Is is true that Islam has stayed the same for centuries and that "politically correct Islam" is just a distortion?

This. It's an innately political religion the same way gommunism is.

Wahabism is Islam for pretty much most of history minus the last 100ish years in some places

Wahhabism is 18th century but people give it too much influence. Most of current radical Islam takes more from Qutb and the early 20th century Muslim Brotherhood. Even then radical Islam as a whole predates both tendencies. I would start it with Al-Ghazali's writings and the Almoravids in the 11th century.

What is true is that even the most mainstream schools of Islam (probably the Maliki one) are extremely removed from what we would consider politically correct. The only thing softer are extremely heterodox sects like the Ammadiyyas and Alevis.

So what are the structural differences between Islam and Christianity

why was Christianity able to reform/modernize

In Islam the Quran is the uncreated word of God. It is infallible.
In non-protestant Christianity, the bible is either pious fairytale (old testament) or written by mere humans prone to error even though they are divinely inspired. The bible can and should be interpreted.

In (Sunni) Islam there is no clergy. Due to the lack of structures implementing reforms is a daunting task. Shias do have a clergy but they are like 10% of Muslims top.
In non-protestant Christianity there is a clergy, a clear hierarchy and procedures for designing and implementing reforms.

>What is true is that even the most mainstream schools of Islam (probably the Maliki one) are extremely removed from what we would consider politically correct. The only thing softer are extremely heterodox sects like the Ammadiyyas and Alevis.
The real problem is that we've come to think of Islam being divided into schools, when really these schools were themselves a small sect that overlapped with a bunch of other movements and just happened to focus mostly on jurisprudence. When Middle Eastern nations started to westernize and adopt standard legal codes, these schools became increasingly important to the point where entire populations in the Middle East started identifying by them.

Problem with that is that these schools were
removed from popular religion and practice, so they're by definition fairly illiberal and inflexible. What's worse is that their own traditions have been warped by modern reactionaries to become even more inflexible and overbearing than they normally were.

No. There was a fucking revolution and progressive movement to create new forms of Islam in the 20th century, let alone the countless other sects breaking off. Islam is constantly changing, as the whole premise of it is the mortality of man under Allah. Muslims continue to realize new ways that they can free themselves from the shackles of illegitimate lords and rulers.

>What's worse is that their own traditions have been warped by modern reactionaries to become even more inflexible and overbearing than they normally were.

I don't really agree. Sure right now outward religiosity is more pronounced than in the 50-70s period but this time period was shaped by panarabism. Aside from that current mores are still a lot more lenient than what they were at any other point in Muslim history.

Look up Mutazilites.

Islam is not as uniform as you seem to think it is.

I'm not talking about public morals but the actual legal traditions themselves. Before the 19th century Islamic jurists wrote what were essentially theoretical works on how they believe law should be carried out to fulfill their own standards of Shariah. In actually however these schools developed local traditions based on precedence and accommodation of tribal law, secular compromise, and local custom. In modern times, however, these works were adopted wholesale as practical legal books to be followed and implemented, especially at the expense of any other legal or cultural tradition.

Not only the Quran but the hadiths. These are worse and even are in contradiction with the Quran in some matters like women's rights

I'd add that KSA had an important role in this by funding the madrasas; and also that the fall of marxism is important for the new islamic sentiments - e.g. Qaddafi wrote the Green Book, a mix of marxism and islam

It splintered into Shia and Sunni almost right from the start so obviously saying "Islam stayed the same" is pretty stupid.

Shi'a-Sunni conflict predating the standardization of the Qur'an, 8-10th century wonder Mu'tazila goes from religion of reason to Caliphate inquisition, falsafah ended by Al-Ghazali, fucking Wahhabism in the holiest cities of the religion... You have enough idiocies without even touching Western interaction with MENA countries (f.e. endless bombing) further stimulating Muslims into fundamentalism, nationalism, etc.

Islam stays the same by getting Muslims to kill each other, as well as other Middle Easterners.

>Islam stays the same by getting Muslims to kill each other, as well as other Middle Easterners.

That's just incredibly vague and meaningless. Islam clearly isn't even one cohesive sect.

Before
>haha, let's drink wine, keep nice pet hunting hounds, smoke weed, and fuck people of both genders :^)
Now
>AAAAAGH MUH DEGENERACY!!!!!11
>FUCK THE WEST
>HARAAAAAAAM!!1111!!!

Returning Arabs to power in the middle east was a fucking mistake. They all belonged under the Turkic/Mamluk/Iranic boot.

utterly baseless claim, doesn't even account for common sense (what about the other sects?)

Super brief summary

>Original islam comes about, is pretty brutal but the Byantines and Sassanids were shitty rulers of the middle east at the time so most people didnt mind (so much)
>Islam chills out a bit, people of the book could expect a life largely unmolested
>Issues such as sectaranism, tribal identities, mongol/timurid invasions and un ambitious rulers enabled a stagnancy
>Attempts to modernize go slowly and inevitably the more powerful western powers were all too keen on manipulating events to make sure they profit
>Secularism/tolerance are too closely tied to muslim rulers who were hapless against western powers and constantly getting fucked by Isreal
>Fundamentalists offer a new vision of strength that was native born
>Oil money could fund this movement across the globe

Sadly I dont see this changing anytime soon, the salafists and islamists have varying differences of world view and "tolerance" but none of that is compatible with western culture.

The latter is much more better. You're just a secularist. Not everyone in the world is interested in haram western degeneracy.

Again: that's the point. After monotheism and Muhammad, the sects have Muslim-killing as the unifying factor throughout the ages.

