Thoughts about Islam as a religion and culture? Personally I hate the way right-wing populists simplify and generalize everything based on what the most radical Muslims do. My personal experience with Muslims has never been negative and gave me the impression that it's a religion like any other. I also don't believe the hijab is the symbol of oppression that it's often made out to be. However I still haven't decided on how seriously the idea of Islam being "fundamentally" sexist, anti-gay, anti-democratic etc. should be taken.
First time poster here so I don't really have a clue what Holla Forums generally thinks about most issues or what's seen as good content. I came here after realizing halfchan is only good for memes and offers no option at remotely non-cancerous discussion. Please no meme/buzzword replies, had enough of these by now.

Other urls found in this thread:–1991)

Islam is the way, the truth, and the light of the world. Muhammad (pbuh) was the first socialist to ever exist.

You cannot be a true socialist without also being a faithful Muslim.

guess I was asking for it

Most Muslims are pretty reactionary, but some are pretty chill. And yes in many countries in the MENA region women are forced to wear the hijab regardless if they want to or not, so it is oppressive. Islam shouldn’t be treated differently then say evangelical Christianity should be treated. State Atheism.



wrong again

Christianity literally birthed capitalism read Max Weber

Doesn't sound right at all to me. Those countries' governments are oppressive and radical, but I don't see how that makes the hiqjb or Islam oppressive per se. Most Muslim countries don't enforce wearing the hijab at all.
I agree that State Atheism is something to be wished for.

Some opinions, remember to take Rafiq for Rafiq

That's not an argument for Islam and X didn't birth capitalism, capitalism is a necessary historical development

There both reactionary abrahamic religions.

The other day a preacher came onto the campus of my school and was filming a series where students could openly debate him. Having about 45 minutes to kill, I figured I would just sit back and watch the events unfold. Normally I wouldn't say a word and just listen. I'm the type of person who doesn't like a lot of attention on me in large groups, but once you get to know me, a blast to hang out with. So I did my normal thing and just sat there. After about 5 minutes of not one of the 60+ students stepping up to break the ice, I finally said Fuck It and started off the debate. Now it's important to know I an atheist (probably more anti-theist, but I respect people's rights to believe what they want). The preacher didn't know what hit him. Being in Texas, a Christian super giant state, I don't think he was expecting some of the questions I asked him, and my rebuttals to his points. I was clearly ahead in the argument. Not only was I winning the debate, but I was winning the crowd. Whenever I would make a point, people would clap, I started putting humor into it, and everyone laughed. I had the people on my side, and where as normally all this attention would make me sink back, it empowered me. Sadly though my next class was about to start, so I had to leave the debate early. I politely gave the man a hand shake and said, "I have class now, but this a great deal of fun sir", but as I walked away, a number of people asked me my name and if they could get my number so we could meet up later because they wanted to talk to me about atheism and just be able to pick my brain. I met some really cool people and it looks like I formed an entire new circle of friends because I said fuck the shyness and was not afraid to debate my world view to this preacher in front of a crows of 60+ (Around 90 by the time I left).

Orthodox Islam is behind the birth of capitalism, actually. Mainstream interpretations hold that Muhammad was a Trump-turned-pope/king. Islam, unlike Xtianity and Judaism, only sees its ascetic traditions and idea that money leads one away from G*d in "heretical" branches of Sufism, never in the mainstream, simply because the Caliphate never had any antagonisms with the merchant class (unlike the Roman AND Eastern Churches which both denounced business early on).

Look at how Yishmael is described in the Tanakh: a wild beast, uncontrollable, narcissistic, etc. Is there ANY better description of the capitalist superstructure than this?

I'm one of the few on the left that doesn't have their heads up their ass and recognizes it as the abhorrent political system that it is. It is a death cult that is incompatible to any other political system it comes in contact with. And as a homosexual I have a vested interest in having it nowhere near me since I tend to dislike being thrown off rooftops. Pink haired schizos and 1%'ers that live in gated communities with tax funded body guards wont ever convince me otherwise. Cheers


You’re just an Islaphobe bigot


You have to go back

I'm not talking about "Zionism" or even theology really, I'm talking historical materialism. Proto-capitalist economies came into being during the Abbasid period. This isn't something historians dispute. Samir Amin has even written on the subject.

Either way, Islamic orthodoxy produces very little communist resistance. I don't give two fucks about the Yishmaelim as a whole; I'm much more interested in the actual Muslim communist sects like the Alevis.

Wealthy converts were instructed to give up their riches and renounce wealthy traditions in plenty of the "mainstream" interpretations. While people who will push a socialist Islam may be off base, this analysis is equally shallow and off-base.

A better critique is that their solutions to wealth inequality are very liberal and based in personal charity.

so what? the rich have to pay taxes to governments don't they?

Chaya, I'm started the book you posted now because the thesis sounds delicious. But I have to say, we have people saying that Christianity caused capitalism, others say Judaism is responsible for the birth of capitalism, still others say Islam and the famous case of Weber who argued it was a special historically new form of Christianity which is responsible.

How do we know what the truth is here? Isn't it also possible that no religion was responsible for the rise of capitalism but rather it evolved independently via class struggle and material conditions? Of course, superstructure is still important, material conditions and superstructure are caught in a dialectical interplay.


