/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21448381]

About 8 years ago, it seemed to me that Islam had finally conquered the Western media. But now it sounds ridiculous. /lit/ is full of threads about Christianity - Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Calvinism.

Muslim threads contain step-by-step instructions on how to adopt the Arab way of life in the 7th century. And lectures by Saudi 'scholars'. It upsets me when these people are compared to medieval scholastics or Puritans. Puritans and scholastics were the most educated people of their time. And Islamic scholars are among the most backward today, if we talk about logic, philosophy, social theory and knowledge of the structure of the world. Once upon a time, Muslims knew the sciences, but they were mostly Shiites.

Muslims can convert people to Islam, but they cannot keep them in Islam for long. Islamic intellectuals do not exist. Mohammed Hijab, Daniel Haqiqatjou, Andrew Tate are not intellectuals. Saudi Talmudists too.

[Anonymous No.21448388]

>>21448381
You are, what the kids say, a chronically online individual.

[Anonymous No.21448415]

>>21448388
I just happened to observe the English-speaking and Russian-speaking media sphere. Islam was on the rise at one time. 'Street dawaah', their interest in biblical criticism, analytic theology. But they are rarely able to convince people to keep the Sunnah for a long time.

Europeans are drawn to Islam by the lack of religious communities. Where there are normal Christian communities, Islam rarely becomes widespread and remains a very exotic choice.

[Anonymous No.21448427]

Yes, we don’t want your progressive freethinkers

[Anonymous No.21448452]

These people always come off as kind of dumb and willing to prey on vulnerable individuals. I will give them credit that they are generally well-read, but they seem far less impressive when outside of their own deliberately created echo chambers.

[Anonymous No.21448471]

this is just the muslim equivalent of ecelebs like bread tube or nick fuentes or jordan peterson. I think you will find there are a lot of lost little boys out there who need a daddy figure to tell them what to do

all the christan stuff you see online is just cope, its actually dying with the newest generations

[Anonymous No.21448474]

Honestly? Good point about Shiaism. A big difference is that Shi’is have a special concept of the religion, “dynamic fiqh”, it mean the rules can adapt to progress in morals. Sunnis however believe the ethics and rules are unchanging

[Anonymous No.21448485]

>>21448381
The problem seems to me i a lack of spiritual wisdom and teaching. The Sufis are great. But Mohammed Hijab for instance reduces his arguments to arguments, to logic. His logic is very basic memorization of arguments and definitions. Not comparable to greatness of real thinkers. But even if you are persuaded by his logic and accept the conclusion, this will keep you only for so long. Ok i accept God and Islam. But what now? The agreement to a logical proof of God doesnt substitute a spiritual relationship to God. Only a seeker of God, a spiritual aspirant can make a meaningful connection to God and live the ideal of religion.

[Anonymous No.21448509]

>>21448381
Islamic culture died long before Western culture did. We are in the quiet midst of a Christian revival (I grew up in the 90s-2000s and nobody could have predicted this back then, we were all meant to be neoliberal atheists by now)
Islam is at the tail end of its own revival which fizzled out ping ago and any fleeting islamic resurgence you see now is a desperate response to the Christian resurgence.
Talk to any Muslim and see how dead their faith is. It's just scriptural autism + nationalism fused together. It's like if Calvinism was a zombie cult.

[Anonymous No.21448516]

>>21448485
Important to understand the HUGE distinction between sufi and Wahhabi

Sufi
https://youtu.be/3AvYGxDbTAE

Wahhabi
https://youtu.be/10Pr5H9mxU8

[Anonymous No.21448528]

>>21448471
>I think you will find there are a lot of lost little boys out there who need a daddy figure to tell them what to do
I was watching one of these guys debate, and the one opponent he seemed to really convince came off like an especially sad and vulnerable person. I can't help but feel that he was being taken advantage of. It's honestly kind of sad.

[Anonymous No.21448531]

>>21448474
Have you been around Shias? They're as backwards as any Sunni.

[Anonymous No.21448534]

>>21448381
>No Islamic intellectuals
Islamic Neo-Traditionalism has:
Hamza Yusuf
Timothy Winter
Jonathan Brown
Hossein Nasr (a little)
Abdullah bin Bayyah

[Anonymous No.21448537]

>>21448531
Most Shi’is I’ve run into are very open minded and liberal

[Anonymous No.21448543]

>>21448534
The Neo-Traditionalism movement is the Muslim equivalent to Jordan Peterson.

