Can Islam ever regain the trust and tolerance of the west?

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Just as easy to think "hmmm, maybe God is testing us or we aren't devoted enough".

As usual, it's power-hungry people taking advantage of village/tribal politics, centered on Imams, and shit swelling out of control.

You can't lie in the same bed with a rabid dog.

>Just as easy to think "hmmm, maybe God is testing us or we aren't devoted enough".
Wouldn't they look to the heathen west. Take note of their opulence and strength and follow it to the logical conclusion of God's contempt for them?

And there is only one end to a rabid dog

A democratically elected president of Iran dared to nationalize Iranian oil. Britain was already to weak to do something about this and went joint venture with the US: Operation Ajax in the long run lead to a situation where a religious hardhead would be perceived as a better option compared to the western backed/installed dictator. "The West" aka Anglo imperialism tried to contain this situation by backing Saddam; he in turn waged war agasinst the evil Iranians. Didn't work, Iraq went broke. Tried to help themselves by acquiring Kuwait, after all invading neighbours was something the Yankee masters liked, didn't they. Dang, not this neightbour. Now several wars and embargos followed with millions of dead people. A well developed society wih a high level of education and a big middle class turned to shit. All these people had left were family, religion and war experience. When Iraq finally "became democratic" all former officials and military were set on the streets. Guess who became ISIS.
All this tension was in the neighbourhood of a Saudia Arabia, selling oil and radical Islam. Don't ask questions, they'll buy western weapons in turn. Now these people are fanatics in an absolute monarchy. Over the past decades all moderate voices of Islam have been eradicated by Western interventions and left over the Saudi variant which is spread like cancer utilizing the fucktons of money these people have.

Thanks for this post
>Iraq went broke. Tried to help themselves by acquiring Kuwait, after all invading neighbours was something the Yankee masters liked, didn't they. Dang, not this neightbour.

You sarin gassed my sides, friendo.

fuck the Islam

Yeah fuck em!

Is that a fedora?

Islam itself isn't a rabid dog. The problem is the Saudi's pushing wahhabism in the middle east and the US' utter refusal to do anything about it because of the petro dollar.

Morocco is 99% Muslim and is one of the longest standing US allies in the world.

The West is slowly declining and Islam will have to face much less tolerant powers like China and Russia more and more.

Will they still be like this? You know the answer

Considering how much they hate Jews they have a lot in common with the West. They just need to fuck off back to their own countries first.

Trying to be middle-ground in everything is very noble and admirable of you and all that but this meme of treating religious violence like it's the exact same thing across all religions isn't helpful. Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different due to the nature of their prophets. Jesus was so benign that he'd rather be nailed onto a stick than start a war. Mohamed killed people. Lots and lots of people. I know about 'muh no true memesman' but a violent christian ISN'T acting christian. You're right on with the 'anybody who grows up uneducated in a war-torn shithole will turn out bad' and southern revivalists and militant african-americans are an okay comparison, but where is the Christian equivalent?

What I'm getting at is that Islam is just an ideology, one as open to interpretation as any other, and the main difference that acts as an indicator in any other scenario is that one has had the last 40 years spent mainly in more affluent nations while the other has languished in warzones and poor tribal areas. I'm not treating what I mentioned there as a solution to Islamic violence, but I think it's important that when dealing with these sorts of ideologies we realize that the human element is by far the most important one to address if we do want to try to reach a solution. While the subject of being a good or bad Christian/Muslim is not one I feel we can fully discuss here I think it's important to note that Islam is currently at one of its most decentralized and lowest points in terms of the areas it could be considered as its sphere of influence- what constitutes a good or bad Christian or Muslim is a matter of interpretation as well as cultural response, so that also shakes out very badly for Islam currently. I think Christianity being separate from ethnicity is a major boon for it in terms of not engendering violent extremism, as the outrage surrounding Middle Eastern Christians being killed is still weak. In any case, I'm just stating my thoughts; Islam isn't an inherently negative ideology any more than Christianity is from a basic level, but circumstances mean the extremist aspects are a problem that begs solving. In realist terms, extremist organizations need to be decisively destroyed but there's a far more systemic challenge in the extreme resentment and reactionary belligerence between the West (the US especially) and the Middle East.