Most aren't.

Right, however this isn't oppressive.

Right, they should both be tolerated.

You mean Marx's theory? Yes, I'd say we go with that one.

Class struggle is only one factor in this equation. You also have to take into consideration *why* would the Abbasids have allowed a strong merchant culture to flourish in their society in the first place compared to Europe during the same period. What was going on in the minds of the people?

We know what the Muslim economists (not the accurate word, during that time theology, philosophy, math, and the sciences were all considered the same field) of that era said. We have their writings. None of them advocated for a complete abandoning of monetary wealth and living life simplistically. Some were proto-Austrians. Some were proto-Keynesians. Some were even proto-Georgists. None were proto-Marxists or proto-Proudhonians. If orthodox Sunni Islam is truly "inherently socialistic" in its "authentic/uncorrupted" form, why didn't we see that during a time when the Caliphate was the dominant world empire?

Okay, *maybe* Ibn Khaldun fits the "proto-Marxist" label, but his theory of history was more along the muh great men line than HistMat.

Rafiq is just a little bitch who doesn't into Leninist tactics. The first image is correct, the second is nothing other than 'muh daddy made me pray 5 times a day when I was only 7 WAAH'.

t. wahabbi

I find Rafiq's viewpoints intriguing but IMO he goes too far in saying that religion can only be a 100% personal experience. If people want to collectively experience their religion, alongside others who also grew up in the same religious environment, I don't see that as a necessarily evil thing as long as there's individual freedom to keep adhering to the religion or not. But of course, it's very difficult to guarantee such freedom, especially since social pressure is always a factor.
I mostly agree with him on the idea of a "Muslim community/world" being a deceptive term which just leads to stigmatization.

Well I surely see where you're coming from as a homosexual, but I can't say there was anything in your reply that gave me a new perspective or that I found a mind-blowing argument. Also a religion/culture is not a political system.

even to a newfag like me this is an obvious meme

If this kind of conspiracy tier stuff forms the core of the book I have no interest in it at all tbh. But since you took the effort to upload the pdf I guess I'll check it out later anyway.

Islam is very much a political ideology.

Islam is not simply a system of theology, doctrine and laws, but more accurately, a political ideology disguised as a religion. It is totalitarian and supremacist and according to its central tenets, followers cannot question what they have been taught, and they must not tolerate other beliefs. In the Muslim mind, there are believers and there are infidels.

Islam is promoted by the ignorant as a ‘religion of peace,’ but in reality is headed by a God that believes in killing non-believers. That makes Islam not a true religion but an ideology which demands the death sentence for you, should you depart from it or its rigid demands . . . a cult in which the allegiance of its devotées is not to America or any other country in which they live, but to their ideological group, Islam.

Islam lays claim to a glorious history and has seen victory after victory during their early conquests and destruction of ancient civilizations. This is merely an attempt to make itself look good in the eyes of innocent people. As a matter of fact, Islam has no glory to advertise at all. The most prominent characteristics of Islam is its eternal Jihad war and Islam’s goal since its inception is world dominance and the subjugation of the masses.

Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id Al-Khudry (radiyallahu’anhu) reports that Rasulullah (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam) once made the following du’a:

‘O Allah I seek refuge in You from disbelief and poverty.’

Someone enquired: ‘Are these two equal?’

Nabi (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam) replied: ‘Yes.’

(Sahih Ibn Hibban, Hadith: 1026 – Al-Ihsan)

Just a reminder that Moslems killed off the PKI in Indonesia for religious reasons. Just a reminder that Moslems killed off a chance to establish a Soviet in Afghanistan for religious reasons. Just a reminder that the British government and Americans both peticipated in arming and providing kill lists for them in both cases. Remember the Baku commune.

Alevis are the real Islamic socialists this board should be supporting. Putting all your eggs in one basket that orthodox Sunnis or Iran-fetishizing Shias are going to somehow spontaneously "realize" Muhammad was LITERALLY Lenin is as pathetic as looking for a decent long-term partner on Tinder. Why not look to a sect of Islam that actually has long roots in socialist politics?


Lots of buzzwords but little actual content. You speak about "the Muslim mind". I'm not convinced that all those extreme beliefs you mention, such as "infidels should be put to death", are true for the majority of actual Muslims in the world. It's also narrow-minded to reduce a religion to nothing except a political ideology when it has a lot of cultural context, is valuable for its adherents in a way that goes beyond being "political", etc.

I lurked that sub some time ago and saw a post that actually pissed me off, I think it was a guy asking how to make his wife more conservative again now that she wanted to leave their kids the choice not to be Muslims. All the comments also came across as highly stupid to me. Still i've been thinking about making a post there myself to get some actual Muslims' opinions/explanations on several topics.

This map might open your eyes. Note that this only covers 2017

OMG Islamist extremists conduct terror attacks?!?!??!
Many of the major terror groups nowadays adhere to Islam??!11!eleven?!?
I had no clue, you just changed my ideas about all moderate Muslims tbh

Max Weber argued that the Protestant work ethic birthed capitalism. He was right about the relation between the two but wrong about the causality. Capitalism birthed the Protestant work ethic, not the other way around.

