Islam is a destructive ideo-

>as if that's what "13th century" means

What does 50 years ago have to do with Muslims being developmentally stunted medieval culture?

>but nobody really shows any initiative in producing their own great works to add to the store of knowledge, they just coast along

But that's wrong.

Seems to be what people mean by 13th century anytime they refer to Muslim misogyny and homophobia today.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_(United_States_law)#History_to_1993

> In the United States, prior to the mid-1970s marital rape was exempted from ordinary rape laws

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

>only one state legalized sodomy before 1970
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

Because CURRENT YEAR retards with no sense of scale think that most of the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia have a "medieval culture" that's 800 years old in regards to shit like rape laws and treatment of homosexuals instead of one that would be pretty much viewed as bog standard 50 years ago.

wikiislam.net/wiki/Golden_Age

But you're wrong, OP. And the hadiths about knowledge or the ink of the scholar being stronger than the sword are all weak/fabricated hadith according to Muslim scholars.

wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Fabricated_Hadith

And these are all hadith people use to make Mohammad look like a great, tolerant person.

Nice try at either performing taqiyyah or falling for it. But that only works on the ignorant. Namely, those too dumb and lazy to look shit up.

Not to mention these Middle Eastern laws on rape and homosexuals were passed almost around the same time they were passed in Western countries (or even passed for them by Victorian era parliaments controlled by Western powers).

REKT

>wikiislam
>taqiyyah

>implying that in 1967 women were seen as sex dolls who had to be stoned if they got raped
>implying that the west in 1967 wasnt liberal but executed everyone who dared question christianity

You can check the sources. They are real. The source of the information does not refute the information. Especially when every single one cites Muslim sources and direct quotes. Try harder.

>start off laughing at jihadis and Islamists for being backwards ass goat fuckers as a gud atheist boi
>get interested in the Middle East conflicts
>end up as a Islamoboo with great respect for Arabs, Persians, Turks, etc., and also became part-time Christboo with a newfound respect for religion as a whole, hamdullah *points index finger in the air while crying "takbir" and teleporting behind Western atheist pigdog*

What happened to me, Veeky Forums?

>before islam, the arabs were weak nomadic troopers and didnt care much abot knowledge.
That's Islamic revisionist bullshit.

The Sabaeans, Nabataeans, Palmyrenes, and Dilmunites were far from being ignorant bedouins.

The problem isn't the sources, it's the skewed, selective, and opinionated presentation of it. Wikiislam is good only for gathering a large number of translated Arabic excerpts on multiple topics for when you're too poor for the Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica. Literally everything else outside of those text boxes is [original research] hot garbage.

Nothing. You were and still are highly susceptible to dank memes instead of being boringly literate and unemotional.

how do you defend islam from shit like sharia law?

Isn't Hadith basically 90-95% plagiarism with muhammad being cut-and-pasted into shit?

Good thing the links I listed don't do that. Sorry that your golden age was a myth, Mohammad, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Unless there is a global Muslim conspiracy to discredit Islam, those sources are valid.

I'm not the one who invented Islam or made them rely on everybody else to translate knowledge from others and most of their inventions were made by people who either Arab (but not Muslim) or was invented by others altogether. Islam is not a theology that promotes learning. What is rewarded in Islam is performing the 5 pillars, fighting unbelievers, and dying in the name of Allah. If you have issues with that, go argue with Allah, Mohammad, or other Muslims. It isn't my fault for posting facts about Islam. I could do the same for many faiths, but this thread is about the fundamentally flawed presentation of some Islamic golden age.

>Good thing-
Yeah no, don't even bother, son. You're not going to impress anyone but unscrupulous amateurs, and no one with any training is going to return the favor. You copy-pasting meme lords are like walking-talking viruses.

No. These are like the gospels in a sense. People knew the Quran says shit about following the Sunnah and nobody thought to write down his words or actions until after he died. So they went around asking people who knew him, his wives, companions, etc. And there is a whole system for them as to what is authentic, to what degree, whose character is reliable enough to be a believable narration, etc. Granted, you could doubt how accurate it is, in some sense, but there isn't anything like plagiarism there. And given all the good hadith tend to be the ones that appeal to our sensibilities, it seems likely that most sahih hadith are reliable most of the time since reading those paints a pretty good representation of what an ignorant theologian turned warrior would believe and act like. So even if they were all wrong, odds are it's close to what Mohammad was like.

