Islam: then vs now

This. With the sacking of Bagdad, much of the cultural capital of the Muslims was destroyed with it. Also, with the subsequent rebellion against Mongol rule, the Ashari creed overtook Mu'tazalite thought, and basically devalued scientific achievement. While Philosophy and Science are largely independent today, back then, to throw away Plato and Aristotle was essentially to throw away science.

Al-Ghazali fucked Islamic secular scholarship at just about the right time for Europe to pick up on the innovations and preservations that the Muslim polymaths of their golden age spearheaded for a few centuries.

Combination of fundamentalist Muslims and nationalism

Maajid does it pretty well desu

m.youtube.com/watch?v=9EqSuNewrQs

"Extremely fair to jews and christians"

They were about as fair to them as they were to the Hindi population in India

Too late mate I'm already a national socialist at just 18

You fuckers did this

nice meme, even though Ghazali is shit compared to Avicenna

Ibn Taymiyya is far more to blame, even more, the Ashari.

>at just 18
Understandable if you're a 14 year old kid, but 18? You're too big for the Nazi meme.

You're supposed to idolize fascists, monarchists, and the writings of Evola if you wanna be philosophically edgy.

>just 18

You'll grow out of it when you realise Hitler was delusional

>the Ashari
who were primarily influenced by the writings of
Al-Ghazali

No, the Ashari creed was well established for about 200 years before Ghazali surfaced.

Didn't the Incoherence of Philosophers prompt the fundamentalist revival that overtook the Mu'tazaliti school?

I'm not a huge fan of the socially authoritarian parts of fascism but rather see it as a necessary evil. Besides, being able to wear a hijab and guzzle cum isn't really "muh freedom" in my eyes. I've read some of the writings of Oswald Mosley and have realized that true freedom is economic freedom, being able to live your life happily with low hours and high wages. Notice how prosperous Nazi Germany was if you remove the at-war aspect. People don't want freedom, they want happiness. "Liberty" just creates room for subversiveness.

I don't necessarily worship Hitler I just see him as what Germany needed at the time, not the perfect leader but he did what he was supposed to do and made Germany great.

Idk I'm an artist and I like having freedom of speech.

Many Islamic """historians""" purposely confuse Persian achievements with Islamic achievements. Those specific things, giving rights to women and being tolerant of Jews and Christians are things that Shia Muslims established in Persia (now Iran), a tradition dating back to the laws put in place by Cyrus the great.

>economic freedom
commie

>how prosperous Nazi Germany was if you remove the at-war aspect
Nope.

I wouldn't say it revived it, but it was a milestone in their philosophy. I just think it's kinda silly to put the downfall of Islamic culture on Al-Ghazali, when in truth, he is among the more philosophically inclined philosophers. He mainly wanted to debunk the"necesseties" that Avicenna and others were subjecting God to; essentially that God is not necessarily this or that, and that God acts by his will and nothing else. He also said that everything derived it's substance from God, hardly a radical idea in Islam.

Ghazali did not necessarily want to throw out philosophy, only to limit it's influence on theology. If anybody is to blame, it is Ibn Taymiyya, whom I deem to be a mu'tazilite in many ways, but was very much against Greek philosophy. He was the one who encouraged Jihad against the Mongols, and it was ultimately his ideology which prevailed as a result of his influence on the mujahidin.

*philosophically inclined Ashari.

How's that treating you financially? I've heard art is tough to get into

Also I agree that free speech is extremely important, but also a double-edged sword. For all its positives the one problem with it is how it creates disunity like nothing else. I am personally a fan of the USSR system where a topic can be discussed freely with no repercussions, at least until the single party state makes up its mind on what path to go down. From then you cannot speak out against the state as that creates disunity (the state who of course needs support of the army and who has it in its best interests to serve the people, don't worry about muh oppression.)
The only good communist is a dead communist ;) Marxist socialism is completely unrelated to national socialism, the nationalist part of NatSoc is far more important than the socialist part and everything is done with the people in mind. Marxist socialism is used by greedy people who don't want to work and leech off the system, same with capitalism although it is far far better than communism. NatSoc works because it benefits the racially homogenous population but only if you work, no handouts.
Not an argument, Germany was about to fall to communism and it had the worst economy in probably its entire existence. Not to mention the thousands that killed themselves every year. It was in ruins and Hitler turned it around through nationalism. If you listen to Germans today talk about their life under NS Germany they speak of how happy they were and how it was generally one of the most peaceful eras of their lives.