This book seems to make the assumption that merchants can be described as capitalists regardless of context, which is faulty — it basically humors the libertarian meme that capitalism is defined by trading stuff. Capitalism is first and foremost a set of social relations, which didn't exist yet in the time and place in which those Muslim merchants operated.


If I could have a poly relationship that worked as well as the Prophet and his thirteen wives I'd be set tbh


holy kek

t. NATO shill

jesus I sure hope this is ironic
let me guess, you're also one of those embarrassing apologists who post in the North Korea thread?

There is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim". You are either a believer or an Infidel

Imperialist apologism is a bannable offense, watch your language

I said no memes Osama. Please spam this somewhere else

you wish you were as based as Juche ahmed
go fuck check on your goat wife

Hoxha did nothing wrong tbh.


not an argument

clearly a muslim practicing Taqiya to misinform. Nobody is this oblivious

Using holy scriptures as "evidence" of the supposedly inherently violent nature of a given religion is as dumb as smug atheists convinced they successfully "debunked" Christianity in 2009 because they quoted some gross Bible verse on Facebook. The content of religion as a social phenomenon is always changing — to argue otherwise is pure idealism, a mockery of historical materialism. I shouldn't have to remind anyone here that: "The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man." (Marx, 1843)

really gets my almonds activated

Not exclusively, his first wife was his boss, he married her in her 50's

what I find a fascinating topic that is the topic of Islamic ethics, but in particular, a part of Islamic ethics which is called sacred deception or Taqiyya.

Let me give you a few ethical rules that come from the Hadith:

a Muslim does not cheat another Muslim in business
a Muslim doesn’t kill another Muslim
a Muslim doesn’t touch another Muslim’s wife and
a Muslim doesn’t lie to another Muslim

You notice something here? That’s right. You and I are left out because you see Islam is not a symmetric ethical system. The golden rule is symmetric. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That is, there’s a balance here; the other and yourself are seen as equal. But in Islam if you’re a Kafir, you’re never equal to the Muslim. Islam does not have a golden rule. The Kafir is always inferior.

Now then, let’s talk about lying and deception. First let’s start with the fact that Allah has 99 names and one of those 99 names is he is the best of deceivers.

But Allah is also the best of plotters and schemers so given that, it isn’t too surprising that we find in the

Koran 16:106 “Those who disbelieve in Allah after having believed, who open up their hearts to disbelief will feel the wrath of Allah and have a terrible punishment.”

In other words, apostates can be killed or otherwise punished. But it goes further. “But there is no punishment for anyone who is compelled to deny Allah in words but whose heart is faithful.” So in other words, a Muslim can lie about Islam if it serves Islam. And one of the ways he can serve Islam is that the Muslim is not discriminated against.

Here we have another in

Koran 3:28: “Believers should not take Kafirs (unbelievers) as friends in preference to other believers. Who ever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah.” (In other words, if you’re a real friend [to a Kafir], you’re no longer friend of Allah). “ . . . unless you but guard yourself against them [Kafirs], taking precautions.”

What this is interpreted to mean is that a Muslim can act friendly but he’s not actually the friend. That’s what is wrong. In other words, a Muslim may never give preference to a Kafir over a Muslim. There are, by the way, no less than 12 verses which say that a Muslim is not the friend of the Kafir.

Now let’s turn to the Hadith.
“Mohammed: ‘Who will kill Ka’b bin Ashraf who has offended Allah and his prophet?’
A Muslim: ‘I will Mohammed. Would you have me do so?’
‘In order to kill him, I will need to deceive him. May I do that?’
Mohammed: ‘Yes.’”
So, the Muslim deceived Ka’b bin Ashraf and he did kill him.

What is this? This is the Sunna of Mohammed; it is possible to lie to the Kafir as long as it advances Islam. This is the nature of Taqiyya.

Now there is another way in which a Muslim can lie. There’s a hadith, a fairly well-known hadith, in which there are three reasons for Muslims to lie. One is jihad, that is the struggle against the Kafir. So a Muslim can lie to you anytime he needs to advance Islam

The other is a Muslim a lie to another Muslim if it will make the situation better. And a husband and wife may lie to each other as long as it smooths the relationships in the household.

So deception is part of Islam. Allah is a deceiver. Mohammed was a deceiver, and therefore, every Muslim can be a deceiver. It is so special that it has a name, Taqiyya. So the next time you’re hearing something about Islam that just doesn’t sound right, and it comes from the mouth of a Muslim, you’re right. It’s not right. It’s a lie. It is Taqiyyah.

ah yes that most honored rule that was never breached in any way whatsoever by any muslim, which proves you can use hadiths as evidence of what actually goes on in the real world

Everybody do the Taqiyya shuffle

Have a (You) Taqiyya user

He's talking about the rules, not how people actually do shit.

Child marriage was widespread before the backlash against the practice that happened during the 20th century. It was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl in 19th-century England.

It's not a religion of peace, it's a religion of war, and that's fucking cool and alpha, it deserves to replace Christianity.

If fascism would be a religion it would be islam.

I think you’re close to the mark but you’ve turned things on their side. There were capitalists before capitalism, they were mainly merchants exploiting price-differences over long distances and usurers but there was not a capitalist mode of production at the time.

