitalism sheeple

>>289978
>Read up on Jihad? Try reading the entire Qur'an and then reading it in Arabic.
I did read the Quran, although not in arabic. If you ask me, saying "but you haven't read in arabic so you can't have an opinion on the subject!" is a shitty cop out used by people who've run out of arguments.

Jihad can quite clearly be interpreted in a military sense, and some verses call for "armed jihad". Mohammed himself, historically speaking, called many times for armed jihad.

>No it's like saying Islam didn't start warlike and then became involved in war, Hitler always had plans for violent conquest,
Really? Even when was baby hitler was in his crib, he was plotting to overtake the world?

It's disingenous to say that "Mohammed wasn't a warlord when he started Islam, hence war has nothing to do with Islam". War MADE Islam. Heck most of the Quran, as you surely know, focuses on the tumultuous periods of Mohammed's life, not the 13 years where he spent teaching in Mecca...

>Taken as a whole there is not much disagreeable with western society
I never claimed the contrary, if you took the care to actually read my posts...

>If you disregard the hadith Muhammad is no longer anything as all these things about him being a pedophile are contained in those
Right, but mohammad DID have a pretty unvirtuous life later in his life, with all the sex slaves and such.

Let me put this simply : do you think mohammed was a good muslim?

>>289989
Merchant turned caravan bandit turned warlord.

>>290053
> War MADE Islam. Heck most of the Quran, as you surely know, focuses on the tumultuous periods of Mohammed's life, not the 13 years where he spent teaching in Mecca...
No it's definitely the other way around, the majority of the Qur'an is not about warfare.

>Let me put this simply : do you think mohammed was a good muslim?
I don't believe the hadith are a reliable historical record, according to those he was not. I believe he tried his best. Put it this way, the Qur'an punishes him for fucking up, if he made up the Qur'an, he was punishing himself, publicly, for his mistakes. That's brave, bold and displays humility.

>>290056
You guys mention those caravan raids constantly when criticizing Muhammad. Yet did you know they never killed anyone in them, they just took the goods, except one person, a Muslim they accidentally shot.

This is in contrast to the typical Bedouin raids which leave everyone dead except the women who become slaves.

They justified the caravan raids because when the Muslims were evicted from Mecca their property and good was stolen and sold.