When I talk to liberals and the conversation somehow turns to Islamism I usually hear them say something along the...

When I talk to liberals and the conversation somehow turns to Islamism I usually hear them say something along the lines of "Christianity underwent a reform and Islam simply didn't. That's why they're so violent ". As you'll surely agree that analysis is at shallow as it gets. Does anyone know or can provide a materialist view of the christian reformation?

Other urls found in this thread:


The Middle East hasn't had an Enlightenment yet. This explains a great deal. Interestingly, the entire project of Rojava is to push the Middle East towards Enlightenment.

That absurd Spenglerist view of history can easily debunked by actually looking at the very nature of Islam and Christianity. Christianity was, unlike Islam, never equipped with the puritanism and expansionism like Islam. That doesn't mean it hasn't been instrumentalized for such (the conquest of the americas comes to mind) but Christianity is usually seperated from the state, while Islam is the state. There is also a huge difference in the perception of each others realm: While Christianity has in principle no problem with Christians under non-Christian rulers, Islam divides into the house of peace (Dar al-Islam) and the house or war (Dar al-Harb). That means, it doesn't matter wether or not a majority of Muslims live in the conquered lands, it just matters wether or not a Muslim ruler is in charge and wether or not Islamic law is implemented. Proselytism is Islam is conquest and expansionism, while it is not in Christianity. Not even the Crusades were aiming to proselytize anybody.

There isn't going to be an "enlightenment" in the Middle East. The world is already globalized. Asia never had an enlightenment, would you consider Asians to be medieval? You can't just carbon copy European specifics on other cultures, that is reductionist Spenglerist determinism.

This doesn't really answer your question, but I read about 1/3 of the Quran and gathered some insights from it.
The Quran is very self-reinforcing
The reader constantly reminded that the book is the sacred infallible word of god, transmitted directly to his holy prophet.
As far as I understand, the new testament does not do this.
This explains why Islam remains so conservative relative to Christianity.

well china is a communist country, they practice atheism, although china is filled with Muslims and Christians despite them being persecuted.
And japan is pretty weird about religion, they dont seem to take it that seriously beyond upholding some traditions.
Islam is a violent and barbaric religion that spread by the sword, ask the hindus and spain.
They wont change because the left are cultural relativists who refuse to criticize brown people.
Islam is a terrible religion and needs to be globally bullycided by every other religion till it learns talk shit, get hit

That's not really what I was looking for but closer to it than . I'm not really looking for ways to debunk that view of history, that's something I mange on my own by drawing from other examples but for my personal education I want to know which material conditions lead to the christian reformation. Thanks for the reply tho.

Well to be quite honest the material condition is that the USA or Britain has funded every single radical islamist movement in history, form Wahabism to Salafism and undermined every progressive muslim tendency. I mean, Afghanistan was communist once. Iran had a secular SocDem government. Libya was a secular pan-african welfare state. Lots of PLO organisations were secular. Syria was a secular welfare state. List goes on and on. They were all thrown under the bus by the US and Israel, that founded Mujahideen or bombed the shit out of Muslims until they resorted to radical zealots (Gaza). To acknowledge that as a leftist is of paramount importance.

I mean I know the basics in regards to Islam but I want to know about Christianity.

Additionally to that, a lot of it also has its origins within the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. If you want to dig deeper into the material conditions of the muslim world this is probably the best starting point.

Do i have a book for you

Boy do I have an informative webm for you.

Okay. Well Christianity was traditionally the legitimization of the estates of the realm (class division in feudal society). So if you want to know why it was possible for Christianity to undergo reform, you need to look at the material conditions which caused the estates of the realm to disintegrate. This has to do with increased institutionalized state power in absolutism, and finally the undermining of the perception of the nobility as the warrior class once mercenary armies became the dominant military force. Christianity as a superstructure legimitzing estates of the realm is based on a revision of Augustinus De Civitate Dei which uplifted Christianity to the state religion of the Roman Empire. Once feudal relations became obsolete, Christianity was no longer needed as a form of legitmization, and left a void which was filled by the 18th century enlightenment, who justified the absolute monarchs rule differently ("First Among Citizens", which was the motto of Frederick the Great).

Most Islamism was funded by america and the gulf cartel to ruin communism, and in the modern day to overthrow dictators that are threats to Israel and the gulf.

I think the key to reforming Islam lies in america ironically enough. In america you can practice any insane religion you want, america would be a good breeding ground for any new type of Islam or a reformation, because the heretic wouldn't be killed like they would in the middle east

Look up why the Reformation happened. Nothing to do with violence but abuses with in the Roman Catholic church. Look up Martin Luther and the 95 Thesis.
Also note Eastern Christianity never had a reformation. The whole all of Christianity at some point in time reformed is a false notion.

That arguement is literally white privileqe. Historically white people have been far more violent and murderous.
Even now, when the USA kills hundreds in a drone strike it gets 1% of the coverage of a Muslim terrorist killing a dozen in the west.

