Why does it seem

I think it was the fact that there were still many European institutions outside of the church's grasp. Every group will always vie for absolute power, so I don't blame the Muslims and Christians for attempting to do the same. The key difference is that the Muslims merged their supreme religious power with that of the state and monarchy. Religion controls the people, and the state controls the economy; there were no internal powers to push the country forward, this makes more sense if you look at it as a historical dialectic.

Then compare Christendom where the kings would claim divine right, but would never really usurp the title of head of the church. The climate was also extremely different, so the diverse economic sphere stood as another bulwark against singular hegemony. In 1648 when Nationalism was born, we saw the ultimate counter-balance against the church's power; now there was another immaterial thing that it was wonderful to live and die for.

Internal disputes are actually what saved Europe from the same fate. I'll admit that in our modern democratic system we may have become too divided, but it's certainly helped give us a reality check every now and then.

tl;dr: God loves us more.

A better question would be why Wahhabism/Shia extremism is so prevalent seeing how if you turned back to clock to , Lebanon pre-civil war, Nasser's Egypt, 80s Afghanistan, pre-1979 Iran or even pre-Gulf War Iraq you would find Islam in a cosmopolitan westernized setting.

The truth is simply, edgy Muslim teenagers want to LARP as ghazis. Which explains the immaturity of their ideology.

well it was mostly judeo-christians who molded modernity. Islam is reactionary with pride.

It was the friction between cosmopolitan Westernization and Islam that helped the revolution succeed in Iran.

Islam has to get over its usury bug-a-boo like Christianity did in the 1500. Although Luther did rail against merchants and Jews in his sermons, most Christians started being le merchants and gave out loans at interest with created the capital for businesses to thrive which resulted in modern day capitalism despite being strictly forbidden by the Bible in several places in the old and new testament. Since Christians are good at cherry picking and ignoring the rules in the Bible modern capitalism flourishes resulting in our prosperity.

However, Muslims are picky about their literal interpretation and the Quran specifically forbids usury as well so must Muslim nations that have Sharia law don't have capitalism as we have in the west, which is why their economies sucks.

Until Muslims start cherry picking they will always be shit holes.

Yeah. I hear "Islam needs a reformation!" often. Perhaps my religious history is lacking, but have religious reformations generally ever pointed to more liberal interpretations of religion? It's usually a purification of the faith. I suppose Protestant Reformation may have been more "liberal" insofar as church hierarchy was concerned, but even so, theologically liberal? I don't think so.

The Myth of Progress needs a Reformation.

like people still have the mindset of 2 centuries ago and still are positivists on the current year

The only reason Wahhabism is so prevalent in the middle east is because it is the only answer to western intervention. Whenever the west interferes in the region the people fall back, almost always, to fundamentalism. It's not even the majority, it's just that they are the group with the most influence. What happened after the mongol invasions? They reverted back to a fundamental understanding of their faith. Don't expect anything from the region until they are rid of outside influence

No it's not.

BECAUSE YOU ARE BOTH, IGNORANT REGARDING MOHAMMEDANISM, AND CONDITIONED BY ZIONIST INFLUENCE.

Because honestly it probably is. I've thought of this myself, and, even aside from the fact that Islam is inferior to the kind of society Christianity tries to cultivate, religions takes some time to develop and be able to deal with modern social conditions.

shut up beaner

>muh cultural relativism

This. When the Romans and Persians were mucking about, the region was on fire with religious revolts. Then when the Arabs set up shop in the heart of Syria and Iraq they mellowed out and turned to high culture and shit. Then when the Turks, Latins, and Mongols poured in it was back to radical religion. When their military governments were ousted or mostly run by native aristocracies, it was back to high culture until the arrival of European and American powers.

So was Christianity, look at how bloodthirsty England, Netherlands, Prussia and Sweden became

>takes 6 centuries to go peaceful again
You really showed those neo-fascists

Some people blame the style of circumcision practiced by muslims. It prevents them from having pleasurable sex, making them more violent and prone to use sex as violence, i.e. rape.

hmmmm a religion whose central figure was a warlord pedophile is more violent than a religion whose central figure was a jewish hippie

really gets the brain thinking

It had liberal reforms in some regions (such as Turkic regions of the Russian Empire) and illiberal reforms in other regions (such as Arabia)

>You mean transgender children, gay marriage, and slutwalks?
Don't think that's what he means bud.
Gender politics is a very recent phenomena that's come about by postmodernism. Acceptance of such is really a teeny tiny part of today's culture, if even you can say it's a part of our culture at all which i wouldn't.

Islam doesn't prescribe any specific style of circumcision

Islam doesn't claim that Muhammed is better than Jesus. In fact, it claims that Muslims should follow Jesus as well, which why explaining the difference between Christianity and Islam by comparing Jesus and Muhammed is extremely retarded.

This focus on Wahhabism is superficial. Islam has had fundamentalist movements since the 10th century with ebb and flow. Wahhabism isn't even the strongest fundamentalist movement. The various branches of the Muslim brotherhood have much more members. also the current wave of fundamentalism started in the 20s, certainly not the 80s.