Fuck I hope I don't get banned for bringing /pol/ to Veeky Forums, I'm not going to reply to anything from here on out. Sorry mods :(

Please continue answering my question about Islam I got a bit off topic

My fault for taking the book I read on Averroes and Al-Ghazali and stretching it's implications across several of history.

That was extremely lazy of me.

>when did it occur
between the 11th and 13th centuries

*several centuries

Very big of you, it is no problem, it's the fault of some Orientalists for spreading this meme. I think if Islam had stuck with Avveroes, they would be much better off. It is worth noting that Ghazali held Avveroes was an apostate, essentially saying that he should be forced to recant his positions on certain issues, or be killed. And I also think it should be noted that Mu'tazilite philosophy predated the introduction of Greek philosophy to Islam, but ended up being more conductive to it.

But overall, Islamic civilization was destroyed, but they also didn't help themselves much. It was like a war torn China embracing Communism after the fact.

Turkics and Mongols came in and fucked everything up hard. Cities like Samarkand or Nishapur that were once hubs were nearly completely wiped out with the death of 96% of the population.

By contrast, Stalingrad wiped out some 73% of the population that didn't flee the city.

You aren't coming out of devastation like that without major societal shifts.

Saudi Wahhabi Neo Imperialism /thread

Well, Nazi Germany was very prosperous before war started tearing at it, but the reason it so prosperous was because Hitler directly fueled the economy to an unsustainable point through rearmament. Basically, he revived Germany by pouring everything into war preparations, and stimulating the economy through that. However, in order to keep this going, he pretty much had to go to war.

So,
>how prosperous Nazi Germany was if you remove the at-war aspect
Is kinda an oxymoron, because there was no prosperity without war.

Wait, wasn't Ghazali dead by the time Averroes was born?

Yes, but his writings directly affected the areas averroes would work and he wrote a rebuttal to his Al-Ghazali's most well known work.

But that means Ghazali couldn't have condemned him.

No, but his followers sure did.

But they didn't either. Averroes was and is still a major linchpin of Malikite theology and his work was still read and debated against Ghazali well into the 18th century. Also, Ghazali wasn't universally liked either, and was himself attacked for being too philosophical or mystical by the likes of ibn Taymiyyah. The Almoravids even burned some of his works.

It pays the bills. Freelancing plus some gigs and there. Hopefully I can get an animation studio started with some people I know.

That's not what the debate between them was about though. Averroes wasn't defending what al Ghazali attacked, but rebuking the way he did it while still agreeing with his criticism of ibn Sina. It was a three way shitstorm, not simply philosophers vs anti-philosophers.

I meant Avicenna, sorry.

>and was extremely fair to Jews and Christians
LMAO

Bullshit

> how in the early days of Islam it gave rights to women
The right to be purchased as slave and raped, how great !

Two of Muhammad ''''wifes""" were slaves that he forcefully and raped, one was a jew and ther others was a christian(Mary the Copt).

> Lots of other things but he made it sound like an extremely prosperous society and one I wouldn't mind
living in.
Vert easy when your whole civilization is about pillaging other civlization.

>He also talked about how Europe was in the middle ages and people were moving away from big cities, population was decreasing, didn't really go into it that much as he said that was for later but basically just said that European "society" was declining.

Liberal bullshit again, i bet he used Rome as a reference of city decline

>forcefully and raped
forcefully """married""" and raped*

Also, he died poisoned by his Jewish wife. Karma is a bitch but sometimes he do good things.

To be fair, all that stuff was around in a far worse form before Islam. Islam codified it and made it divine though.

The Christendom was one of Islam's first victim with the Zoroastrian Civilization, i think it is insane that liberals are allowed to spit their pro-islam bullshit, not only did they led a constant war against our civlization but we should also praise for them for doing...

