I've been reading on Islam recently...

>for example pre islam arabia would let the guy inherit his mother as a wife when his father dies and he could even sell her as a slave if he wanted among other ridiculous stuff
What the fuck did I just read?

>Before we start though please try not to view these events through modern standards and views and more of their time scope.
Even for their time they were barbaric. But that's another bad thing with Islam : it's intemporal. Mohammed's teachings are to be taken literally, even though they're painfully outdated. That's another reason why it seems that Islam is stuck in the 7th century.

>???
They persecute free-thinkers.

>For their time they were probably considered the most tolerant
Absolutely not.

>t like in andalus for example were jews supposedly had a golden age,
The key word being supposedly. Jews were harshly pogrom'd in Al Andalus, this whole "Al Andalus was great" is a meme propagated by post-colonial marxists in the second half of the 20th century. In truth Andalusian society was very harsh against christians and jews. Simply saying "I am a christian" in the presence of a Muslim would earn you the death penalty.

>Most of the other countries did not allow people to practice the non official religion and were usually even killed at times for doing so.
That's not true either. Take India for example, which was arguably far more tolerant than Islam. Religious minorities weren't "tolerated" in the Caliphate, they were treated as second class citizens. Jews living in Germany in the 1930s probably had more rights than religious minorities living in the Caliphate.

And of course, "idol woshippers" such as buddhists and hindus were sentenced to death.

>Again,... before them
For their time. For their time. For their time...

Who cares? We live in the 21th century. See my first sentence.

In fact I'm not even convinced that the treatment of women was worse in, say, the christian levant than in the caliphate.

Islam is a religion which authorizes polygamy. That already makes it more backwards than Christianity. And makes it worse for women.

>Depends on whic...
Jesus you're quite clearly a historically illiterate retard. I won't bother with the rest.

>You gave an absurd analogy, so I gave another analogy to counter that.
My analogy might seem absurd to your underdevelopped brain, I concede that.

I'll try to keep it simpler from now on.

>Again, I'm more concerned about making the future a better place than backwards savages killing off other backwards savages. The civilizations they destroyed were no better than them. Vae victis.
>LOL WARRIORS ARE SO COOL XD
You can't be older than 13

>Islam is literally Christianity tailored to give Muhammad divine authority and to be palatable to the Arabian people.
Which is quite a difference with unadultered christianity.

So far you have thrown claims which go against the established opinion yet provided no evidence to support them

>Depends on whic...
>Jesus you're quite clearly a historically illiterate retard. I won't bother with the rest.

Do you honestly believe that just because they're muslim that every single islamic country is a carbon copy of the other? are you unaware of how biased or retarded your standards set for them are right now,you seem to view them as a ant hivemind which follow their moral code to the letter and that there is no differences between them.

>So far you have thrown claims which go against the established opinion
No they don't, I derive most of my opinions from scholarly sources.

It seems that you derive most of your opinions from Barack Obama speeches.

>yet provided no evidence to support them
What in particular do you want me to provide evidence for?

>Do you honestly believe that just because they're muslim that every single islamic country is a carbon copy of the other?
No, I never claimed that. Of course they share similarities because of their religion.

>are you unaware of how biased or retarded your standards set for them are right now,you seem to view them as a ant hivemind which follow their moral code to the letter and that there is no differences between them.
You've literally understood none of my posts, which doesn't surprise me because you don't seem very intelligent.

Be gone!

>>LOL WARRIORS ARE SO COOL XD
It has nothing to do with what I think is cool. It is a fact that civilizations with the ability to project force will conquer the civilizations that do not have the ability to resist.

Anyway, I admire statesmen more than warriors.

>Which is quite a difference with unadultered christianity

Not really. Christianity itself is a bastardized Judaism and is filled with barbaric ethical codes.

>No they don't, I derive most of my opinions from scholarly sources.