The capitalists of the time were parasitic upon the slave and feudal modes of production of the time and therefore they could not supersede the cultural logic or established ruling classes these modes of production produced. Only with the rise of industrial-agricultural capitalism, arguably arising in the late 16th century and fully-emerging no later then the late 18th century, did capital find a mode of production and social life capable of sustaining its endless hunger for profit and growth.

Marx argued that the trading city-states of Italy and the republic of Hollande were integrated into the feudal system. Just because there are merchant-dominated cities in a certain period does not mean there is capitalism proper.

it's cool and alpha when you actually can win any wars
when you get your ass handed to you every time it just makes you look like a shit talking twigs for hands

They did conquer a fourth of civilization though.

Have you read "Islam and capitalism" by the French Marxist Maxime Rodinson?

It doesn't make any sense to talk of "capitalists" without a capitalist framework in which they can operate.

nevertheless Jesus was not going around fucking children and conquering infidels
assuming he ever existed

Sure it does. The two primary form of capitalist activity of the Ancient and Medieval period were as I mentioned before: merchants and usurers.

The capital cycle of these simple forms of capital are: M-M^ (Usury) and M-C-M^. These forms of capital exist today albeit in a far more evolved form in retail and the financial sectors. Are Bezos and financial titans like Goldman Sachs not capitalist because they don’t undertake industrial production? No, they are capitalists, but their specialty is not in the productive sector.

Ancient and medieval societies were trapped in modes of production that were oriented more towards rent and master-slave relations then they were towards profit. So some people could make profits in this time but it was not the dominant hegemonic force in economic life.

When things really began to change is when the economic logic of commodity production and class struggle caused social production to take on a new form, this maybe simply rendered as:


What changes here is the integration of production into the cycle and not just any production but production carried out on capital’s terms using its new special element—the wage-laborer.

That's not someone I wanna look up to. If there is a God his prophet should be a warrior pimp who gets tons of pussy.

if you're a dirt poor colon or a slave who would you emphasize with, a self sacrificing ascetic prophet who promises you a final judgement when all wicked which I'm sure was equivalent with wealthy elite in the popular view will be punished, or some warlord, i.e. military elite

all this tells me is that those two religions were aimed at different audiences

Fair enough.

What does P mean?

actual production process

Pointing to religious doctrine as the root of oppression is the most low effort 2006-tier fedora take one can make. You'll no doubt find reactionary ideas in a religious text, but nobody with power actually submits themselves to these tenets. It's the other way around; they leverage the inherent ambiguity and cultural sway of ancient tradition to justify their grasp on power. "Leftists" who mix this up and wind up blaming religion are either flat-out brainlets or disingenuous racists.

If you implemented socialism in Saudi Arabia, an overwhelming majority of the population would be in favor of shedding the reactionary policies of the current theocratic order, but very few would become atheists. Insisting upon the latter is asinine.

here's a good illustration btw

am I supposed to give organized religion a free pass because it would hurt fee fees of the faithful?
I don't exclusively blame religion, but it's one of the pillars of reaction nonetheless

It's not going to get you very far. Most of the people we need to organize are Christian or Muslim. Most of them aren't fundamentalists, but will become defensive if you attack their culture.

If you proposed liberalizing head garment laws for instance, the population in just about any Islamic country would agree with you. Do you think the average working class stiff gives a fuck about something like that? No. It's imposed from above. But if you said "fuck Muhammad God isn't real *tip tip tip*" then don't expect people to be impressed with your reason and logic.

Aweful religion but I actually appreciate Sufism. Lovely artistry comes of it in many forms and they are more tolerant of other religions.

where de proofs billy?
most people I work with couldn't give two shits about any religion, and I'm a blue collar

Not him, but protip: the vast majority of the planet aren't white Westerners.

why did you feel the need to especially highlight this group of people?
protip: it's a rhetorical question

Islam was pretty badass and revolutionary for the time, but the modern day form it has taken is some ultra-reactionary shit.

because even within Western countries, the black and brown working class is more religious?

רק רגע, יהודונת.

Weren't you casually defending Islam a few threads ago accusing Holla Forums of being "anti-Islam" as an excuse for their chauvinism? And now you're flipping to the other side, now Islam is potentially the root of capitalism?
Nice subtle racism, funny how you turned it from Islam to Arabs being the problems. You're an idealist til the moment it doesn't suit you.

>Some of the differences that mark Alevis from mainstream Muslims are the use of cemevi halls rather than mosques; worship ceremonies that feature music and dancing, and where both women and men participate
wtf I unironically want to become a Muslim now

I will be disappointed if it doesn't lead to the giant orgy

They're still Muslims, bro.

How did this devolve into such a massive shitposting thread

Well, you just got our "thoughts about Islam as a religion and culture". I mean, this is an imageboard, you were asking for it.

Holla Forums is just a superficially left-wing version of Holla Forums, what did you expect?

boring and shit, like all monotheistic religions

it wasn't

that's what pop culture does to you
polytheistic religions are hip because you can make kewl Thor comics and God of War games out of it

I despise monotheistic religions, but polytheistic ones are literally babby tier
at least christcucks have their based three of knowledge of good and evil myth and Paradise Lost

Yeah, God(s) forbid that you have actually interesting deities that have relate-able stories and act like any other human being. The myth of Narcissus alone is more interesting than any Abrahamic myth. The humanity of the gods in the ancient pantheons were far more fascinating and valuable than whatever boring garbage Christianity and Judaism brought forth.

