Is Islam A Religion of Peace?

>The western conception of marriage is of an alliance, not a relation of submission.

Sure, that's why western women have fucked scores of men before they finally marry, and that's why divorce rates are through the roof. Women should be submissive to men, it's the natural order of things. Simple biology.

Divorce rates are through the roof because monogamy is not natural.

I think its a more realistic religion. Jesus was anti-war but that didnt stop Christians committing war. Mohammed knew that war was necessary but gave laws to try to limit its destructiveness to only combatants.

>Sure, that's why western women have fucked scores of men before they finally marry, and that's why divorce rates are through the roof
No, that's because of the sexual revolution. The abandonment of modesty is largely a consequence of the nihilistic self-destructiveness of the leftist intelligentsia, who unfortunately thrive on college campuses.

>Women should be submissive to men, it's the natural order of things.
Kind of like slavery, right?

This is why I often laugh when some right wingers praise the "conservativeness" of Islam. Islam is not conservative. It's fucking degenerate. In Islamic law you're allowed to rape your sex slaves. Pederasty is unpunished. And don't get me started on pedophilia.

>monogamy is not natural.
It's the most natural arrangement, actually.

Divorce rates are 100% down to the 70s (or whatever decade was womens 'free' generation) they've been decreasing for a while.

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, Christianity is now pro-LGBT, pro-promiscuity, pro-degeneracy. It's a weak and powerless religion.

>Keep telling yourself that
Telling myself what? The truth?

>Meanwhile, Christianity is now pro-LGBT, pro-promiscuity, pro-degeneracy.
I agree with you that this is an unfortunate development.

> It's a weak and powerless religion.
Agreed. Islam is a lot more violent and totalitarian than Christianity. That's my whole point.

Are you arguing for banning Nazis?

>Islam is a lot more violent and totalitarian

Because "sticking to its principles" is simply considered to be violent and totalitarian. Christianity was the exact same for quite a while too, but its weak nature caused the complete disintegration of the religion.

I'm arguing for recognizing that the statement "Naziism is an ideology of peace" is objectively false.

>Because "sticking to its principles" is simply considered to be violent and totalitarian.
No, it's the principles themselves which are very totalitarian.

To make it simple, Islam can be shortened as "might makes right".

>Christianity was the exact same for quite a while too
Of course not, christianity was always far more "open-minded" than Islam.

Islam believes that the perfect example of a human being had sex with a 9 year old girl.

Not anywhere in all my reading did I see this. They've clearly written that hazrat aisha got married when she reached maturity.
inb4 some shitty /pol/ infographic

>Demographic statistics don't lie
What most people don't seem to understand about demographic statistics is that their job isn't to lie or determine the truth. They're projections that help demographers better understand the significance of current trends on our current societies, but not to accurately predict their future.

What researchers see when they look at statistical projections is "oh, this current population is experiencing an upward trend in birthrates at this point in time." What everyone else seems to see is "We're going to disappear/be overrun in 50 years!"

>Not anywhere in all my reading did I see this.
I think this is more due to the fact that you probably don't read much.

Source please? An actual source, not one made by /pol/ or some butthurt christian

>The western conception of marriage is of an alliance, not a relation of submission.
The Western conception of marriage is of an alliance between two houses, same as the Muslim one. The only change that's happened recently which gives women more equality in one and not the other is the financial and politically protected independence of an adult woman to represent herself in place of her parents or guardians.

Well it's not like this has never happened historically. Perhaps native americans should've been a bit more concerned about the demographic trends of the white settlers.

Also, your argument is basically, they're projections so they're inherently misleading? What kind of shitty argument is that?

>In Islamic law you're allowed to rape your sex slaves. Pederasty is unpunished. And don't get me started on pedophilia.

The word you're looking for is powerless, not degenerate, as Islamic law doesn't condone any of these things, but generally takes a backseat to tribal law and custom which is less scrupulous.

Are you truly mentally retarded? I hope you're not a muslim, that would make your blatant ignorance even worse.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage

>The Western conception of marriage is of an alliance between two houses, same as the Muslim one.
Real life is game of thrones, user. Most people were never members of the nobility. They still got married though.

