Could an Islamic "reformation" on the same scale of the Protestan Reformation occur without a widely accepted Caliphate?

Could an Islamic "reformation" on the same scale of the Protestan Reformation occur without a widely accepted Caliphate?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamentabili_sane_exitu
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist–Modernist_Controversy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Islamic reformation already occured, it's called Wahhabism / Salafism.

Isn't that kind of happening now?

>ISIS
>Wahhabism
>Shia
Wew

Shias are more like Orthodox, Wahhabites are Protestants.

>Shia
Is it in the more "benign" and free direction though? Please spoonfeed me on Shia, all I know is that they (I think) also consider some guy Ali as a true prophet as well(or is that Sunni?)

From what I know, Shias claim that only blood relatives of muhammad can be considered a true successor, and I think it stems back from when muhammad died and they chose some other general over muhammad's cousin. I'm probably wrong though

Implies that Islam is legit.

Shias are far from orthodoxy. They're like Mormons.

It's called Wahhabism

shia/sunni/ibadi/sufi

the split didnt happen the same way as the christian reformation, but the matter of inheritance is still the same kind of its a bit more literal with islam i.e christians and spiritual inheritance, islam with both lineal and spiritual

best analogy is alexander the great even down to geography

The successor of the prophet really. Sunnis chose his uncle Abu Bakr. Shias are mad because they thought Ali should be the first caliph.

Not mainstream Shia Islam, no.

It happened, dumbass

We got Wahhabism

Shia literally spawned at the same time as Sunni.
ISIS are just Sunnis who follow the Quran completely, actually the purest Sunni group.
Wahabi is the only real "reformed" Islam.

Wahabism the wrong kind of "reform" that Islam needs though.
Islam needs someone like t. Martin Luther to come along and say "hey lol you can make this shit mean whatever you like lol fuck the establishment xD"

i think then a lot more Muslims would be inclined to say "Hey, now I don't have to durka durk if I don't want to!"

You don't understand what the Protestant Reformation was

For Christianity, the real reformed (not Lutheran reformation, like Calvin and the Baptists) were essentially making Christianity into Islam.

Now with Wahhabism, imagine making Islam more like Islam.

>hey lol you can make this shit mean whatever you like

That's the exact opposite what Luther did, he flat out said that all doctrines should be scriptural and the scripture has universal clarity. He was also a religious fanatic and a doctrinal purist not unlike modern ISIS, I have no idea where this reform about him being some enlightened beta liberal comes from, he was the exact opposite.

Luther was also the one who said the Jews need to be annihilated and icons need to be destroyed.

He also said
>I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead. All their blood is upon my head. But I put it all on our Lord God: for he commanded me to speak thus

>Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check

>Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.

True, he really, really liberalized things sexually, but then again, Wahhabis can have many wives and presumably concubines

They chose Abu Bakr, Muhammad's father in law and good friend. Shiites supported Ali, Muhammad's uncle, son in law and also good friend.

>It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.

>If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies

>One should learn Philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them

>It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.

>Reason is the Devil's handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.

>I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead. All their blood is upon my head. But I put it all on our Lord God: for he commanded me to speak thus

>Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.

>Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business

>Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died

>But the woman is free through the divine law and cannot be compelled to suppress her carnal desires. Therefore the man ought to concede her right and give up to somebody else the wife who is his only in outward appearance.

Luther was a friar who struggled a lot with lust and felt bad, but it made him feel better with his new perspective on faith. He ran away with a nun and married her, and had held a grudge against chastity ever since

You are good at theology, you should stick to that.

Luther didn't intend to have countless interpreations. He genuinely believed there was a single apparent interpretation in the bible that everyone would reach if they read it in ernest.

Islam already had the reformation it needed, it was called Avveroism. Sufism is also decent. Political power doesn't rest with either group so we get a shit religion.

What is special about Sufis and Averroists?

