Post examples of Historical Irony:

>Japan bombs Pearl Harbor due to fear that America will enter the war
>in doing so, guarantees America's entry into the war and the defeat of the Axis Powers

Wrong.

They bombes Pearl Harbor because they needed oil from the Dutch East Indies. In order to make this a reality, Japan attempted to strike a lethal blow to America's navy and become the dominant fleet in the entirety of the Pacific, as well as take the Phillapines and cripple American overseas capabilities.

*bombed

It was still a dumb move, since America wanted to avoid a war, and likely would have let Japan get their way if it allowed them to avoid conflict. And it also pretty much doomed Germany too.

The thing about Japanese is that they hoped for Russo-Japanese war v2. Had they had their 1941-1942 Tsushima and the USA would agree for a limited peace with revoking embargoes being their key point(they would also ask for American Pacific bases and likely Philipines but those would be just for negotiation's sake, you know - always ask for more than you want).

The problem was that Tsushima never really came(not like Americans would want to sign peace anyway - the longer the war lasted - the better for them) and around 1943 Japanese successes stopped.

>mongols worship Tengri
>they get to conquer Asia unchallenged without suffering any "karmatic justice"
>mongols convert to islam
>they end up dead at the hands of their brothers that didn't convert like Berke or by a plague that takes out the entire lineage of Hulagu Khan that converted while fragmenting the empire

>Christians believe they Will Be able to create the perfect society with Jesus coming to Earth
>gets cucked by niggers instead

>Christianity starts as a bunch of religious outcasts and outsiders having a peaceful revolt against Rome and its jewish allies
>it eventually gains power in Rome and agressively tries to expand its influence to Europe, the Middle East and eventually the whole planet, persecuting everyone who is opposed to it

>"The protocols of the elders of Zion" was created by the Russian government to promote antisemitism and deflect blame after they lost the Russo-Japanese War
>Despite being proven as a fake by the 20s, Hitler and most of the Nazis fall for these Russian memes

Says a lot about Tengrism that every steppenigger that set a single foot outside of their homeland is immediately ready to abandon it.

yet Genghis, Subutai and the rest that remained faithful lived out long happy lives with no regrets unlike the Abbasids

>since America wanted to avoid a war
The American people wanted to avoid war, the American government WANTED war.

the bigger irony is that the nazis became the world dominating evil cunts that they imagined the jews to be. they used it as a guidebook.

and the further irony is that the jews became a kabal of zionists as a result of the nazis.

"The Fuehrer" by Konrad Heiden goes into detail about the history of the protocols, really interesting.

Half the people in this thread don't seem to get what irony actually is.

life is brutal, nasty, and miserable - and yet billions of people create and are creating more lives

>Rome and its jewish allies

The romans killed a lot more jews than they killed christians. They tore down the jewish temples and banished all of them from the holy land. You can hardly call that allies.

>"islam is a religion of peace"
>muslims conquer their own holy city, slaughter the pilgrims, destroy the cube and take the black stone for ransom only to shatter it after their demands are met
CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP

A man as remarkable as Alan Turing may have died simply because he didn't wash his hands properly.

A public prosecutor in Chicago successfully avoided countless assassination attempts by the Mob only to slip on a banana peel years later and die from the fall.

It's almost as if Muslims are a collection of individuals with their own opinions and beliefs and not some kind hivemind horde.

just like every other believer in religion forms his own opinion about his deity of worship and yet somehow doesn't destroy his own fucking holy relics

>just like every other believer in religion forms his own opinion about his deity of worship and yet somehow doesn't destroy his own fucking holy relics

FUCKING LOL
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm

>holy relics
>images/icons of rival saints between different churches
way to fucking go there hamid, it's like you think I don't know about the protestant/catocuck debacle

I am sure the image of saint whogivesafuck has such a big impact on christianity as the fucking kabah

i don't see how that's ironic

>I am sure the image of saint whogivesafuck has such a big impact on christianity as the fucking kabah

Yes, it is. But if you remember that this literally happening hundreds of times over, all over the Byzantine Empire and Europe, and that during the Reformation even the ACTUAL RELICS of Saints were also destroyed.

