Can someone trace for me the route of Islam’s hate for the west? Thank you

The sykes picot agreement and the spread of ultra conservative Islam across the Middle East via Saudi Arabia I guess, not like it wouldn't be bad without Saudi Arabia's ideology spreading but it definitely doesn't make things better. I'm sure there are many other reasons too though idk much about it

"What is the 'Treaty of Beer-Sheba', Alex?"
>pic unrelated

Attached: image.jpg (337x424, 77K)

It's kind of a day 1 thing, Islam is a supremecist ideology that has nothing but contempt for all other cultures. The modern phenomena of Islamic terror is not new, the only change is that now they are exporting it to non-Muslim countries, the Koran explicitly commands the use of terror against non-Muslims.

Vasco da Gama, his voyages to India caused a massive power shift: East-West trade circumvented the Middle East causing a gradual decline, and the West gradually arose as the number 1 economic power in the world.

>Leaving out Qutub and the Muslim Brothermasonhood
Waht are you doing, baba Imam?

Read Qutb's milestones or Shiraz Maher's
Salafi-Jihadism: The History of an Idea

Unfair. Salafism is itself in historical context a very unorthodox form of Islam.

>Everything can be explained to historical materialism
>Idealism is illogical lmao
The absolute state of modern education.

Attached: 1520289404307.gif (200x222, 1.08M)

Not in the context of the life of the Prophet it isn't. Mohemmed would approve of Salafism.

Basically, political Islam has always been a part of the package. Very recently, Islam as a political power got btfo by Western secularism, hypothetically castrating the faith like they did to Christianity. So you have a majority of Muslims who are ignorant of the nature of their faith, going about living their worldly lives with a hint of superstition and "Mohammed was persecuted he dindu nuffin :(((" level education, and then you have a few salty blokes who actually give enough of a shit to see through the "peace" facade and seek to restore themselves. Those are the Muslims who hate the West, but they more often than not behave like outlaws and bandits nowadays, which brings into question their sincerity.
Then, there are the "Muslims" who hate the west. The sort who can be identified as Muslim, but it is more appropriate to label them according to the situation. Say, an angry Palestinian. His interests are in an independent Palestinian state rather than an Islamic one, thus the label Palestinian is more appropriate than Muslim.

>mental breakdown
Probably hurt pride as well.
Must blow your mind to see the kuffars excell in such a way while the quoran attributes winning to divine help in general.

I believe increased literacy in the islamic world is also doing its part as the common people now actually can read the book instead of having to relie on washed down folk Islam thats more relaxed due to peoples need for convenience.

>Islam’s hate for the west?
What the fuck does this even mean? The 'West' as a construct has only existed recently. Even if Islam was a coherent body of thought with a clear message (which it's not) it existed hundreds of years before 'the West' was even thought of as a thing.
If you mean 'why do some people in modern majority Islamic countries hate the West' you'd be a little more precise but still a brainlet.
You question is as dumb as asking 'why does classical Hinduism hate the internet' or 'why did Buddha love McDonalds so much'

Yes, this has broken down the moderating consensus of scholars and returned the religion closer to its roots. Much like how American evangelicals, who reject the moderating consensus of Catholicism, are much closer to how the early Christians acted. it says something about a religion that when the poeple can actually read the texts for themselves, they act WORSE than they did without them.

Ah yes we all know how Isreal was founded in the year 1979
Get better reading comprehension

Then why did Salafism emerge only in the 14th century?

Please stop being so obtuse. The question is not nuanced or specific, but is perfectly serviceable given how brief it is

Muhammad. "Kill all infidels"

You've got absolutely no idea whether that is true for either Evangelicalism or Wahabbism. Certainly they see themselves as emulating the original religion but there simply is nowhere near the historical sources needed about the original religions for them, you, me or anyone else to actually assess whether that is true or not.

This is the kind of retard that likes to use meme buzzwords like "brainlet".

Not even ISIS thinks that all infidels must be killed. Muhammad said that non-Muslims must be protected if they pay a special tax called “jizya”.

t. brainlet

>14th
Rising levels of literacy combined with Arab dynasts who used appeals to fundamentalism to unify Arabia.

t. butthurt Mossadegh

The Shah educated them enough for them to realize he was a US shill. They should have been grateful instead of chimping out and letting the Islamists take over.

You are wildly ignorant, educate yourself. There is significant literature for both these religions early forms.

You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Arab dynasts have literally always suppressed Islamic fundamentalists.

Muhammad hopes his message will rub off to Christians and they'll convert ez pz. This doesn't happen so he's frustrated. There it begins.

what a pedantic retard, lmao

Not him but are you seriously trying to sell the idea that Evangelism and Wahhabism are not exercises in fundamentalist, traditional, and close to literal as possible interpretations of their holy texts?

No. I agree they are exercises in fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of religious texts. That's an entirely different claim to saying we know that they are actually like the early forms of their respective religions.