Well then where are your ''scholarly'' sources because the books i read came nowhere close to the image you have of them,

>They persecute free-thinkers
>The key word being supposedly. Jews were harshly pogrom'd in Al Andalus, this whole "Al Andalus was great" is a meme propagated by post-colonial marxists in the second half of the 20th century. In truth Andalusian society was very harsh against christians and jews.
>Simply saying "I am a christian" in the presence of a Muslim would earn you the death penalty.

All of these are claims that go against the stablished opinion therefor you're gonna need a source to support this otherwise into the trash it goes,and since you're a christian im surprised you are so shocked and upsetted by this considering christians outright killed religious miniorities like the sack of jerusalem as one of many examples i can provide.

>It seems that you derive most of your opinions from Barack Obama speeches
>Nitpicking history to make your political views seem vaild
>>/pol/

>where are your "scholarly" sources

www.Veeky Forums.org/pol/

Could you please make the basic effort of using correct punctuation? I'll answer you when your post is correctly formatted.

>It is a fact that civilizations with the ability to project force will conquer the civilizations that do not have the ability to resist.
Yes undoubtedly. Doesn't mean that it is a good thing.

>Not really. Christianity itself is a bastardized Judaism and is filled with barbaric ethical codes.
>barbarical ethical codes
Such as?

>Nitpicking history to make your political views seem vaild
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

The Obama thing was a joke. I was just referring to the fact that his knowledge of Islam seems to be absolute zero.

Anyways, KYS.

>muh slave morality

You are what's wrong with the world. The real reason muslims feel unsafe is not ISIS or Al-Qaeda but people like you demonizing them as if their religion is some Satanic death cult they follow blindly.

Get a load of this guy... I bet you admire muslim women for being pure but contemporarily think they're suppressed as well.

>The real reason muslims feel unsafe is not ISIS or Al-Qaeda but people like you demonizing them as if their religion is some Satanic death cult they follow blindly.
Great, let's send all the syrian refugees back to Islamic state controlled territory.

>Such as

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

And also maybe all the stoning, the floods, the killing of philistines, the destruction of cities and all that.

It's all barbaric superstition.

>This black and white thinking

Remember who started it all? The west

>Remember who started it all?
Mohammed?

You're unable to distinguish between divine law which orders you to kill infidels, and witch trials?

>I've been reading on Islam recently, and I've got to say Islam seems to be the most barbarous ideology ever conceived and led to the death of the various civilizations it conquered.
You're probably reading horribly bias sources. Islam isn't all roses and sunshine but realistically it's just standard stuff.

you can't talk about black and white thinking then say the west started it.

You can't look at geopolitics with an ideological lense.

Pre-Islamic Arabia was totally insane. Muhammad was a liberal cuckold reformer. If he was alive today he'd be a gay rights feminist activist.

>You're probably reading horribly bias sources.
I've mostly been reading philosophers and theologians.

>You're unable to distinguish between divine law which orders you to kill infidels, and witch trials?
There is none. Your argument is based off a false premise.

Islam is inherently chaotic because it's so decentralized and at the same time advocates violence and invasion. That being said, paired with prosperity has led to some nice things in the past. Really, before the Mongol Invasion you would have probably chosen to live in a Muslim society rather than in Christian Europe. Afterwards, not so much

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah

>There is none.
None what?

>You're unable to distinguish between divine law which orders you to kill infidels, and witch trials?

Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Christianity = new testament.

Such as?
Orders to kill infidels simply for not being Muslim.

>Such as?
Tocqueville for instance.

Nice quote from him :
>I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

>Orders to kill infidels simply for not being Muslim.
Of course there are. Now it seems you're indulging in a bit of Taqqiya

Do you really think people from the early 19th century are the best source on Islam? Why don't you actually read the quran yourself, there is nothing to suggest his claim, it's basically a load of stuff about worshipping God and then some inheritance laws
>Taqqiya
If you actually believe Taqqiya is a thing then you're either extremely biased or incredibily stupid. Taqqiya as a concept of lying is something limited to Shia Muslims under specific circumstances. Every Muslim (and i am not Muslim) who says something you disagree with it not practicisng taqqiya.

