Why didn't Islam go through a Reformation like Christianity did? Do they still have a chance to do it...

Well, it did work on most of the Turkic Muslims of the ex-USSR (particularly on the Tatars, the Bashkirs and the Kazakhs), so I don't see a reason why it cannot work on the whole Islamic world.

It did.

It's called Alevism.
Offshoot of Batini Shia Islam

I would say that Islams religious leadership was never centralized enough after the early caliphate to have something to reform against. Any new teachings would.just become another sect.

The reformation didn't make christianity any more secular.

i wouldn't blame it on turning away from religion, that was an extremely minor point. The church still pioneered in a lot of research for a long time, it was mostly the value that was given to the scientific method.

but indeed islam is a medieval deathcult

it kinda made the catholic church more secular and the religious hotheads converted to protestantism

Why didn't Christianity go through a sunni/shia split?
It's completely pointless to compare such different historical process and retarded to expect the same things to happen everywhere.

>Muslim Enlightenment fucking when.
The ones after Enlightenment get killed by the fundamentalist Caliphate seeking fuckers the world is plagued by.

Biggest victims of ISIS and AQ ( and even Muslim Brotherhood, who are the really dangerous ones!) have been other Muslims.
Why?

To fundamentalists they rank targets in following order:

1: Apostates - nothing worse than traitors. Note you can be a devout muslim and still be branded this by another group of the same sect because you don't stand with them.
2: Atheists - godless heathens
3: Buddhists, Hindu's, Polytheists. Multiple gods is HARAM
4: Christians and Jews. Evil infidels, but at least they're monotheists.

They want the Caliphate back, and they won't stop.
Only solution is for the "moderate" muslims (of which so few true ones exist they basically are insignificant) to lead the fight against the terrorists, with as minimal western support as possible.

This won't happen because liberal atheists pander to the fundamentalists, despite everything. So the good muslims who would save islam and spare the world are at best shut out, at worst cut down.

>Reformation
Protestantism is Atheism 0.5. The Reformation didn't ''Reform'' Christianity, it simply contained it. If the West is ever to end up in an economic situation like that of the modern Middle East, we will be just as fundamentalist as modern day Muslims.

A fellow fan of Sam Harris. Nice.

>Sam Harris
Sam Harris despises Muslims so much, that he actually thinks America was justified in the Iraq War simply because ''we are Secular, they are not..''

Cherry picking a quote out of context is below you, c'mon mate, gotta be intellectually honest for both of our sakes.

I can however appreciate how Sam can be polarizing.

I don't think that he outright despises Muslims. More so that he hates what Islam makes people do. He'd be the first to tell you that Christianity and Judaism are barbaric in their own right, but you'd be flat out lying if you can't see the jarring correlation between Islam and violence in the modern world.

Most people can't stomach a pill of this size but the truth is that it simply boils down to genetics. Arabs (in this context, people of that region) are predisposed to a lower intelligence quotient as it is (Mendelsohn et al., 2010) and arabs have historically and still in present day are incredibly inbred. Within the culture, marriage of the first cousin is often encouraged and this has been clinically shown to also further lower the intelligence quotient of the affected population. Similar to a dog that is not capable of recognizing itself in the mirror, the Islamics never really and more importantly can't "wake up"

>incredibly inbred
If true that would certainly explain a lot

>Cherry picking
No cherry picking in a quote that he said unironically, guy actually deludes himself into thinking Religion is literally worse than Rape and thinks Science can ''determine Morality and Ethics'', but that isn't surprising since he is part of the militant New Atheist Movement. Your Apologsim for him won't work.

>arabs have historically and still in present day are incredibly inbred
Cite your Evidence and Sources.

You're still misrepresenting his point, which alot of his critics do.

>If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.

Interestingly enough, many religions tacitly supports rape and a "rape culture" in their doctrines and dogmas. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to oppression of women as it relates to religion.

>I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.
BULLSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEIT. Nazism, and Communism and Capitalism killed more people in the 20th century than any religion ever did in the entire history of humanity. Don't even delude yourself into that isn't true.

...

There have been revivalist, millennial and mahdist movements like the Ahmadis and Deobandis.
Wahhabis and Salafis are more radical reformer like.

Hitch describes it best. ALL dictatorships are a form of religion.

youtube.com/watch?v=kNRiQR1Vv8o

Also a reformation doesn't necessarily mean modernization and may actually be counter to it.

>Mao
>Stalin
>Hardcore Atheists who despised Reiligion.
>Somehow Religious.
The mental gymnastics are priceless.