Not only that, but the Pope has been taken prisoner by Catholics on many occasions, and Rome itself has even been sacked by an army of the HRE.

>Yes, it is. But if you remember that this literally happening hundreds of times over, all over the Byzantine Empire and Europe
oh no my poor images of people that got saintified for washing the feet of a beggar got destroyed, this is even worse than the time the holiest fucking site within islam got demolished by muslims that also slaughtered their fellow muslim pilgrims and filled their corpses in the holy well forever polluting it

how will the poor christcucks go on without those images?
>ACTUAL RELICS of Saints were also destroyed.
name me one
>Not only that, but the Pope has been taken prisoner by Catholics on many occasions
oh no, my poor powerstuggle within the church of old molesting men that are barely even considered holy relics
>and Rome itself has even been sacked by an army of the HRE.
yes, because those were for religious reasons and not cause romans and germanics duking it out for political power, again stick with the 30 year war

>oh no my poor images of people that got saintified for washing the feet of a beggar got destroyed, this is even worse than the time the holiest fucking site within islam got demolished by muslims that also slaughtered their fellow muslim pilgrims and filled their corpses in the holy well forever polluting it

Destroying something holy is blasphemy. Questions of some vague sense of value in regards of holiness are irrelevant at best, and a fallacy at worst. It's just as bad.

>Name me one

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Ewalds

"The heads of the martyrs were bestowed on Frederick, Bishop of Münster, by Archbishop Anno of Cologne, at the opening of the shrine in 1074. These relics were probably destroyed by the Anabaptists in 1534."

>oh no, my poor powerstuggle within the church of old molesting men that are barely even considered holy relics

Literally has nothing to do with anything. Please try harder.

>yes, because those were for religious reasons and not cause romans and germanics duking it out for political power, again stick with the 30 year war

Motivation for the crime is irrelevant, it's still the exact same crime. Even then, you yourself said the group who captured the black stone held it for ransom. That doesn't sound like a very religious reason.

>Implying the Qarmatians revolt wasn't also a power struggle within the Islamic "Church"

>Questions of some vague sense of value in regards of holiness are irrelevant at best, and a fallacy at worst. It's just as bad.
so I guess the "holy pilgrimage" to do the square dance around the cube it is utter shit and they should all instead just worship the fossilized shit of muhammeds camel?
>Even then, you yourself said the group who captured the black stone held it for ransom. That doesn't sound like a very religious reason.
They real reason was to use it in a doomsday ritual to summon the true "Mahdi"
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Ewalds
well color me fucking suprised you actually managed to find a relic, only taking your 3 tries
not as significant as the black stone but still as you said:
>"Questions of some vague sense of value in regards of holiness are irrelevant at best, and a fallacy at worst."

and with that proving that once and for all that every religion is equally retarded, or atleast the abrahamic ones
thanks for the good work, habibi

>Hitler loves animals, especially dogs
>poisons his dog

Praise Tengri to be entirely honest, гэp.

>so I guess the "holy pilgrimage" to do the square dance around the cube it is utter shit and they should all instead just worship the fossilized shit of muhammeds camel?

Iconoclasm is iconoclasm is iconoclasm.
Blasphemy is blasphemy is blasphemy.
No amount of special pleading and false dichotomies will change that fact, user.

>Axis powers hate on the Jews, calling them inferior.

>Lose the war due to a Jewish invention

>They real reason was to use it in a doomsday ritual to summon the true "Mahdi"

Lol, it's fairly self evident that the Qarmatian revolt was an attempt at a political rebellion against the established powers in the region with a thin veneer of religious justification, and that the desecration of Holy Sites were calculated outrages intended to force the Qarmatians' enemies to come to terms.