Avveroism basically allows Islamic to be sane. It believes that there is an absolute truth which can be arrived at by either by religion or by philosophy (back than the word philosophy also included natural sciences). The purpose of religion is to explain this truth to the lower people. This means that philosophy and science can actually operate on the same level of authority (actually higher authority) than the priest. For instance Avverroes believed life-after-death was a metaphor for how one's accomplishments outlive them, but many people cannot comprehend this so they need to be told they must act in a certain way (a way that brings prosperity) if they want to live forever.

Sufism is mysticism. Meditate on God, realize you are one with the universe, etc. Like Avveroism it removes authority from radical priests. While Avveroes puts the scholar/philosophy as the elite, one Sufism emphasizes indivuality. The indivual has direct access to God once they have learned the proper meditation techniques, which is better than the Quaran. Sufism believes that Allah is everything in the universe, including you and me as a result it is more tolerant since there isn't a real divide between "us" and "them".

The orthodox Muslims hated both systems for obvious reasons.

The reform Islam needs is a reformation of their insides via hellfire missile.

>Avveroism basically allows Islamic to be sane.
It lobotomizes it

THIS!!!!!

>Islamic reformation
Good luck with that. Average muslim is basically puritan protestant in steroid. They are so obsessed in conservatism even if this 'Conservative Islam' is actually heretical Islam created by retard. The only way to fix this shit is by abandon it and switch to new saner belief.
t. murtad

Islam's modern problem isn't actually one regarding Reformation, but a reaction to the modern, globalizing world culture which adopts an exaggerated self-image in opposition. Wahhabism/Salafism aren't reformist expressions of Islam, but instead millennial movements that show up periodically in Abrahamic religious history and due to a perfect storm of instability and foreign support has become insanely successful.

The actual Reformation in Islam sort of already started during the Arab Renaissance at the turn of the 20th century, but got put on hold with the rise of Arab Nationalism. Maybe some day Islamic theologians will revisit it, but for now it's stuck in a populist loop whereby those who push an Islamic identity through a hyperactive form of traditional Islamic practice mixed with nationalism are everywhere, preaching through satellite televangelism, funding madrassas, influencing politics, and so on.

This is as to say, "Muhammed never met Gabriel". I guess you can say it, but many people believe otherwise as a basis of their belief.

>What kind of wacky Prottie sect is this that doesn't consider parts of the Bible Divinely Inspired?

Virtually all Protestant sects and virtually all Catholics today believe there are parts of the Bible that were not divinely inspired.

Even the current Pope has come out and said this.
Why are you acting surprised?

Right. Listen, you are wasting time here. This is history. That's what the Protestants believed at the time. The best thing to do would be ask Martin Luther

>Why are you acting surprised?
Because this sounds like heresy and not at all what any Christian sect taught, then or now. The current Pope has never said there are parts of the Bible that aren't divinely inspired.

>Avveroism
It's all just Ash'ari rationalism.

>Right. Listen, you are wasting time here. This is history. That's what the Protestants believed at the time. The best thing to do would be ask Martin Luther

Actually, this is what is verbatim in the words of every Christian's bible, in Acts ( we understand to be the author as Luke ) and Galatians and 1 Corinthians ( we take to be Paul's own testimony ). I understand this is history. Regardless of one's spiritual position of the inspired nature of such scripture, testimony in books is, for lack of a better term, what we consider "history".

Now, it's very possible you were not aware of these words, or even that you don't believe in them, which is fine, but I'm not going to let you just pontificate that "Paul never met Jesus". It is an incorrect statement, sir.

ITT: Murtards and Kufars circlejerk about the best religion in the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamentabili_sane_exitu

Literally says the opposite and condemns the proposition that "Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error."

which was a popular Protestant belief at the time. That's a list of Protestant/Atheistic beliefs.

I think a couple of you have been indoctrinated on Christianity outside of Christianity and are conveniently erring on important details, however somehow presenting yourselves as authorities.

I'd really appreciate it if you take a step back, consider what's being presented, and supplement it with a little research. Come back, then, and start over.