>same as the Muslim one
The muslim one is more akin to acquiring property. Muslims can have up to 4 wives. A man can divorce one of his wives by simply saying "I divorce" 3 times in a row in front of another muslim man. He can do that several times, and remarry her whenever he wishes (as long as she hasn't been married off to another muslim man, of course).

There are many, many differences between the christian conception of marriage and the muslim conception of marriage.

>as Islamic law doesn't condone any of these things,
Wrong.

The right to rape your sex slaves is literally in the Quran :

From : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum
>Who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame.

Pedophilia is obviously legal in Islamic law because Mohammed practiced it, and sunna dictates that anything Mohammed did is legal. Which is why one of the first laws enacted by the Ayatollah after the Iranian Islamic revolution was to lower the age of marriage to 8 years old (he married a 10 years old girl himself)

>Also, your argument is basically, they're projections so they're inherently misleading? What kind of shitty argument is that?

An accurate one, because projections are not predictions, they are literally contemporary trends artificially blown up to better visualize their current significance. They don't take into account that birth rates fluctuate wildly from generation to generation from multiple influences, because these things are nearly impossible to predict.

>An accurate one
Then I guess we can completely disregard Global Warming. I mean, they're just projections, right? Maybe the temperature will come down again by magic.

>because these things are nearly impossible to predict.
Now I'm thinking you're trolling.

>Real life is game of thrones, user. Most people were never members of the nobility. They still got married though.

And they got married through their families networking with one another, establishing dowries or bride prices, finding them a domicile, and evaluating whether the union is working out or not. I'm not talking about nobility at all here, but Medieval peasantry.

>The muslim one is more akin to acquiring property. Muslims can have up to 4 wives. A man can divorce one of his wives by simply saying "I divorce" 3 times in a row in front of another muslim man. He can do that several times, and remarry her whenever he wishes (as long as she hasn't been married off to another muslim man, of course).

Again, in most cases, these women are daughters and sisters of another family, and it's through them that this exchange is conducted, with all the above details included in the negotiations. The only real difference here is that a divorce, for both men and women, is easier to obtain in theory than it is through Church judicial review.

Is that why men are wired to lust for other women?

>And they got married through their families networking with one another, establishing dowries or bride prices, finding them a domicile, and evaluating whether the union is working out or not. I'm not talking about nobility at all here, but Medieval peasantry.
I don't deny that marriage was more calculated in the past (as it should be).

But you're deliberately avoiding the crux of the argument : the difference between an alliance and submission. Even if there were obvious familial considerations when two people got married in medieval europe, it was still, at the end of things, an alliance.

In Islamic culture, marriage is ownership, not an alliance.

>The only real difference here is that a divorce, for both men and women, is easier to obtain in theory
Well that's a euphemism. It's not "easier to obtain". In fact there is nothing to "obtain", since a man can simply divorce his wife if he feels like it without having to consult with anyone whatsoever.

You are retarded. Medieval peasants got married because the fancied that cute girl, or because at some point you gotta get a wife and that girl seems okey enough and she seems to be into it. You've read too many stories.

I guess you've got a lot of reading left to do then.

Jesus christ

>I never read anywhere that there is gravity, so for now I'm gonna assume it doesn't exist

>The right to rape your sex slaves is literally in the Quran :

You're discussing the clearance of a Muslim man having sex with either his wife or his slave, not whether he can rape her if she is unwilling or not.

>Pedophilia is obviously legal in Islamic law because Mohammed practiced it
Muslim theologians don't actually say "sex with underage girls is permissible because Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was underage." There's a reason why marriage jurisprudence in Islamic Law doesn't actually bring up any hadith about Aisha's age, but instead is dictated by whether or not the girl in question is deemed sexually mature by a wetnurse. Even the Ayatollah, when he lowered the age of marriage, did so because he and many others believed a girl should be married as soon as she started her period, and not for any reason of Muhammad's marriage with Aisha.

