Sharia Law

The Middle East did in fact have a whole lot of Voltaire reading secularists several decades ago.

Where specifically? The Ba'ath parties of Iraq and Syria that only paid lip service to secularism? Or the various socialist parties of Egypt that heavily integrated Islam into their doctrine? Or those few elite in Tehran and Kabul that emulated western dress in the 70s?

Secularism never had popular grass roots support in the middle East. The current wave of extremism comes from Saudi funded Imams and Mosques but they're not exactly being rejected by most people who attend their sermons, nor do they have to fight very hard against popular secular predispositions among the populace.

Don't forget the Iranians as well. They're often forgotten, despite being the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are just two sides to the same coin of Islamofascism.

What you described were die-hard secularists who devloved into dictators which then started appealing to Islamism to stay relevant for a few more decades. Secularism was no more unpopular in the 40's and 50's in the Middle East than Islamism was popular back then. Religious reactionary ideology steadily grew in popularity among the popular masses over time. The current wave of extremism does originate from Gulf sponsorship, and it's not rejected because it's been subtly influencing education for some time now and primed by previous State Islamism by past dictatorships when they felt Nationalism begin to fail them.

Eh Iran is kind of a meme. Them funding Shiite minorities to take up arms is a bit different from the Saudis building billion dollar mosques in every country with more than three Sunni Muslims.

literally cancer

Thing is, these "urban elites" were actually a huge chunk of the population. The idea we have today of a small elite buckling under a huge rural mass wasn't the whole story for most of the Middle East. It was somewhat true for Afghanistan, but for the rest the cities were the major centers of population in a region where the countryside was severely depopulated or hadn't at all caught up to the huge population surge brought about from modern farming. Eventually though this boom caught up the rest of the country, and political Islamists spread their networks into the countryside at a time where other ideologues were unable to expand against the dictator or king in charge.

It's not their opinions and doctrines.

It is law, and it is brutally enforced.

>he doesn't know many middle east countries used to be secular and the rise in fundamentalism and islamic terrorism is relatively recent
>He thinks that's relevant

> the USA supporting dictatorial coups to protect the petrodollar
>muh petrodollar.
fedoras should be gassed.

I find it hard it to believe there were legit widespread secular movements in the ME when secularism was highly resisted even in fucking Turkey, the poster child of a secular Muslim country, and they then went on to eventually elect Erdogan who openly shits on Atatürk.

That's a recent thing was my point.

Illiterate peasants almost never matter. Secularism was very fashionable among certain segments of society. When you had cool kids like Nasser around it's not hard to see why secularism existed.

It was an uphill battle for the religious types for most of the last century and they only really started gaining ground in the late 70's and early 80's.

>would be
>he doesn't know many countries in the middle east (like afghanistan) were liberal as fuck and even ahead of the USA in gay and women's rights
ladies and gentlemen, american propaganda at work

Pakistan literally elected a female head of state decades before the US

too bad (((someone))) killed her after she spilled the beans on what really happened on 9/11

It's the answer to modern society's degeneracy and moral decadence

>People living in Manhattan and San Francisco are comfortable with gay marriage and abortion therefore Cletus and the entirety of the Midwest and the south are too
Do you see where you made your mistake?

>muh feelings

Ok, lad

/thread

>What you described were die-hard secularists who devloved into dictators which then started appealing to Islamism to stay relevant for a few more decades.
>devloved into dictators which then started appealing to Islamism to stay relevant for a few more decades.
>Islamism

What does recognizing a cultural divide between varying parts of a given country have to do with feelings?

Go away retard.

When you say recent do you mean the founding of Islam?

A compromise between textual Islam and indigenous tribal custom

>>Islamism
Yes?

No, because that would be incorrect.

>implying liberalism is a good thing and means advancement is a society
This is Veeky Forums not /pol/. You must at least acknowledge there is no such thing as a right side of history nor is there such a thing as a right side.

Afghanistan is still pretty good when it comes to gay. You can fuck a boy or your buddy and no one will give a shit.

>No, because that would be incorrect.
Ok, I guess i'll just take your word for it. Fuck the Quran its just a propaganda piece. Its not real Islam.

It's a meme, much like claiming that everyone in the 60's was a hippy
>It's a liberal revisionist episode

Or you could take the word of historians of the Middle East about the development and history of Shari'ah Law. Reading the Quran doesn't tell you anything about that.