[Citation Needed]

The first sentence of the Wikipedia article

>Lamentabili sane exitu ("with truly lamentable results") is a 1907 syllabus, prepared by the Holy Office and confirmed by Pope Pius X, which condemned alleged errors in the exegesis of Holy Scripture and in the history and interpretation of dogma. The syllabus itself does not use the term 'modernist', but was regarded as part of the Pope's campaign against modernism in general and philosophical evolutionism in particular.

Yeah, nothing about Prots here.

>condemned alleged errors in the exegesis of Holy Scripture and in the history and interpretation of dogma
>condemned alleged errors in the exegesis of Holy Scripture and in the history and interpretation of dogma
>condemned alleged errors in the exegesis of Holy Scripture and in the history and interpretation of dogma

Islam needs to be reformed into a pile of ashes please and thank you

Errors made by modernist Catholics. It does not say anything about what was normal Protestant or Catholic dogma concerning Divine Inspiration.

Where does it mention Protestants there?

Just from a quick browse,
2
3
4
20
22
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
47
48
52
55
56
59

All specifically go against Protestantism

Not going to spell it out for you any further.

are all Protestant beliefs*

No. You're patently reaching and making a point out of thin air.

Show me where a Protestant theologian has ever claimed some parts of the Bible are not inspired. You can't just take a Catholic document from the turn of the 20th century that specifically does not mention Protestants at all, but instead modern philosophy movements and Catholics affected by them, and claim this proves what Protestant dogma is concerning Biblical Divine Inspiration.

And doesn't even begin to cover the other mistake where you said modern Catholics don't believe all parts of the bible are divine. I mean what's next, "Abortion is a Protestant doctrine because look, the Pope condemns it here so that must mean it's Protestant!"

>show me where a Protestant theologian has ever claimed some parts of the Bible are not inspired.

The Enlightenment. You might want to start looking there.

It kind of started with this guy named Galileo...Heliocentrism...etc.

Might want to look up this guy named Thomas Paine.

I'll just make it easy for you:

>The discipline of hermeneutics emerged with the new humanist education of the 15th century as a historical and critical methodology for analyzing texts.

>However, biblical hermeneutics did not die off. For example, the Protestant Reformation brought about a renewed interest in the interpretation of the Bible, which took a step away from the interpretive tradition developed during the Middle Ages back to the texts themselves. Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized scriptura sui ipsius interpres (scripture interprets itself). Calvin used brevitas et facilitas as an aspect of theological hermeneutics.

>The rationalist Enlightenment led hermeneutists, especially Protestant exegetists, to view Scriptural texts as secular classical texts. They interpreted Scripture as responses to historical or social forces so that, for example, apparent contradictions and difficult passages in the New Testament might be clarified by comparing their possible meanings with contemporary Christian practices.

> but instead modern philosophy movements

Right........which have many roots in Protestantism.

There nothing that needs to be changed

>homosex only one one side

on one side*

Not the person with whom you're having that specific conversation, but I really think you're painting, with broad strokes, generalizations.

"Some" people do feel as you describe, but it's not to say, "this is what Christians believe", or even "this is what Catholics believe".

I really have no clue if you're a believer in Islam, but to cite an example, there is a huge grassroots movement of Muslims in America called the Nation of Islam. Now if you try to paint a picture and put it in front of us, that "this is what Muslims believe", i.e. something to the effect that America is the great Satan and America is again Muslims, you're going to have a really hard time convincing these domestic American variety Muslims of this conviction. It just isn't so , to start, and it especially isn't so in the minds of those Muslims in America.

Stop using such broad strokes, You're making huge mistakes.

should say "...and America is against Muslims.." typo

I don't really understand what you're trying to prove. I consider myself a Christian.

I assumed everyone knew the Enlightenment was the beginning of skeptical Christianity, ultimately into Deism and Atheism. Guess not.