In which case, the Qarmatians' revolt is remarkably similar to Henry IV's sack of Rome and capture of the Pope.

>I like democracy when it suits me

>well color me fucking suprised you actually managed to find a relic, only taking your 3 tries
>not as significant as the black stone but still as you said:
>"Questions of some vague sense of value in regards of holiness are irrelevant at best, and a fallacy at worst."

>and with that proving that once and for all that every religion is equally retarded, or atleast the abrahamic ones
>thanks for the good work, habibi

I have literally no idea what you're trying to prove here.

>"political rebellion against the established powers"
>as soon as the chosen Mahdi turns out to not be the one of prophecy they kill him and withdraw from all conquered areas and disappear from history leaving no trace behind eventhough they were still the dominant power on the Arabian penninsula
whatever you say baby

You understand that whole point of having a religious justification is to exploit laypeople who genuinely believe the justification into fighting for you, right?

In which case, that completely fails to prove the revolt wasn't intended as a political rebellion by its leaders.

And yet it was the leaders who had the vision about the coming Mahdi and built the entire sect around it?
Or are you implying that Muhammad's little caravan of cameljockeys also instigated a "political rebellion" to up the prices of halal camel meat in the entire Middle east?

Hell, maybe Jesus wasnt a carpenter but a blacksmith wanting to help his fathers iron cross business.

>implying they all followed Tengri in the first place
>implying a bunch of Mongols didn't already worship Islam
>and Christianity
>and a bunch of other religions that found their way onto the steppes

If fact, when one takes this understanding of the Qarmatians' revolt one can see a remarkable similarity with those same Anabaptists who destroyed countless relics and holy icons in Munster under Jan van Leiden.

Rabble-rousing demagogues appointing themselves leaders of a religious sect for personal benefit and political power.

>And yet it was the leaders who had the vision about the coming Mahdi and built the entire sect around it?

So what? That doesn't prove they actually believed it themselves.

>Or are you implying that Muhammad's little caravan of cameljockeys also instigated a "political rebellion" to up the prices of halal camel meat in the entire Middle east?
>Hell, maybe Jesus wasnt a carpenter but a blacksmith wanting to help his fathers iron cross business.
>Trying this hard.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Mongolia
>The earliest evidence of Islam in Mongolia is dated to 1254, when the Franciscan William of Rubruck visited the court of the great khan Mongka at Karakorum. He celebrated Easter at a Nestorian Christian church but also noted seven temples of the "idolators" (possibly Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist temples) and two mosques.
>1254
>when they invaded Transoxiana/ME around 1220

>literally no one in history has ever wanted an army of tens of thousands of religious fanatics literally willing to die for your personal whims so you can cater to your every personal whim

>"trying this hard"
>when you can't even disprove why they just vanished after their prophet turned out to be false and yet they had the strenght to hold all the lands while your hiding behind vague bullshit like "political rebellion" which no less vaguer then my examples
oh come on Abu-Hamza, I know that arabic honor you guys got going needs to prove you right in everything but let go

I haven't even mentioned how the leaders of the qarmatians gave up all their power to said mahdi and even allowed him to kill members of the sect, order the destruction of their holy places and desecration of tombs cause thats how much they believed in him being gods chosen

clearly it was all for political gain

How is it not? Hitler studied Napoleon's Russian campaign to make sure he didn't repeat his mistakes, and ended up falling for the same old tricks.

>when you can't even disprove why they just vanished after their prophet turned out to be false and yet they had the strenght to hold all the lands while your hiding behind vague bullshit like "political rebellion" which no less vaguer then my examples

Well I thought it was self evident, but clearly I need to hold your hand through this. The movement disappeared because their support dried up. It's natural flip-side to concocting a religious justification for a revolt that the rank and file can be convinced by forced outside of your control.