>What you described were die-hard secularists who devloved into dictators which then started appealing to Islamism
so u be saying secularism never had a leg to stand on in the middle east and leaders HAD to become more Islamic to appeal to the populace...

...

N SHIET?

1,400 years does not seem "recent" to me.

Concluding that Pakistan is progressive and feminist as a whole because they elected Benazir Bhutto is like claiming America is a race blind society because they elected Obama.

No. Secularism weakened over time as Islamism strengthened. A dictator in the 50's could literally give a speech to tens of thousands where he laughs at a religious conservative talking about putting veils on women, but by the 80's his successors would be taking pictures in mosques and praying.

Because it's not, because your starting premise is wrong and based solely on memes.

shut the FUCK up you LIBSHIT C U C K

the academic study of "history" is just a cultural marxist indoctrination, got it cuck?

we know all we need to Islam based on how the SHITSKINS have been trying to kill us and wipe out for the past 1500 years

>there is no such thing as a right side of history nor is there such a thing as a right side

that is literally retarded though

it's like saying "there is no truth", itself being a truth statement.

>it's like saying "there is no truth", itself being a truth statement.
That statement is nothing like the other. There's nothing contradictory about saying there's no right side of history.

>That statement is nothing like the other.

Incorrect.

Both are untrue.

It's the traditions of various schools of thought from the 8th and 9th century which originally had little to do with Muhammad himself and represented the living law of contemporary Umayyad and Abbasid societies. Over time these schools of thought began to fight using wildly inconsistent oral traditions which they incorporated on their terms to weaponize their teachings against each other as a form of one-ups-man-ship.

So islam was never propagated by the sword, until after 1948.

Got it, CAIR bear.

>whiggist
>objective moralist

Ok cool i'll just take your word for it. I guess you are a historian then.

Provide links any day now.
>inb4 www.refugeeswelcom/muslimsarethemostpowerfulraceintheworld/ by mr. goldstein professor of Oberlin and columist for huffington post.

so you think the USA doesn't support dictators? are you 12, or just retarded?

That had absolutely nothing with what I just said. We're talking about the influence of secularism in 20th century Islamic societies.

Like I said, memes.

dumbest thing i've read all week. thanks, user

Try Joseph Schacht's "Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence" written in 1950

>If I meme as hard as I can maybe I'll get lucky and he won't actually know any "books" or """"scholarship""""

The fuck is it with these tumblr cunts?

>20 fucking 16
>believing in a thing as the right side of history

I love how leftists defending islam for whatever fucking reason love to point to the very very brief period (about 40 years out of the 1,000 of years of existence) in which it was ok. Just a reminder though, the quran does not in any way lead to modern liberal philisophy of being nice to your neighbor.

Its sad seeing you struggle so much though really.

>muh most of Islamic history isn't real Islam
>muh brief period is perect representation of Islam.
I'll never understand why leftists are so quick to defend a hardcore conservative ideology.

>the quran does not in any way lead to modern liberal philisophy of being nice to your neighbor.
>implying you've read the quran

>I love how leftists
Might as well get a trip now if all you're going to do is repeat yourself to no effect.

>I don't know much about the subject, but I'll push as hard as I can to feel relevant no matter how off-topic or wrong I am

It literally doesn't though my man, as much as you like to deny it.

What are you going to do if he's a neo pagan, or his son's a fag or daughter's promiscuous? What would Muhammad do?

Its not retarded at all. When you read through history do you think to yourself. "Man those Romans were totally wrong and un liberal. They were on the wrong side of history"
Do you ever think "those bigoted Spartans were on the wrong side"
No you don't because there is no side in history. You are the retard. You could learn a lot from Thucydides when describing history. You can't just say this group is good because they follow my beliefs or the beliefs of most modern people.
In 200 years those beliefs will be completely different. It could go in the exact opposite direction in fact. What i'm trying to say is stop interjecting morals into history.

>I love how leftists defending islam for whatever fucking reason love to point to the very very brief period (about 40 years out of the 1,000 of years of existence) in which it was ok. Just a reminder though, the quran does not in any way lead to modern liberal philisophy of being nice to your neighbor.

That has nothing to do with how early 20th century Middle Eastern nations had very popular secular movements which only dwindled later, not immediately. I'm not sure you actually understand the subject we're discussing anymore.

It's primarily wishful thinking that drives the Left about Islam. We'll abandon this delusion in the coming decades.