>You copy-pasting meme lords are like walking-talking viruses.
Are you at least going to discredit his sources?

Islam isn't an ideology. There's been everything from Muslim communists to Muslim fascists to Muslim secularists, to Muslim traditionalists. Modern Muslim reactionary revivalists and Islamists have been destructive lately, but that has to do with their politics, which has been poisoned pretty badly by several decades of civil war and insurgency against dictatorships in the region.

Amateurs? Should I go post each source individually here rather than direct you to a source which compiles many of them together? We're on Veeky Forums. It's easier to cite one source which quotes and links to Muslim sources already than posting each one and having to word it myself.

I don't give a fuck if a hardline zionist Jew wrote the entire thing. The information stands or falls on its own merits. So are you going to refute what was said or are you going to keep attacking the source as if that refutes what it says about your faith?

Except it literally does cut-and-paste sections out of jewish and christian texts.

That's the Quran. The Quran fucks up and quotes the torah as saying something when it's really a talmudic extract, cites various apocryphal and fairy tales from Christians and Jews of the time, mistakes the trinity as god, Jesus, and Mary, etc.

The hadith is different. It's usually just as wrong, but for different reasons.

True, I never thought of it that. Could explain why I've been on this godforsaken site for more than ten years.

I don't know, to be honest. I wouldn't want to live under sharia law, but I respect the devotion to tradition and culture that it represents in a way. As someone who enjoys pork, sex, and alcohol, sharia law is hard for me to defend it so I won't. But I do think that the hype about it is way overblown, since Westerners equate support for sharia law with support for the genocide of Shia and kafirs. No sane person would equate anti-LGBT or pro-life politics with the Spanish Inquisition or Srebrenica, so it's pretty off-base.

I suppose it's like being a Wehraboo, how do you excuse the war crimes? Aside from denial, of course.

But what's clear is in the Quran that seeking for knowledge is the obligation of every muslim regardless of gender. Contributing to the society is also considered sadaqah jariyah, so it gives the contributor deeds even when he/she is dead. Caliph Ali has also made clear about the importance of knowledge.

>I don't give a fuck if a hardline zionist Jew wrote the entire thing. The information stands or falls on its own merits.
Kinda proving his point about being an amateur there. This isn't a hard science field where you're comparing boson levels with sophisticated equipment. Selection bias and the way you frame an argument based on the available (and often unavailable or sparse) information makes up most of history.

______________¶___
|religion of peace ||l “”|””\__,_
|______________|||__|__|__|]
(@)@)*********(@)(@)**(@)

There are many other thing that you get reward for in Islam. Look at more hadiths.

And when he shows me how their conclusions are unfair, or the sources and quotes they pick are unreliable, I'll be glad to take another look.

All he's done is go "le wikiislam lol" which does not refute what was said. I showed him what sources I read to reach my conclusions, and as far as I can tell, they reach reasonable conclusions based on what they cite and quote. If he can show me where the actual sources are wrong rather than just bashing the site it's on, maybe we can actually have a discussion.

>Sorry that your golden age was a myth
People say this, but there hasn't been a single major historical work that makes a case that can stand up to peer review. It only ever gets repeated on blogs and private publications.

Memorizing the name of god, helping animals, refraining from touching dogs and washing things they touch X amount of times, killing black ones because they are devils, saying certain verses X number of times and memorizing it, etc. I have read the hadith before.

Sadaqah also. Sadaqah can means many thing, one of them is to be able to contribute to the society by knowledge. Sadaqah jariyah is basically a kind of sadaqah which can give us deeds everytime our contribution is used by the others. This have been the motivation by many muslims to find knowledge so they'll be able to contribute.

>I'll be glad to take another look
No you wouldn't, or you wouldn't have stopped at Wikiislam for all your information on the subject. Let's be real, you can get a billion articles arguing both sides of the issue, some extreme and others more reasonable but still partisan, and you wouldn't need an user on Veeky Forums to convince you that maybe it's not all gospel one way or another.

The smart thing to do (besides getting a JSTOR account and reading UniPress books only) would be to link two sensible articles from wikiislam and, I don't know, /r/askhistorians and explain that, no, it was probably more like this and take pieces from both articles to balance out the bias in interpretation on certain points.

