Why are Muslims never able to get their shit together?

>Why are Muslims never able to get their shit together?

because they are very inbred after marrying their first cousins for generations and they believe in unscientific things like literal flying horses.

Maghreb thrived under the Almohad caliphate, which was thoroughly hostile toward non-muslims. The last remnants of Maghrebi christianity disappeared under Abu Yusuf Yaqub al-Mansur, while Jews were forced to pretend to convert to islam in order to survive.

Dude, the Almohads lost almost all of Iberia, that one place did okay under their control doesn't mean that as whole their lack of tolerance for those who believed differently then they did actually was a benefit long term. I'd argue that this the main problem with abrahamic monotheism in general really, but that's a whole other argument.

Oh and they quickly lost most of their lands in north africa too, so honestly what the fuck are you even talking about?

>what the fuck are you even talking about?

First of all, please be polite, you fucking retard. You're not on /pol/, thank you.

Now, muslim domination over al-Andalus had started to crumble in the 11th century, long before the Almohad came into power. Declining Almoravids had let the situation get worse and worse. And yet Almohads still managed to inflict serious defeats to Christian kingdoms, such as Santarem.

>Oh and they quickly lost most of their lands in north africa too, so honestly what the fuck are you even talking about?
The point is, they were the first to unite the whole Maghreb under Berber muslim domination, while being adept of a strongly disliked heresy and relying mostly on the asabiyya of a minority made up of Masmuda mountain tribes and a few other non-Masmuda tribes, such as the Kumiya, from which Abd al-Mu'min had emerged. And the Almohad caliphate was a rich state, which controlled the transsaharan trade and also traded with most of the Mediterranean.

>>loses most of that land a few hundred years later.
Not very impressive mehmet.

wow dude just like every other empire in history

>>please be polite
Fuck you bitch you're on Veeky Forums.
>>And yet Almohads still managed to inflict serious defeats to Christian kingdoms, such as Santarem.
Doesn't fucking matter you idiot, they lost most of Iberia and didn't even maintain control of north africa for very long either.

>>they controlled trade through an area and had lodsamoney
Which also didn't last.

Is still absolutely correct. Religious zeal cannot fix societies.

No actually, not just like every other empire in history. The Romans held control of anatolia for a much longer time then the turks held onto some of their eastern european conquests.

>the romans
Cool, one exception. Go fuck yourself with it.

Oh and the roman state did not collapse a couple hundred years after Caesar conquered gaul, for another example.

I'd tell you to suck start my cock from the back, Mehmet, but given turkish proclivities, I fear you would enjoy that far too much.

bet the ottomans kept their empire longer than whatever backwater country you're from.

They commited genocide towards the jews in Granada

It was their fucking zealotry that brought them to power, just like most of great muslim dynasties. According to Ibn Khaldun, the only reason the settled Masmuda were able to overcome militarily superior nomads was their zealotry.

>Doesn't fucking matter you idiot, they lost most of Iberia and didn't even maintain control of north africa for very long either.
Kek, the Mu'Minid dynasty lasted from 1130 to 1269, and the Hafsids, who were the offspring of the Almohads, lasted until the 16th century.
Not to mention historians consider the Almohad to be the greatest Berber dynasty of history, dumb neckbeard.

The USA is hardly a backwater country. And our empire, the 50 states will last for centuries longer then anything the Ottomans ever held.

>implying muslims ever tolerated other groups every.
do u even mekka?

not absolute tolerance I mean I used modern west as an example for god sakes.

Blah blah, compare that to the Ummayads and the Caliphate of Cordoba, the latter of which pushed the christians of iberia into the shitty lands nobody with any sense wanted to bother with at the time.

Did Almohads or any of their followers manage jack and shit as far as reversing the reconquista was concerned? No, they did not. Also, neckbeard is an amusingly ironic insult coming from somebody speaking in defense of islamic religious fanaticism.

they literally cut the head off everyone.

internal fighting like steppe hordes
being a bitch towards other religions instead of just allowing them to be dhimmi

but was it during their peak or during their decline?

>being this eager to defend the ethnic group that raped and assimiliated your ancestors into Mongoloid moon-god worshippers

>ask question
>give accurate answer
>"WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THE PEOPLE I DON'T LIKE!"

embarrassing

>Blah blah, compare that to the Ummayads and the Caliphate of Cordoba
Your stupidity and lack of culture are without limit. The Umayyads of Damas fell because their empire was established on Arab supremacy, since all non-Arab muslims (mawali) were treated as second-class citizens, and therefore could be put under fiscal pressure, used as cannon fodder, or even purely and solely enslaved, like the Berbers. The Umeyyad caliphate of Damas fell because the Abbasid revolution relied on the resentment of Persian mawali, some of whom were Shia.
Regarding the caliphate of Cordoba, it was established on Arab supremacy, at least until the dawn of Amirid dictatorship. De facto, an Arab aristocracy ruled over non-Arab muslims, that is the Berbers and the muwalladun (islamicized Iberians). Hence the revolts of Marwan al-Jilliqi and Umar ibn Hafsun.

Truly an example of tolerant muslim rule, indeed !