That is clearly what happened, the rank and file felt the appointed "prophet" was false and once that happened there was simply no way for the leaders to compel the rank and file to fight for them. As such, with no support, they decided to cut their losses and disappear with whatever wealth they could before someone tried to take revenge on them. Rather smart of them, honestly.

>cause thats how much they believed in him being gods chosen

Do have any actual proof that's what they thought? Because that sounds like it could just as easily be group using a puppet (in the form of the prophet) as a way of justifying their own actions, such as attempting to extort the existing regional powers out of a ton of gold to stop desecrating Mecca and to allow pilgrims to safely travel there. Seems pretty simple senpai.

>such as attempting to extort the existing regional powers out of a ton of gold to stop desecrating Mecca and to allow pilgrims to safely travel there. Seems pretty simple senpai

It was, in effect, a protection racket. An attempt by a small elite to use a religious sect to gain political power. Hence, a political revolt.

>It was, in effect, a protection racket. An attempt by a small elite to use a religious sect to gain political power. Hence, a political revolt

And therefore, very much like Jan van Leiden and the Anabaptists. It's a case study, user.

>That is clearly what happened, the rank and file felt the appointed "prophet" was false and once that happened there was simply no way for the leaders to compel the rank and file to fight for them.
Woah, so you are telling me when the prophet of the religious sect turned out to be false the followers of said sect dispersed?
Like, what I have been trying to say for the last hour?
Really? Is this internet argument this important to you that you can't even come up with your own shit and that you try hide my words in some soggy pasta of "I BELIEVE THIS HAPPENED"?

Holy shit, are you actually retarded?
>Do have any actual proof that's what they thought?
Do you have any actual proof Muhammad and his original followers didn't think that? Or the Rashiduns? Or the Umaayads?

See, I can also throw this shitty curve ball of "no argument".

>Woah, so you are telling me when the prophet of the religious sect turned out to be false the followers of said sect dispersed?

Except you're trying to use that as proof that the leaders of the revolt genuinely believed their own religious justifications, which I've just demonstrated is not the case. So, no, not what you've been saying at all.

>Do you have any actual proof Muhammad and his original followers didn't think that? Or the Rashiduns? Or the Umaayads?

Stop dodging the question, do you have any proof that the leaders of the revolt genuinely believed the prophet was God's Chosen and actually gave up power to him, in short, that they believed their own religious justification?

>Except you're trying to use that as proof that the leaders of the revolt genuinely believed their own religious justifications, which I've just demonstrated is not the case.
By saying "this is what I believe happened eventhough I have no sources backing it up but my own mind".
I can also do that by saying that I believed muhammad drank camel piss cause he liked the taste and I won that argument.
>Stop dodging the question, do you have any proof that the leaders of the revolt genuinely believed the prophet was God's Chosen and actually gave up power to him, in short, that they believed their own religious justification?
Stop dodging my shitty curveball and provide proof of the mindset of a early century pissdrinker.

Well, I think this fairly clearly demonstrates to anyone still following this... discussion... that you don't have any proof or any worthwhile points to make.

Please leave. You people ruin this board.

Ok nvm, I've baited you long enough

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Tahir_al-Jannabi#Conquests
> In 931, Abū Tāhir turned over the state to this Mahdi-Caliph, who instituted the worship of fire and the burning of religious books during an eighty-day rule. His reign culminated in the execution of members of Bahrain’s notable families, including members of Abū Tāhir’s family.
Clearly the creator of the sect hated his own family aswell as the Noblemen supporting him and wanted all the power to himself by taking out the most influental people in his organization and his pesky mom who always overcooked the kebab.

Now, post proof that muhammad didn't drink piss cause he liked it.

>Clearly the creator of the sect hated his own family aswell as the Noblemen supporting him and wanted all the power to himself by taking out the most influental people in his organization and his pesky mom who always overcooked the kebab

Well I feel that fairly clearly proves my point.