Islam is a hardcore religion and Muslims should be proud of that. I'm Chinese and I wish we were more hardcore but nope, Asians just shut up and do whatever the West tells them to do. Don't be fooled by China's "aggression", deep down they are just like the Japanese - they want the respect and admiration of the West like good little slant eyes.

Muslims say fuck that - they're going to protect their way of life, whatever the cost. I say go for it, because nothing lasts forever and Western hegemony is no exception.

How's the uygurs and hui?
They good?

Muslim hegemony peaked centuries ago, they ruled over large swathes of the Earth and now they're reduced to living on the fringe of first world civilization.

islamquote.com/2013/04/03/sadaqat-ul-jariyah/

Which means helping other Muslims given the context. And examples are giving to Muslim charities, memorizing the Quran, etc. I don't count memorizing things Mohammad made up as a sign of intellectual brilliance and helpful to humanity anymore than I find Mohammad to be the best person of all time and a mercy to the world.

Frankly, as an American I'm more afraid of Asians than Muslims.

Asians don't freak out as often, but when they do, it typically involves tens of millions of them.

But what i'm trying to point out is that knowledge is a significantly important thing in Islam, no it's not about memorizing verse or hadith. The website that you've given clearly says that knowledge that benefits many people in which if you just memorize the verses or hadith it may only benefit you but maybe not the others. Basically any kind of useful knowledge like science, etc will earn you a jariyah deeds too. It's also based on the effect to the society on how positive it is without ignoring the religious aspect.

*it's not ONLY about memorizong hadith or verse. It is important too but there are other knowledges that is also important.

Why aren't Middle-easterners smart anymore? Cousin marriages? Other dysgenics?

And whether or not that is true, clearly it pertained to religious knowledge in the past as most of the Islamic golden age was either invented by someone else, translated by other people, etc. Arabs certainly contributed, but they tended to not be Muslim either.

Islam focuses on religion, so memorizing the Quran and hadith would be worthwhile to them because what is better than helping them get to paradise? That does not mean that the Muslim contributions to that golden age were large. They were negligible. Even now you will find very few reputable Muslim scientists. There are some, but it isn't exactly a hotbed of diverse intellectual ideas and discourse. Especially if something may go against their religious ideas.

So, don't mix up Arabs and Muslims. Islam is the issue that causes them to be radical and think there is no higher cause than dying for Allah and focusing on theology.

>These are like the gospels in a sense
Closer to epistles or old testament

>Islam starts to become less religious and more rational and starts to not suck

>Cavemen Imams chimp out and destroy their progress

>Next 600 years sees a steady decline into garbage fire tier internal corruption and decay.

>HURR GOLDEN AGE MEANS RELIGION ISNT BAD WE WUZ KANGS... etc, etc.

They had their shot at an enlightenment and it got fucked up; maybe next time if they don't cause the western bigboys to go full retard and glass the planet in the meantime.

Didn't the Mongols end the Islamic golden age with the Extermination of the Khwarezimians though?

And I say Extermination because the Mongols killed quite a lot of Khwarezimians in their conquest

It certainly didn't help, but I think reaction is an incredibly strong force in Islam and the pre-occupation with mysticism and divine infallibility had a lot to do with sabotaging the rational elements within their societies.

Combine that with later Wahhabism and you end up with what you have now.

Not to say it's IMPOSSIBLE for them to unfuck themselves, but it would require a lot of struggle on their behalf and a lot of not fucking them up even more on the West's behalf, so it's probably unlikely.

They're making Europe a settler colony with their youth bulge of second, third and fourth sons. That's what imperialism marches on hordes of mate-deprived males and institutional harems requires this caste by design.

who even says this besides alt-righters none of the Abrahamic religions are religions of peace and all of them are quite toxic when reverted down to fundamentalism

>Le some people from this religion invented shit so it dindu nuffin meme

Christcucks and Mudslimes out

>Why are the overwhelming majority of terrorist actions carried out by Muslims?
[citation needed]
>Why do they live as if it were still the 13th century?
Go look at pictures of Kabul in the 60s and 70s (like this picture of Afghan women in short skirts going to college, for instance). Shit, Iraq in the 80s, Tehran in the 60s. Shit, look at Saudi culture before Wahabbi became state-enforced. The ME was pretty down with what we'd call "Western Values"

Turns out bombing places into the Stone Age and then contuining to bomb them isn't exactly conducive to infrastructural and philosophical developments outside of "fuck the people bombing us."