The West need a BJR-like political party in power.

it is possible that perhaps Islamic civilization has both positives and negatives throughout its history, just like every other civ. Go back to /pol please

Recent islamic extremism is anti-west reactionism

Ideology based in Liberty is outdated and will lead to our ruin. We've gone too far

What is BJR? I am not familiar with the term.

Also, this so called "Christendom" had no problem oppressing Christians of opposing creeds before Islam showed up. If you were a Nestorian, better to be under A Mohammadinian than the emperor. But it's okay, because they were heretics right?

Well it really depends on the time, but generally Muslims were less prone to violent or forced conversions for a while.

Islam wasn't wholy negative, as an example, it ended the bloody war between the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanids, but the very fact that a pro islam POV is used in the West trigger me, since we are the civlization who suffered the most from them, we basically lost MENA to Islam, and later Anatolia, then Bosnia and Albania.

>BJR
My bad i meant BJP

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party

True, although I think enemy combatants were often asked to convert or die. Not that that was really all that bad considering the time. That is one of the problems, Muhammad had such a diverse way of dealing with his adversaries, be they the Meccans, the Jews of Khaybar, or Banu Qurayza. It is difficult to derive a true sunnah.
Meh, they are pretty shit desu. Not so much because of how they view Muslims, but how they view non-Hindu Indians. I'm not one to entertain the whole "be nice to Muslims, because they might become terrorists" argument, but Indian Muslims are generally a cut above the rest of the world's. They are generally patriotic, and are highly influenced by Indian culture. The best course of action would be to assimilate them by appealing to "Indianness", then Islam will essentially die out on its own, and the extremists left can be picked off individually.

Who is "we?" Christians?
Most of them didn't care.

Islam came in and swept the floor with the broken empires, the only reason why the Byzantines didn't get completely wrecked is because of internal strife in the Rashidun Caliphate and Heraclius being a badass.

Pretty standard stuff. The general population was generally treated better under Islamic rulers, but that is such a broad statement it is mostly meaningless tbf

>BJP
a largely socialist party that wants to impose their cow worship and anti scientificness on everyone else?

>but how they view non-Hindu Indians

Well it's true they treat badly Sikhs and Christians, but it is necessary if they want to protect their civilization.

> but Indian Muslims are generally a cut above the rest of the world's.

Although i'm not sure about it, i think It's because the most fundamentalist muslims moved to Pakistan after the partition, while the most liberals remained in India.

>Most of them didn't care.

Sure

They didn't care about losing their land, and being treated like second-class citizen, and paying jizya while humiliating themselves. They would have revolt if they didn't like it, right ?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashmurian_revolt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_Revolt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_conquest_of_Armenia#Armenia_within_the_Caliphateevolt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania#Ethnic_groups_and_internal_tensions

>Well it's true they treat badly Sikhs and Christians, but it is necessary if they want to protect their civilization.

This may be partially true of Christians, as they are a prosthelytizing religion, but certainly untrue of Sikhs. While Hindus were busy muttering under their breath about Muslim oppression, the Sikhs did something about it. For the Hindu to them treat Sikhs with oppression, would be an act of betrayal. And if Hindus can't defend their country from Christian missionaries in a peaceful fashion, then they have no right to exist. And besides, the Malabar Assyrian Church is based.

I must admit I am not impartial though, I think Vedic and folk Hinduism are cowshit religions. The former is xenophobic, which might be acceptable if your culture didn't receed to a third word country, and the latter is literal superstition.

Former Islamic scholar student here.

Culture != Religion

Islam spread rapidly, but they never forced people to convert. They just wanted power. Actually it was better if people didn't convert because they would be wealthier from Jizya tax. That's why people were treated well.

The problem is that Islam doesn't change culture. The terrible things you hear about that Pakis do or Arabs do has existed way before Islam. Most people converted for socioeconomic reasons. To not pay Jizya. To get a job in the government. To own land. Etc. They didn't actually change their cultural beliefs or traditions, that still exist to this day.

Nothing has really changed. Your history teacher is just teaching you the white washed liberal version of Islam. People still did honor killings. People still raped and murdered. People still married their kids off without their consent. All these things exist today.

Let me use an example of our Paki traditions. We get married Islamically. In Islam, the man and wife can have sex after they are married. They can get pregnant move in together, etc. But to Paki culture, you can't do so until after a Paki wedding, which sometimes comes a year or more after the Islamic wedding. So even though religiously there's nothing wrong with being a man and wife and doing man and wife thing, people have been killed for getting pregnant before their Paki wedding.