And not one word of this response talks about this make-believe doctrine of partial Divine Inspiration. Since your education in theology is clearly based on wandering through Wiki articles and making things up where you're unclear on what a difficult word or concept means, here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist–Modernist_Controversy

This debate within Protestantism (and only modern Protestantism at that) was never about some parts of the Bible being Divinely Inspired and some parts not, but that low level Biblical criticism's entire purpose was to ascertain the true, unerring and divinely inspired understanding of the Bible that the original writers, who all Protestant sects believe to have been divinely inspired - including Paul.

Some modern liberal Protestant Christians believe the Bible is not divinely inspired, some believe it has a divine form that modern copies haven't reached, but none of them believe some parts are divine while others are not.

You still haven't shown that this weird notion of partial divine inspiration was ever Catholic dogma either. Your claim:
Virtually all Protestant sects and virtually all Catholics today believe there are parts of the Bible that were not divinely inspired.

Is by all measures false.

>I assumed everyone knew the Enlightenment was the beginning of skeptical Christianity

Well, no, that began sometime in the second century AD, which precipitated the need for church councils so they could keep the idealism straight. This later led to ecumenical councils under Roman emperors, to determine what was legitimate idealism and what was to be considered heresy. From the very early days of the church there were various interpretations, with which various, learned men took and expanded, sometimes for the betterment, sometimes for folly.

Please stop.

You asked: "When have Protestands ever questioned divine scriptures?"

I answered you. It's called "The Age of Reason".

Do you live in a bubble where you can ignore things?

>Some modern liberal Protestant Christians believe the Bible is not divinely inspired,
If would read what I posted, you would see it's not exactly modern. It's about 300 years old.

I'm going. Think about what Charles Dickens mean when he's describing the atmosphere of 19th century London -- a time when emerging sciences was making everyone doubt their faith:

>It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Also, are you the same person who typed, above, "Paul never met Jesus"? If so, wow, if not, never mind.

Ahmadiyya are Mormons

>Islam doesn't have that privilege. The words are Allah's spoken through his prophet Muhammad.

Not getting into the Catholic-Protestant thing here, but this is wrong. One of the earliest and most major fields of Islamic exegesis was literary criticism of the Quran, translating words and passages based on historical or linguistic knowledge of scholars, establishing layers of meaning and official ways to read and interpret it, and so on.

Arguing over what certain passages meant, and agreeing to disagree above all, was one of the earliest events in Islamic history. Today there's trouble when trying to go against the popular fold of interpretation, but it has nothing to do with the divine nature of the text. Instead the issue is one of social harmony, of creating chaos. Most Muslims today interpret the Quran in their own way anyway. That cat's been out of the bag since the late 1800's. It's the social law and public peace aspect that gets so-called 'heretics' and 'atheists' (and actual atheists) into trouble in Muslim societies.

>You asked: "When have Protestands ever questioned divine scriptures?"
No I didn't. I said
>What kind of wacky Prottie sect is this that doesn't consider parts of the Bible Divinely Inspired?

>Do you live in a bubble where you can ignore things?
I dunno. Tell me where you got your bubble where you can just blatantly lie to people all day and pretend you know anything about Christian theology and history.

Before Protestantism was even imagined there were disputes over what was to be considered canon ( inspired work ). This isn't a new practice for the Enlightenment at all, but a re-hashing, instigated by loose transliteration to English and German. I mean, the choices weren't wildly different, but there are Christian churches today that have books Catholics don't have, and Catholics have books Protestants don't have.

Look at some of these Synods and Conferences.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage

Look at this list of books for modern Tewahedo Christianity, with origins just as old as the Catholic church.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon

None of this was anything new by the time Luther came along. I promise you.

>In Christianity, if it's not the direct words of Jesus, it can be argued against

>COULD WHAT ESSENTIALLY IS A REBELLION AGAINST CENTRAL AUTHORITY HAPPEN TO A RELIGION WITHOUT CENTRAL AUTHORITY :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

This is why Eurocentrism is shit. Not because of race discourse but the sheer idiocy of applying European events & institutions to non-European events & institutions.

Can anything reform this religion to be less bombey and head-choppy?