>American evangelicals are much closer to how the early Christians acted.
>returned the religion closer to its roots

Attached: 1463329999133.jpg (499x635, 76K)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pedantry

First jizya isn't a special tax on non-Muslim, but rather CERTAIN non-Muslim. Second jizya is not the default approach. Jizya is ONLY applied if peace treaty is signed with those certain non-Muslims. This is so that it is fair that those certain non-Muslims must be protected under the treaty and to protect them, they must be taxed.

It was never a all non-muslims will live in harmony if they pay jizya. In order to even reach jizya, they must first surrender completely to the Islamic ruler then apply for treaty and then that treaty has to be accepted by both party.

Second, as it required a treaty, the ones who didn't bring up a successful treaty were slaughtered. This happened with ~20-30% of Indian population, central Asian population, a large chunk of Christian populations, african population, etc.

Except when they haven't, you mean? Or are you ignoring the Saudis?

How do you imagine early Christians acted?

>The question is not nuanced or specific, but is perfectly serviceable given how brief it is
How is the question serviceable? It's completely moronic to think there is a monolithic thing called 'Islam' which has decided to hate the west. Who hates the west? All Muslims? All Muslim countries? Muslims who live in the west?

>Mohemmed would approve of Salafism.
No for a simple reason: the hadiths are probably corrupt.

Yeah, no, the alternative to Jizya is death, trying to frame it as a "treaty" or "agreement" is just insulting. Also, the legal bonds only go one way, the infidels must abide by Muslim laws but the Muslims are not bound by their agreements with the infidels and can withdraw the "protection" of jizya at any time and for any reason. It is extortion, no different than the "insurance" you pay to the mob to make sure your business doesn't burn down.

For a start, they didn't reject the clergy and think that the Eucharist is just a symbol.

>trace for me the route of Islam’s hate for the west?
Sounds like a homework question. The kind you get over extended breaks to help you "think about stuff".

We're doing your homework aren't we OP?

That's what I said didn't I? If the Europeans can use the word "treaty" in their conquest of the Native Americas and the "treaties" with the Qing China, then certainly this would be applicable here. Treaty can be bound even if its under duress/illegal by any standard, as long as its enforced.

The last few chapters of this do a decent job.

Attached: Destiny Disrupted.jpg (330x499, 67K)

The Saudis have been suppressing actual Wahhabis since the early 20th century. Contemporary Saudi “Wahhabism” is just Madkhalism.

>the Muslims are not bound by their agreements with the infidels

Saurce?

But in both those cases, teh Europeans were bound by their own treaties. Yes I know they sometimes (often) broke those treaties, but they always came up with a spurious reason for it, or claimed the other side was in default, because they were bound by the treaty they had signed and couldn't be seen to publicly repudiate such a thing, no such layer exists in Islam, the unilateral nature of the agreement is absolute and explicit from the get go. It is closer to slavery or helotry than it is to the one-sided treaties Europeans signed with red and yellow savages.

The Koran.

. Salafists might claim to be emulating the earliest Muslims, but in fact most of their religious concepts and practices are less than a few hundred years old and have very little to do with Islam as it was practiced at any point in history. Don't fall for their propaganda.

Contemporary Salafism cohered, as a movement, in the mid-to-late 20th century.

I wasn't saying ideology is irrelevant, on the contrary, Vasco da Gama and Reconquesta Spain show that a violent ideology can be used to make nations more powerful and wealthy.

I think Islamic extremism is due to both ideology and economics. Several religious and political leaders in the Islamic world preach and extremist ideology that is accepted by many people because of the impoverished situation they live in. Much like how Hitler appealed to the impoverished Germans, Lenin appealed to the poor Russians, and radical republicans appealed to the starving Parisians.

They have none.
The evidence shows the contrary.
>Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the inviolable place of worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of the disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And he who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).
Surat Al-Baqarah 190-194.
kek

>t.taqqiya

Attached: rambo III.png (720x380, 414K)

Skyes-Picot agreement

End of story

>muh taqqiya
Taqiyya is a Shiite survival tactic, in that you're allowed to lie and claim you are not Shia in situations of danger. Sunni extremists have been twisting this to "Shiites are filthy liars" for centuries, but now we've also got poltards who twist it to "all Muslims are filthy liars!!"
It's weird that islamophobes' understanding of taqqiya is exactly the same as Sunni takfiris understanding.

>Islamic Golden Age
>get REKT by Mongols
>a shithole to this day
that's pretty much it

Islam puts place rules and regulations for jihad. No random muslim can make up a jihad and kill an unarmed man who was not doing anything to threaten him,
This is why salafi-jihadists always use "muh western foreign policy" and "muh apostate arab regimes" to justify themselves. Islam clearly states that an eye for an eye is permissible and to those terrorists, there has been repeated aggression against them.

>Islam’s hate for the west
You answered your own question

>Taqiyya is a Shiite survival tactic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oran_fatwa
The muslims of spain weren't shiites

You a shia innit
Filthy Rafida

This had nothing to do with the taqqiya concept itself.