So really that just leaves the question: what are you trying to achieve here?

obviously to prove that overcooking kebab can lead to "political rebellions"

still waiting for your proof on his eminence muhammad (piss be upon him) and his camel urine fetish, habibi

It's threads like this that make me wish we had jannies as autisticly strict as the one on /brit/.

I liked it.

For what reason?

We were just having a friendly historical debate until he bailed when he couldn't come up with proof after I did.

But, I think this fairly clearly demonstrates to anyone still following this... discussion... that he doesn't have any proof or any worthwhile points to make.

I would incline him to leave. Since those people ruin this board.

Agreed.

Don't lie

>ITT: Someone invents Evanposting

>hey doze guis is bein peace
>lets give em sum peace
>pieces of freedumb
>drop some piece from sky
>freedumbs of pieces is dun

exerts from a real american military manuscript
>export industry

americas like some sick warped anglenized bastard reject combination of nazism & rome (the retard bit)

Kek

kek

It may be somewhat cynical but there's absolutely no reason (and certainly none you've provided are) for the idea that the leaders of the revolt, or the "prophet" himself, were simply opportunists, and the examples he provided were perfectly valid case studies of such a thing happening.

And it seems you just want the opposite to be true so you bash Muslims for being violent, superstitious etc etc, despite having numerous examples of other religious groups doing exactly the same thing.

Please explain how is "examples" were valid at all, since iterally any scenario can be used with them to try and give your own opinion on the matter.

We could say that Constantine I was a opportunist, or Muhammad, or Martin Luther, or even the Celtic druids for that matter
Scrolling up shows that the entire debate is a pointless guess game from his side while proof was provided that the sect leader was actually willing to kill his own family if the guy the put in charge told them to, which he did

So please enlighten us on "your thoughts" on the matter, becuase that's so far all we got, thoughts.
Since the person obviously feels the need to defend Islam no matter what to the bitter end.

>The fact that Napoleon made it farther into Russia than Hitler, 130 years earlier.
Not exactly true tho. Napoleon did capture Moscow, but beyond that he hadn't really occupied the landmass Hitler had.

this fucking alexander the europe meme

>Please explain how is "examples" were valid at all

He argued it was possible the revolt was the result of a religious sect being exploited by a small group or even a single individual trying to gain political power, and then gave the example of Jan van Leiden, the archetypal example of an individual exploiting a religious sect to gain political power. In academic historical discussion it's known as a "case study". Because people are basically very similar in thought and behaviour throughout history it can be extremely useful to view a historical event through comparison with another, similar event.

>We could say that Constantine I was a opportunist, or Muhammad, or Martin Luther, or even the Celtic druids for that matter

Yes, you could, and many people would agree with you that any organised religion inevitable succumbs to material corruption and exploitation.

>proof was provided that the sect leader was actually willing to kill his own family if the guy the put in charge told them to, which he did

Which is a single individual amongst an entire group of leaders. And even then that isn't proof that the guy killed his family purely because his "prophet" told him so. People, especially people with political power, can find any number of reasons to kill their own family.

>So please enlighten us on "your thoughts" on the matter, becuase that's so far all we got, thoughts.
>Since the person obviously feels the need to defend Islam no matter what to the bitter end

I think he feels, as I do, that your attacks on Islam are unreasonable. Not only are you basing your generalisation off a small group but the actions and behaviour of that group are by no means as unique to Muslims as you are desperately trying (and comprehensively failing) to prove.

>proof was provided that the sect leader was actually willing to kill his own family if the guy the put in charge told them to

>Guy gets paranoied his brothers are trying to take his influence, wealth, power
>Kills them and the rest of his family to avoid revenge
>"It's okay lads! It's not murder, the prophet told me to do it, didn't you, eh?"

Simple.

You're either very naïve, or are just taking everything at face value because that makes the Qarmatians, and (for you at least) by extension all Muslims, look worse then they may well have been.