Those popular secular movements, by the way, hated Islam as much as pol does.

>implying my objective was to get you to not name sources
All I wanted was some evidence for the sake of truth. Jesus fucking christ. its always a fucking argument with you people isn't it?

By the way though, this is an opinion not a fact. There are many people on both sides.

They hated Islamists, and some of them hated Islam and religion in general. The quote there is not proven to be from Ataturk himself, but the sentiment is what mattered to Kemalists who spread the word.

Incidentally this is pretty similar to how the Hadiths worked and a good case study.

The point is that secular regimes survive in the Middle East in SPITE of Islam, not FOR Islam. Islam is inherently theocratic in ways no other Abrahamic (or Dharmic) religion is. That's why it creates such a clusterfuck wherever it goes.

>All I wanted was some evidence for the sake of truth. Jesus fucking christ. its always a fucking argument with you people isn't it?

I'd almost believe you if you weren't replying to a reply chain that started with hyperbole and shitposting about the "founding of Islam" and "Fuck the Quran its just a propaganda piece. It's not real Islam"

Did you or anyone ask: "Which historians?" or "Source?"

No.

If that's your point it's a poor one. The enemies of secularists were Islamists, not anyone with a religion. Despite their numbers, very few Middle Eastern secularists were atheist. Even Ataturk himself can at best be described as an agnostic or just someone who kept his religion to himself, and only later was propped up by more hardcore secularists (and smeared by their opponents) as an atheist. There were Islamic clerics among the ranks of early nationalists, it wasn't a straightforwad battle between those with religion and those without.

The educated left, not the meme SJW left who has no idea what the fuck they're doing, wants to be accepting and tolerant of Islam as to not alienate them and drive them towards extremism. It's been shown when exposed to modern secularism in large amounts, people tend to become less religious, and religion becomes less of a problem. Once you reach the point of Muslims drinking beer (non-Kosher Jews, Christians eating meat on Fridays, etc) their ideology really doesn't matter much, it just becomes vaguely a set of guiding principles rather than dogmatic core beliefs. They may be "Muslim" but they've placed their worldly lives above their religion. And secularization by consumerism does work, it worked in the Middle East until those regimes were toppled with the help of foreign influences.

>And secularization by consumerism does work, it worked in the Middle East until those regimes were toppled with the help of foreign influences.
It's working right now. What very few seem to understand that groups like the Saudi religious police are so restrictive and tyrannical precisely because they're slowly losing the fight for social control to things like malls, TV and Internet media, dating, and so on.

It's really a wonder why /pol/lacks don't support the ME and Sharia law in general. It's the exact society they dream of.

>Degernacy and homosex are punishable by death
>Women are second class citizens, are the property of men, and are expected to be socially conservative
>Total echo chamber of religious thought and dedication, death or conversion to Infidels, tax id to want to be merciful

It's everything they spout only from a different desert prophet.

>don't call these people violent or they'll start being violent

Fantastic.

Also the fact that secularists and fundamentalists in the West have been shitting on each other for centuries yet still the secularists won proves you wrong

Why can't I want a source for the sake of a source and personally believe that the Quran instigates violence. I never said it was propaganda I said don't give me a source that is propaganda.

Serious question, do you have autism? Autistic people have the tendency to see the world as me vs them, black vs white.

Nobody said anything about Atheism. We are talking about Sunni Islam, and specifically how its followers desire to enforce Theocratic government, which is absent in most other present-day faiths.

The opposite is happening though in Europe. The young are more radicalized and religious than their immigrant parents. This is because assimilation cannot happen under permissiveness, which is part of the decline itself.

German Americans stopped speaking German when it became a liability to do so. Likewise, Islam will only die down when it becomes a liability to be Islamic. This is how Social Utility works.

Islam is anti-rational which doesn't have any appeal to people with triple digit IQs.

>/pol/ is /r9k/ and the Westboro Baptist Church smashed together

Hello redd!tor.

>Degernacy and homosex are punishable by death

Then why do they allow an extremely flamboyant gay man to represent them?

>Total echo chamber of religious thought and dedication, death or conversion to Infidels, tax id to want to be merciful

Seems like based redd!tor has never been to /pol/ and only knows from what his internet friends tell him

>treat these people like theyre violent and theyll start being violent because theyre treated that way anyways and youre giving them a reason to be violent

Fantastic.

