Can we have a thread about Islam that isn't political in any way?

The picture does it little justice, the central fountain shines like pearls, though it originally had quite a bit of plantation surrounding. Some of the courtyards are incredible. My favorite though, was this one - the courtyard/patio of the gilded room. You would wait here to enter one door, or the other - one to the governing courts chamber (criminals, diplomats, etc) or to gilded room.

You can really feel the history, sweating and waiting there, as they did, and the light works so well.

Someone else can expand further but at least for the first question the answer is state backing. The mutazillah in particular were seen as subversive, especially by the latter middle ages. They eventually all ended up suppressed. I wonder how Islam would look today if their places had been reversed, or if the office of Caliph had secularized in response to the Islamic Golden Age philosophies instead of seeing a threat and killing off those which were politically convenient.

Here is the Mexaur, the governing/court/judges room. From the tourist site: - it was used by the king for the meetings with the council and to grant audiences. When the king was not in the palace, it was the Judge (Cadí), in the next hall, who met the traders. On the door, one of the tiles of the wall says: «Enter and fear not ask to ask for justice, for you will find it».

Though it went through tonnes of rennovations and was reused by the later christian spaniards as a chapel and choir room, it too is an impressive room for the same reason.

Alhambra is nice for its history but most of it are ruins / badly renovated
The Alcazar of Seville have the same style and is much better preserved, even preserves the original colouring

...

I've been reading up on Islam lately. I must say I'm extremely sympathetic to it and strongly considering conversion, but I wouldn't want to make such a decision lightly without having done really detailed research.

Why?
t. ex-muslim

My favorite room ITT so far. Before I read the description it appealed to my autistic sense of order. It makes sense that it is a court room.

To track the intellectual journey that led me to this point in detail would take too long, but I can try to summarize it. Growing up I had some religious influences in my life but I didn't think about it all that much. Then at 18 I became very religious. After less then a year, however, I realized I was unconvinced by the arguments. I never lost my respect for religion since I always considered the contemporary secular lifestyle to be rather pathetic and animal-like. The positivist philosophy strengthened my conviction in the overall incoherence of religious points of view. Later I encountered Nietzsche and read him very thoroughly―he introduced more subtlety and nuance into my thinking, as the positivists are rather coarse and oversimplistic. But after several years of engaging with his thought, and other books as well, something about his worldview began to strike me as incomplete and self defeating. It was around that time, about 3 years ago, that I discovered Rene Guenon and Julius Evola. Since then I have had a renewed respect for and interest in metaphysics and religion. I have explored the ideas of different faiths, but mostly I looked into Orthodox Christianity. I attended Church for a while but ultimatley remained unconvinced. Lately I have explored Islam and I fee like I've found my "niche". I am beginning to feel that Islam embodies the universal truth moreso than any other faith, and the eloquence of the Quran has greatly impressed me.

That said, Islam is subject to a lot of allegations and criticism and I wouldn't feel confident converting until I have all those bases covered.

What's the difference between an Ifrit and a Marid?

No organization, religion, or philosophy is completely above criticism. I was born into an Armenian christian family and converted to Shia Islam when I was 23. I do know that it has its problems, but I feel that a lot of what westerners perceive as problems with Islam are in reality peripheral to it and more associated with rural fundamentalists who make heterodox practices because they have terrible lives and nowhere to turn except to the promises of radical preachers, or because that was their tradition before Islam came to the region.

Would a type of modern confederacy work better for muslim areas then, where all non economic, military and foreign policy decisions can be resolved by local custom, be it theocracy or whatever? I would imagine it would help with a lot of issues from ethnic minorities like Kirds to religious ones as well.

>Tfw no modern day muslim HRE

How come you went with Shi'a Islam? I'm personally very deeply impressed with the story of Hussein. Even to the point of being brought to tears. I'm particularly interested in potential theological differences if any, besides succession of the prophet that is. Do Sunni and Shi'a see the purpose or nature of human existence in fundamentally different ways?

As a Catholic (read basically orthodox), may I ask why Islam moved you where Christianity didn't?

I'm on the bus, but I'll be happy to try and oblige you as soon as I get home.

I'll probably end up responding in the morning but cool.

I honestly don't know a whole lot about Sunni eschatology, but the biggest theological differences are the Imams (which I guess you might count as a difference stemming from the succession of the prophet) and doctrines related to them. The differences not related to them are (again from what little I know of Sunni Islam) about the same in degree as those between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches. As examples, some holidays are celebrated on slightly different days, and we have different names for very similar or even identical concepts, like the Five Pillars and the Ancillaries of the Faith. Shia Islam explicitly denies the idea of predestination, where Sunnis consider it a more open question.