The failure of Arab nationalism and the Nasser movement to carve a sizeable space for the middle East in the geopolitical landscape. As a result the Arab Muslim nations remained under the heel of more powerful usually western nations. The vacuum left behind from the collapse of Arab nationalism provided the opportunity for Islamism to stake it's claim as the legitimate rebellion against western hegemony. Minor victories like the political victories of hizbullah over Israel, and the quagmire that the United united states found itself in in Iraq help generate support for these movements because they seem like they have their shit together as far as resistance is concerned. This is how isis was able to develop into a pretty big threat

It is quite possible, but they wont ever hold favor with the Christians as a Whole. But being from Abrahamic Origin they must accept Adam & Eve, Perhaps if they were to Overthrow and Re-establish the Traitor -istic Government that we Have the the US Currently. Although that would Ultimately acquire Favor and Merging of both the blood and beliefs of the Main Lines of the House of Adam. In Other words - if they become True Christians.

Kingdom Crown - Patriach , Queenside - Favor

>regain
nobody never trusted islam

it is our enemy since its creation

this is true. The middle east lost its only source of wealth once europeans invented boats to sail around africa, cutting out the middleman and Islamic nations' only source of revenue.

Does Islam even want the trust and tolerance of the west?

not as an ideology but the people who move to the west sure do. As much as I hate to admit it, libtards are correct in their assertion that one bad egg spoils the bunch. One paki in the UK goes radical and blows up a building, and suddenly for the rest of the Pakis it becomes an us vs them situation in which they feel attacked, and think "holy shit the west really does hate us" and then more become radicalized.

This doesn't have anything to do with their general religious conservatism (e.g. drugs, treatment of women, etc) which is absolutely setting them apart from even the more conservative Westerners because their religion runs contrary to Western Christianity, so they have literally no allies except the far left who hates their social ideals as is.

I certainly hope not. The world is better off without Islam, IMHO.

>the main difference that acts as an indicator in any other scenario is that one has had the last 40 years spent mainly in more affluent nations while the other has languished in warzones and poor tribal areas. I'm not treating what I mentioned there as a solution to Islamic violence

Then how do you explain the fact that Christian nations have underwent far more upheaval, war and death in the last few centuries than Muslim nations have EVER seen, and yet after every war, every revolution, every genocide, they rebuild stronger and more resilient than before?

One major issue is, of course, the badly drawn borders that Muslim nations suffer, and this does cause internal friction, and is more apparent than in Europe and the Christian world, but it does not explain the ever-present weakness of Islamic nations.

The reason you can't equivocate Christianity and Islam, other than doctrinal issues, is that Christianity has allowed the growth of secular society alongside religious culture with far less resistance than Islam does. The Christian world, centuries ago, underwent a reformation, and over a century of total, savage war between religious and political factions in Europe. The end result was the overpowering of religious influence by necessary secular authority (absolutism, government accountable to no god/church, individual liberty etc.). This helped bring about the enlightenment and the growth of secular thought, which in turn led to modern political thought, scientific thought, economic and industrial revolutions and the growth of stable nation states.

Islam has not yet, and may or may not ever, undergo such a reformation. It (by and large) does not, and for the foreseeable future, will not allow for the complete separation of the principle of authority from religion.

Arab Nationalism and its failure under pressure from religious extremism proved this.

>America realizes that the gulf has oil
>gulf countries practice wahabism
>gulf countries get rich
>after the 1979 siege of mecca the clerics managed to get through to the saud family and demand that they increase funds to "missionary " activities across the world.
>naturally countries like Egypt, Syria, and the rest of the muslim world have their own problems to focus on so it's not their priority to spread islam by proselytizing the same way the rich gulf can.
>thus the saudi form of islam becomes the most common one in mosques across Europe and in poor parts of the muslim world.

But hey, who cares that the regimes in the gulf that we the western world is holding up is spreading a form of Islam that gets denounced again and again by Al-Azar (the most reputable sunni-islam university) when we can just say "sandniggers are so violent, dude lmao!"

>the people who move to the west sure do

>16-24

you want to poll children?

>to get a reformation and mellow out.

Why do people throw this around like it is some clever thing to say? There hasn't been a recognized caliph in Islam for a 100 years now. "dude like reform it :PPPPPPP" What would they reform against? Their local cleric?