The reformation wasn't a progressive force though. It challenged the ruling class (in its very beginning) but it was in no way a step towards enlightenment. In the Thirty Year's War, protestants burned more witches than the catholics.

The only protestant tendency that was sort of progressive in the dialectical materialist sense was Calvinism and its teachings about predeterminatiom, which is one of the reasons the nobility and the merchant class merged in England, creating the bourgeoisie.


don't be a dipshit it's more about white communities vs minority communities, of which muslims (who are usually browner than whites) are basically the bottom rung.
fuck, white western converts are lowest of all, usually considered traitors, which should tell you all you need to know.

Muhammad himself was white.

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."
Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375

Jurairi reported: I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)? He said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra was the last of the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him).

Narrated Anas bin Malik: While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." The an then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib."…

Narrated Isma'il bin Abi Khalid: I heard Abii Juhaifa saying, "I saw the Prophet, and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali resembled him." I said to Abu- Juhaifa, "Describe him for me." He said, "He was white and his beard was black with some white hair. He promised to give us 13 young she-camels, but he expired before we could get them."
Sahih Bukhari 4:56:744

Here it comes

Complete bullshit in reality; Islam went under an enlightenment far before Europe, and their empires collapsed largely due to the Mongols.

You got proof on that?
Also if you want to talk about moments causing violence what happened in France after the enlightenment?


"What's communism?"

Christianity is a desert religion, just like Islam. However Christianity has been reformed by the European blood, hence Protestantism.

I'd say that Islam is different to Christianity due to the difference of blood between the two, but you have Bacha Bazi on one side, and Catholic priests on the other.

Check out this mouthbreather. How do you think Christianity became state religion in the Roman Empire?

Actually it's more like:
This is an enlightenment by anyone's definition.

gonna need a source on that

don't say persia or syria


Until the Mutazila school got eternally BTFO'd for being heretical Islam was permanently enlightened. Since then it's been a MESS.

I didn't read all of it, but right away, this seems retarded:

Now, don't get me wrong, I love sandniggers as much as my next lefty brother, but that statement is beyond retarded. The real Greeks were anti-humanistic and anti-universalist. It was xtianity which brought in humanism and universalism into the picture.

And, I'm not even going to go into attacking your source.

Christian Humanism was born during the Renaissance, far past the heyday of the Eastern Roman Empire.

is a completely different, logically exclusive statement from

The brutal fact that most idiots ITT are missing is that religion, even in the past, was not the ruling ethos of the time. You can't summarily explain all of history by saying who was christian and who was not

That's obviously false. That's kind of like saying that neo-liberal humanism was born after their eventual political victory.

Well, there's a conclusion beyond that: xtianity was a desert religion, and its humanism was simply a cover for foreign, semitic invasion.

Or…you don't know what you're talking about.

You know that there exist people with pale to olive and even to reddish complexion in the middle east?

The only reason why Muslims are more violent is because their countries are a geopolitical battleground, thus turning them into war torn shitholes. The Islamist ideology that springs out of these conflicts then spills over to Muslims in the west who want to participate in these wars by attacking what they perceive as the threat to their communities, ie the people who are bombing them ie America and friends.


All adhoms aside though, there is nothing in your source that proves that christianity is not humanistic in nature. The fact that it spread in an un-humanistic fashion does not disprove my initial argument.

a posting that makes sense - from a tankie.
incredible. i should screencap this rare moment to conserve it for posterity.

My source proves that Christianity was not humanist up until the Renaissance. That's 3/4 of the history of Christianity without humanism. This means that Christianity is not inherently humanist because if it was then it would have been since it's beginning rather than just since the Renaissance.

Here's my definition of humanism:
You might be referring to:

There is not a single source that can state that Christianity is not concerned with human welfare, at least ideologically.

You will never be able to stamp out a form of Islam you dislike because of how decentralized Islam has become since the caliphs stopped being a thing. Nothing stopping a new imam from reading the same thinkers the old ones did and spouting the same things you disliked before. All you can do is change the material conditions driving people towards a given form if Islam and go after people actively funding it.
Like, imagine trying to "reform" America's countless non-denominational churches.

This is because the US government is the one doing the killing and they have giant PR departments to keep them looking good. When 1 white person kills a muslim because they are tired of being islamic truck of peaced 12 times, we never hear the end of it.

Well the first thing is that it's just plain wrong. Islam actually regressed. People usually assume such a thing can't happen, because muh whigs.

Christianity is only as it is now for two reasons: one, we broke its back. It is now "our" tool, and has no control of its own. Two, we wanted to go the way of liberalism, for various long-written-about reasons.

Arabs are white.

Here is the definition of humanism according to Merriam-Webster: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.
Christianity is primarily concerned with soteriology.

I'm not going to bother with the "human welfare" definition because literally everybody who has empathy would be a humanist. Humanism, in the context of history, is the Renaissance movement which revived Greco-Roman culture and knowledge.

I'm a Christcom and I agree that Christianity stresses human welfare but I just don't agree that "human welfare=humanism"

I might've muddied the definition, but
is what I meant by humanism.

That is not a pre-christian greek or roman value obviously.