Speaking perfectly honestly, I chose Shia for its theology and for community reasons in roughly equal measure. I preferred the Shia position to the Sunni ones in the above, and also perhaps that my Christian background made me more receptive to the ideas of Twelver Shiism than a Muslim or irreligious person might have been. There was also a Shia mosque close by my home at the time, and I already knew a number of people who went there. I was able to discuss theology with them, and later with the Imam as well once I'd decided to take serious steps toward conversion.

How long have you been a Muslim?

Not long. I was formally converted only about a half a year ago.

Basically Christianity strikes me as being too dependant on contingent historical facts whereas Islam leans on metaphyiscal truths. There is a series of inferences one must make in order to be a Christian and they strike me as being a little too tenuous and without justifiable precedent. One must first believe that Jesus existed (Muslims obviously do, but don't forget I'm not a Muslim―yet), then one must believe that he performed miracles, then that died and rose from the dead, next one must infer from the fact of his resurrection that he is in fact the "Son of God" according the specific theological definition given by the Church for this otherwise vague designation, next one must believe that this "Son of God" stands in a certain relation to two other divine hypostases in a divine trinity and that the nature and existence of this trinity can be accurately inferred from the gospels which are essentially eye witness accounts, next one must believe that this death had certain consequences for humanity that entail a substantially new mode of living and worship etc and so on and so forth. At every step this series of inferences gets more tenuous, absurd, and difficult to justify especially given the supposed derivation of Christianity from Biblical Israelitism in which a precedent for such doctrines cannot be found except by means of an exegesis the nature of which feels rather shaky and unreliable.

My journey to Islam followed the exact opposite course―from universal principles to specific historical facts. First I concluded that there was a singular truth from which all contingent existence is derived. Afterwards, thanks to the ideas of Guenon and others, I concluded that access to this truth was preserved to greater or lesser extents in the different existing religions and traditions. After that I concluded that the "Semitic branch" of this perennial wisdom was also a valid one. From that I began to consider Christianity but ultimately found it unsatisfactory. So then I drifted around for a while reading from a variety of traditions and religions, and eventually decided almost reluctantly to give Islam a look too. I slowly began to be very impressed with its outlook. It is only lately, reading that Quran that I have become convinced it is a genuine revelation. The book itself is almost wholly preoccupied with the question of true knowledge, and how one distinguishes true and false ("knowledge" is one of the most recurring words in the Quran). It also acknowledges that there have been MANY prophets that have come to ALLL people through all of history, and that Mohammed is but the last of them. The last inference I made in this series is that Allah whom Mohammed speaks of is precisely that universal truth which began my series of inferences. Pic related is a diagram I drew depicting that idea. The book is shaking me up from the inside the way no book has ever before. I might be walking outside and I'll see a bird or something and I'll just start crying from gratitude that I'm alive, and in awe of how inconceivably puny I am next to the greatness of God.

>Can we have a thread about Islam that isn't political in any way?
Not really. Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion.

What did your family or friends think? Just wondering.

I haven't converted yet, and they have no idea about my interest as I remarked in an earlier post. But considering that they are gung-ho Muslim-bashing Israeli Jews I can't imagine that it will go over very well. Hence why I cannot make such a decision lightly. I have to be absolutely certain.

Not to be nitpicky but Islam relies just as much on assumptions as Christianity would be, as you would have to assume God spoke to Muhammad via an Angel, that this message would be the last from God and thus Muhammad his last prophet, and that the followers of Muhammad accurately and transcribed verbatim the word of God( I must admit however I am going off of my understanding of hanafi and salafi beliefs, I don't know if there is any difference in the treatment of the Quran in other schools of fiqh). Also Jesus's existence is historically verified, at least more than Socrates's.

On another note, if anyone has any recommendations on any books about the beginnings of the Quran and it's composition, I'm all ears. I hear too much hearsay about it.

Yes, it's not cut and dry, but the point is that Islam confirms a "perennial truth" which itself is not dependant on history whereas Christianity offers what in my opinion is a highly convoluted doctrine and makes its validity depend on very shakily interpreted historical data.

Oh, sorry, I didn't read the posts thoroughly. Then I ask the same question to

...

