Porn, the middle east, and the age of Christianity vs Islam's age

[PickelledEggs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCDxhyc2bvE

A good question came up in this video, and I'm paraphrasing because it's a video and not written down, but "is it because Islam is 700 years younger that they are more immature and not past their bad period of violence?"

[Odoital778412]

A good question came up in this video, and I'm paraphrasing because it's a video and not written down, but "is it because Islam is 700 years younger that they are more immature and not past their bad period of violence?"

That's the kind of thing people always say who are trying to excuse Islam.  It's also the type of thing people say when they are not informed about the nature of Islam.  Islam is younger than other religions like Judaism, Christianity, and others.  However, being a younger religion doesn't force it to be violent toward its own professing members or the outside world.

In the case of Islam, the distinction of being violent is owed to its founder, the Prophet Muhammed.  He was depredator and warrior who was involved in pillaging and massacres.  And of course, like Jesus Christ for Christians, the Prophet is the al-Insān al-Kāmil (i.e. perfect man or example) for the Muslim, and there is no real way of getting around that.  A lot of people will tell you that Islam means peace, but it doesn't.  Salam means peace in the Muslim world.  Islam means submission to the will of Allah.  The fact that, in terms of worldview, Islam divides the world into two parts (i.e. Dar al-Islam / The House of Islam & Dar al-Harb / The House of War) and that the entire point of Islam is to bring the entire Earth into or under submission to Allah should make pretty clear what the problem is.  These are not tangential issues to Islam or some kind of secondary doctrines held by few.  These are core doctrines of the Muslim faith and the very bedrock of the things they believe and that the Prophet taught.  There is no way to get away from that.  Islam had it's own "Reformation" in the 1700s under Muhammad ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab, which is where you get the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, as well as the Salafis throughout the Middle East & North Africa.  The Christian reformation was about getting back to the basics of the word of God and stripping out all of man's external teachings placed on top of it by the Roman Catholic church of its day.  Well, Wahhabism was essentially the same thing, and as a result, it emerged as one of the most violent strains of Islam since the days of Muhammed and immediately following his death.  Read the history of Islam.  Read the Qur'an.  Read the most authoritative Hadith by Muhammad al-Bukhari.  You'll see what I'm talking about.  Don't be fooled by the nonsense we get fed by the mainstream press.

[pr126]

Islam from it's start was a violent "religion". It is still as violent as it was 1400 years ago.

Perhaps reformation is the wrong expression. Enlightenment would more desirable, however it is not possible, not for a long time.

In fact, reformation is happening right now, ISIS, Boko haram, Muslim Brotherhood, the Taleban, and the hundreds of other jihadists groups are reforming Islam to it's original form.

Wishing Islam to reform (in our meaning of the word) is a pie in the sky. Not going to happen.
Islam now is rich, strong, focused, and willing to fight and die for Allah.

Waiting for Islam to "mellow" is futile. It won't happen in many generations to come.
Much better is to study their theology, to understand what makes Islam what it is.

Unfortunately the west just doesn't want to know. But know it will. The hard way.

[Munch]

That's the kind of thing people always say who are trying to excuse Islam.  It's also the type of thing people say when they are not informed about the nature of Islam.

From what you've said so far your no authority on what the nature of a religion is.

[pr126]

I think Odoital778412 has described Islam quite well in hIs  second paragraph.

I am not sure what kind of "authority" is needed that you are referring to.

[SGOS]

That's the kind of thing people always say who are trying to excuse Islam.  It's also the type of thing people say when they are not informed about the nature of Islam.  Islam is younger than other religions like Judaism, Christianity, and others.  However, being a younger religion doesn't force it to be violent toward its own professing members or the outside world.