My Brother got married about a month ago. Paki wedding was supposed to be next Summer because in our tradition weddings are always in the Summer. Well his wife got pregnant already. Her family has disowned her and my family is going batshit insane.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it religiously.

>Two of Muhammad ''''wifes""" were slaves that he forcefully and raped, one was a jew and ther others was a christian(Mary the Copt).

Maria al-Qubtiyya converted to Islam, and in Islam rape and forcible marriage are forbidden

The Jewish lady is a hadith meme that I'm unfamiliar with

You capture the point fairly well, which is why the Ummayads were good for non-Muslims, Muslim converts had it worse. I will say, Umar al-Khattab did not treat Christians very well, and much of how ISIS and similar groups appeal to his rule for their justification to their treatment of dhimmis.

I guess it would be good to ask you if you consider non-consensual sex with slaves (an oxymoron, really) permissible, and if so, how you consider it justifiable?

Umar was the first shitposter of Islam.

The Muslims actually didn't want to fight because it wasn't against Islam to fight innocent people. So he made up some bullshit that land not governed by Islam is land of war and land governed by Islam is land of peace.

He liked Jews more than Christians yes.

Islamic history has been very bi-polar. There's been very liberal caliphates where everybody lived together. There were even Muslims raising hell because non-Muslims weren't being charged Jizya tax yet getting social welfare and free food and stuff. Then there's other periods where non-Muslims were treated like shit.

As a Hanafi, we judge by analogies like this, and determine what practice is better for the community.

It was against Islam*

After the civil wars among pagan tribes and Muslims after Muhammad's death, Umar wanted to spread and conquer land. Muslims didn't want to because they were peaceful.

"And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
Quran 4:25

Not him but pretty sure Persia attacked the Muslims first then the Muslims used Jihad to conquer them

Rape is not permissible. Sex with consenting slaves is. But if you have sex with them, you're encouraged to free and marry them.

In layman's terms, Maria wanted the pipe.

Interesting how you hold yourself to be a Sunni, yet disagree with Umar. I honestly don't see how one can do maintain the two positions. I can see believing Umar made mistakes, or that he was ill tempered, but saying that he created the distinction between Dar As-Salam and Dar Al-Harb is one hell of a heterodox belief. I also don't see how Qiyas fits into this.

They didn't. At least not to my knowledge. Even Islamic sources acknowledged that Muslims attacked first. The Sasanian Empire and Byzanite Empire were in a long war. Umar thought it would be easy to conqueror them as they were weak and tired. Then made up the whole religion of peace bullshit because Muslims didn't want to.

Thought I mention former student. I left Islam.

What is Mustahabb and what is Mubah are two different things. While I find nothing in Tarikh to say that non-consensual sex with slaves is permissible, I find nothing that says it impermissible either.

An interesting ayah, as it says to punish the slave adulteress half of that of a free adulteress. If the punishment for zina in nikah is stoning, then it would not make sense to half kill someone. Does this mean that rajm is unislamic, and that proper punishment is 100 lashings (50 for the slave)?

You said you were Hanafi as well, I just thought that you went to a madrasa/Hawza, but dropped out.

You need to start slowly, instead of immediately searching for the wrong or right in controversial topics of Islam.

Start with Mukhtasar al-Qudun or Al-Fiqh-ul Muyassar.

To answer your question though, compulsion is forbidden. If your slave girl wishes to be chaste, then you can't force her.

I was merely musing openly, to see what you would reply. Most ex-Muslims I have met tend to have a pro-Quran and anti-hadith mindset. I don't think I will come to any more an insightful or novel thought that even an introductory fiqh student would come up with. I must admit, I am genuinely interested in what it means to half-punish the slave adulteress. I have heard of Shia ahadith (all sects) were Ali lashed an adulterer saying "I lash according to the sunnah" and then stoning them saying "I stone according to the sunnah".

...

>what happened?

Wahhabism and the House of Saud

An exaggeration, but yeah this. I'm not a Muslim, but it would be best if Bani Hashem controlled the Middle East. May God extend King Abdullah II's rule, and grant him longevity.