I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but I'm not getting how Islam or the Quran confirms the truth any differently than how the Tanakh or the New Testament does. Just because it acknowledges other prophets doesn't mean anything without the validity of its own message, which relies upon as shaky data as any event does 1,400 years ago. It's not even the only religion to "confirm" a perennial truth, if I recall Bahaism does the same to an even more inclusive degree.

>tfw forced to dislike Islam primarily because it's the ideology of foreign invaders

how much does Islam vary between countries of he same kind (ie suni)

Yes, am I not saying to ignore historical factors and other contingent data. Only that the mode of inference has to be in the direction of universal toward particular, whereas with Christianity this is impossible since for Christianity the Truth itself is a particular historical personality (atleast that is how the Orthodox express it). Once I narrow the field by moving from universal to particular such contigent data become INCREASINGLY relevant and I begin to examine them more and more. It's just that in the particular case of Christianity I feel that they are fundamentally constituted in such a way that one would have to go from particular to universal―which may be fine for some but I can't bring myself to accept such a mode of inference. As for Judaism they are also contingently conditioned since they have no agreed upon doctrines and their law (chiefly oral) traces itself to a particular moment in time (Mount Sinai). There is also the problem of the transmission of their text (obviously this is also potentially a question that could affect Islam and I will have to examine that before reaching a decision). So basically that now leaves me with Islam and a shitload of other religions minus Judaism and Christianity. Getting further into why I am particularly favoring Islam compared to these other religions would take too much time atm and I kinda wanna step off the chans and get comfy with some Plotinus. If thread is still up we can continue the discussion tomorrow hopefully.

>I was born into an Armenian christian family and converted to Shia Islam when I was 23.

But why?

Whats it like being muslim?

More than I can say. Even if I disagree with you on several instances that's a beautiful thing to hear.
>One must first believe that Jesus existed
I'm sure I don't need to convince you on this one.
>then one must believe that he performed miracles
Muhammed did the same. I can't speak of objective proof for either of these, however, I can say that in recent years the Catholic Church has identified two Marian apparitions with accompanying miracles that are, to me, certain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_apparitions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
>then that died and rose from the dead
His crucifixion uncontested historical fact. As for the resurrection, it's worth noting that the Gospels were written only 30 years after Jesus's death, and compared to other text of the time, are some of the most well preserved in existence. Moreso, his life brought about, in two centuries, a torrent of writings from a rainbow of sects, all of which, whether or not they believed in the resurrection as stated in the Gospel, addressed it as an event with their own interpretation or spin, along with scores of followers who died as witnesses to it. Jesus's life was a tidal wave to the region and the resurrection has been bound to the story of Jesus since the beginning, a record begun within the lifetimes of those who knew him and attested to by all of his followers.

> next one must infer from the fact of his resurrection that he is in fact the "Son of God" according to the specific theological definition is given by the Church
Jesus as the Son of God is explicitly stated in the Gospels, and while the specifics of what that meant were a huge topic of controversy in the early church, the reality of Jesus as the God-Man are easily surmised even in the first part of the Gospel of John. Jesus was the Word, the Logos (a greek word simultaneously meaning mind and reason). What is a word, or a logo for that matter, but a symbolic representation of something? If God were to think of a symbol to represent him, much like we think in words and symbols, what else would an infinite mind he conceived of but God himself, in all totality, in all qualities, and of the identical essence? And, if God's mind is, in fact, infinite, how could said self-aware conception, much like our own self-image, not be a part of him? Therefore, God's counterpart to our self reflection must, by virtue of his power, entail a seperate divine persons, identical yet sharing one essence, that of being God, a fact denied in Islam.

Jesus as the Son of God is explicitly stated in the Gospels, and while the specifics of what that meant were a huge topic of controversy in the early church, the reality of Jesus as the God-Man are easily surmised even in the first part of the Gospel of John. Jesus was the Word, the Logos (a greek word simultaneously meaning mind and reason). What is a word, or a logo for that matter, but a symbolic representation of something? If God were to think of a symbol to represent him, much like we think in words and symbols, what else would an infinite mind he conceived of but God himself, in all totality, in all qualities, and of the identical essence? And, if God's mind is, in fact, infinite, how could said self-aware conception, much like our own self-image, not be a part of him? Therefore, God's counterpart to our self reflection must, by virtue of his power, entail a seperate divine persons, identical yet sharing one essence, that of being God, a fact denied in Islam. So, the Word was with God and was God, from the beginning. In the words of John, what came to be through him, through which all things were made, was life. If you believe that God is the origin of all, then he is, therefore, the source of all good; the root end of all human action. The world was made for us, and we were made for God. Yet what, then, is the We that God saw so valuable to make the world for?