Also polytheists have better art, deal with it.


tbh that's just tradition. historical research suggests she was aged 16-20. what happened is after muhammad died the shias tried to undermine her political power by spreading rumours she wasn't a virgin when they married.
to counter this sunnis created the narrative that she married at 6 in order to remove any doubts to her reputation and the sunni's claim to power.


Most monotheistic religions are gay because their clergies pretend God is a benevolent entity just to fool you and take those sweet sweet bills out of your wallet.
At least, polytheists understand that gods are out there to mess with you and can make you their bitch if they feel like it. If they want you to perish in an earthquake, you will perish in an earthquake, crushed by the remains of the Trump tower during a trip to NYC, or your bi-weekly ride to the nearest Walmart/Asda/Lidl/Carrefour or whatever.
They also always have a god of alcoholic beverages, which is the only true God.

Monotheism is for closet fags. End of the story.


I'm not fond of the cultural backwardness of the islamic word, nor am I fond of islamic fundamentalism, but I like islamic/Arab aesthetics and art. I find Islamic architecture and music to be beautiful, to be honest.

The book is specifically about the birth of capitalism, which in part has to do with the merchant society.

You can't really separate orthodox Islam from Arab culture. The entire foundation of Islam is the idea that an Arab prophet would rule.

You know Hoxha was raised a Bektashi (which birthed Alevism) right?

Score one more for us.

real talk
how much The Dune was influenced by Islam philosophy?

Islam is a pretty shit religion and liberals and the left are incapable of criticizing because they have had their brains turned into mush by cultural relativism.

Like a Muslim could be rape murdering a baby in the name of Islam and libs will be all "ha, nice try, i love Islam"

Which leaves an opening for only right wingers to be critical of islam.

The left love them a good "lets shit on Christianity" hoedown though.

Dont want to make a gay person a cake in your christian bakery? HOMOHOBE REEEEE

Throwing gay people off a roof in the name of Allah?

Oh…. its just their culture.

A lot of the backwardness of modern Islam is because it was funded by the saudis and other gulf monarchies.

To tell you the truth i prefer Persian culture over Arabic.

dune is set in an alternate future where Islam and zen Buddhism have fused together

is it possible in our world?

what's the difference?

What did you mean by this? Seriously?

so if some random hsbc customer killed kids in the name of hsbc you'd decide this was a reason to hate hsbc?

Last time I saw a strawman this big, I was watching the Wicker Man.

bugs…easy on the straws

To be fair, I see no reason why the Party shouldn't encourage modesty (not so much as in "cover your body" but more like "control your emotions"). The only problem with hijab/tznius is that it's gendered with females being regulated to a passive role.

Another thing that has been a massive disaster is the west associating female head coverings with islam only. The west is a desolate wasteland where all tradition has died. If it wasnt it would remember that catholic women used to cover their heads too.

In the catholic religion a woman must cover her head every time she enters a church.

Head coverings are a feature of all abrahmic religions. In the ancient middle east hair was seen as erotic. So you should cover your head you dumb whore lest i get a boner

But it is undeniably discriminatory towards gay people. "Christian bakers" don't even try to pretend otherwise, they just frame it as being part of their so-called "religious liberties".

Literally no one ever said anything even remotely resembling that nonsense. You live in an alternate reality fueled entirely by memes.

Yes, because the strain of Islam promoted by the Iranian government is known for its progressiveness and tolerance.

Getting really tired of retarded Amerifat reactionaries masquerading as leftists around here.

but what if I get a boner from a nun roleplay?

there are secular bakers gay people can go to.
So why go to a christian one?
Libs not only want rights.
Libs want to force Christians to celebrate their fun

take a day off

That's how de facto segregation was justified in post-war America. "Why go to the racist restaurants? Just find a color-blind joint!" This is a libertarian understanding of what the public sphere is supposed to be.

Yeah, it's off back to Holla Forums with you. You might also want to consider killing yourself.

I can smell the Holla Forums from you


Just popping in to remind you that if western culture exists or has ever existed, by all rights it includes islam.

No one claims anything remotely close to these pathetic bullshit examples you gave.

That's beyond debate user, some gorgeous Islamic architecture out there

we don't need islam to appreciate islamic style architecture
but honestly I prefer moore style, no ugly icons like in Christianity
if you can't draw and can't into perspective, why are you even wasting your canvas?

No, we might actually need it.

yeah, much less aesthetic than these mosques but I appreciate it for what it is, Orthodox churches are great especially if you get some context on what all the icons represent

Nah, a lot of people appreciate Greek/Roman temples although nobody who follows those faiths is still alive.

Shitty desert religion with shitty architecture that only fit for desert.

Dunno why it's so popular.

Well religions often become popular because of historical factors such as conquests or power relations. It's not about everybody just freely picking what religion they want from a list at the start of their lives.

You see westerners mass converting to Islam despite the fact there's no reason to do so.