>He argued it was possible the revolt was the result of a religious sect being exploited by a small group or even a single individual trying to gain political power, and then gave the example of Jan van Leiden, the archetypal example of an individual exploiting a religious sect to gain political power. In academic historical discussion it's known as a "case study". Because people are basically very similar in thought and behaviour throughout history it can be extremely useful to view a historical event through comparison with another, similar event.
How is conquering the center of an entire religion while making the followers abide to new rules given by a Prophet that they freed from a jailcell in Baghdad and willingly gave over all power to anything like small cult that burned a bunch of trinkets?

>Which is a single individual amongst an entire group of leaders.
But he was the soul ruler of the state and was free to appoint anyone he wanted, plus alot of noteworthy members of Qarmatians were still executed.
>I think he feels, as I do, that your attacks on Islam are unreasonable. Not only are you basing your generalisation off a small group but the actions and behaviour of that group are by no means as unique to Muslims as you are desperately trying (and comprehensively failing) to prove.
Again, you are just spouting opinions like "him" and can't even come up with a source to any of your claims yet there is an book, ismaili databases, whatever you want that tells the same story of the Prophet that failed everyones expectations and left the zealouts in ruin.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

>Jesus never was crucified
>it was Judas who took his place, having the same beard and haircut and then Jesus went hiding in a cave for 3 days
>"hey look guys, I ressurected"
simple

The Japs were just unlucky, there was an aircraft carrier which was out on training during their raid. If they bombed that once they would have a much higher chance of success during the war (although they would still inevitability lose due to inferior manufacturing output ability).

>he is still at it with this shit-tier attempt at historical revisionism with "muh opinions and muh beliefes"
HOLY FUCK, I CAN'T BREATH

YOU FUCKING MUSLIMS AND YOUR HONOR CODE TO DEFEND YOUR HALAL STAND NO MATTER WHAT SHIT YOU CAN PULL OUT OF THE DESERT

FOR THE SAKE OF COMEDY, NEVER STOP

>How is conquering the center of an entire religion while making the followers abide to new rules given by a Prophet that they freed from a jailcell in Baghdad and willingly gave over all power to anything like small cult that burned a bunch of trinkets?

They're both heretical sects of a larger religion, they both destroyed objects held as being holy by their respective larger religions, they both were militaristic, they both sparked a popular uprising amongst the layity and they both had power and religious authority concentrated on a small elite. They are, in short, very very similar, the only real difference between them aside from geographical and temporal is simply the size of the uprisings they sparked.

>But he was the soul ruler of the state and was free to appoint anyone he wanted, plus alot of noteworthy members of Qarmatians were still executed.

No, I'm talking about the guy who killed his family. You're trying to use him to prove that ALL the leaders genuinely believed the message of the sect, and I'm pointing out that isn't proof, just a suggestion.

But even in regards to the prophet just because he had a lot of power on paper doesn't mean he had any actual power. The purging of the former leadership and the very fact that the prophet was rescued from a prison cell, and had no power of his own to my mind suggests that he was just a puppet ruler. The purging of the leadership may well have been a cull of the more zealous leaders of the revolt, leaving the way free for a less scrupulous faction to exploit the sect.

>Why is this so hard for you to accept?

It's very naïve. It seems far simpler for humans to be motivated by greed and self interest than genuine religious fanaticism.

Strawman.

>Germany declares itself superhuman masters of mechanized warfare
>is defeated by subhumans who know how to do it better

>They are, in short, very very similar
I don't actually know if you are being serious or not.
Those "similiarities" are the characteristics of sects, cult movements, covens since 2000 BC.
The main difference is that THE QARMATIANS CONQUERED THE CENTER OF THE RELIGION ISLAM while the others burnt a bunch of idols and caused locas mischief.

Again, are actually being serious with this or are you grasping at whatever straws you can find at this point?

>You're trying to use him to prove that ALL the leaders genuinely believed the message of the sect, and I'm pointing out that isn't proof, just a suggestion.
What the actual fuck..alright now I am actually starting to lose my patience cause I don't believe a second you are this dense.