>Also the fact that secularists and fundamentalists in the West have been shitting on each other for centuries yet still the secularists won proves you wrong

How does it prove anything wrong? If anything it proves it right, when a society is exposed to secularism, fundamentalists tend to be on the losing side. This is what was happening before fundamentalists were artificially propped up, ironically by foreign secular entities.

>whiggist

I am not le progression of history towards freedom user.

I am le Hitler did nothing wrong user though.

>when a society is exposed to secularism, fundamentalists tend to be on the losing side

Citation needed.

What a childish way to phrase that.

They aren't inherently violent, Most Muslim refugees are in fact trying to escape from the violence in the ME. Telling them to fuck off because the west hates you only proves the point of extremists who then recruit them.

The opposite is happening in Europe because they're shit at assimilating. They stick different people in pockets and expect them to form their own community without ever being allowed to join the national identity.

That's why the States have always been better at assimilating immigrants.

> The young are more radicalized
The young are more radicalized no matter what ideology, including yours. This is naturally a given. Their parents have already grown out of that phase by the time they immigrated.

You could try by actually asking for a source like a decent human being, but you didn't. Don't project about autism when you can't understand why you get attacked after spending all your time attacking others.

You're talking about Sunni Islam, despite everyone telling you that what you're actually talking about is Islamism. Those very secularists that opposed them were themselves mostly Sunni Muslims.

>picture
The line immediately following your quote
>This is what was happening before fundamentalists were artificially propped up, ironically by foreign secular entities.
m80

>That's why the States have always been better at assimilating immigrants.

The Americanization movement that assimilated Immigrants has more in common with Pol than the Democrats. People only assimilate because of Social Utility, and if it isn't advantageous to assimilate, they won't. Assimilation requires conservatism that people work tirelessly to undermine, due to misguided decadence.

Alright, but why aren't they "radicalized" into Globalism, which is the current reigning ideology, instead of Islamism. This is one of the primaryy reasons why I abandon faith in this Left-Wing project.

Still doesn't undermine the fact that Sunni Muslims have theocratic tendencies that have to be overpowered.

So secularism can infact provoke religious extremism after all?

>Not pictured, Iranian teenagers going to shopping malls and watching Game of Thrones while blogging about social justice online.

We treat them like they're violent because they ARE violent.

Though they do seem a bit stupid since their reaction to my cynicism is just to affirm my suspicions

>they're trying to escape from violence
>this means they aren't violent

Violence isn't an off and on switch.

>They stick different people in pockets and expect them to form their own community without ever being allowed to join the national identity.

Do you seriously think the poow widdle immigwants want to assimilate but big bad Europeans forbid it? Don't tell me you're this naive

>not pictured, underage Iranian homosexuals being executed

>So secularism can infact provoke religious extremism after all?
Do you understand what foreign intervention is, or is this really beyond your comprehension level?

>Alright, but why aren't they "radicalized" into Globalism, which is the current reigning ideology, instead of Islamism. This is one of the primaryy reasons why I abandon faith in this Left-Wing project.

The same reason why some people in the West are alt right, not SJW progressives. Many people are not happy with the direction globalization is taking their lives, and react to it.

When Globalism manages to control Islam, instead of being controlled by Islam, I'll begrudgingly learn to get with the program. But until then, Islamism is clearly dominating over Globalism, which in turn is feeding the Alt-Right and giving it strength as well.

>i dont know what globalism is but im going to assume that globalism, sjws and the left are all synonyms for things i dont like
t. /pol/

>they watch game of thrones and go shopping they're just like me
xD

Oh come on, don't waste time with a No true scotsman argument. I'm sure you can give a better response.

>can't think of a proper reply
>acts like a retard
Classic.

Do you think that that in a pre globalist world they'd be able to recruit naive westerners?

>Pakistan literally elected a female head of state decades before the US
She was a prime minister not the president.

>colonialism is leftist because sjws
No really, I don't think you have any idea what globalism means.

>ass to the wall
>better start sperging out

Where exactly in my post did I mention colonialism?

The free movement of people and goods. In theory, it has been done before, but right now, it's being done terribly by its own very proponents. The Alt-Right and Islam will then inherit what's left of the West.

You mentioned globalism, when you clearly don't know what globalism is, especially in a historical context, while browsing a board about history, because you've clearly been indoctrinated about what globalism is by /pol/

Okay Fatwa Faggot. Islam officially dindu nuffin.