I'm a neo-pagan myself so I don't see why they can't stick to their ancestor religion.

A few dumb kids from London =/= a mass conversion you brainlet

Islam is the fastest growing religion out of the planet, so it's not a few kids in London, no.

agree to disagree
When they do it, I believe in many cases they want to get engaged with a Muslim. Or something about the religion just genuinely appeals to them.
Ancestor religion? As in some pre-islamic Arab religion? Why does that have to be preferable to Islam?


No, I can't see mosques anywhere but deserts, even mosques in cities stand out like sore thumbs.
It means shitload of people.
So that's the part, what's the appeal, really?
Everyone got their ancestor religion, abrahamic religion is only the ancestor religion of the jews/semites.
It's both, buddy. And no, a child of a muslim isn't surefire of being a muslim.

it's a safer bet than your average WASP

So? It's still conversion and not birthrate.

again, agree to disagree. To me they don't. Pics related, I made those last summer.
Give me a number with source. I'm pretty sure birth rate is a much more important factor than conversion.
Ask them. I'm not appealed to convert to any religion personally, but I don't care if others want to
Didn't answer my question, why would their ancestor religion be more appealing? Would that not also be a "shitty desert religion with shitty architecture that only fit for desert"?

It's bad.

thanks for being almost as non-constructive as the guy who started spamming Qaddafi propaganda

islam is utter cancer, wtf is there to even talk about?

Yes because every Muslim agrees with those brainlet statements, or agrees that religion and science should be mixed up

Pic proves anything? shit stands the fuck out in an european city.
As said, a child born to a muslim isn't 100% sure of a muslim, he still has to be converted into a muslim.
But I ask everyone in this thread why is it more popular.
Because they are more aesthetics, have cooler mythologies with a more variety of heroes and gods than some ragged dude in a desert.
Because they aren't a shitty desert religion with shitty architecture that only fit for desert?

let me take a wild guess, you are not moving to the middle east any time soon, are you?
islam is cancer, and that one domesticated strawman muslim doesnt prove it otherwise

Terrible religion. It basically amplifies all the shittiest aspects of Abrahamic religion and is full of really fucking bad ideas.

It is all of these things. Read the Quran. The one exception might be anti-democratic. Since it is so fundamentalist in it's belief in one god, who is basically constructed as a dictator, it's not a far leap to being anti-democratic, since democracies inherently breed stuff that is against Islam, but it is also possible to be Muslim and pro democracy.

The reality is most Muslims are intolerant, but non-violent, and not a "threat" to society necessarily. Instead of installing western authoritarian governments, the best thing to do is to be unflinching in your criticism of Islam. Make fun of it. It's fucking stupid. And anyone who pops their head up to try to kill you for making fun of it, just fucking shoot them.

No it doesn't. It's a matter of taste. If you don't like it, fine, we're done arguing about that. You might as well say that a church stands the fuck out in a non-european city.
So with "conversion" you literally mean everyone who is a child of a Muslim because they technically aren't a Muslim yet? Kek, yes then it's a "shitload".
This might be bait, but I don't think most people choose to adhere to a religion based on the mythological "coolness"
okay, I still don't even know what ancestor religion exactly you mean so I can hardly argue this

Do you realize, just to say something, that women driving cars was only an issue in Saudi Arabia which happens to be a wahhabi dictatorship? Even there the law got changed recently permitting them to drive.

Taste or not taste, that round dome stands the fuck out compared to the ancient wall and gothic houses next to it, and no, church in Japan looks like shit too.
By conversion I mean people who are converted to islam, nobody is born a muslim.
Religion is about faith, I have absolutely no faith in some ragged dudes in a desert. But Hercules or Thor, fuck yeah.
Your ancestral religion before the abrahamic cancer invades it.

I am hinting at the fact that most of "islamic architecture" could be recognized as some other architecture (like Byzantine). Arguably, it was only existence of Islam that created a category of "islamic architecture".

How many Muslims do you actually know

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to be Muslim and not be any of these things? The Bible contains some atrocious stuff too that only extremists take literally for granted.

Yes, it's okay, you are right.
In that case, the "appeal" of conversion is simply that your parents, your family, your friends and everyone around you is Muslim. It's the most acceptable thing to do, just like it's somewhat evident to be atheist when everyone around you is. You can still convert to whatever you want later in life.
I don't have a problem with that, but you're narrow-minded if you can't understand that other people might be looking for something else. I can very well imagine that being "cool" or "badass" is not the foremost property many people look for in a deity they want to connect themselves with.

Oh okay, have to admit my knowledge of architecture is not deep enough to know how different Islamic architecture really is from its inspirations.

Talk and talk, my point is that I cannot understand there's something else about islam.

If you want pointless existantlism wanking, you have liberal philosophy for that.

if you want theological philosophy, buddhism and christianity suffices.

If you want to make money, judaism exists.

If you want to actually have faith in something, ancestral religion exist.

What's the appeal of Islam?

bearded dudes in dresses, with women in trash bags? Really?

But like I already tried to explain that's not how it works if you come from a Muslim family/culture or get engaged to a Muslim. It's just an evident thing to do. As a small kid you probably don't sit there like "hmmm what religion would I prefer" and pick one from a list based on objective criteria.
As for people who convert to Islam without ties to Muslim people, again, ask them. They undoubtedly can explain you much more about it than me. I do know that reducing an entire religion and culture to
is either embarrassing bait or the product of an embarrassingly childish worldview.