Watch the video, please.

Also, religion doesn't exclusively mean Christianity or Judaism. Alot of dictators present themselves are divine beings or above humanity and fascist governments revolve around people following the ultimate authority of a higher power -- just like the Catholic Church.

>I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.
Bullshit. People bicker over religion. What they kill each other over is money. Scratch deep enough below the surface, and you find that religion is just the excuse that they come up with to get the morons in uniform to go along with it.

The Islamic state are ex-Baathists resisting second-class citizenship status as sunnis in their democracy which has been poisoned by Bush-era faith in identity-based sectarianism and is being taken over by Shiites.

It's no coincidence that these areas also have some of the most extreme inequality in the world. But in the largest Muslim country in the world Inequality among Muslims is lower than their Buddhist neighbors, so it just doesn't correlate that religion is the thing causing all the problems.

>People bicker over religion

I wouldn't call the religious conflicts throughout history "bickering."

I'm sure there is alot of class-issue bullshit going on the middle east but to say that religion has nothing to do with it is frankly disingenuous.

Tell me, why do the most secular countries in the world have the best human rights records? Better health care? Quality of life? Upward mobility? The least amount of racism? Etc Etc?

>best human rights records? Better health care? Quality of life? Upward mobility? The least amount of racism? Etc Etc?
All thanks to economic prosperity, not Secularism. Put the West in the same economic situation of the Middle East and they just as violent and draconian as the Middle East.

>I wouldn't call the religious conflicts throughout history "bickering."
It's not just class warfare. Whenever you mix politics and religion you create conditions for an arbitrary privilege, and you get a society of haves and have-nots. All classes of society are affected, not just the absolute poorest, though they do the lion's share of the suffering. The fact is, you need suffering rich people in order for there to be funding and social willpower for revolutions

At the end of the day, religion, like any other ideology, is a vehicle that can be hijacked and turned into a tool for the personal enrichment of a despot.

You don't find it interesting that almost all the countries to first adopt a secular society just so happened to be the most economically prosperous today?

Once Japan threw away it's last vestige of religion in their God Emperor and adopted a truly secular society through American leadership did they experience one of the largest economic booms ever seen.

>You don't find it interesting that almost all the countries to first adopt a secular society just so happened to be the most economically prosperous today?
No. They became Secular AFTER they became economically prosperous. Secularism isn't a right, it's a privilege.

I believe we half agree on the central point though. We're just arguing from different sides of it.

Authority through divine right or lineage is a driving factor in that part of the world and is deeply entwined with the suffering in that region.

>They became Secular AFTER

Except there was active secularization even before the Meiji Restoration. Your attempt at a correlation falls flat.

I would argue that secular ingenuity is what sparked the economic property. Religion notoriously stifles free thinking and challenges to the status quo.

But it's not the religion itself which is causing the problems, as evidence to the fact that plenty of Muslims live in countries which aren't directly related to the problems in the middle east, and you don't see radicalized young men shooting up nightclubs and bombing concerts in them.

It's human nature. If we eradicated religion from the world, people would find some other excuse to kill each other.

> But it's not the religion itself which is causing the problems, as evidence to the fact that plenty of Muslims live in countries which aren't directly related to the problems in the middle east, and you don't see radicalized young men shooting up nightclubs and bombing concerts in them.

I'm assuming you mean you DO see radicalized young men shooting up clubs and bombing concerts? Because that's what is happening.

>Your attempt at a correlation falls flat.
No, it doesn't. Japan became economically prosperous thanks to economic aid from america to help kick start the Japanese economy, Secularism had absolutely nothing to with it.

They're radicalized because you've got theocratic states systematically spreading religious fundamentalist militarism over the internet and among Mosques around the world. Some of these are ridiculously wealthy power brokers who have a vested financial interest in inspiring Muslims to cause as much mayhem as possible.

They borrowed heavily from the most secular founding document the world had ever seen.

The American Constitution.

Just like the Vatican did with all those fascist dictatorships.

My point stands.

>Why didn't Islam go through a Reformation like Christianity did?
What reformation? The violence reformation one which never existed or the theological reformation which did happen?

And don't forget the wholly secular communists

> le atheist communists meme

Almost all European and South American fascist dictatorships were in alliances with the Vatican.

I have to add that we must remember that religion doesn't exclusively mean an Abrahamic religion. Religion can take many forms. And as is the case in North Korea -- the great leader is also your god.