This is literally Tehran right now, except with some headscarves. What you're describing wasn't the ME being down with Western values, it was the urban bourgeoisie being down with Western values like urban bourgeoisie are all around the world.

And this may come as a shock to you, but many urban elite all over the Middle East are still following Western fashion and trends. If anything, there's more opportunity to do so thanks to dat oil money. If you'd like, you can go party in Beirut or Damascus (I don't recommend this option).

Quick reminder that CIA shenanigans are the reason Iran is a theocracy.

Also, if I follow you, what you're saying is that not being poor as shit and getting the fuck bombed out of you constantly means that your values system is going to be much more in line with things the west prioritizes? That people who haven't been bombed into the Middle Ages don't live like they're in the Middle Ages?

>why are the majority of terrorist actions carried out by Muslims? (Citation needed)
Google search is a thing. You'll get the FBI stats on it. Don't be lazy.

While I understand this point each time it's brought up in relation to Middle Eastern urbanite culture in the past, in a stable society (i.e. free of bombs and civil wars) the urban culture will invariably influence the rest of the country. It's not like the West also didn't have its share of country yokels who were want to tar and feather anything they didn't like either.

>Makes a claim
>Is asked to back it up
>"lol no YOU look out up"
That's not how this works.

Damn

yes it is, but people were secular

i understand the reference

>Go look at pictures of Kabul in the 60s and 70s

Shit like that was literally on happening in Kabul and few other cities, the rest of the country was ass backwards.

Soviet war in Afghanistan happened in the first place because Afghan communists tried pushing hardcore socialist reforms without asking the soviets first and the people revolted. Why the people revolted? They were old school muslims who wouldn't have any of that commie shit.

And then soviets had to send in Central Asian troops disguised as Afghani soldiers to aid the government and it blew up into war.

>Shit like that was literally on happening in Kabul and few other cities, the rest of the country was ass backwards.

And most social change and progress in the West also happened in the major cities while the rest of the countryside was conservative and traditional. That's not the point. The point is Kabul was the center of change for the country, one which would have eventually propagated itself throughout the rest of the country just like what happened with other capitals and major cities in the West were it not for the invasions and instigated civil wars and revolts that toppled them.

itt:
t.sam harris

*Drives truck into crowd*

user I'm an impressionable neophyte in these topics and I'm actually waiting on you to refute him.
If you don't it could send me on a path to hatred so please respond seriously. This thread is quite interesting.

>There's been everything from Muslim communists to Muslim fascists to Muslim secularists, to Muslim traditionalists

Each either ignoring their religion totally or reconciling it with the given "solute" theory.

usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/04/18/new-app-helps-icelanders-avoid-accidental-incest/2093649/

gizmodo.com/5882644/iceland-is-so-inbred-it-needs-a-website-to-avoid-incest

ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Nebel-HG-00-IPArabs.pdf

ukessays.com/ask/are-arabs-genetically-indistingishable-from-caucasians-848

kill yourself

>Westerners equate support for sharia law with support for the genocide of Shia and kafirs

I think it's the idea that you're suggesting laws of your country should be subordinate to laws of your religion.

It's as far from assimilation as it gets.

But I respect your weebery, friend. I'm glad you're finding peace somehow.

>they're going to protect their way of life, whatever the cost

Even if it means going out of their way to exit their lands and ruin other people's shit?

Chinese are pragmatists. They see shit that works and adopt it, while maintaining dragons and rice and shit.
It has nothing to do with submission.
I don't doubt Americans have adapted plenty of Asian stuff for themselves in the same way. What white girl doesn't love going to chinatown and getting it up the butt from Jackie Chan?

>>Cavemen Imams chimp out and destroy their progress

I want to believe you and am very excited to bring this into my next argument. But only as long as I'm reading this thread.

Care to explain this part of the story?

In my first exposure to islam as a child, a sweet mother came to school to teach us and called it the "religion of peace". I had no reason not to believe her.