No, this predates the institution of marriage, when people lived in caves and the reproductive strategy for men was to slip their manhood into as many holes as possible.

However, ever since humans settled down 15 000 years ago and started forming farming communities, this didn't work anymore. Fucking as many holes as possible works well in hunter gatherer socities, because there's never a shortage of enemy tribes to raid and enemy women to rape. The raped women were incorporated into the tribe and their children raised communally. But it's not possible in an agricultural civilization.

Hence marriage, and family were born. Marriage is a compromise. The man gets the promise of regular sex (which doesn't happen in hunter gatherer societies. In such societies most men rarely have sex), although it will always be the same hole. In exchange, the woman gets a stable environment to raise her children.

Marriage and family is a consequence of civilization. More specifically, of agricultural civilization. Which is one possible reason why marriage is so different in Islamic culture : Islam is at its roots the religion of a semi-nomadic people, the arab bedouin.

>I mean, they're just projections, right?
No, because scientific projections are not made to better visualize current trends, but to predict as accurately as possible what the future will be.

Maybe you should consider that not all disciplines in science and humanities share the same methodologies and rather than amateurishly make observations on data you don't fully understand you could maybe study what demographers actually do, how they study their data, and what the purpose of their projections are, instead of thinking 'Well climatologists do it this way, so why should I bother learning how demographers to things before I make wild assumptions about their discipline?'

>You're discussing the clearance of a Muslim man having sex with either his wife or his slave, not whether he can rape her if she is unwilling or not.
You do understand that slavery is usually not a voluntary relationship, right? You think that slaves have their say?

Heck, even wives can't refuse to have sex with their husbands under Islamic law.

>Muslim theologians don't actually say "sex with underage girls is permissible because Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was underage."
They do. It's called "sunna" and is the basis of islamic law. Anything Mo' did is allowed. Because he was the most perfect man to ever live.

Glad you agree that marriage is unnatural, now don't talk to me or my wife's son ever again.

>No, because scientific projections are not made to better visualize current trends, but to predict as accurately as possible what the future will be.
And demographic predictions are just randomly taken out of a top hat by magicians for shits and giggles?

You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance.

>Maybe you should consider that not all disciplines in science and humanities share the same methodologies
Especially when it contradicts your arguments it seems...

I eagerly await your lengthy post explaining why the methodology used by demographers leads to inaccurate predictions.

It's unnatural for hunter gatherers. It's perfectly natural for civilized men.

In fact there are some good arguments in evolutionary psychology that civilized peoples are now genetically wired for monogamy.

>In Islamic culture, marriage is ownership, not an alliance.
Still incorrect. In both traditions the aim is to ally two larger families. Do you know why late Umayyad and early Abbasid caliphs began marrying their slaves? To specifically avoid the entanglement of familial alliances that came with marrying a Muslim Arab woman connected to a Muslim Arab family. A Muslim marriage was an alliance of two patriarchal households, with the only exceptions being marriage to a slave (which was an elevation of the woman from the more submissive slave to the more empowered wife and mother of children) and marriage to a free, adult, Muslim woman without male guardians, which happened more often in historical urban Muslim populations. There are marriage contracts from 16th century Tunisia for example that are precisely an alliance between a Muslim woman and man, with stipulations on what rights the husband can and cannot have.

For the record, in traditional Western marriage the husband legally owned everything about his wife, including her own finances if she had any. In traditional Muslim marriage, this was not the case and the husband had no legal right to his wife's personal fortune.

If by stories you mean historical research into Medieval family life and marriage law, then sure. Be aware that family involvement in marriage politics and proceedings does not preclude a couple coming together out of mutual attraction or desire to settle down comfortably. This is also true of Muslim marriages throughout history.

>Still incorrect
Sheesh, you're thick.

>Do you know why late Umayyad and early Abbasid caliphs began marrying their slaves?
Once again, I'm not talking about royalty here. I'm talking about the plebs.