>The American Constitution.
Nothing Secular about the founding fathers, they regularly quoted things from the Bible, also America didn't become Economically prosperous because of Secularism, it became economically prosperous thanks to an abundance of resources. Lots of empty land to colonize and Protestant work ethic.

>> le atheist communists meme
They underwent a systematic effort to remove religion from their society.

It didn't work. As soon as they stopped trying, rates of religious attendance returned to their pre-oppression levels

>Nothing secular about the foundign fathers

Are you serious? Federalists used to call Jefferson the "howling atheist."

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches … appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

- Thomas Paine

It did. It's called Wahabism.

The difference is that it didn't evolve the way you wanted it to. Instead of decentralizing and diversifying, modern Islam is doubling down on fundamentalism and becoming more extreme. This is natural reaction and the correct response to incursions by Western powers in Islamic domain.

People who say Islam should have a reformation have no fucking idea what they're talking about. It's undergoing one as we speak, and it's not a "good" one for Christians.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East

Shits real bro

>Thomas Paine
And then he goes on to quote things from the Bible, Thomas Paine didn't hate Religion, he just hated attempts of controlling it to support your own interests.

Linen capitalized on the generations bred culture of servility and servitude to the Czar who was believed to be higher than a human but just below God. Replace the Czar with the Great Leader and God with The State and you have the same fucking thing. That is not secularism.

>This is natural reaction and the correct response to incursions by Western powers in Islamic domain.

Wahhabism is being funded by the Saudi royal family. They're in desperation mode because the moment that the west weans itself off of their oil, nobody will have any more use for them. ISIS are Salafists and would mock you if you called them Wahhabi.

>he just hated attempts of controlling it to support your own interests.

Which is to say, meddling with matter of the state and markets to a non-altruistic end.

>Which is to say, meddling with matter of the state and markets to a non-altruistic end.
Still doesn't refute my that Thomas Paine didn't Religion, Just attempts to use it for you own selfish needs.

Point*, hate*.

It's not like Gulf Arabs are the pillar of piety either. They probably know all the affluence and development will lead to increasing irreligiousity anyway.

>That is not secularism.
Sure it is. You're replacing faith in something intangible with faith in something tangible: in this case, the leader.

You're telling people to trust their government, which actually does exist. You could get in your car and go see for yourself. Faith is literally just the Latin word for trust, and trust by itself is not a bad thing.

You know, unless the person telling us to trust them is some right-wing nutjob with "Gott Mitt Uns" Stamped on his belt buckle. But when I read stories about Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin celebrating mass on the moon (having even taken their own communion along with them), I don't doubt that the story actually happened because I trust the competence of NASA.

>Why didn't Christianity go through a sunni/shia split?

It did you retard. It's called the Great Schism, which led to the Catholic/Orthodox split. Please don't comment on religion if you know nothing about it.

Because different "civilizations" have different circumstances.

As I'm sure you're aware there's quite a bit of fracturing in Islam, there are many, many sects. In the same way, pre-Reformation Christianity had lots of very small heresies and sects, many of which pushed the same sorts of ideas as Protestantism. clearly, however, these didn't really lead to the same kinds of revolutionary changes that Protestantism did.

Why? Because, simply put, there was no social impetus for such a revolutionary change at the time. when Martin Luther came around, society was already changing in a certain way. The manorial/feudal relations of old were beginning to decay and as a result the first estate in northern Europe was beginning to decline as well. The Reformation gave states like England and the Scandinavian states, which never really had feudalism in the manorial sense, an opportunity to do away with the hierarchical church structure for the benefit of the realm.

Such situations did not quite develop in Islam. the socioeconomic impetus was not present.

foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/02/islam-will-not-have-its-own-reformation/

TL;DR Totally different historical context and different ways to organize the religion. The reformation was in essence a movement against the power of the pope and catholic church,none which apply to Islam

Kek. That's a nice why of saying 'genetics'

What

>Why didn't Islam go through a Reformation like Christianity did?

We need reactionary muslims as cheap and disposable anti-socialist shock troops.

Islam is going through a reformation right now. I know egotistical westerners like to think that everything revolves around them, but right now the Arab world is fighting massive wars of religion to determine whether Islam should be a political theocratic system like it was in the past, or a more moderate religion that takes a backseat in politics and modernise to fit in with a modern secular society.

Westerners just exploit the conflict

It along with the Renaissance helped usher in the Enlightenment. With the taboo of criticizing the Pope already done with, and seeing the horrors of the Religious Wars, that and the Scientific Revolution, it helped set the environment for the Enlightenment.