Agree with pretty much all you said.
>This is how isis was able to develop into a pretty big threat

About ISIS: youtube.com/watch?v=LOTiuszCl0c&
>that's top secret *nervous laugh*

>but it does not explain the ever-present weakness of Islamic nations

Economics has little to do with theology. Countries around the world are capable of increasing their GDP without being christian just fine.

When it comes to why muslim nations are weak there are multiple reasons: Sanctions and interventions doesn't exactly help. The deliberate targeting of civilians with the sactions of Iraq that led to the death of about 500 000 children under the age of five and the malnutrition of others. The deliberate destabilisation of Syria going on right now. The overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya which is still going through a civil war as we speak. I mean, how far back to you want to go?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1949_Syrian_coup_d'état
The western world has been at this for decades.

Yeah whenever someone drops the reform bit it's pretty safe to ignore them since it's a very big red flag on the posters knowledge of the topic.

>Countries around the world are capable of increasing their GDP without being christian just fine.

I never said they needed to be Christian, simply secular (look at Japan, Korea, China etc). Every single country with a high GDP has 1 of 2 things:

1: Secular government and rule of temporal law above all else

or

2: An enormous surplus of natural resources that it can cheaply extract and sell

Also, I was not speaking to the economic weakness of Islamic nations, I was addressing their structural weakness. Economic hardships are often a result of poorly managed or unstable governments, and though that's not always the case (current SA, Gaddafi's Libya etc), it does result in stunted or non-existent growth far more often than not.

>I mean, how far back to you want to go?

Ok, let's stick to the 20th century.

I think we can probably agree that the USSR's occupation of Eastern Europe post-WW2 was foreign interventionism in its absolute worst form. And yet, in the 25 years those countries have been free from the oppression of Soviet rule, almost every single one of them has rebounded politically and economically, forming, by and large, stable, functional, growing states. And yet Islamic nations that have not suffered interventionist invasions in the last 25 years are still incapable of forming stable states.

This is not limited to post-Soviet states either. Nations like Vietnam suffered horribly both under interventionist wars and ideological oppression, and yet today, still enduring the aftermath, with an authoritarian regime still in place, Vietnam is a stable, functioning state, with a rapidly growing economy and level of development. Contrast this with Pakistan or Egypt; by all accounts less punished by interventionism, and actively funded by western governments, but are unable to progress in such a manner. Why? Because enormous sections of the population still believe that Sharia is a good basis for a legal system, and that religion supersedes all.

The point I'm trying to make but can't in one post because of the character limit, is that while it does NOT guarantee a stable, economically developing state, a secular government, legal system and general populace is largely a prerequisite (unless you have vast deposits of natural resources and can get-rich-quick).

The problem Islam faces is that because of the emphasis it places on practical religion (in daily life, in government and in law) inhibits the ability of nations to be competitive and stable. To put it simply, it's hard to grow when 3/4 of your populace believes that women should be second class citizens, apostasy should beget execution and non-believers should be expelled, taxed egregiously, or killed outright.

This is also illustrated by the emphasis Islam puts on practical 'submission to god', I mean the word 'Islam' literally means 'to submit'. This can be a very pervasive force, in that it places the scripture, which contains, as all do, extremely uncivilised commands, which are given priority over temporal authority. This is to say, it emphasises the idea that it is a Muslim's job to submit to god (and as such, the Quran) before all others, including presidents, prime ministers, judges and other members of a temporal government. This is obviously a problem when you want to get people to live in a peaceful, voluntary society. This means that while it's not -guaranteed- that a Muslim society will collapse at any given moment, it is FAR more likely than any secular society.

The only way to countermand this effectively is through authoritarian government. You can force people to obey your secular rule if you have enough guns, as Gaddafi did, as Saddam did, as the Saudis do.

>And yet Islamic nations that have not suffered interventionist invasions in the last 25 years are still incapable of forming stable states.

I would say that Morocco is quite stable, Algeria, Syria prior to the western support of the rebels (just incase you are going to discuss the Syria point, I firmy believe that the protest would have ended with a quick crackdown like it did in the 80s and that would be the end of it had it not been for the west), Indonesia.

>This means that while it's not -guaranteed- that a Muslim society will collapse at any given moment, it is FAR more likely than any secular society.

A society can be muslim and secular just fine. Take Indonesia. If the point you're trying to make is that muslims on a general basis tend to be at odds with secular democracy or the like I would put the blame on the gulf countries and the fact that their version of Islam is the one that has been spreading. The average muslim today is quite different from the average muslim back in the 50's.