Do you actually know the point of a sect? Do you actually think the "other leaders" that joined were just in for financial gain when they already had that after conquering Bahrain and taking control of the entire arab slave trade?
Is this where were at? Lets guess their true intentions.
While were at it lets guess why the apostles joined Jesus or what true intentions Muhammads companions had on his journey, seriously what are you getting at?
>But even in regards to the prophet just because he had a lot of power on paper doesn't mean he had any actual power. The purging of the former leadership and the very fact that the prophet was rescued from a prison cell, and had no power of his own to my mind suggests that he was just a puppet ruler.
Again, opinions and thoughts that I can easily just dismiss like you dismiss facts. But hey, lets say he was just a puppet manipulated to do the leaders bidding.
Why would the leader order to weaken his own organization to the point that everything fell apart?

Just as before its all "opinions" and "suggestions" while you call me naive for believing the facts.
The irony is that you might aswell be a religious zealot on how hellbent you are to prove that your opinions are right.

>"Strawman".
>when thats literally every single one of your posts
dis fuckin guy

>Those "similiarities" are the characteristics of sects, cult movements, covens since 2000 BC.

Yeah. Cause they're both sects. Hence, they're similar.

>The main difference is that THE QARMATIANS CONQUERED THE CENTER OF THE RELIGION ISLAM while the others burnt a bunch of idols and caused locals mischief

If the Anabaptists could have marched on Rome, they would have. Again, the size of revolt is really the only difference.

>Do you actually think the "other leaders" that joined were just in for financial gain when they already had that after conquering Bahrain and taking control of the entire arab slave trade?

It's entirely possible, having whipped up a fanatical army to conquer Bahrain that they had to march on Mecca to keep it satisfied. In such movements the rank and file regularly get out of the hands of the people using them.

>seriously what are you getting at?

People are motivated by greed and self interest. Even if they seem fairly fanatical at first glance, most of them are only as fanatical as far as it's in their interest to be.

Not many folk, at the end of the day, are actually willing to die for their beliefs when the rope is actually around their neck.

> But hey, lets say he was just a puppet manipulated to do the leaders bidding. Why would the leader order to weaken his own organization to the point that everything fell apart?

Because he's incompetent? Because different factions within the group are fighting over him? Because he understands that being the figurehead is actually fairly dangerous, and so needs to have the fanatics slaughter themselves to save his own hide, consider the Khalsa being deliberately led to defeat and slaughter in the First Sikh War, because they were threatening the power of the royal family.

ALL STOP
>atheist commies

Mikhail Kalashnikov (1919-2013), designer of the AK-47 was Russian Orthodox

Occam's razor is all when and good, but reality really is stranger most of the time.

he converted in the 00s

>you call me naive for believing the facts

But you DON'T just believe the facts, you believe a very straightforward account which accommodates the facts.

Take your example. You say the facts are these: the prophet told the guy to kill his family and the guy killed his family because he genuinely believed the prophet.

Now, the first two are facts. But your problem is that last part; "because he genuinely believed the prophet". That is not fact, that is your interpretation. We cannot know his motivation, we can only guess. And at the end of the day, it really is a matter of opinion, between your straightforward interpretation and my cynical one.

I'm just trying to help you understand an interpretation I feel to be more nuanced and, ultimately, more likely.