In case it was not clear: I am not objecting to the facts, but to making knowledge of universals dependant on particulars IN PRINCIPLE―any faith which is so constituted that one MUST arrive at it's own peculiar universals (e.g. for Christianity the Trinity and incarnation) by assention to the occurence of historical facts and their subsequent INTERPRETATION in a particular manner seems to me to be fundamentally "backward". The interpretation of Christ's ministry and words is extremely dubious imo, even if we take every thing recorded in the gospels as being 100% correct historical fact, and rests upon accepting the belief that the councils which were responsible for these interpretations were guided by the Holy Spirit to the correct interpretation (and upon this premise all apostolic Church doctrines fundamentally depend). Once again, note that historical facts, and other contingent data, are not to be rejected, but to me they only have a value insofar as one approaches them FROM the universals and not the other way around (i.e. taking them as the starting point).

We, both Christians and Jews and potential Muslims, believe that Man was made in the Image of God, we have worth because we share the qualities of God, specifically free will, reason, and a will to good. These qualities are known to God through the Logos, his self-awareness. This is not to say that without the Logos that God would not have these qualities, but his knowledge entails knowledge of all, i.e. himself, so it is necessary to his operation. It is the Logos, the image of God, with on whom we, the image of God, are modeled, and for whom everything has been created. Furthermore, if we believe all of creation is a testament to the glory and existence of God, then it is also a testament to the Logos, because that is how God knows these things, which subsequently means that all out knowledge of God is knowledge of the Logos, i.e. the essence of God, i.e. God. This is why we believe that the Logos (as Plato, in his definition, did also) is the lynchpin of reality; it is Good, Truth, and Existence that both Man and God both see and love in the world (Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Jn 14:6) It is because God knows God that God knows good, and wills it for others, as we do too. I understand why you believe that these "Son of God" is a vague statement, yet the Prologue to John does a remarkable job of condensing the meaning of it. Ultimately, it is the recognition of this truth, one which was semi conceived by the Greeks yet it ultimately unique to Christianity, that convinces me of its authenticity as a revealed religion, it's distinction on the stage of history, and in the authenticity of Jesus Christ as it's teacher. As to whether or not the hypostasis of the Man-God is viable, I simply believe that if anything is possible through God, the hypostasis certainly is.

Lots to think about. Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. I'll hopefully get back to you tomorrow.

As for the trinity, is by no means simple, although it is inferred through a mixture of OT exegesis and the words of Jesus, not eyewitness testimony. Nevertheless, it was highly contested until the 4th century, and belief in it first requires faith in Jesus, along with much of the Old Testament, so I would leave you to research it on your own without straining your credulity.
As to how it's new mode of living, it was simply introduced the concept that sin would be forgiven without sacrifice or ridicule, an idea which consumed the roman empire and rocketed an obscure ethnic faith to first world religion in the west status. Did everyone follow this precept to a tee, no. Did it manage to become arguably the most influential faith in the world anyways? Yes. Say what you will about Christianity's historical veracity, but Jesus is up there with Muhammed and the "hitting my goals" department and he didn't need a Caliphate.
I am very tired.
have Bird.

Is Islam simply Judaism lite?

Since this thread has turned a little religious, I have a question for all of the religious people posting.

I've always been an atheist, and while the idea of religion itself seems attractive enough, there are certain questions that always come up at the back of my head

1. Do you seriously think yours is the 'true' religion, or do you think all religions are equally valid and that god presents himself (or herself, whatever) differently?

2. Seriously speaking, how would you feel if we one day found a space-faring civilization that's been going on for millions of years without even so much of a notion of religious belief?

3. Just how you deal with the existence of multitude of religions out there? How do you trust yourself enough to think that you've made the right choice?

4. Furthermore, how can you even think there's a "right" choice to make at all? That is to say, looking at the entirety of history and creation, what makes you think that there is a God and that there is a right way in which for you to obey that entity?

5. How do you handle the idea of an afterlife? To me, it seems unbearable. I'll grant you that if you take away the spatio-temporal side of it, "eternity" as we know it wouldn't even exist. But, still, do you think about the afterlife, ever, and if you do, how do you picture it? Doesn't the idea of being "alive" forever terrify you?

6. To follow up my fifth question, do you think this is all there is to it? Like, we live, we die, we go to an afterlife, and that's it? Or do you think that aside from whatever has been revealed to humanity, the creations of God go way beyond this universe and are basically infinite and unknowable?