>I would say that Morocco is quite stable, Algeria, Syria prior to the western support of the rebels (just incase you are going to discuss the Syria point, I firmy believe that the protest would have ended with a quick crackdown like it did in the 80s and that would be the end of it had it not been for the west), Indonesia.

The thing is, 10 years ago, people WOULD have held up Syria as an example of a stable, progressive but still Muslim nation. They were pretty much the last remnant of the Ba'athist era, they were, by comparison to others in the region, stable and liberal. But the problem is that with Islam, at least in its current state, there is always that tinder there for a spark to ignite; there is always the potential for a sudden descent into anarchy because of the kind of ideology Islam is.

There is no counterpart in the core western/Christian world, and on the fringes, the only comparable force is/was Communism, which was equally destructive, not because of its economic ideas or anything, but because of its advocacy for violent revolution, which pretty obviously works against stability and progress, as it almost always leads to authoritarian oppression.

>I would put the blame on the gulf countries and the fact that their version of Islam is the one that has been spreading.

To be fair, this is pretty legit a point. SA and the other gulf states have been using Islam in EXACTLY the same manner that the USSR used Communism. That's to say, a tool of power projection that can destabilise a rival, that they can export to cause chaos abroad and undermine foreign governments.

The difference though between Communism and Islam is that Communism is an ideology that one can pick up and put down, that you can talk someone out of, or convince them is unworthy. With Islam, which advocates death as a punishment for apostasy, and daily direct expression of your submission to god and scripture, there is FAR less opportunity for escape.

>But the problem is that with Islam, at least in its current state, there is always that tinder there for a spark to ignite; there is always the potential for a sudden descent into anarchy because of the kind of ideology Islam is.

>To be fair, this is pretty legit a point. SA and the other gulf states have been using Islam in EXACTLY the same manner that the USSR used Communism. That's to say, a tool of power projection that can destabilise a rival, that they can export to cause chaos abroad and undermine foreign governments.

>because of the kind of ideology Islam is.
This is where we disagree. It seems that we are on the same wavelength in a lot of ways. My point is that western nations are to blame in part for their support of the gulf nations. This form of Islam is not the one that like I mentioned was common in the last century, and most high ranking theologians across the muslim world are against it. To give you an idea the Mufti of Syria led the christmas celebrations a few years ago.

youtube.com/watch?v=rtD3pkWL8Fo

>The difference though between Communism and Islam is that Communism is an ideology that one can pick up and put down, that you can talk someone out of, or convince them is unworthy. With Islam, which advocates death as a punishment for apostasy, and daily direct expression of your submission to god and scripture, there is FAR less opportunity for escape.

This is in theory and not in practice most of the time. My father was born muslim and converted to Orthodox christianity just fine when he met my mother, the family and the local community could care less. The state had no punishment prescribed for it either. The average muslim drinks, has premarital sex yet none of the punishments prescribed for these activities according to the sharia tradition gets carried out 99/100 times.

The point I'm trying to make is that theologically can be interpreted in many ways. I also listed several other nations besides Syria that you didn't respond to so I assume you acknowledged them as decent examples.

Also:
>The thing is, 10 years ago, people WOULD have held up Syria as an example of a stable, progressive but still Muslim nation. They were pretty much the last remnant of the Ba'athist era, they were, by comparison to others in the region, stable and liberal. But the problem is that with Islam, at least in its current state, there is always that tinder there for a spark to ignite; there is always the potential for a sudden descent into anarchy because of the kind of ideology Islam is.

I am not 100% sure if the point you're getting at here is that "look at Syria now with ISIS etc". Yes there are violent elements in Islam that exist and might appear but look at the video I linked earlier in this thread with your new national security adviser getting caught on live television and not denying the fact that it was in the interest of the west that a "there is the possibilty of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality in eastern syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposistion want in order to isolate the syrian regime."

youtube.com/watch?v=LOTiuszCl0c

Yes, there are violent elements. But they would have had no effect ( like I wrote earlier in this post) had it not been for our support.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_uprising_in_Syria
Would have gone like this.

Notice how there's no age given qualifying the 60% of Muslims who think Great Britain should be governed by Sharia courts?

Notice how it says "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law"?

Two muslims are in disagreement about something, and they decide between themselves that instead of going through the tedious process of a secular court they check with their local sharia court to see if there is a theological basis to solve the dispute.