Since you cannot answer my question, I will simply stop asking.

It's baffling that you genuinely seem unable to grasp any of what I said. But sure, fine.

jesus this is not Holla Forums, fuck off

You can make a shitload of money by being in judaist circles.–1991)

Is this supposed to be a defense of Hoxha's regime? Or just another reason to see him as the insane and monstruous dictator he was?

Chaya unironically thinks that Judaism is anti-capitalist.

Fuck off, liberal *tips*

islam would be tolerable if only it was mandatory for muslims to shave every day
when you live in a dry hot climate you would guess people would want there to be as little body hair as possible

I'm not saying "all Arabs are capitalists" or "Arabs are unable to be socialists"; that's an absurd notion which can be debunked by the fact that the PFLP, Tunisian anarchists, and communist parties in Iraq and Algeria exist. However, it's no coincidence that the Arab economies during their so-called Golden Age are the obvious seed of capitalism. Even if you think of Yishmael vs. Yitzchak as mere Jungian archetypes you still come to this conclusion.

The Jewish paradigm of tikkun is what produced socialist thought. The "money Jews" are usually not the ones who care the most about the faith. We have an entire history of Jews participating in far-left movements. Today, we see very little *anti-capitalist* resistance coming from the Muslim World despite 15+ years of genocidal western invasions.


t. religious idiot


not even, I just don't have 13th century tier ideas about robbing people of their individual freedom.

You're an actual shame to humanity. Hoxha is up there with Hitler and Stalin.

actually, you can oppose all religion on the grounds that it promotes and reinforces beard culture alone
Peter the Great had the right idea with his tax on beards

*Liberal humanist detected*

Okay, I will assume for a moment that you're not baiting. So you are saying that eliminating political dissidents, extreme repression of your own population, the installment of a KGB-tier secret police and forced labor camps are some prime examples of being an excellent leader?

< Hitler and Stalin are the same
You seem to be new here. Though, I should've guessed by your shilling of Islam.

We have threads about Stalin twice a week. Funny thing is, liberal accusations don't hold water. The only reason we don't have "everything disproved" infopic is because of the immense amount of bullshit that constantly get spewed out.

Not every religion teaches the same thing, has the same epistemology, promotes the same social structures, etc.

Yes, like I said in the OP I'm new here. Jesus this place really is just a leftist version of Holla Forums with left-wing instead of right-wing batshit insane conspiracy theories isn't it? Should have seen that coming. I'll lurk for a bit more to find out if there also exists actual quality discussion in this place or if it's on the same trash level as Holla Forums.

Do not let the door hit you on the way out

You can also make a shitload of money by being a televangelist in America, probably more than by just being a Jew in Bumfuck Town, ND.

If you really try to deny the atrocities comitted by Stalin based on "muh fake news", despite a basically universal consensus among historians about their legitimacy, it surely makes sense to compare you guys to Holla Forums who do the exact same with their Holocaust denial threads. Sorry to break this to you, but just because a politician in history identified as "left-wing" doesn't automatically make him a good leader.

< just like mass-media doesn't lie about current events, historians don't lie about past
It's not my fault Cold War never stopped and bullshit propaganda got codified as The Truth.

Requires you to actually test your own position, not treat hoaxes, rumours, and Right-wing propaganda as historical evidence.

I'm willing to "test" my position in many ways but all the testimonies, all the undeniable proof of Stalin's oppression and genocides? It's simply too much. There is just as much proof for it as for the Holocaust, and desperately clinging on to idols from the past won't help you get any further. Honestly the one thing to be done for socialists is accept all the fucked up shit that happened in the Second World and learn from these mistakes, not become mindless apologists.


Let's make a separate thread about USSR, you'll get a tripcode (so as to avoid false-flags), you'll present your position, and then we'll have a debate for a week or two or three - however long it takes. There is a need to make FAQ, so that will be useful for me.

That's great. You won't lack sources - so that you can make proper arguments with the sources, rather than some vague "I've heard that all Communists must eat babies for breakfast - refute THAT".

So, what is your position? I can make an educated guess, but that would be impolite. So far you've equated Stalin and Hitler, and I did not agree.


if you support capitalism you're not much better




That might be a good idea, but for the period to come I don't have a lot of time to invest into something like that. Later though I might do all these things you propose. But what exactly do you want to convince me of? If it's something along the lines of "the education and economy of the USSR were not as bad as they're made out to be", I'm aware of that. Obviously I also know that Stalin had a vastly different ideology than Hitler. And I don't have anything against communism in general although I'm not yet sure it's the position I am fully behind (if you want to know my "political position" there honestly is none that I'm purely enthusiastic about so far). That being said, denying that the Holodomor or even the Great Purge ever happened is not something I can see myself buy into. I don't believe that every single one of all the historians who have written about Stalin and exposed the dark sides of his regime was some kind of right-wing shill, and that on the other hand, a bunch of amateurs (which is what we probably all are on here) can come up with data that disprove the findings of tons of professionals. Besides, if you think like that about historians, you have to assume a position of absolute scepticism and say that it's not possible to know anything at all about history with large probability, cause who knows, it could always be fake.
Tl;dr: while I'm interested in hearing the arguments that makes you so convinced that all mainstream historians are wrong, I don't know how much time I'm willing to invest in this (and I don't have that time right now anyway).