I'm secretly hoping for the Chinese to sort this thing out somehow.

They did, it's called wahhabism

>Harris
Who?

I'm not jumping on anyones bandwagon.
I've just read around the subject, including a few books by jihadis themselves like Brig. SK Maliks Koranic Concept of War etc.

An Islamic reformation is the only way for the world to win out, as if it doesn't happen, the actions of the caliphate desiring jihadi's will bring about religiously motivated wars/fighting like it already is in Burma and Africa and elsewhere.

>Religion is literally worse than Rape and thinks Science can ''determine Morality and Ethics'', but that isn't surprising since he is part of the militant New Atheist Movement. Your Apologsim for him won't work.
I'm definitely not a fellow then. I'm pro-christian, more or less soft anti-atheist (let them do what they want, but I don't agree they're right. That said I'm not exactly a christian myself..)
And I don't think religion is in the same arena as rape. Rape is something that transcends religion, its more a cultural and legal thing.

That is a very good point

>Bullshit. People bicker over religion. What they kill each other over is money.
That isn't true. Please don't say you think the Crusades were about money as I've heard some historians claim.
For some nobles and freemen joining the hundred thousands of people taking part, sure they were doing it as they had nothing better back home. And im not claiming they were about religion solely, but both the Crusades, and the Islamic expansion that preceded it were religiously motivated. Hell Islam all but destroyed the Zoroastrians because they didn't convert.
Religion is an extension of culture and beliefs. And most conflict is about clash of culture and beliefs.
Money has only really been a thing for the rich in antiquity, and even then it was mostly about power not money itself. And since the industrial revolution as it was then that economics entered the battlefield as well.

Chinese policy towards Islam is extremely retarded, it is the primary reason why so many Muslims living in China are abandoning al-Maturidi's peaceful teachings and are adopting Salafi jihadism instead.

>That isn't true. Please don't say you think the Crusades were about money as I've heard some historians claim.
The crusades were nothing more than a cynical land-grab, and the Ur-example of shameless realpolitik masquerading as religious fervor by a ruling class which conveniently happens to benefit from both.

If it were really that much about religion, then how come the biggest loser of the crusades were the Byzantines?

how is it a shameful landgrab when they were retaking formerly Christian lands, and a Christian holy site.

Jerusalem wasn't a holy site for Islam until mohammed said it was late in the islamic conquests of NA and the Levant.

There is some cynicism there, as they were not Roman Catholics that owned the land, but Christianity was a mess without a real strong hold on religion back when that was relevant.

>If it were really that much about religion, then how come the biggest loser of the crusades were the Byzantines?

2 parts, first, they were on the frontlines against the muslim forces, and then the turkic invaders too.
And second was more cynical as you point out, a shameful landgrab. But that is one crusade of several.

But it was more or less allowed by the Catholic church as that gave them more power and influence, and importantly nigh absolute hegemony over the Christian faith.

NOTE: I never said it was totally about religion, in fact i stated exactly the opposite of this. But it was not about money, and the religious differences made up a significant part of it for the vast majority of the people taking part, on both sides.

Religion is a facet of culture, and culture of civilisation. The wars over religion were really wars over disagreeing viewpoints, same as all other conflicts.
The modernist revisionism of the crusades as being motivated by money, or just "a land grab" are spurious at best, with very little primary sources to support this, and what is available is extremely ambiguous.

When most of the Muslims realize they're sick and tired of killing each other or watching their family members blow themselves to bits. And not a moment before.

>Christianity contained
>promptly spreads across the globe

>Chinese policy towards Islam is extremely retarded
Towards the Uyghur, dumbasses.

The Hui and the Southern Chinese Muslims don't get shat on by the government because they aren't rebellious shitlings.

Harris is a secular humanist fundie so he's not exempt either.

> Protestantism is Atheism 0.5
Monotheism itself is like an atheism 0.4 before that nobody was autistic enough to start systematically deny gods.

>retaking
Owned by whom, the repressive and autocratic Byzantines, who only owned it in the first place because their Roman granddaddies fucked over the Jews?

By the time of the Crusades any Christian, Jew, or Muslim would be allowed to travel unmolested to these holy lands, if peaceful religious ferver was what motivated them. From a strictly religious standpoint there was no more reason for those lands to be owned by Christians than by the local Palestinians who had been living there since the Romans put them there

>a real strong hold on religion
There were two "strongholds" of Christianity in those days: the Holy See of Rome, and the Holy See of Constantinople. They had no legitimate claim to the holy land any more than Muslims or Jews did.