This is a quality post user; I just wanna let you know that.

Such integration.

I'm sorry? It literally says that muslims prefer religious rullings as long as it does not go against the law of the land. Orthodox jews in the UK practice the exact same thing so I don't see the issue here. Is it a requirment that they leave their religion in order to be integrated?

No fucking shit Abdul.

ah, yes

I'm sure it's complex geopolitical dynamics that caused ibn ahmed to shove that old woman down a flight of stairs of rape that 12 year old girl before slitting her throat

clearly something that happened 1k miles away that the dude doesn't know about is going to cause him to steel his heart against the dying screams of a prepubescent murder victim

I've never seen somebody so perfectly miss the forest for the trees, its like pottery.

...

do you also construct complicated sequences of events to figure out why chimpanzees shit on the floor and kill each other?

semites are fucking violent animals. their neurology is flawed. that fuels their intercine tribal genocides, which are more or less uniform EVERYWHERE that they share genetics and has been going on for thousands of years in a similar manner. it has nothing to do with whatever colonial ambitions you ascribe it too.

>t. /pol/tard

There's little we can do. The west so thoroughly fucked up every chance it got at seeing a truly secular Middle East that we'll be seeing repercussions of this shit for at least another century.

The hardliners sure as fuck don't. Trust and tolerance leads to assimilation, assimilation leads to secularism/conversion. End result of that is less Muslims for the Salafists to sink their persecution fangs into, and and for less immigrants for the nationalists to point fingers at and blame for society's ills.

Yeah m8, as it turns out, immigrating to a country with the promise of freedom, only to end up feeling persecuted, builds up a shitload of bitterness, especially for those immigrants children. You get the same result from North Koreans defecting to the South, it is in no way exclusive to Muslim refugees.

maybe they shouldn't commit so much crime then...

...

Cheers.

No Islam is fine yeah most of the west doesn't like them but then again the west doesn't have any morals it holds dear neither does it follow the will of their so called God. Islam sticks by its guns and its God and doesn't reform for faggots and other degenerates. You order them to reform but your not their God unlike faggots, women and your own race are to you all.

You've all given into the faggot and forsaken truth and righteousness and I can't wait for an actual struggle to either force you all back to your senses or kill you all off and let more wholesome people pick up where you left of scientifically and with significantly better morals.

TLDR: Islam may seem like they have bad morals but at least they have morals and aren't giving into whatever women, commies, bankers and faggots say.

Considering how vehemently against reforms that Islam is, I cannot see this ever happening. Until Islamic countries are segregated from the rest of the world and their numbers go down from starvation and disease, it would take an idiot to let their guard down around them.

Thanks to you, I know what "miss the forest for the trees" means.

t. Red Raw Muzzie posting from a nation The West BTFO

If I changed something through time travel it would probably have been operation ajax.

Wouldn't dare change anything before hiroshima+nagasaki for fear of the first war nukes being launched when both sides have them.

>How vehemently against reforms Islam is

Islam is no more against reform than any other religion. The govervments are against reform, especially the Saudi government and kill anybody that voices any kind of opinion other than the one they want.

you're wrong, Islam is extremely violent. Read the Quran, you'll realize it

try the bible for shits and giggles.

Not a fair comparison. The Quran is a Watchtower pamphlet in comparison to the bible

The bible says that if you ruin a woman, you have to take her for your wife.

Is "Jewish rape culture" a thing?

Most religious scripture is rape culture 101

The bible has about 780k words, the Quran has about 78k. So go ahead and multiply the Quran's numbers from that pic by 10.

Actually American in the military who joined to beat out said Arabs only to learn in tired of the moral framework of our society failing and all the degeneracy coming out in the open and being supported by our nation. Makes me sick I joined the armed forces here with all the degeneracy I will fight for...

So is this pic trying to make me a Muslim or do you think that Satanic cuckery is a good thing?

Not that user, but Satanism is represented equally bad.
feastofhateandfear.com/archives/lavey.html

What's up with the "moderate muslims" myth?

Consider Indonesia, the country with biggest population of Muslims, always being brought up as an example of tolerant moderate muslims.

And now they're going apeshit cause some guy said they don't have to follow Koran 1OO%.

theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/12/jakarta-governor-ahoks-blasphemy-trial-all-you-need-to-know