>There are marriage contracts from 16th century Tunisia for example that are precisely an alliance between a Muslim woman and man, with stipulations on what rights the husband can and cannot have.
It's not an alliance. It's a contract, sure, but it's not an alliance. An alliance does not give the right to one partner to end the alliance whenever they feel like it, while depriving that right to the other partner. An alliance does not give the legal right to one partner to beat the other partner. An alliance does not give the legal right to one partner to rape the other partner.

You're brain damaged if you can't tell the difference.

>You think that slaves have their say?
Actually, legally, they do. Which is why a slave can literally take their master to Islamic court to dispute abuse and misconduct, including for example forcing her to have sex with guests like a prostitute.

>Heck, even wives can't refuse to have sex with their husbands under Islamic law.
They can. It's looked down upon and shamed in patriarchal society for obvious reasons, but it's legally permissible.

>They do. It's called "sunna" and is the basis of islamic law. Anything Mo' did is allowed. Because he was the most perfect man to ever live.
They don't, and you're going to have to physically quote someone at this point. Because this is what the Ayatollah had to say about why a girl should be married young:
>It is recommended that one hurries in giving husband to a daughter who has attained puberty, meaning that she is of the age of religious accountability. His Holiness, Sadegh [the 6th Imam] salutations to him, bade that it is one of a man's good fortunes that his daughter does not see menses in his own house.

It's tradition, not part of Sunnah.

I guess this is the part where I stop the conversation because this is where my knowledge of Islam stops.

Anyways I think I've already made my point clearly. Out of curiosity are you a muslim?

>And demographic predictions are just randomly taken out of a top hat by magicians for shits and giggles?

Yes, because that's exactly what I said when I explained to you three times now what their purpose was. Seems to me this entire confusion can be solved by you just picking up an introduction to demographic research.

I can't say for other countries, but this is what I know in Singapore.

>Is Islam really a religion of peace?
Mainstream Islam in Singapore says it is. On the other hand, they're being watched literally everyone who lives in Singapore. However, I am seeing hijabs now, which were virtually nonexistent 10 or more years ago.

>Can you show that Muslims care for their families, and respect family?
I can't prove any statistics, but I've known Muslims who do.

>If the radical faction of Islam is indeed a small minority, what can/have good True Muslims do/done to hold the radicals accountable?
No True Scotsman fallacy. And even then, they just condemn and issue edicts condemning the terrorists. Or else they get arrested because Singapore only TOLERATES religion.

>Do true Muslims take any responsibility for their radical brothers' actions?
See above.

>What is Islams stand on self-responsibility? That is, is each Muslim solely responsible for their own actions, or is each action a representation of the Muslim community?
I do not know. All I can say is, see above.

As I understand it, jihad is more of a personal battle, not externalized conflict. They are permitted to attack in self-defense, but that is all I know.

With an added disclaimer, "IF YOU CAN FUCKING AFFORD IT". I think that's a hadith, though.

*On the other hand, they're being watched by the police, just like literally everyone who lives in Singapore.

>Yes
All right. Now I know you're a moron.

>As I understand it, jihad is more of a personal battle, not externalized conflict
That's the current multiculti kool-aid explanation pushed by leftist politicians. I doubt "personal battle" is the reason why Abu Bakr's armies spread from southern france to western china.

Forgot to quote

Here's all you need to know user. Good luck.

>Sheesh, you're thick.
I do have thick skin for tolerating clear ignorance of history. It's why I'm still here on Veeky Forums.

>Once again, I'm not talking about royalty here. I'm talking about the plebs.
The point was that Abbasid royalty specifically avoided normal marriage because of its inherent relationships with the wife's family. The plebs felt these same influences, but unlike the Caliphs had no political incentive to avoid marriage with free Muslims. Instead they started marrying their cousins. Want to know why incest is so common these days in the Middle East? It's because in Islamic Law, a woman is entitled to her share of family inheritance. If a Muslim woman thus marries outside her family, her share of the inheritance, such as a plot of agricultural land, will then go to descendants of another family. Cousin marriage solves this by ensuring the woman's inheritance stays within the umbrella of the clan.