> on the frontlines against the muslim forces, and then the turkic invaders too.
And they were shamelessly stabbed in the back by other Christians, and literally that was the only long-term by-product of the crusades: a Middle East united by hatred under the Ottoman Turks; and the Byzantine Empire disintegrating after the other Christians completely screwed them over

>more power and influence,
Ultimately, their motivating factor was secular: more bodies putting more money in the offering plates.Take away the profit motive and see how long before all the warhawks turn into deficit scolds.

>Religion is a facet of culture
Religious belief nowadays is more and more understood to be a facet of genetics; some people naturally feel a very strong connection with the idea of the supernatural, others don't feel anything at all, and for one to try and force the other to adopt the same identity is simply to invite resentment. And even in the absence of religion, the rulers found that secular ideology worked just as well in motivating people to kill each other.

>Owned by whom,
Egypt was christian long before Islam was a thing.

Those North African christian 'nations' were conquered by muslim generals and forced to convert. Like they did with the Zoroastrians and Jews.

>by crusades.. holy land was free to be visited
No it wasn't. A major complaint was brigands and banditry by muslim tribes on pilgrims.
After Saladin it was largely safe though as that guy actually did guarantee it and kept his word as best a man could.
From a strictly religious standpoint there was no more reason...
They were Christian lands. Palestinians were Christian before the expansion of Islam. Just like Lebanon was Christian before Hezbollah and Hamas etc.

>They were shamelessly....
I did actually provide an answer for you regarding this in the post you linked, but you seem to have missed it in your indignation.

> their motivating factor was secular
I also address this. But its not about money.
Money isn't the same as power, even a fool should know that. The Catholic Church has always done nefarious shit in the name of power. Its why it fought with Frederick II, and many others. It had nothing to do with money. Just influence and power (monopoly over Christianity)

>Third Crusade
Worth noting that a lot of dissent was received by those responsible from the rest of the Christian community. It was literally hijacked by a greedy and canny noble who had a claim to the Empire and paid for the boats from Venice that transported the crusade.

>Religious belief nowadays is more and more understood to be a facet of genetics;
I'd like to see sources on that, as that's retarded. There is no "belief gene", just like theres no "gay gene".
Unless you want to start addressing that different genders and races have different genetic traits too...

>repressive X
oh fuck off.
Not one group in history is innocent of repressing people. Not one.
Get your head out of your ass.

>This won't happen because liberal atheists pander to the fundamentalists
isn't that what Trump just did in Saudi Arabia, would you call him a liberal atheist?

Na, the US/Western alliance with KSA is a more complicated matter.

As concise as possible:

KSA guarantees oil to USA who has more demand than supply. KSA spends its profits buying US services, especially engineering and construction, but also invests heavily in USA, into weapons and goods.
US reliance on Oil makes them somewhat beholden to KSA, especially as the petrodollar system is what keeps the US economy afloat through artificial demand for dollars, which in turn allows printing of currency without inflationary effects that should occur.

Liberal pandering is more about the fact they protect and empower the fundamentalist muslims, who keep the reformists down, or kill them, depending on where you are.

>Egypt was christian long before Islam was a thing.
And its dominant strain of Christianity, Monophysitism, was condemned as heresy by the Orthodox church and ruthlessly suppressed.
>Those North African christian 'nations' were conquered by muslim generals
And most of them were more than happy to throw off the shackles of the corrupt, repressive Byzantines and embrace Islam. These places were Christian because the Byzantines were flat out ruthless about converting people. Paying a small fine for having a religion besides the dominant one is much preferable to continuous repression
> brigands and banditry
You get that anywhere you get lack of powerful centralized authority. The crusading empires could have sent peacemakers to help patrol the highways, but why would they do that when the goal is to get that sweet conquest booty?
> Palestinians were Christian before the expansion of Islam.
And before they were put there the region was predominantly Jewish, who were violently extricated. Live by sword, die by the sword.
> did actually provide an answer
I know, it just wasn't particularly compelling, and you haven't addressed the fact that the only thing that the result of the crusades was making things worse for everyone, including Christians trying to go on a pilgrimage.
>Money isn't the same as power
Says those who have neither. You can't feed an army with good feelings and bible verses, nor can you use those things to finance the construction of a giant cathedral
> "gay gene".
Homosexuals don't chose to be gay, it's an innate and inseparable aspect of their psychology. This is well understood science.
>Not one group in history is innocent
I never once made that assertion; it's ALWAYS a question of relativity. You would have preferred the oppressive, corrupt Romans to savage Celtic raider culture.
>Get your head out of your ass.
You know that this kind of salty shit makes your case sound weaker, right?