>Do you really think people from the early 19th century are the best source on Islam?
Why shouldn't they?

>Why don't you actually read the quran yourself,
I have

>there is nothing to suggest his claim, it's basically a load of stuff about worshipping God and then some inheritance laws
Plus that part where he authorizes you to have sex with your sex slaves, and others...

>If you actually believe Taqqiya is a thing then you're either extremely biased or incredibily stupid.
Nice Taqiya

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

Taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah, literally "fear, caution")[1] is a form of Islamic dissimulation or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny their faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution

>Why shouldn't they?
Because it's likely to incredibly bias with no objectivity.

>Nice Taqiya
Riiight, so if i deny that taqiyya is the concept of lying to prove anything its taqiyya, if i deny that its taqiyya, if i say anything you disagree with its taqiyya.

Well i propose this. You are lying, for no other reason that because you are lying. Nice lies.

>Claims Christianity isn't like Islam
>Practices taqqiyyah

lol

I know what Taqiya is, thank you very much.

However Taqiya is much more lax in Shia Islam. You're allowed to do it whenever you want (even with fellow muslims)

>spergs out
Relax, it was a joke.

Your denial of the existence of Taqiya is a joke too.

I find it difficult that people in this thread or in the world at large still regularly compare Islam to other religions. It's a comparison that is far-fetched to say the least, Islam provides a complete set of political and social rules ALONG with (meagre) theology.
In fact, it's much more political in that it very clearly states who should have power over whom and what is allowed. There's also a huge in-group bias in Islam. Either way, it also serves as a conservative anchor for any cultural traditions that in some way or another reinforce the same power structures that Sharia suggests are the correct ones, the most prominent one being Man > Woman.
Hence why you see things such as Honour Killings connected to Islam when they really don't have much to do with Islam itself, but are enabled by the Sociopolitical rules it establishes.

Nice Taqiyya

You guys are posting in either a troll thread or OP is a 12 year old retard.
Just wanted to let you know but I'm sure it was already obvious here.

>Change is nothing to cry about. The alternative is stagnation.

Fucking tzeentch acolytes spreading their vile anti-nurgle propaganda.
Why are you hating on the grandfather?

Abrahamic religions by nature are genocidal and destructive. Jews did the least damage only because they were btfoed early.
>What?? What part of Christ's teachings rewards killing non-christians with virgins in the afterlife?
Don't know specific verses except for obscure shit such as the curse of Ham in justifying slavery but without looking for scriptural examples you can easily see how Christian morals played out in history.
conversion of pagans
the pagan crusades
destruction of indigenous American culture
sacking of of gold from the Americas in order to gild their tacky shrines.
wars of religion
persecution and banishment of "heretics"
Jesuit attempts at reasserting Catholic influence in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians lands
all the 'evangelization' of tribal peoples during the Age of Imperialism

Notice how I didn't mention the general crusades against Islam or the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition since the motives of those are controversial.
Sure you can say others have done it too but don't pretend Christians haven't been as morally unscrupulous as any other power that came to prominence.

If they are not following the Quran blindly then they are acting in a none-muslim way. Stop supporting hypocrites that lend legitimacy to the stance of loonies. It's much better to be clear about it so that rational people are encouraged to disown it.

>Abrahamic religions by nature are genocidal and destructive. Jews did the least damage only because they were btfoed early.

And even they managed to virtually depopulate the cyrenaican part of the roman province of Creta et Cyrenaica in one of their uprisings.

what? what does this have anything to do with what i said.

The Karakhanid Turkic Muslim writer Mahmud al-Kashgari recorded a short Turkic language poem about the conquest
We came down on them like a flood,
We went out among their cities,
We tore down the idol-temples,
We shat on the Buddha's head!

Idols of "infidels" were subjected to desecration by being defecated upon by Muslims when the "infidel" country was conquered by the Muslims, according to Muslim tradition

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million