>It's not an alliance. It's a contract, sure, but it's not an alliance. An alliance does not give the right to one partner to end the alliance whenever they feel like it, while depriving that right to the other partner. An alliance does not give the legal right to one partner to beat the other partner. An alliance does not give the legal right to one partner to rape the other partner.
None of these things preclude an alliance. Just an unfair alliance, which was true for Western marriage for most of history. Remember, marital rape wasn't a thing until very recently in our own societies, where the man legally owned his wife.

Which brings me back to my original point. Modern Western marriage is incredibly recent, and before then it wasn't much different from Muslim marriage when it came to inequality.

It may be "leftist politicians" whereever you live, but this is the official stance of mainstream Islam in Singapore and what they teach to Muslims in Singapore. I'm pretty sure it wasn't during the Crusades and earlier, but you can twist religion or ANY ideology to fit a political purpose.

why do so many Veeky Forumstorians have such a boner for Islam? It's detrimental to a society in a wide spectrum of fields (science is haram, reform is haram, ...) especially after Al-Ghazali's influence.

Go ahead Veeky Forums, prove me wrong.

No. I'm agnostic, though mostly I don't really care about religion. I understand your point, but it's wracked with inaccuracies on how Muslim societies worked in the past. A lot of good arguments can be made about misogyny in Islamic tradition, society, and law, but a wrong argument is at the end of the day still wrong, and really rustles my autistic jimmies.

>All right. Now I know you're a moron.
Because I can be sarcastic, and meanwhile you can't even remember what I said? I'm sure your entire world is full of morons, user. Soldier on.

>but you can twist religion or ANY ideology to fit a political purpose.
That's true, but the thing with Islam is that it requires less twisting than other religions because it just so happens that holy war is one of its core doctrines.

I think one really needs to dissociate muslim society with Islam. Obviously most muslim men don't rape their wives and view them as property. Most of them living in the West probably have a "western style" marriage. But this doesn't detract from the fact that there are (in my opinion) profound differences in the philosophy of marriage between different cultures and that marriage as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan is indeed "more muslim" than marriage in, say, Tunisia.

>Because I can be sarcastic, and meanwhile you can't even remember what I said?
No, because you're dismissing an entire field of research on ideological grounds.

As a topic of study it's incredibly vast and relatively untapped, making it dynamic as a field of history, theology, or sociology.

Also Al-Ghazali dindu nuffin.

Al-Ghazali was the worst thing to ever happen to Islam.

Im not here to argue with you. Im interested in the different perspectives in order to keep from developing an uneducated opinion. For fucks sake give someone the benefit of a doubt.

>and that marriage as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan is indeed "more muslim" than marriage in, say, Tunisia.

That's mostly just arbitrarily defining one thing as Islam (actually many different things) and another as not-so-Islam. How does one determine that 16th century Tunisian marriage is less Islamic than 20th century Afghan or Saudi marriage exactly? The very existence of Pashtunwali should through a giant wrench into this mechanic for one thing.

A hypothesis I've yet to hear any decent historical argument for. It's just a meme started by a physics professor writing a historical survey of philosophy.

>That's mostly just arbitrarily defining one thing as Islam (actually many different things) and another as not-so-Islam.
It's not arbitrary, it's referring to the scriptures.

> How does one determine that 16th century Tunisian marriage is less Islamic than 20th century Afghan or Saudi marriage exactly?
By comparing it to the marriage as it is defined by Islamic law.

>The very existence of Pashtunwali should through a giant wrench into this mechanic for one thing.
Pashtunwali is un-islamic, for instance.

I hate this idea that you cannot compare and contrasts things because "le everything is subjective". No it's not. There's a certain conception of marriage which exists in Islamic law, and it is entirely possible to compare marriages from different cultures to this "theoretical" conception of marriage.

>A hypothesis I've yet to hear any decent historical argument for.
He made an entire philosophy out of denying reason and logic. He's the reason why the """islamic""" (more like ibero-persian) golden age ended. He's the reason why the Mutazilites got persecuted. He's the reason why all of Averroes' works (arguably the greatest middle eastern mind of all time) were burned in a giant autodafe in Cordoba.

Al-Ghazali was a subhuman nigger.