7. To what degree do you think the will of God has been corrupted to human transmission? Like, in an ideal transmission, do you think God would still identify as a "He"? Does the fact that God is masculine bother you, or does it make complete sense?

As a ex-muslim, I will only suggest that you take your time and explore every part of Islamic theology and history.

While I am a atheist, Christian God to me is far more keen on mercy and love than Islamic idea of God.

1. No, we have different religions because god shows itself differently to different people so that all of them could understand his message, regardless of their background or environment.

2. Very surprised, it would either mean that they are immortals or do not consider the afterlife, which would be a lack of intelligence imo.

3. My religion insists on freedom of thought. It's only between me and god and no one is allowed to interfere with that. So I don't really see how this wouldn't be ideal (at least for me)

4 there's no right choice regarding God as we're unable to fully know. I could bring up pascal's bet but I hate it, I'll just say that the idea of god is reassuring.

5 I came to accept my death after a few events. If the afterlife exists I don't think it would be dreadful, or else there'd be no point. If it doesn't I don't have any problem about my existence ending for good

6 I think we'll never really know the truth as the universe is too big, but the point of our lives is to get more knowledge and get closer to it

7 god is a masculine in languages that have genders. And yeah of course, just the fact that he had to put it in a way for us to understand corrupts it.
Then again religion is biased by clericals who end up taking the religion for them and inventing their own rules instead of letting people live their faith

>Christian God to me is far more keen on mercy and love than Islamic idea of God.

Which is why Islam is superior to Christianity

Most countries have blended pagan rituals into their of islam only now its used to honor allah.

bump

You're a stupid nigger

What you should understand is that the universals, i.e. God, exist independent of historical facts or their interpretation, and that, being universal, they can be arrived at through logical analysis in addition to historical interpretation or exegesis. The universal principle you have arrived at is monotheism, an axiom that was arrived at through logical analysis of the particulars of the world and the lack of justification for their existence without said axiom. Monotheism is not a particularly unique concept; almost all world religions minus Buddhism attest to a first-mover and it has only recently fallen out of vogue. However, the necessity of a Logos, while presented as revelation solely in the Gospels, can also be arrived at purely through logical deduction, as was the case partially with several Greek philosophers (they did not conceive of it as a divine person, to be fair to their stance, yet John borrows the term logos from them). Trinitarianism was ultimately arrived at through both exegeses, yet it can also be arrived at logical argument, as philosophers such as Augustine and Aquinas testify. God exists, a self-aware Logos of God, as I have argued and as the Gospel of John attests to, also exists. God also acts; in fact, as the first mover, God is pure action, and to say God acts and God exists mean the exact same thing, However, there is a paradox embedded in this. God, being perfect, cannot have any reliance on a lesser creation for existence, and yet all action implies an end of some kind, a goal.
cont.

God, being good, acts towards good, therefore, the Logos, the image of good and of God, is what he acts to sustain. However, this does not answer the question of creation. Through self-knowledge, through knowing good, God knows that there is infinitely more good he can accomplish and that it is necessary for him to do so, so out of love for the Logos, out of love for good, out of love, he creates the world. And to accomplish this without compromising his perfection, a third person exists, the Spirit of God. God, in acting on the world, goes out of himself in the only way he can; in fullness; as love, in good, as himself. Therefore we arrive at three separate persons, one being God, one being God as conceived by God, i.e. God, and one as the action of God, i.e. God. They share all the same qualities and are all God, yet are distinct through their function. The Father is the essence, the Son is the knowledge, and the Spirit is the action. This logic, if you accept it, holds regardless of the course of history or it's interpretation, as it would hold at the beginning of time. Yet the Gospel, proclaiming the Son who is God, and Genesis, proclaiming a Spirit of God before creation, therefore not a creation of God but God himself, attest to it, which, along with said logical argument, is the reason the Church councils proclaimed it as truth. As for the incarnation, that is not a universal, it is a historical event, a moment in time and space, but it certainly revealed universal truths to mankind, such as the Logos, the Trinity, and all of the wisdom Jesus had to offer, which is why our doctrine hinges on the words of Jesus, i.e. the word of God, i.e. a revelation. But you don't believe that Jesus is God, which is quite understandable seeing as there is no empirical evidence to corroborate it. However, there are universal truths, qualities of God, i.e. the only universal truth, to which only Christianity has attested and Christianity has revealed.

The councils, they did nothing.