Well you have Vatican II. Anyways with Christianity it's much, much easier to reform since, unlike the Quran, the bible is not considered the unalterable word of God and there's a hierarchy/clergy to initiate a reform movement. By the way the Shias, who have a hierarchy, have been a lot more adept at reform. For example by accepting compulsory sex-changes for homosexuals instead of the death penalty.

The ebb and flow of Islamic fundamentalism is largely independent of Western or other external interventions. It has been going on for centuries.

If all of the Muslim world was Shia instead of Sunni, the Middle East would be a lot better off then it is now.

They consider that Issa (Jesus) was very different from the Jesus depicted by the bible though as the text of the bible is supposed to have been completely corrupted by the Christians. So no comparing Jesus, as understood by Christians, and Muhammad is not retarded at all.

To a degree. It's not just religion, Arab culture also plays a huge role in how retarded Arab Sunnis are compared to Iranian Shias. Sunnis from central Asia or Indonesia aren't that bad (Although Pakistanis and Afghans are even worse than Arabs).

That's if if if Islam and Christianity are definitively the same or happen to share in span of influence.

Hello Ali Khamenei

> text of the bible is supposed to have been completely corrupted by the Christians

Based Muslims

Simply not true, most Christians still eat ham and pork and drink alcohol.

>They consider that Issa (Jesus) was very different from the Jesus depicted by the bible

No they don't. There are only minor differences between Islamic and Christian depictions of Jesus, and those differences do not concern his personal character

Thanks cpt obvious. That is why they will never integrate unless they make a 600 years cultural advance in a few years.

Look up the Alevi

600 centuries later in fact!

>minor differences
>not son of God
>didn't die on the cross

What the fuck am i reading.
Also Islamic Jesus usually has the mentality of a warlord (depending on tradition).

(((modern social standards)))

Because you've been on the internet too long and you have a confirmation bias.

>modern
>social standard
you are beyond help, shitbrain

>Hello Ali Khamenei
Hello Fasil-Al-Muskakaka

the Islamic view of Jesus is no where near similar to the Christian view of Jesus

Because it is, and is incapable of changing.

Love that they picture Mohammad 1) without anyone killing the artist; 2) putting a book into the hands of someone lamenting how illiterate he was in said book; and 3) how the book was written down posthumously.

None of those things are contrary to Christianity.

Massive differences.

They deny Jesus is God. That's blasphemy.
They deny Jesus died, on a cross, and rose from the dead.

Again, blasphemy.

That's a Shia portrayal. The ban on iconism generally comes from hadith that are only assumed to be unquestionably authentic by Sunnis.
Still, Muhammad is portrayed very rarely even by Shias. In that Iranian film about his life they haven't shown his face. I'm actually curious how this can be done, to make a film without showing the main character's face even once.
>They deny Jesus died, on a cross, and rose from the dead.
That's not a Muslim dogma, more like a widespread myth. The Quran actually supports Jesus dying and resurrecting, even if it's not literally stated.

Cucktianity was the same as Islam before European faggots turned it into BE A HUMANITARIAN GULLIBLE PUSSY THE RELIGION.

The original christians in the Levant would be disgusted at what Euros did to their religion.

Because the law and the beliefs are inextricably linked. So, the jurisprudence gets bogged down by outdated assumptions, even when they try to adopt western one.

>The key difference is that the Muslims merged their supreme religious power with that of the state and monarchy.
It's just a lip service, actually. The imams/clerics had zero power back then, unlike the clergy class in medieval to early modern Christianity. I agree with your sentiments though.

>Because the law and the beliefs are inextricably linked.

The same can be easily said about Judaism. Then why is the Jews tend to be more secular and liberal than Muslims, despite the fact that halakha is arguably even more intolerant and barbaric than sharia?

*why is it that the Jews

Because only a tiny fraction of Jews (the Ultra-Orthodox ones) follow the religion closely (ie. "unironically"). Try giving power to those fanatics and see what happens.

Again, the same can be said about Islam, considering that Salafis comprise only 3% of total Muslim population

Salafis are actually more reasonable than your average mish-mash of schools. Also, are you implying that all those non-salafis are not true believers then? There are secular judaism, and I don't know if there are secular islam, it's forbidden.

Secular "Judaism" is prohibited as well, that doesn't stop Jews from being secular. And yes, secular "Islam" is a thing.

They're inbred degenerates.

fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/07/17/half-of-worlds-muslims-are-inbred-due-to-generations-of-incest/

Bullshit.

Quran in S. 4:157-158:

"And because of their (the Jews) saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger- they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise."

When you muslims can do nothing but lie, you remain the children of the devil himself.

So why do you think Islam is still backwards? Secular islam is banned in my country, by the way.

Please someone start accusing him of lying because its "grandson" and not "son". And then kill yourself.

The Based Imam feed is readable, and its Based

I don't think they distinguish between the two, like the Jews.

...

Who's first for the "memri is just jeeews! and islamophobes!!" meme

That'd make any newer ideology 'x centuries behind' which is kind of silly when 'behind' has connotations of 'less advanced / modern"

Looks like Indonesia is an outsider. Maybe because of the very late conversion to Islam?

that's bad

No, its shaded white, meaning "unknown". It's so fucked, theres not even any data on it.