My second major interaction with Islam was on birthright in Israel. We visited a mosque for a q&a with the imam, i believe. or just a couple prominent characters in town. They too wanted to be sure we understood "religion of peace" was their motto.

Muʿtazila were dying out before the Mongol invasions.

You're talking about a religion that was on the verge of a 17th century European rational-skeptical Enlightenment. They willingly threw it away.

He actually refuted himself in his own post.

The more prosperous the country, the less they truthfully uphold the tenants of their ancient, violent religions.

Funny.

Or do you think it's Islam that brought fashionable styles and a yearning for acquiring wealth and knowledge to those women?

I ALMOST FORGOT ABOUT ALL THOSE ATHEIST TRUCK BOMBINGS AND JEWISH GAY CLUB SHOOTOUTS THESE PAST FIVE YEARS HAVE BEEN ALL ABOUT

MAN THIS TERRORISM STUFF IS EVERYWHERE

But.. They still are weak nomadic idiots.
youtu.be/hZZMXV_PRXk

>Why are the overwhelming majority of terrorist actions carried out by Muslims?
Because an overwhelming majority of the population living in the middle-east is muslim. If the the ME wasn't as instable as it is today terrorism wouldn't exist.

>these past 5 years
hmmm

>The most western-style "virtuous" hadiths are at best a fragile facade, used as a selling point on Mohammad for initiates and observers, hence taqiyyah
>list of fabricated hadiths from wikiislam

Which part of that is contradictory?
I would love to hear a solid refutation so the next time one of my buddies gets up in arms about Islam I can try to put him in his place.

Probably goes further back, I know.

Rev up that Spengler.

There's more than one Hadith on each those subjects, user. Not to mention an entirely grand-spanking new bunch by the Shia that one can use as hadith (1+/10 actually exclusively use these, so citing only Bukhari and Muslim as sources kind of throws them under the bus--pun not intended--don't you think?)

As for the Golden Age, most polymaths and inventors of the time were also theologians, ibn Rushd and ibn Sina being good examples. While there were atheist thinkers like Ferdowsi, and Khayyam, it was predominantly Islamic.

WikiIslam has a confirmation bias and has been known to willfully omit shit that doesn't fit its narrative.

In the end the muslims had more collective knowledge than either the greeks, or the persians, or the indians had.
They didn't just steal, they combined, cleaned up and organized it. And in some cases, like astronomy and geography, they advanced it.

Stop trying to oversimple everything to fit it in a >muh thing meme.

Taqiyyah is Shia, my man. Sunnis hate it and don't have it in their theology. Plus it's for whenever your life is threatened.

t. Shia

> I could do the same for many faiths, but
He literally admitted his emotional biases there, can't be taken seriously as a person arguing in good 'faith'.

>Rural America chimps out at the mention of the words "socialism" and "black president."
Yeah the west is SO different, with its liberal cities and deeply religious and conservative rural areas. Quit acting like anything you're saying is only true of countries with Muslims in them like there isn't an extremely popular culture in the west centered around beating off to the concept of society collapsing to the point where their ideological opponents can be shot on sight.

>Muslims who don't act like my extremely narrow perception of Muslims aren't real Muslims.
...

Lets say it wasn't. Let's say the US was unstable and picked up their Christian roots.
I mean, they probably wouldn't radicalize around Jesus, since he's described as a pacifist masochist. But say they just took up the Old Testament and started killing people like they did in the old days.

Is Christianity a violent ideology?
Yes. Just because they ignored it until they started getting bombed doesn't make a difference.

Say they radicalized on a secular ideology. Marxism.
Is that a violent ideology?
No. Nothing in its tenants expressly calls for violence.

But maybe you can dig something up on that. So let's make it black and white.
The Non-Aggression Principle. What if some assholes decided the best way to spread Non-Aggression was by killing the aggressive people who are destabilizing their home region.
Is Non-Aggression a violent ideology?
No. That's your "human beings responding to strife in the most human way and corrupting a nonviolent ideology" scenario. And it's entirely agreeable.

Islam, however, like most religions, is a complex, ancient ideology, which, at it's core, has some undesirably violent, contradictory tenants.
No matter what your interpretation of "non-aggression principle" is, if you're being aggressive, you are by definition not following it.
The same is not true for Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc etc

could you point out a hadith of his that, if you looked at it from a friendlier point of view, would be less weak or less fake?