Just going by the Quran, how would you know how to pray? How would you know the context of verses? How would you know the history of early Islam?

Being anti-hadith just because you don't agree with them is straying from the path of Islam. Islam is following Muhammad and his examples. When you attempt to reform Islam (for worse like ISIS or "good" like the gay Muslim faggots raising awareness), then you are straying from Islam.

Islam isn't like Christianity where you can make up your own meanings of the Quran and have 300,000 different versions of Islam.

There's Shia Islam and Sunni Islam. Within Sunni, there are 4 sects but they are all basically the same. I can't speak much about Shia. Sunni's mostly follow the sunnah and hadiths of Muhammad's companions. Shia follows Muhammad's family members. They believe Ali was the rightful successor. Extreme Sunnis will claim Shia are idol worshipers and consider Ali a prophet, but I've lived in Dearborn and none of them thought that.

I honestly just believe Muhammad was trying to do the right thing. He was trying to unify all the pagans fighting. He brought of a mixture of pagan traditions and values he grew up around into Christianity and Judaism. He combined them all together to gain as many followers as he could. There's nothing divine about him. Then after he died, the former pagans went full autistic with it. Now Islam is the the religion of like 25% of the world or something.

I don't believe in any religion. It's all made up for political reasons over history. I do believe in the possibility of a God or something that created the universe? I mean it's guess it's possible. But if there is a God that wants all of us to worship him and he has the power to do so, then why doesn't he give all of us divine messages? If he's forgiving and merciful, then why did he create hell? Why does he create people destined for hell instead of not creating them at all?

I'm saying that most ex-Muslims are anti-hadith, not you, certainly not I. I was interested in Shia for quite a while, but ultimately could not come to believe it (it didn't help that I am walid zina, as they have some pretty nasty ahadith about me and my ilk).

Eternal hell is one of the reasons I could not accept Islam as well. I wanted to believe in Mu'tazilite theology, or at least Ibn Taymiyya/Ibn Qayyim style optimism, but ultimately I couldn't reconcile them with Islam. Shia Islam has this idea that people who die as believers would have believed for an eternity, and people who die as disbelievers would have disbelieved for an eternity; interesting concept, but you can probably find the flaws yourself.

>The Jewish lady is a hadith meme that I'm unfamiliar with

Implying you don't know about Zeynab, who had her father and brothers killed by Muhammad, and then was forced to "mary" him.

stop kidding, kek

If you're facing retarded people who want to take over your country and force Arabic laws onto you, you must be as dumb and intolerant as them. I stand with BJP's India.

>in the early days of Islam it gave rights to women, displayed it's great strength through conquest, and was extremely fair to Jews and Christians

Literally myths. It has always been a "backwards death cult hell-bent on destroying any and all opposition" and always will be.

theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/islamic-spain-in-middle-ages-no-paradise-for-christians-jews-women/news-story/efba7228f18db0bd7fdac331ccea2ce0?nk=e66bee94b8977ad85835c89bf3c84fef-1480418550

mongols, wahhabis, western invasions and associating modernity as evil and western, fundamentalism, general cultures of societies that isn't really determined by religion

it's possible to give a relatively liberal reading of islam, it's also possible to be extremely conservative

This might provide some illumination.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_spread_of_the_printing_press
>1452–53[10] Mainz
>~1465[10] Cologne
>1467[21] Rome
>1470[10] Paris
> ~1472-1473[10] Barcelona
>1473[10] Utrecht
>1473[33] Cracow
>1476[36] Westminster
>1483[19] Stockholm
etc.
>literally hundreds of printing presses within 50 years of the invention being created

First Arabic printing press:
>1729[70] Constantinople

almost 300 years after the printing press was invented
And it was closed only 14 years later because islamic calligraphers did not like it!

In total there were about 13 printing presses in the whole of the ottoman empire and middle east.
Only one of them was built within 50 years of the printing press being invented.
All but 2 of them were built more than 100 years after the printing press was first invented.
most of them built between 200-300 years after.

And the real sting? most of them were built in christian monasteries!

there are several key features that make islam lend itself to remaining much more conservative than christianity.