>It's not arbitrary, it's referring to the scriptures.
Which is arbitrary, because scripture has very little to say about marriage politics and tradition is absolute king in marriage law.

I'm not saying everything is subjective, I'm saying these kinds of decisions are not actually made by some rigorous comparison of different marriage customs with Islamic law, but instead one or two cultures are arbitrarily chosen to be 'Islamic' and the others by definition to be less Islamic, and this is justified after the fact.

16th century marriage contracts, for instance, were drawn up in an Islamic court by an Islamic jurist, whereas both Pashtuns and Saudis negotiate their marriages first and then get a cleric to bless the conclusion.

>Which is arbitrary, because scripture has very little to say about marriage politics and tradition is absolute king in marriage law.
Hadiths have plenty to say about that though. I know it's not technically scripture but their central place in islamic theology warrants them being lumped in with the Quran.

>but instead one or two cultures are arbitrarily chosen to be 'Islamic' and the others by definition to be less Islamic, and this is justified after the fact.
Of course not. Either I'm not understanding your argument, either you're claiming that Saudi Arabia isn't any more "islamic" than Lebanon and that the "islamic" character associated with Saudi Arabia was justified after these two countries developped?

>He made an entire philosophy out of denying reason and logic.
No he didn't. He was the biggest influence in Islamic education absorbing reason and logic, which Ibn Taymiyyah denouces.

>He's the reason why the """islamic""" (more like ibero-persian) golden age ended.
Another meme, and another error. The Islamic/Islamicate golden age ended when the Muslim middle class that freely traveled, traded, and taught across the Middle East declined due to the disruptions of nomadic and Latin invasions of the High Middle Ages.

>He's the reason why the Mutazilites got persecuted.
No he isn't. He was born centuries after that whole argument blew up in everyone's faces and then quickly died.

>He's the reason why all of Averroes' works (arguably the greatest middle eastern mind of all time) were burned in a giant autodafe in Cordoba.
No he isn't. The Maliki fanatics of North Africa hated Al-Ghazali, too, and burned his books as well. Book burning was a political, not theological, action in Muslim Spain, and Averroes got the shaft because he was a qadi of a major city who didn't play nice with other courtiers around the Almohad sultan.

>Hadiths have plenty to say about that though.
They don't, either. It's the scholarship that speaks for them in a variety of creative, and sometimes absurd, way. Islamic marriage jurisprudence is mostly local tribal law given the vaguest Islamic restrictions and influenced by marital relationship ethics. By definition one culture cannot really have a more Islamic marriage culture than another, unless one is breaking some hard limitation such as 6 wives or something of the sort.

>Saudi Arabia isn't any more "islamic" than Lebanon and that the "islamic" character associated with Saudi Arabia was justified after these two countries developped?
Not what I was getting at, but then I don't necessarily disagree either.

>Christianity
No, it's not. Show me verses that have Jesus supporting what you said.

Read about the Alevi, a.k.a true Islam as it was supposed to be

>Is Islam really a religion of peace?
Like all religions it can be interpreted a number of ways. What Muslims think is the will of god is simply the will of the clerics who can use scripture to justify practically anything. To Ahmadis, Islam is an olive branch between all men, to Wahabbis Islam is a call to arms.

>Can you show that Muslims care for their families, and respect family?
I know Arabs are obsessed with family, though I'm not sure how much of that is Islam and how much is Arab culture. Family certainly plays a bigger role in the Islamic world than in the west, the problem is the retarded honour culture which is prevalent in most of the Islamic world leads to them having some twisted attitudes and hurting individual family members for the honour of the family as a whole. This is pretty much impossible to reconcile with western individualism and liberalism, honour culture is approaching extinction here so to us it seems barbaric and anti-family. The western idea that "if you love your family, you will support their decisions", etc. is completely tangential to what conservative Arabs believe. That doesn't mean they do not respect family, quite the opposite, they place it on a pedestal.