In the case of Islam, the distinction of being violent is owed to its founder, the Prophet Muhammed.  He was depredator and warrior who was involved in pillaging and massacres.  And of course, like Jesus Christ for Christians, the Prophet is the al-Insān al-Kāmil (i.e. perfect man or example) for the Muslim, and there is no real way of getting around that.  A lot of people will tell you that Islam means peace, but it doesn't.  Salam means peace in the Muslim world.  Islam means submission to the will of Allah.  The fact that, in terms of worldview, Islam divides the world into two parts (i.e. Dar al-Islam / The House of Islam & Dar al-Harb / The House of War) and that the entire point of Islam is to bring the entire Earth into or under submission to Allah should make pretty clear what the problem is.  These are not tangential issues to Islam or some kind of secondary doctrines held by few.  These are core doctrines of the Muslim faith and the very bedrock of the things they believe and that the Prophet taught.  There is no way to get away from that.  Islam had it's own "Reformation" in the 1700s under Muhammad ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab, which is where you get the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, as well as the Salafis throughout the Middle East & North Africa.  The Christian reformation was about getting back to the basics of the word of God and stripping out all of man's external teachings place on top of it by the Roman Catholic church of its day.  Well, Wahhabism was essentially the same thing, and as a result, it emerged as one of the most violent strains of Islam since the days of Muhammed and immediately following his death.  Read the history of Islam.  Read the Qur'an.  Read the most authoritative Hadith by Muhammad al-Bukhari.  You'll see what I'm talking about.  Don't be fooled by the nonsense we get fed by the mainstream press.

We can't look at two or three religions that have had violent pasts and conclude all religions follow the path of Christianity.  It's tempting but it's a non sequitur.  Christianity didn't stop being violent until western culture no longer allowed it ultimate power.  It has nothing to do with the religion of Christianity naturally evolving into a more peaceful religion on it's own.  Without restraints from society, there is no reason to think Christianity wouldn't be imposing itself on the world as it did during the inquisition.  Nor can we say that societies naturally evolve into more peaceful societies.  Western culture evolved over 700 years toward a slightly more peaceful society and then came Hitler and Stalin, and American style freedom is fragile and tentative at best.  Just look at forces trying to destroy it right now from within.

So we can't say evolutions of societies or evolutions of religions all follow natural paths toward openness, peace, and freedom.  The Arab world went from the center of intellectual achievement to the backwards system it is today.  There was no linear progression at all.  I think we would all like to believe such a linear progression for the entire world exists, myself included, but I don't see enough data to convince me that this is true.

[drunkenshoe]

That's the kind of thing people always say who are trying to excuse Islam.  It's also the type of thing people say when they are not informed about the nature of Islam.  Islam is younger than other religions like Judaism, Christianity, and others.  However, being a younger religion doesn't force it to be violent toward its own professing members or the outside world.

In the case of Islam, the distinction of being violent is owed to its founder, the Prophet Muhammed.  He was depredator and warrior who was involved in pillaging and massacres.  And of course, like Jesus Christ for Christians, the Prophet is the al-Insān al-Kāmil (i.e. perfect man or example) for the Muslim, and there is no real way of getting around that.  A lot of people will tell you that Islam means peace, but it doesn't.  Salam means peace in the Muslim world.  Islam means submission to the will of Allah.  The fact that, in terms of worldview, Islam divides the world into two parts (i.e. Dar al-Islam / The House of Islam & Dar al-Harb / The House of War) and that the entire point of Islam is to bring the entire Earth into or under submission to Allah should make pretty clear what the problem is.  These are not tangential issues to Islam or some kind of secondary doctrines held by few.  These are core doctrines of the Muslim faith and the very bedrock of the things they believe and that the Prophet taught.  There is no way to get away from that.  Islam had it's own "Reformation" in the 1700s under Muhammad ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab, which is where you get the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, as well as the Salafis throughout the Middle East & North Africa.  The Christian reformation was about getting back to the basics of the word of God and stripping out all of man's external teachings place on top of it by the Roman Catholic church of its day.  Well, Wahhabism was essentially the same thing, and as a result, it emerged as one of the most violent strains of Islam since the days of Muhammed and immediately following his death.  Read the history of Islam.  Read the Qur'an.  Read the most authoritative Hadith by Muhammad al-Bukhari.  You'll see what I'm talking about.  Don't be fooled by the nonsense we get fed by the mainstream press.

You sound like a muslim cleric talking to muslims about Christianity in a friday sermon. The pot calling the kettle black. Let me put it in a way that a Christian would get his fellow believers from another religion.