>believe there are parts of the Bible that were not divinely inspired.
Maybe the deuterocanonicals, but those are deutero- for a reason.

Why don't we invade Saudi Arabia and set up a guy in control of Hijaz, who'd claim to be caliph as a ruler of the two mosques?

>occur without a widely accepted Caliphate?
Yes and thats probably the only way it would happen as any leader will reject it. The same way the reformation happened against the Pope.

pff. You think extremists are bad now. If someone got close to militarily fucking with Mecca, some sizable percentage of the world, maybe a tenth, would go positively ape shit. That is not an option now or any time in the foreseeable future.

And who would accept him?

The Ottoman Sultan was already a meme-caliph because his claim to the title was about as meaningful as his claim to the Roman Empire.

Sunni muslim here. I think no, it cant happen, at least not anytime soon. There needs to be a competition between already existing schools for new ones to arise. Sunnism however got too big and swallowed sufism, wahabism etc. Those dont exist anymore on a mentionable scale. Only other school is shiaism thats still big enough. However, sunnis and shais ignore each other instead of competing and exchanging ideas trough that.
What I think will happen is that shaia will also die out eventually as its not suitable for modern world. Might be a violent death though. Sunnism being left alone will probably turn into a more passive religion similar to buddhism i think a while after shaias death.

>What I think will happen is that shaia will also die out eventually as its not suitable for modern world.
What, Sunnis aren't suited for it, Shia is.

>ever thinking Islam can be fixed
keep lying to yourself

No, Protestantism was a reaction to a central figure that decided what happened with the religion, in this case the Pope and the Vatican. With Islam you have no central figure to react against. To reform, you literally have to make every muslim agree on the new change, there's no rallying them against a specific target. Since the groundwork and rules for Islam have been laid you can't make muslims swallow the fact that the last word of God, the Quran is still incomplete.

The most realistic way possible to reform would be to first tackle the hadiths as they aren't the literal word of god. Secondly would be the gargantuan task of setting Sharia law straight as it's a mix of rules derived from both the hadiths and the quran.

The Islamic Reformation is already happening but can only progress so far. The many traditional schools that once dictated what was right and wrong are being challenged by the opening up of social media and the spread of ideas. Traditionally, only the Ulama had the authority to interpret the Qur'an, yet today many Muslims who are neither scholars nor clerics appear on television and the internet spreading their interpretation of Islam. The reason that such a reformation is slow to take hold is because of the oppressive governments of the Middle East and their support for the traditionalist schools of Islam. These schools outlaw any alternative or historical interpretation of the Qur'an and Sharia, outlawing and sometimes even executing those who try. Because they believe the Qur'an and Sharia Law to be divine, analyzing them in a historical context is blasphemous, so what you have is the ideals of ancient Arabia being applied to modern society, the result being the shit hole that is the Middle East. The use of social media and communication is helping to break down these barriers but it's not easy. In any case, the Islamic reform that we are seeing can only go so far given the inherent problems with Islamic doctrine. Both strands of Islam, Sunni and Shia (especially Sunni), are obsessed with the past, the paradise in Medina and the precedents set hundreds of years ago. To truly reform, Islam would have to ditch or severely alter its view of the past in a way that would transform it completely. Such an idea is hopeful, if not impossible.

What do you mean? Do you think Islam (or any religion) is a monolithic entity right now? There are as many different interpretations as Muslims, and let me tell you, the Islam of an integrated, educated dude with Middle-Eastern ancestry in Europe does not share much with that of his more angry counterparts or with the faith someone from some fundamentalis desert shithole.

And the Islam Reformation has happened pretty long ago. It was the Shia-Sunni breakup.

It is a reformation. Every time some one tries to make a schism from Islam, people always have something to refer back to.

Well said. The modern movements like Wahhabism and the Deobandi and the Salafist became popular as a result of colonialism. Because it happened in reaction to Western hegemony they definined themselves against the West sharply.