I'm a ex-muslim

The concept itself is an Islamic one in the Qur'an and generally it's about when one is forced to disbelieve in a life / death situation.

quran.com/16/106

The issue is that within Shia books, there are shia narrations that change how it's understood which is why Ahlu Sunnah have an issue with how the shia understand the concept.

Ever since the West dismantled the caliphate after ww1

Not that guy but how is the fatwa that was issued not a means to get Muslims to lie and 'save their asses' when under pressure by rulers that weren't exactly receptive to them?

so taqiiya is something that was used by all muslims but became wholly a shiite concept?

Ahmad ibn Abi Jum'ah never called this fatwa "taqqiya". This was a unique situation and had nothing to with the shiite concept

Arabs and Wahhabi shitlords hated the Ottomans tho.

Not a single one of those is related to Islam's hate of the west.

Arabs still continued to fight for the Ottoman army while the Ottomans were mass executing Arab nationalist back home.

Did Jum'ah need to call the fatwa taqiya for it to be taqiya though? It had nothing to do with the shiite concept but it was still taqiya, no? Maybe I'm not understanding something but what is the exact difference of the term in the sunni and shiite world?

Its overblown because of the 911 cia false flag op. Hatred is an emotion it is inside of you and The West cannot feel it. What hurts you is when your government makes all its decisions based on the emotions of people you will never meet.

Way more people die from smoking am I supposed to apologize to the radicalized tobacco plants offended by the hyperwars of 48,200BCE?

I imagine they didn't fuck travellers and have shotgun weddings every other weekend, for starters

Laurence of Arabia made the Arabs a promise, Britan and France had a prior arrangement.

Attached: So supreme.jpg (438x576, 68K)

Sykes-Picot

The Oran fatwa was a isolated situation. This is the only case like this in sunni history.
Taqqiya is a shia-only concept referring to avoiding violent persecution from sunni takfiris.

Firstly, 9/11 was either a US or an Israeli false-flag, or perhaps both. Second, many Islamic peoples are rightly frustrated with the West's unnatural concern with a land thousands of kilometers away. In the words if Iran's president, "what is the relationship between the US and the Zionist regime 10,000 km across the ocean?"

youtu.be/CQmdv1l4Zm0
Around the 31:25 mark he addresses this.

Yes, there is some element of religious fundamentalism. But they hate the West because they have been brainwashed and subverted to do the Zionists bidding, and they especially hate the Jews. Zionist warmongering and CIA intervention has caused untold destruction in the region.

>Can someone trace for me the route of Islam’s hate for the west?

Attached: may-1948-harry-truman-recognizes-state-israel-933x445.jpg (933x445, 75K)

theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

>fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

You really thought we would miss those small details where he says you're supposed to fight until everyone is worshiping Allah?

The Jews

conspiritard

>against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
You missed that part

Alliance between the Wahhabists and the British in the early 20th century. Wahhabism doesn't just hate the West, they believe in the supremacy of Arab Bedouin culture as the true culture of Islam and are immensely xenophobic towards any culture that is not Bedouin. They were propped up by the British after forging an alliance with the House of Saud in order to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Of course, this was before anyone knew of the massive oil reserves the Saudis had access to, and these massive reserves allowed them to export their ideology across the world.

Tbh the Palestinian radicals fighting Israel were mostly secular muslims, socialists and even Christians, not radical muslims. Israel actually CREATED a radical muslim controlled opposition called Hamas, then they went rogue.

This
Arab leftists and communists were hijacking planes and blowing themselves up wayy before the islamists

>you need to start in 1979
That seems WAY to modern.
You really think they never acted up until 1979?

As ww2 ended the main powerhouses gave up on their colonies and territories mainly due to a lack of resources and manpower. Not wanting to lose complete control over their former colonies, the colonist states maintained good diplomatic relations and baited them into alliances in which the colonists provided 'humanitarian aid' which consisted of payoffs to the ruling parties. They could then keep abusing those former colonies all over again, this time maybe even worse.

The hate for the west isn't exclusively muslim.
>Everyone but the west hates the west.
Muslims are just easily radicalized to fight against it, and because most muslim states grow oil in their backyard they can afford to be more offensive then piss poor peasants that can't even feed themselves.

They couldn't do much until they gained Independence, countries like Britain, France, Russia and Murica held a tight grip over their colonies and shot whoever caused trouble.

> noting Jewish lobbying and domination of the media makes me a retard

Nice argument.

But OP isn't about radicalism, but Muslim in general. I think you're right though that Arab Socialists opposed Israel and the West long before the Islamists had the reach they have today. But the Arab Socialists and nationalists were unable to oppose Western influence in the Middle East in any meaningful way, so the Islamists just sort of stepped up to the plate and filled the vacuum. It's why you see a lot of former Ba'ath guys in Iraq working with ISIS even though historically Ba'athism and Islamism have been major enemies. And even earlier than that, you can see it happening; after Saddam got his shit kicked in during the First Gulf War had turned away from secularism and really started harping up Islamism over Arabism. So I really don't think it's right to exclude Israel from the equation here.

Arab socialists were opposed to Israel, while islamists are opppsed to the west.