You are making the common mistake of comparing a warlord set out to unite a specific nation and created a new law and standard of life in in 7th century. What's basically done everywhere around the world at the time and long time before and after Muhammed. Muhammed is not different than any other warlord. He is just a 'successful' one. On the other hand, Jesus is an eclectic, pagan god, an imaginary character that first got designed in Nicaea Council and evolved in similar different ways. 

You seem to have no real insight to Islamic faith or their perspective on their prophet and Christianity's 'contribution' to it. Muhammed's quality of a human being and not him being perfect -because humans can't be- always illustrated, emphasized and gets advertised very cleverly against the contrast of a figure of a messiah, a mortal man who has been falsely deemed, corrupted as god, because of his perverse people. Who is he? Jesus Christ. Because to Muslims, the holy trinity divides one omnipotent creator of the universe in to humaan qualities. Spirit, a mortal man...etc.

You shouldn't have a problem with understanding this logic. Muslims believe that god have sent 3 original prophets to earth. Moses. his people declared themselves above all god's people, while god created everyone with the same chance at salvation. So he has punished them and then sent a second one to warn them -Jesus is not a 'prophet' according to Islam because he is not sent a holy book, but called a 'prophet', because he is as holy of the god. Muslims give the same reaction if you take his name in vain. He is to be talked by the same honorific as it is used for Muhammed. And his people got perverted, tortured and killed him, declared him god. (Though according to Islamic faith, Romans thought they tortured and killed Jesus, Son of Meryem, but the one kafirs did all these things were actually someone else, because he was already taken to heaven. One of the miracles in Islam. Jesus is not killed, cannot be killed by man, he is a prophet of god) Anyway, these are two great sins according to these people. To declare yourself above all god's people (Jews), and declare a mortal man as god and worship him (Christians). So god has sent a third, final prophet. Muhammed. And god will not send another till the end of times.

Who is Muhammed? Muhammed is an illiterate shepherd (this is always emphasized, more than that also that he always stayed more or less illiterate, that he is a simple man. It's a brilliant way of marketing.) who developed an idea how to control the land in his contact with the merchants in the region. (This is marketed as saving people from oppression of the old rule. Bad ways of polytheism. The usual one. Same with the other two.) How do you gain a power and control a region?  Money. Currency. He gets married to a rich widow, whose family has been in contact with Jewish merchants for a long time. So when he started to gain the power to be a political threat to others, it is not a surprise that the outline of his holy book took from them. This is why Islam has a lot in common with traditional Judaism in some things. He attached his system to Abrahamic religions. Removed the parts he saw as a threat. Basically he is a very successful businessman of his time who got in politics and won the big prize.

And then he did exactly what other warlords did. First in his own region, then expanded. And his successors followed him as heirs follows their kings. He attacked around and gained power, land, riches. Exactly how happend in the West. There is one way to do this.

The question that 'Why didn't Islam develop?' is not just an invalid question, also a stupid one. Religions do not get developed or evolve. Societies do in time, because the control THE STATE needs to provide changes. Religions stay the same, that is the definition of them. Western countries did not develop because Christianity did. Christianty did not develop, it is the same thing. They also didn't start to develop with Renaissance or what came after. While those movements of enlightenment and periods contributed overall to the development, from the peoples' point, civil rights, the life they lived was not different than the Middle Ages in Renaissance or after. Not until a short time ago conmpared to human history. West started to become West after 1789 with the evolution of the MODERN STATE. And the modern state of Western culture(s) NEED its people to be secular up to a point now. Today, a Western country cannot benefit or profit from a religious society. In the Islam world this is exactly the opposite. There is no benefit or profit in secularism or laicism in Muslim countries, esp. against an oppressive, agressive ideal in contrast; the West. I see no need to mention the European invasion and colonisation of the world of hundreds of years or the way that leads to the first industrial revolution...etc. Have you ever heard of Industrial Revolution and how that changed the world? That is what changed the world. Not some tamed religion.

Christianity has imposed itself on the world with violence for a long time. Still does. Without the modern state, West is the Christian Middle East. The 'nature' of all religions are the same. Religions do NOT develop. They CAN'T.