Of course. His post shows that his entire knowledge of the topic comes from youtubers most likely

>this girl

mmm

i wonder which country from South America is behind this post...

Who is she?

exactly, thats why there will never be a reformation. The Quran is considered perfect the way it is.

Islam is an accident here watch this series.
youtube.com/watch?v=V006bX4mlu4

Tout le temps

>Is is true that Islam has stayed the same for centuries

Of course not.

Islamic thinkers all have different perceptions of what Islam is and what its teachings are. If anything, the whole "Islam shouldn't change" idea is one of the recent strains of thought.

There were even variations of Islamic philosophy early on in its history that viewed God, and religion in general, as made up stories to guide the masses in a correct moral direction (see: Mutaziltes). This was bordering on atheism. It was a radical stance for the day, of course, and even today that idea would make lots of religious people uncomfortable.

But it does goes to show that what goes as "Islam" changes over time.

After many centuries of being relevant, after WWII Islam found itself completely irrelevant.

The cure for the true believers was to go back to the travelling warlord, murdering infidels, looting, raping, lying ways of Mohammad himself. ISIS is exactly what you would have seen from Mohammad and his band of thugs 1400 years ago, but for the modern weapons.

In that way, the true believing muslim, aka terrorist, extremist, jihadi, etc., believes they can make Islam relevant on the world stage again.

They cannot, will not, and face annihilation.

You're almost correct in your first sentence (WWI would be more accurate), and the rest of your post is extremist garbage.

The feeling of defeat and irrelevancy on the world stage does permeate throughout many Muslim nations. It began around the rise of modernity and Europe in the 1800s, and the subsequent imperialism carried out on the Middle East. In alot of ways, that feeling of defeat continues onto today (see pic).

The desire to go back to some perceived golden past and shed the defeat of the present is a strong feeling among extremists, but then again, that tends to be the case with extremism.

This summary is pretty accurate

>Swedes have managed to make it LGBT tolerant
Sweden yes.

youtube.com/watch?v=guYMAycJgYA
youtube.com/watch?v=UUx9NzzTz-0

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Turkey

> Islam has stayed the same for centuries
i am not educated in the subject, but i seriously doubt it
>politically correct Islam
the fuck you mean by this?

Before
>haha, let's drink wine, keep nice pet hunting hounds, smoke weed, and fuck people of both genders :^)

is this how you learn in the west?

>politically correct Islam
See the western world, Muslims are mixing Islam with degeneracy e.x LGBT Muslims, female imams.

Islam changed with the islamic revival in the 70s-80s. The Sauds basically put the Wahabbism ideology into overdrive then. Before this, though people still thought religion was important it wasn't central to their identity as it is now. I think a great way to see the transformation of islam to Wahabbist fundamentalism would be following the spread of the Hijab especially in islamic countries not in the middle east. People used to dismiss the Hijab as only for the extremist but now it's the norm.

Sauce

As far as Islamic Creed goes? Yes, Islam has remained the same. As far as Islamic Jurisprudence/Legal issues? No, it has multiple scholastic opinions. (But that's a given due to changing times)

Have //MUSLIMS// changed? Hell yes. There's a far too significant percentage of MUSLIMS who have barely, if NO IDEA what Islam even means.

If you think even a barely significant percentage of the Muslims is actually following the doctrines of Islam - You're completely wrong.

Wahabbis are not fundamentalist. They actually have very little respect for scripture.

She is a Colombian girl

A Colombian flag on /int/ post a lot of her pics

All fags and degenerate kike millennials should be killed, TO BE HONEST

Some stupid whore who posts erotic instagram pictures.

The only Muslims who should not be killed are the sects like the Alevi

I couldn't really disagree with you since I don't speak arabic and thus wouldn't be able to discern 'proper' interpretations and 'twisted' interpretations. Though I would believe that the Wahabbis go for the most conservative interpretation possible. Why would you say that they have little respect for scripture though?

the problem is that there are enough wahabists to be an issue

Interesting, can I get a source on useful material about this?

Tell me what would look different between Mohammad beheading 800 innocent men and Abu Bakr beheading 800 innocent men.

I can respect ISIS; they are true to their demonic religion.

You? You're as much a snake as your cousin the Jew, whom you detest.

test.

Islam is probably the most fundamentalist it's been since early middle ages. Historically, Islamic rulers generally ignored parts of the scripture due to politically necessity or their own personal proclivities. Adherence to the hadiths has also waxed and waned.

Many relaxed Islamic states, like the Umayyads and the Spanish Taifas, found themselves destroyed by Orthodox zealots not unlike ISIS. A great example were the Almohads and Almoravids of Morocco, who emerged from the countryside in all black bent on bringing down their rulers who openly flaunted restrictions on alcohol and fornication.

In addition, there were more liberal Islamic movements throughout the middle ages, but none of these ever seized control of a state. A great example would be the rational Itjahid movement, which survives today in some Shia doctrine. And every generation of Islamic scholarship has included a substantial number of reformers and rationalists who subverted both Quranic prohibitions and royal tyranny.

The Middle East became particularly liberal and rational in the 17th and 18th centuries, thanks to increased contact with Western scholarship. The Ottoman Empire became quite secular in its later years, relying on an urbane Sunni literati who generally rejected the piety of rural Sunnis and Shia minorities. The overthrow of this class by progressive leftists such as Gamel Abdel Nasser and the Ba'ath parties initially signified a movement toward further secularization, but Arab politics came to be dominated by the local religious gentry and majoritarian demagogues who appealed to the reactionary Islamic sentiment of the majority of the population. Mass media, increased literacy, and Western occupations have ironically furthered the agendas of the Islamists.

Mohammed was not uniquely violent for his time. ISIS is.