>If the radical faction of Islam is indeed a small minority, what can/have good True Muslims do/done to hold the radicals accountable?
There is no objective standard of a "true muslim", there are tonnes of sects and tonnes of interpretations within those sects, but if we take a moderate mainstream Sunni as standard then they have done everything from ignoring them to debating them, banning them to waging war on them. Muslims make up a quarter of the population of the world, you can find anykind o person.

>Do true Muslims take any responsibility for their radical brothers' actions?
>What is Islams stand on self-responsibility? That is, is each Muslim solely responsible for their own actions, or is each action a representation of the Muslim community?

>cont'd

>Do true Muslims take any responsibility for their radical brothers' actions?
Again, there's no such thing as a true muslim. The range of response go from Sectarian, Sunni blaming Shi'a and vice versa, reactionary atheism, (speak to any ex-muslim, they often state radicalism and conservatism as a reason for leaving), taking full responsibility to denying any connection (most popular in the west unfortunately)

>What is Islams stand on self-responsibility? That is, is each Muslim solely responsible for their own actions, or is each action a representation of the Muslim community?
There is not one stance or one interpretation. The Qur'an warns against people professing to be Muslims who commit crimes, stating that they are not true muslims, while also stressing that "takfir" (kind of like excommunicating but not "official", claiming someone is an apostate) is a grave crime, and someone who commits Takfir without concrete proof is guilty of a terrible sin. Naturally this means that people can justify any position. In general Islam stresses personal responsibility for crimes, not collective.

Muslims are usually very wary to denounce other muslims as kuffar, except for radicals who are often called "Takfiris" for this reason. (They accuse basically everyone of apostasy).

anyway it's a tricky question, and it mostly comes down to the individual, some will get defensive and state that it has nothing to do with the community (most will be defensive if I'm honest, more of that shitty honour culture), and some will be more self-critical.

>Women should be submissive to men, it's the natural order of things. Simple biology.

Women and men should be social and legal equals.

Simple enlightenment. Something Islamic nations never had.

>Simple enlightenment
The enlightenment worsened women's rights and made them even less equal than either their Medieval or Muslim counterparts.

Care to elaborate on that?

I mean, women became progressively more involved in government and business during and following the enlightenment. Women also became more outspoken both in print and public.

The peak of this during the enlightenment itself happened during the French Revolution, which was in large part sparked by discontented women. Egalite, fraternite, liberte extended to women as well as men, with many traditional feminine trappings seen as too bourgeois, and therefore cast aside.

Nations which espoused the enlightenment ideal of individual liberty and self determination tended to be the ones which would eventually sign universal suffrage into law, ala the US and Great Britain.

Meanwhile, women in the Middle East are at best segregated and at worst chattel.

>The radical faction is a large minority, like 30-45% because Saudis fucked us up

>implying that wasn't the plan in the first place.

>Jinnah is literally a lizard man
It all make sense now

Revolutionary France was the exception, and it was crushed. For the rest of the era that followed the fruits of the enlightenment supported Classical ideals and the rise of biological determinism, leading to very Classical and scientific forms of sexism that defined the Victorian era. It was Progressivism, not the Enlightenment, that finally reversed this after a century of wrangling.

>it's a victorian morals were bad because colonialism episode

>scores of men

when will this meme die? Women consistently have less partners than the average man (albeit this is most likely due to shame, I'm sure women have no problem racking up >50 fucks if they want).

I've only had one gf that fucked more people than me, and it was only in the teens

>religion of peace

A woman in Victorian England could still choose who she would marry, or even if she would marry. She could report a rape and have it taken seriously. She could own property, hold a job, and run a business.

Women in many Islamic countries STILL can't do any of those things.

>Women in many Islamic countries STILL can't do any of those things.
Correction, women in Islamic countries could once do many of these things, and no longer can with the rise of Islamism and the social upheavals of mass urbanization, population growth, and centralized government.

No, and it does not claim to be. Islam means surrender, not peace. Surrender or die.

I would say urbanization and centralized government led to social liberalization in many Middle Eastern countries. Look at Iran or Afghanistan before 1979.

Women were afforded very little power or liberty anywhere that muslims took over, from the very first conquests and the building of the first caliphate. So... going on 1400 years now.