I believe that women's rights for instance have not stagnated but become even worse in the Islamic world. Before there were other distinctions that matter as much, if not more, than gender like age and class. However because the issue of women's rights divided the West and the world of Islam more than age or class the Islamic revival movements tend to put a lot of emphasis on the rules that regulate women.

Before older women were given more freedom than younger women because they were seen as post sexual or past their years of reproduction and thus entitled to more freedom. Young men on the other hand were restricted. Not as much as young women but young men were seen as a similar liability and the older generation, men and women alike, were expected to keep them in line.

However in Wahhabi and Salafist households its not unheard of to hear young boys tell their own mothers to cover up. I don't think that would've been accepted before as the mothers would command respect as a part of the older generation.

I think the Islamic world has to go through some phases before it gets better. If what we see now is the result of intellectual movements that arose in reaction to Western hegemony then I think the strains that are better able to ultimately assimilate into the modern world effectively will survive while new movements that arise as a counter reaction to the current trends will eventually crop up to compete with the likes of the Wahhabi and Salafist and Deobandi.

So what we need isn't necessarily a reformation but more of a counter reformation that's really more of a political movement than a theological one. The movements and groups that can ultimately deliver good governance will win out in the end.

Ahmadiya or Alawite are closer to Mormons.

Alawites are more like Mormons but the comparison still sorta works for Ahamdiya.

There's theological similarities between Alawites and Mormons, I think.

>"hey lol you can make this shit mean whatever you like lol fuck the establishment xD"

Sounds like ISIS.

>The modern movements like Wahhabism and the Deobandi and the Salafist became popular as a result of colonialism. Because it happened in reaction to Western hegemony they definined themselves against the West sharply.

Bullshit.

Name me one other extreme ideology that has come about simply because people were under colonial rule.

Not him but I did appreciate your reply.

It seems to me that certain ideas and interpretations form early on in the first few centuries after Islam came onto the scene and just stuck and crystallized and nowadays are hard to argue against when at the time they were thought up they were not.

Is that a more or less accurate view?

Avverroism sounds like totally heresy. Beyond anything I've ever heard inside religion.

I will never understand how some modern young muslim women will defend wearing a hijab on the basis that their hair isn't there to attract the unwarranted sexual gaze of men, yet at the same time they have a full face of makeup complete with cherry red lips, bronzer, deep eyeshadow, fake lashes, and so on which serve that exact purpose.

What kind of logic is that?

> What kind of logic is that?
Very transparent one. Because they are unused to such things they attract attention. Same works for us backwards, who cares about hair at that point? This, or they just repeat > muh muslim memes ad nauseam.

I didn't say they formed simply because they were colonized. Western hegemony is the force that precipitated the birth of many modern Islamic movements but I don't say that to lay blame on the West. In fact the Muslim colonial experience was rather short and not as intrusive as that of many Africans or the Americas with the exception of the Algerian case where the. Egypt was colonized longer but even there it wasn't like the Euros were committing genocide.

Ultimately Muslims who formed their own revival movements formulated them based on the Islamic tradition so the components of the modern extremists ideologies did exist within that older tradition. Islam has an extensive martial history so its not like these were peace loving hippies who were turned to suicide bombers by white colonizers.

I'm just saying that because Western hegemony was the force being reacted to it meant that many Islamic revival movements wanted to define themselves against Western values and intentionally emphasized aspects of their own tradition that ran counter to Western thought. Which is why they restrict women's rights as much as they do and why parts of the Islamic world reject so called "Western science" in favor of "Islamic science".

It is weird but I can sort of understand it. Women are going to do what they can to attract men but different societies draw the line at what's appropriate and what's inappropriate. In the vast majority of the West showing one's hair is okay and in many parts of the Islamic world its not. However within the West there are certain cultures that are more permissive than others in terms of what a woman can expose to make herself attractive and it can differ even between subcultures with one culture(rural Americans vs urban Americans)

Within the Islamic world there are differences too. In Saudi Arabia purses are very important as status symbols. In Iran where women can show their faces they have more to work with.

Afrocentric Marxism