1. The bible is a report of what God said or did, not the literal word of God which by definition must be perfect and good for all time
2. the fact that jesus gave such a good opportunity to abrogate old law from numbers and deuteronomy when the religion was opened to non-jews by the early christian church
3.muslims on other hand left with very prescriptive set of laws for day to day life that were never abrogated. And because htey came from the word of God and his ideal example prophet, it makes it much harder to ignore or side step them. islamic laws exist for almost everything equivalent laws for all facets of day-to-day life from christianity much more easily abrogated early on.
4. phrases like give to caesar as unto caesar make it far more easy to achieve seperation of church and state under christian framework

So there are actual reasons within the religion for why the practice of the religion has developed this way and developed differently from christianity.

People can still write books without a printing press.

what's your point?

That's like saying "you can still wash yourself and do some farming without an irrigation system."

if you want to spread and cross pollinate ideas and educate an entire country or region, obviously a printing press is a thousand times more effective than writing each book by hand.

That's the point, you dimwit.

Horseshit, the early Islamic world after the fall of the umayyads in 750 had severe internal troubles and multiple civil wars. Women rights in those days, are as far as I am concerned, are completely unheard of. The Arabs were actually shocked on the freedom and autonomy that was given to Frankish princesses. Europe's population was on the increase since the fall of the Western Roman Empire until the outbreak of the bubonic plague in 1348-51. The Middle East did have cities with larger populations which was the case already before the Arabs conquered them, so it is strange to attribute large civil populations to Islam. The switch occurred when the Middle East stopped being the middle man between China and Europe due to Europeans sailing around Africa bypassing muslims. Trade routes shifted from the Middle East to the oceans. So the days of prosperous trading in the Mediterranean were gone when the North Sea became the world centre of trade.

Look at Saudi today. Women get stoned to death or hanged in the middle of the street for 'tempting' men into surprise sex, whilst their Princesses strut around the racecourses of Europe and Arabia in heels and fancy hats.

Every day when I look at the news and read about another attack by these people, I wonder whether the authenticity of the Ashtiname of Muhammad could ever be confirmed, and what effect it may have. None, I suspect.

Islam makes more sense if you look at it as a military doctrine, rather than a religion. In nearly every country that you may call historically-Islamic, it spread at swordpoint in the form of jihad.
Paradoxically, one of the most telling things about it is not the violence carried out by its own adherents, but that which it inspires in otherwise-peaceful followers of other faiths. What do they see that 'progressive' Westerners cannot?

Apparently you have to say layperson'so terms now
Fucken stupid shit that is

And she definitely wanted the pipe
Maria is a slut

Fun Fact: the Arab Human Development Report, commissioned and released by the UN in 2002, found:

>The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa’moun’s time (the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year (Galal, S., 1999).

And yes that's "that Spain translates" not "that are translated into Spanish."

palestineremembered.com/download/UNDP/EnglishVersion/Ar-Human-Dev-2002.pdf

Islam as a controlling government spread by the sword, but Islam was basically for socioeconomic reasons.

Actually, it has a lot to do with usury and the issuance of debt.

Despite the bemoaning of Austrians, excessive debt plays a key role in not only nation building but also economy building.

See both the Muslims and Christians in prior to 1400 had a bug up their ass about usury and lending at interest.

It was again Islam and was against Christianity (I mean it say so in the Old and New Testament).

Basically, Christians fueled their economy by borrowing money from the Jews for most of the middle ages because Jews got around this rule because the old testament specifically said not to lend your "brother" interest and Christians weren't their brothers.

However, by the time the reformation happened Christians got jelly of the Jews wealth and started finding ways around lending money for profit.

The protards went full on heretical and ignored the Bible outright and started financing banks etc. The Cathocucks eventual got around to ignoring the rules too and eventually even the Pope gave out loans and ran a bank.

This fueled the economic and global trade booms of the 1700's into the 1800's bankrolling the industrial revolution.

All the meanwhile Islamic nations were stagnating economically because if you had extra money you could not invest it in anything.

So now Muslims are trying to get around this rule by making "profit sharing" but that really doesn't fix their issue. No one is Islam wants to use their extra money to invest in shit so they have all their money stuffed under mattresses except for haram Muslims who aren't really Muslims.