I'd say take any history book that's not written by someone with obvious Stalinist sympathies. Nice webm though, 7/10

What do you want to tell me with these? That the number of people he killed may have smaller than some estimates, hence he was an awesome leader?
no possibility of bias at all here

Typical skeptic rationalist response who claims facts are on his side yet is unable to prove anything.

So what are you saying? That historiography is not almost universally on my side? Or that all historians lie/are mistaken?

literally yes

Jesus talked about giving all your possessions to the poor 500 years before Muhammad and first century Christians lived in communes where "no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common."
According to Acts 4:34-35, "Owners of land or houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds from the sales and placing them at the apostles’ feet. The proceeds were distributed to each, as anyone had need."

I'm not trying to start a holy flame war here, I just don't think "the first socialist ever to exist" is an accurate title for Mohammad. Furthermore, the charge that one must adhere to Islam to be a socialist is ludicrous.

Fine, name me some of your favorite history books about how Stalin didn't commit crimes against humanity, excluding books from the USSR/Eastern Bloc itself and preferably not written by a hardline Stalinist.

Still waiting for the evidence of Stalin "committing genocides"

Here ya go friend

Posting a wikipedia reading list isn't an argument, friend. Still waiting for irrefutable evidence to backup your claims, especially seeing how easily you dismissed actual archival evidence.

When did I? Evidence of what? Talking about these stats?
But you're right that posting a wiki list was lazy, I was actually still looking into it. If this may convince you, there have been three volumes published full of eyewitness accounts like the one in pic related.

What I am interested in is understanding the structure of Liberal (in our parlance) beliefs. I don't expect to "convince" you (it's internet), only to ask questions - and present information/evidence so as to make discussion worthwhile for you.

In my opinion, Liberals have immensely distorted perception of those events (not to mention factual distortion of the events themselves).

Do you think it is impossible for me to present an evidence of specific historian (even if he is recognized as an authority in the field) being wrong or deliberately misleading about some specific thing?

Well, you can't know this, until you try, can you?

First and foremost, most of mainstream Western historians. You are clearly not talking about Chinese or Soviet historians (or European, in some cases) - even if you are certain that they never wrote a single word of truth, they are (or were) mainstream for many people.

Secondly, it's not about historians, but also about you impression about things you think those mainstream historians (Western, yes) support. I.e. you might have incorrect assumptions about things that are considered proven outside of mass-media.

Well, you are the one who came asking for quality discussion.

Well that was a good run lad. It was certainly better than 99% of the threads I saw about Islam on imageboards. Danke schön :)

First off don't generalize right wing people into one school of thought. I am a right winger and I can honestly say that we don't form our opinion of Islam from the "most extreme" Muslims.
Something that leftists completely misunderstand about Islam is that it's simply a religion. It's NOT just a religion. Islam is a complete way of life. It encompasses all areas of the Muslims life. Just as a Mosque is NOT simply a church. All things in Islam are headquartered at the Mosque political social legal defense education all affairs of a Muslims life are dictated to them from the Mosque.
Right leaning people typically want to deal in facts or tangible things that we can verify, not feelings. We've formed our opinion about Islam by looking at its history in the world throughout its 1400 years roughly. In order to understand Islam you MUST understand Muhammed. Muhammed was the perfect Muslim and ALL Muslims strive to live their lives as closely to the way the Muhammed lived his life as possible. ALL Muslims. Not "radical" Muslims (there is no such thing - there is only Islam) ALL Muslims. I refuse to turn this post into a lesson on Islam. Just as didn't allow anyone to give me my opinion about Islam, I set about to researching to find the answers myself so must you. You have to actually do the work and in this day of censorship of dissenting opinions it's not nearly as easy to find as it was 5 years ago.
Having said that I WILL give you a few pointers as I feel that ANY responsible member of a society has an obligation to KNOW who they're inviting to live beside them. A responsible parent is obligated to know WHO they are bringing home and exposing their very fragile very precious children to.
Pointer #1- Do NOT ask or rely on a Muslim to tell you about Islam. Go find the answers to your questions. Rely on YOU and you alone.
#2. Answers are harder to find today but they are there. Any information that paints Islam in a less than favorable light is either removed or labeled as "Islamophobic" It's forbidden in Islam to write or say anything to "slander" the Prophet. The key here is the definitions. The West has a very different definition of slander than Muslims do. The "definitions" issue is key. Slandering in Islam is anything that makes them look bad - truth or not. For Example remember Muslims trying to blow up the cartoon thing in Texas. The contest for drawing the prophet? Not sure but I find it a little extreme to kill people over drawing a cartoon - but whatever.

Anyways I have already told you more about it than I intended to. Go find the truth. Check and recheck your sources. Don't rely on Wikipedia and the SPLC - find your own answers. Then you will understand why we say that Islam has no place in the west.


another westerner living in a white neighborhood talking about stuff he only ever saw on the internet