[drunkenshoe]

I am not sure what kind of "authority" is needed that you are referring to.

He is a believer of an Abrahamic religion. Anyone who believes in woo woo, doesn't have the authority to 'criticise' the other woo woo. Because it is not criticism, it is 'Our football team is better than theirs. Clap clap'. Nothing else.

[trdsf]

A good question came up in this video, and I'm paraphrasing because it's a video and not written down, but "is it because Islam is 700 years younger that they are more immature and not past their bad period of violence?"

It might be worth noting that Islam is at about the same age that Catholicism was when the Inquisition really took off.  It might be a trait of proselytizing religions, a 15th century itch, something like that.

It might also be worth noting that during the 15th century AD you had the introduction of movable type printing in Europe, and during the 15th century AH you had the introduction of wide public usage of the Internet and the World Wide Web.  I cannot help but wonder if the sudden ability to get ideas from far afield of one's church or mosque triggered the violent and repressive reactions from the respective religious authorities.

[pr126]

He is a believer of an Abrahamic religion. Anyone who believes in woo woo, doesn't have the authority to 'criticise' the other woo woo. Because it is not criticism, it is 'Our football team is better than theirs. Clap clap'. Nothing else.

I see. So Muslims have no authority to criticise other religions, but the do it anyway, constantly.
Not only that, but they are also murdering members of any other faith, just to make a point.

And Christians have no authority to criticise Muslims while getting murdere by them. Right?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

I hate this fucking "cultural aging" bullshit. Cultures are not moody teenagers and they do not live in isolation of other cultures.

[drunkenshoe]

It might also be worth noting that during the 15th century AD you had the introduction of movable type printing in Europe,

The contribution of print is a slow and an indirect one.

-Very few people are literate. It's mostly limited to clergy and the aristocracy.
- There is no language unification or standards. The dialects of 15th century Europe are vernaculas that are very different from each other. Latin is the lingua franca, the common language. Standards will come after 1789. There is no German or a French or an Italian language in 15th century. Most dominant vernaclars are Italian and Castilian (What we know today as Spanish.) For example, you are not talking in Italian in 15 th century. You are either speaking in Tuscony or Venetian or Neapolitan or Florantine or Roman. German is the worst case. Dialects are so different, there is almost no communication between regions and this creates a crisis, also prolongs the usage of Latin in administration and education and causes a famous reaction. It's not random that first bible in vernacular came from the 'German' speaking world.  When Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the All Saints Church's door, the language he used wasn't 'German', it was Saxony, because he spoke Saxony. He knew this, and all the issues with vernaculars and 'languages' and reaching to people; the deliberate actions of the Roman Catholic Church to keep people ignorant and that's why he did it. He also published his bible in Saxony with the chancery standart of his time. Today, German is still the least unified language in Europe. 

The idea that printing contributed to standardisation of languages -and so to general development- as a virtually automatic outcome of the mass production after Gutenberg is a false one. There are so many other things going on with languages and communication, accumulation of knowledge... etc. it is going in circles, not linear.

There are also no conscious politics that is leading to some development before French Revolution. Only what monarchs and their statemen do to stay in power. They are not reacting to issues and problems to solve. They react to provide dominance and order. For example, what Cardinal Richelieu did to impose French language -and also Louis the XIVth- is just imposing politics to gain dominance. Not conscious policies. But, did they succeed? Yes.

It might be worth noting that Islam is at about the same age that Catholicism was when the Inquisition really took off.  It might be a trait of proselytizing religions, a 15th century itch, something like that.

Christianity didn't have some stronger other to run against.

[drunkenshoe]

I see. So Muslims have no authority to criticise other religions, but the do it anyway, constantly.
Not only that, but they are also murdering members of any other faith, just to make a point.

And Christians have no authority to criticise Muslims while getting murdere by them. Right?

No, I typed the word critcise as 'criticise'. And I said one believer of woo woo VS the other believer woo woo. To me they are exactly the same.

So either learn to read or stop putting words in my mouth. In any case, stop making retarded arguments from word games when what is written is clear.