>Yeah. Cause they're both sects. Hence, they're similar.
And sects aren't religious?
>Again, the size of revolt is really the only difference.
No it isn't, its the fucking impact it had on the Islamic world and how they dictated the terms of beliefs and rules. It also led to the Fatmids, Buuyids and Samarids gaining enough momentum to sieze power and establish their own emirates/khalifats while the Abbasids would never recover.
The Fatimids being the spiritual successors to the Qarmatians through the Qarmatian leaders long time friend. But I guess Saladin and the Saracens were also just a power hungry sect not giving a shit about Islam.
>It's entirely possible, having whipped up a fanatical army to conquer Bahrain that they had to march on Mecca to keep it satisfied.
Clearly, why conquer the center of islam if not keep your fake religious beliefs and fake ideolgy in favour for financial gain cause that's the only thing keeping your army in check. Let's just march into the most defended place within the Abbasid empire because we are greedy and don't wanna risk our lifes in the name of religion but go there anyways to upheave our fake beliefs and fake customs.
>Not many folk, at the end of the day, are actually willing to die for their beliefs when the rope is actually around their neck.
Are you actually serious? Islam is fucking built on dying for your faith to go to paradise. This was the main driving point that made the conquest so successful and to this still is.
>Because he's incompetent? Because different factions within the group are fighting over him?
So the leader of an sect that controlled the entire Arabian penninsula that could pretty much march on Baghdad after humiliating them in Medina decided to place an incompetent figurehead to rule for 80 days while following his orders in destroying everything they built up and only had killed him after he realized he made a mistake instead of after day one when he did all the reforms that punished them?

>I'm just trying to help you understand an interpretation I feel to be more nuanced and, ultimately, more likely.
You mean your "opinions" that you have been spinning around a wheel this entire time that has nothing backing them just like my "interpretation"?

Go ahead, believe it was a fucking farce sect set out for financial gain and the prophet was a fake token. It's your opinions and knowing muslim "honor" I will clearly never be able to chance them no matter how much evidence I throw your way since you will always find a subjective "loophole".

This is obviously a brick-wall debate and I am done wasting time spinning the wheel of opinions.

>And sects aren't religious?

Religion will be an aspect to them. But they're also a hierarchy and an instrument of power, especially when they beget armies and quasi-states.

>No it isn't, its the fucking impact it had on the Islamic world and how they dictated the terms of beliefs and rules. It also led to the Fatmids, Buuyids and Samarids gaining enough momentum to sieze power and establish their own emirates/khalifats while the Abbasids would never recover.
>The Fatimids being the spiritual successors to the Qarmatians through the Qarmatian leaders long time friend

True, but all of that is only tangentially relevant to the discussion.

>But I guess Saladin and the Saracens were also just a power hungry sect not giving a shit about Islam.

Arguably, yes. Although those seeking power are regularly able to bend their own beliefs into justifying their power seeking behaviour.

>Clearly, why conquer the center of islam if not keep your fake religious beliefs and fake ideolgy in favour for financial gain cause that's the only thing keeping your army in check. Let's just march into the most defended place within the Abbasid empire because we are greedy and don't wanna risk our lifes in the name of religion but go there anyways to upheave our fake beliefs and fake customs

I never claimed the rank and file pushing for a march on Mecca were rational. Quite the reverse.

>Are you actually serious?

Yes.

>Islam is fucking built on dying for your faith to go to paradise.

Being a person trumps being a Muslim. Consider how many Muslims and Jews were willing to, at least publicly, convert to Christianity to avoid death or exile.

>So the leader of an sect that controlled the entire Arabian penninsula that could pretty much march on Baghdad after humiliating them in Medina decided to place an incompetent figurehead to rule for 80 days while following his orders in destroying everything they built up and only had killed him after he realized he made a mistake instead of after day one when he did all the reforms that punished them?

Possibly. You still seem to assume the prophet was actually in total control.

>You mean your "opinions"

*Interpretation

>Knowing muslim "honor"

Man, you're just hung up on those Muslims, aren't you?

>how much evidence

But you aren't throwing evidence at me, you're throwing your interpretation at me mixed with evidence, since clearly you are unable to tell the two apart. Do you have any academic training in history?

>This is obviously a brick-wall debate

Well of course it is, you're completely unwilling to admit the possibility that you're wrong.

>I am done wasting time spinning the wheel of opinions.

Welcome to post-processualism, kiddo.

>Post-processualism

I want to get off Ian Hodder's Wild Ride.