Is he right? Is Islam just innately stubborn?

Is he right? Is Islam just innately stubborn?

Attached: well.jpg (629x1061, 162K)

Attached: hm.jpg (631x1065, 157K)

Schopenhauer put it best. It lacks aesthetic and ascetic qualities. At the end of the day, it's just a rigid legalism. Perhaps good for social structure but not good for helping very high IQ individuals lead a so called interior life.

Yes, Muslims, are rightfully hesitant to embrace secular degeneracy.

Egyptian here. You absolutely cannot engage in dialogue with them. The situation is especially worrying for the uneducated masses and their insistence on clinging to Islam and basing their whole existence around its tenets. It's also very interesting to see the behavior of the more "Westernized" upper class who either have a superficial understanding of their faith and try to become moderates while they disregard the teachings when it's convenient to them and cherry-pick the parts they agree with, defending their religion by saying that certain verses are "obviously misinterpreted". You cannot debate them because they consider every opposing argument to be blasphemous and will abandon the argument and resort to name-calling.

No, the actual content of any of the abrahamic religions doesn't matter, any argument can be justified using them and people will just believe what they will and use religion to justify it. There is record of Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages deciding homosexuality isn't a sin because God intended it, yet there are areas today where homosexuality is a crime. It's easy to say Christianity is flexible because of the current state of the west being so different from ancient Christianity, but are you forgetting how Christians lived for a thousand years prior?

Development will naturally receive backlash from religious fundamentalism, but development can still occur with the religion still being practiced because the religion simply gets practiced differently.

>There is record of Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages deciding homosexuality isn't a sin because God intended it
Lmao absolutely not true

Christianity is inherently secular compared to islam.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" I cant name any quotes with similar themes from the koran

I believe typical christian doctrine is to only allow people to convert of their own free will (although this has been sometimes ignored historically by some groups, by the teutonic Knights coverting the baltic tribes I believe).

As far as I understand Islam believes in a much stronger role for the state to play in religion. I don't think you should group abrahamic religions like that. The words of muhammed take precedence over anything in the old testament, I think.

Whether the reason liberal democracy originated in Europe is due to christianity, however, is something i'm unsure of.

Islam only allows forced conversion for pagans, Christians are allowed to practice their faith

>Christianity is inherently secular compared to islam.
No, European society is based around the PIE Tripartite Social System being integrated into post-Roman Europe as a survival strategy by the Roman elite in the wake of Germanic invasion.

>"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" I cant name any quotes with similar themes from the koran
Only European Christians care about this. Most early Christians, being Semites, advocated a Christian Society that looked much like what Islam does today.

>I believe typical christian doctrine is to only allow people to convert of their own free will (although this has been sometimes ignored historically by some groups, by the teutonic Knights coverting the baltic tribes I believe).
There is no such thing as being "forced" to convert as you are clearly converting of your own free will if you convert under duress. This has been Church doctrine since Aquinas.

>As far as I understand Islam believes in a much stronger role for the state to play in religion. I don't think you should group abrahamic religions like that. The words of muhammed take precedence over anything in the old testament, I think.
Outside of Europe most Christians believe in what we would define to be "theocracy".

>Whether the reason liberal democracy originated in Europe is due to christianity, however, is something i'm unsure of.
Liberal Democracy came about because of the wild financial successes of Protestant Merchants in England and Germany. The modern notions of separation of church and state are the result of Protestant struggles to keep the Catholic Church from taking the lion's share of the profits form these financial successes (itself, also, being a result of the Germanic migrations into Europe).

>I don't know what occasionalism is
Oof, looks like that Egyptian was right!

>occasionalism is antinomianism

Oof, looks like you're an ignoramus who hasn't actually read Ashari literature and doesn't know that people still go to hell in that creed

>I have no clue what I'm talking about, but I'll namedrop random terms in the hope that people who actually know what they're talking about won't call me on it
Typical pseud.

For those interested in this by the way, here's a good starting point.

Attached: roman aristocrats.jpg (907x1360, 140K)

cmon man dont effortpost, this was going to be a nice shitfest and youve just gone and ruined it

Rigid? No, I wouldn't say so... they seem terribly adept at discovering new ways to create IEDs

>I have no clue what I'm talking about, but I'll namedrop random terms
Ashari aqidah is the ocassionalist school of Islamic theology, most common in the Shafi'i (beheading for sodomy) and Maliki (stoning for sodomy) madhabs. Al-Ghazali, its most well known thinker, was also a judge and affirmed the criminality of sodomy. He did say music was halal based on birds singing, which is an unusual stance for scholars

I'm much more accepting of the idea that Parliamentary democracy evolved due to economic reasons rather than christianity and ideas of innate human dignity. However the original question is why it's difficult to transfer democracy into Islamic countries, which are arguably equally as materially developed as western nations in the 40s.

Quibbling about what real christianity is or the different sects seems irrelevant, though. I feel like your main point is that religion is always fluid, and is interpreted based on what is convenient to the material interests of the ruling class or whatever.

do you think the lack of democracy in Islamic countries is entirely due to material factors or is there at least some ideological elements at play here?

Yes. Islam reduced all argumentative reasoning to jurisprudence of sharia (Ijtihad), then after a few hundred years (~10th century) declared that they'd worked out all the problems of sharia jurisprudence and declared "the doors of Ijtihad are closed."

Now they can't think, only rote learn and repeat.

Attached: 2151060.jpg (350x517, 29K)

100% True, pederasty is considered perfectly normal in the middle east.

...as Dhimmis with no protection from the law who have to pay a tax not to be beheaded.

>It lacks aesthetic and ascetic qualities.
Yaa Allah, yuros are entirely ignorant of the rest of the world, yet feel entitled to give judgement.

It's illegal in every country there with capital punishment in many. It is more common because private access to women is difficult, not because of a predilection. Fornication with a woman remains the lesser crime

Anyone who refuses to pay taxes is put to death. That includes Muslims. The difference is Dhimmis are given a poll tax (poor, women, children and elderly are exempt), whereas Muslims are taxed 2.5-20% of their assets. Dhimmis who pay are considered clients of the government, Muslims who touch them are subject to the same charges as touching Muslims