[aitm]

It is still my opinion that the great divide is nothing more than the consequences of education. The jews are generally mistrusted and despised not because they are jewish, as they are usually depicted as being devious and deceitful. This is more due the culture that promotes education of their youth. Being smarter makes being clever and "devious" simply easier.

"Christian" nations started pushing compulsory education back in the late 1500's. Education enhances logic, causes questioning, births skepticism which of course leads to a more liberal take of dogma.

Right now, the past successes of education in many islamic countries are being wiped out by a real attempt to inhibit education at all other than studying the koran. "Christian" nations see a great influx of people form muslim nations for two-fold reasons, to get a better eduction and to understand the culture of the people they are going to be in business with, hopefully.

Education, imo, will always be the apple.

[drunkenshoe]

"Christian" nations started pushing compulsory education back in the late 1500's.

That's religious education. It's the only education available to the common people, before 1789. Nobles, rich class and clergy make minority among the population. Mandatory universal education spread in 19th century. Proper secular education is younger than that. 

Right now, the past successes of education in many islamic countries are being wiped out by a real attempt to inhibit education at all other than studying the koran.

What kind of education they had in the past free from religion in Islamic countries? I mean, besides the western curriculum models?

"Christian" nations see a great influx of people form muslim nations for two-fold reasons, to get a better eduction and to understand the culture of the people they are going to be in business with, hopefully.

That's not education. That's 'learning a trade' and how to get along.

Education, imo, will always be the apple.

Conscious secular education is the apple. You can teach a kid math and science and brainwash him with religious bullshit at the same time. Esp. in a society that didn't go through the struggle of enlightment by itself AND had every kind of progress imposed and technology bought and thrust to its hands. All you need is a perception management showing that West is a developed but also a corrupted culture. Take its technology and science, stay away from its ideals. There. You created a self righteous, functioning system that will educate its children and will benefit from ignorance to no end. You can hold Western societies together with telling them that theirs the ideal, 'oh look at the islamic ones, beware, they are after your culture', while you can hold the Islamic ones together, 'oh look how corrupted and immoral they became trying to dictate the world with their technology and science'. It works so fucking good.

That's what happened in Turkey. They got secularised in education and social relations, everything starting 1920s. (Even offical marriage is not religious and people get a religious ceremony as an extra here. You don't count as officially married in law with religious ceremony, you need to get a licence with an official.) As the secular culture in the world meant Western culture, they actually just got 'Westernised'. They started to raise their children with Western ideals, education, language, culture...etc. They oppressed religious people, first unconsciously, it was a side effect of the new system and hatred against the Empire. Those people and their culture were undesirable. The country already had little economy, because like everything, from industrial revolution to mass production got in very late. They joined the world (1980s) and everything started to come from the US or Europe. Economy never got stable, because it never reached a point to be mature itself, let alone to compete with Western products for its own. So while there was a secular middle class thriving, the labour class, the lower classes started to fall worse AND AT THAT BRIDGE, secularism; Westernisation starts to become unwanted as a culture; people use the technology and what is taken from there, but refuse the culture amd main frame of thought and ideas that caused that development. (Like rubes in the US) They return to religion, religious culture, nationalism, as a unification of their communities; affirmation of their identities and culture. This is simple human reality. When people are soveriegn class citizens they are happy with everything as that's what made them dominant. When they are not and pushed because they are not from that culture and this goes for some time with bad economy, they start to form a SIDE and work against the secular  majority.

And then oppression starts. Soveriegn class actively dictates that the religious class is 2nd or the 3rd. They prevent them from practising in administration, education, wear head scarves in offices or even universities, because it is a political sign. The more they opress them, the more they get underground and get organised.

Why do you think there has been coups in Turkey in the past. And then sooner or later they come to power with a vengeance. There. That's Turkey today. Now, exactly like  American rubes, they keep shouting how persecuted they are at every opportunity. But with one difference, they really have been up to some point. 

Education alone doesn't do jack squat. If it did anything, it would do to the American republican group. They do not want to accept the secular culture and want to stay ignorant, because doing that is denying their identity, culture and community. Accepting secular American culture means they will be made something they are not. Idioitic? Yes, very. But it is also real.