This all being said though, you say you believe Christ's ministry and words are dubious, which would negate nearly all I said, so if you don't mind what do you find dubious about them?

Only born again Christians understand what it is to be in the image of God, because only born again Christians have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit within them.

God looks at me, and sees Himself.

That's what "in the image" means. It's like a silversmith who stops purifying the silver and scraping off the dross when he can see himself in the molten silver.

Religions are manmade systems of bondage for the upper tier to have authority over the lower tiers.

They should all be shunned.

Jesus did not die to institute another system of bondage; He died to set men free. Right now, whether you know it or not, you are enslaved by your own sins. You are enslaved by your own flesh, by your own desires.

Because its god is the greatest of deceivers, and God is Love?

That makes islam better?

allah is Hubal, the pagan god of Mohammad's father. Hubal, HaBaal, the Baal of the Moabites.

Allah is closer to El, or Hebrew Eloah and Elohim
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
Hubal is one the deities Muhammad directly condemned

edgy

>Hubal is one the deities Muhammad directly condemned

Never did, no, as his father and uncle remained Hubal followers. The black rock in the kaaba is what's left of Hubal's idol. allah is Shaitan, no matter what he says his name is. He lies.

Why do Christfags continue to push "ALLAH = SATAN" maymay, don't they realize that it makes them look ridiculous?

>Narrated Al-Bara: Abu Sufyan said, "Is the son of Abu Quhafa present among the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abd Sufyan said, "Is the son of Al-Khattab amongst the people?" He then added, "All these people have been killed, for, were they alive, they would have replied." On that, 'Umar could not help saying, "You are a liar, O enemy of Allah! Allah has kept what will make you unhappy." Abu Safyan said, "Superior may be Hubal!" On that the Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They asked, "What may we say?" He said, "Say: Allah is More Elevated and More Majestic!" -Hadits: Sahih Bukhari 5:59:375

Muhammad father is dead before he's even born

bumpp

but islam is not exclusively a creed, it is a policy and internally lumps its politcal and religious views together.

I actually decided to seriously study the history of Islam at a period of time just so I could better argue with Reddit neckbeards and unsurprisingly my findings are pretty consistent with the whole "islam is a meme" meme. I think one of the biggest misconceptions is the myth surrounding the "golden age of Islam" where "they" are attributed with massive contributions to academia through mathematics, philosophy, literature, and so on. Well the reality is that the bulk of these contributions came from not the conventional and current form of Islam at the time but from a particularly secular sub-sect. I also learned that the vast majority of Muslims are inbred

>the bulk of these contributions came from not the conventional and current form of Islam at the time but from a particularly secular sub-sect

And that sect was ...?

>myth surrounding the "golden age of islam"
Doesn't sound like it was very serious studying.

So who is the Saint Augustine of Islam? A famous convert who was won over through philosophy, wrote about his experiences, and wrote books defending his faith?

One of the benefits of the general Muslim prohibition on the depiction of living things means that their architecture tends to have a lot of fascinating patterns and geometry. There's nothing quite like the cathedrals of Europe, but there are some beautiful mosques out there.

I disagree, I personally like mosques a lot more. And I also like those stocky Orthodox monasteries that are painted on the outside, like pic related. They're always cool during summer too, because the stone walls are so goddamn thick. They were built to repel possible Muslim attacks, so they're quite resistant.

>the bulk of these contributions came from not the conventional and current form of Islam at the time but from a particularly secular sub-sect.

The Mu'tazili school isn't very different from the conventional and current forms of Islam, such as the Ash'ari and the Maturidi schools. Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari was himself a follower of the Mu'tazili school at some point of his life. You would have known that if your study of the history of Islam was actually serious.

Nigger are you retarded ?

> that isn't political in any way?
>a course about Islamic achievements and inventions

bump

They literally did psychedelic art before, on a bigger scale, and better than the hippies.

...

Afghanistan?

...

...

The ideology of Islamism is cancer imo
It's not compatible with thoughts or ideas of freedom, liberty, happiness, etc
Historically it's shown its nature of oppressing people of different thoughts or beliefs (especially wiping out native religious minorities) and destroying many historical sites or whatnot

>wiping out native religious minorities
such as?

Zorastians
Manacheans
Also Afghanistan was once a center of Buddhism.

Also they tried wiping out the Hindus on multiple occasions.

>The ideology of Islamism is cancer imo
>It's not compatible with thoughts or ideas of freedom, liberty, happiness, etc

Neither is much of continental philosophy.

t. not a German