Saudi regime is liberal atheist. If you don't think so, you know absolutely nothing about Saudi Arabia

>And its dominant strain of Christianity, Monophysitism, was condemned
Moving the goalposts.
It was owned by Christians. Muslims conquered by force. Crusades were about taking that land back, protecting Christians, and a number of other things.

>repressive Byzantines
Byzantines didn't own North Africa, just Egypt.
And these areas were Christian LONG before Byzantium was even separate from Rome. Talk about repression all you want, muslims forced conversion by the sword too, so its pot calling kettle, and thus pointless.

>peacemakers to help patrol the highways
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
And if the lands were once Christian, and christians are being prevented from travelling there safely because of muslims, then military force to protect people is the logical next step, given muslim nations were hostile and still expanding into christian nations at this point.

>conquest booty
its not theft if it was stolen from you

>And before they were put there the region was predominantly Jewish.
Before it was jewish is was pagan. The Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans after they kept revolting. Not saying that was correct, but it happened.
mohammed rolled up and built the mosque on the ruins and claimed it as 2nd most important muslim holy site after mecca.
You moved the goalposts again.

>I know, it just wasn't particularly compelling
Sorry it wasn't compelling for you, but facts aren't always sexy.
Things did get worse, that tends to happen when both sides have opposing views and fight for centuries. Islam had been violently expanding for 300+ years by the First Crusade.
You think the Christians should have just said "fuck it, lets just give our stuff to these invaders guys, we'll just make things worse defending ourselves!"
Do you think Neville Chamberlains' appeasement of Hitler would have eventually worked?

>Says those who have neither.
No, they are separate facets of authority, along with influence

>Homosexuals
not entering a debate on this

>not one group in history is innocent
>never once made that assertion;
you keep implying it was worse under Christians. It's been shitty for everyone throughout history if you weren't a noble, or a merchant and even then you weren't safe. Iqta was not better than feudalism.

I agree it is about relativity.
But then you go and use leading language to paint Romans and Celts as awful but ignore the 300+ years of violent islamic expansion that wiped out the zoroastrians, monophysites and miaphysites, jews, countless pagan tribes, and eventually catholics and orthodox christians too. Not to mention the original people of mecca.

I'd tentatively assume you are of MENA'n descent, or at least muslim. In which case from your perspective, the west IS relatively worse.
That is cultural bias.
Otherwise you're just being disingenuous, and I'd rather assume you weren't.
As objective as one can be though, islam expanded violently into Christian lands, and the violent crusades were a response to that.
Greedy and corrupt people on both sides made things worse for their own sides as well as their foes. But their beliefs and actions don't dictate the beliefs and actions of everyone involved.

>You know that this kind of salty shit makes your case sound weaker, right?
We're debating on fucking Veeky Forums. You thought there was any sense of reputation or respectability to begin with?
And on that point you do need to get your head out of your ass, for the reasons pointed out above regarding leading language.

>Mao
>Stalin
>not creating personality cults that closely resemble religion

Crude reductionism user.

Personality cults obviously existed but to reduce it to the actions of "great men" and to compare it to religion is just silly.

In reality the world is more complicated. Stalin himself tried to curb the personality cult but others found it useful to get ahead in their careers and the more peasant minded folk were simply still too backward to not venerate some kind of tsar like figure.

>As objective as one can be though, islam expanded violently into Christian lands, and the violent crusades were a response to that.

But this is wrong.

Why do people conflate the Reformation and the Enlightenment?

Because realizing that the pope is a fraud is enlightening.

Riiiight. They didn't do nuffin!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

Long list of military campaigns there.

About the only thing worth noting is they didn't force conversion of the common people. They knew that'd happen over time, and if it didn't they'd get jizya taxes from it anyway.

Other sources:
oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t253/e17

or

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/earlyrise_1.shtml

>The military conquest was inspired by religion, but it was also motivated by greed and politics.

Islam set itself on a path of violent expansion. Christianity is far from faultless and innocent, but by and large its expansion, especially early on was timid and peaceful (though to note it happened very much like the refugee crisis in EU right now, a slow non-violent invasion with propaganda to undermine the old faith).

holy shit the guy on the right leaning in to be in the picture. fucking kek

*left not right