[Anonymous No.21448559]

>>21448543
Can you elaborate? Jordan Peterson's whole schtick is being a lifestyle guru for conservative men. Islamic neo-traditionalism is trying to find a way to practice an authentic Islam, without compromising its principles, with the reality of living in 21st century. It also emphasizes the 4 madhabs and usually Ash'ari theology.

[Anonymous No.21448562]

>>21448381
>About 8 years ago, it seemed to me that Islam had finally conquered the Western media
gibberish

[Anonymous No.21448570]

>>21448534
>Jonathan Brown
Some fine traditionalist we have here.
>>21448543
It seems closer to the the truth than I thought.

[Anonymous No.21448575]

>>21448559
To quote what someone on this board said of Peterson

> Yeah he recognizes that collective action is needed to fix western civ but dislikes the illiberal implications of that so he pushes bootstrapsism onto young men as a deradicalization op. This isn’t conjecture either, he said that this is what he’s doing in like 2017

[Anonymous No.21448578]

>>21448559
not that guy but jordan peterson is basically a Christian existentialist

[Anonymous No.21448582]

>>21448537
Then they're just liberal Muslims, which is to say bad ones. Religious Shias are as fucked as religious Sunnis.

[Anonymous No.21448588]

>>21448582
That’s not true, the former President of Iran under Khomeini for example praised Tupac as a visionary and role model

[Anonymous No.21448598]

>>21448588
That's not true. I'm the former president of Iran and I never said this.

[Anonymous No.21448599]

Iran should have become Buddhist or Vedanta Hindu, and I hate both Muslims and Christians. I wouldn't mind every single Abrahamist dropping dead tomorrow. If I were born in Iran, it would have already become Buddhist by now, every single Abrahamic holy site gone or renovated.

[Anonymous No.21448602]

>>21448588
Also Shi’is in Syria supported George Floyd which Sunnis hated

[Anonymous No.21448613]

>>21448381
>About 8 years ago, it seemed to me that Islam had finally conquered the Western media.
Beyond retarded
>But now it sounds ridiculous. /lit/ is full of threads about Christianity - Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Calvinism.
Beyond beyond retarded

[Anonymous No.21448643]

>>21448381
i hate mohammad hjiab so much

[Anonymous No.21448688]

>>21448588
>>21448602
Iran and Iranian assets follow the Soviet/Russian playbook of anti-American propaganda (stirring up fringes, supporting racial unrest in a multiracial society) so what Floyd represents to them is an inflammatory vector to sow dissent in American public discourse and worsen the global reputation of the United States. In an amusing twist, contemporary jihadist groups, who owe their very existence to bungled—or depending on your view, successful—western covert operations, then destroy these symbols to signal their own anti-American posture, probably unaware of the context behind Russo-Iranian promotion of them. But in destroying them they further the wedge the Russo-Iranian strategy is meant to drive, because for all their material, financial, and economic deficiencies, the starved opponent has a stronger metabolism and cannot afford to lack in cunning and subterfuge. It is always a big celebration and circus when a Russian spy is caught, Americans are caught so rarely and with such less fanfare because they are so obvious to begin with.

[Anonymous No.21448720]

>>21448688
American and Israeli agents have assassinated many Sunni and Shia militants and leaders so unsure what you mean here, they recently killed one in Iran and weren’t caught

[Anonymous No.21448723]

muslims go on and on about the Islamic golden age, what they dont tell you is that its main contributors were persians and shia

[Anonymous No.21448730]

>>21448720
Ayatollah Mike (Michael D'Andrea) was shot down after that fiasco.
Sunni radicals are allied with America.
Anyways, America and Europe are more Islamic than Iran now, and I bet Islam will die out in Iran as it grows among Euroshits and Americunts. Have fun being circumcised.

[Anonymous No.21448739]

>>21448730
Which Sunni radicals are allied to America? Afaik America backs the MBS and MBZ axis and Sunni radicals regard those guys as apostates and enemies

[Anonymous No.21448744]

>>21448720
That's just murder which is easy to do if you have infinite resources; it's not quite the same as shitposting to incite race riots and sustaining a hostile discourse. Russia and China aggressively monitor all foreigners and their businesses so it is harder for them to seed a Chechen or Turkmen civil rights movement

[Anonymous No.21448748]

>>21448744
Iran recently had to deal with very serious riots

[Anonymous No.21448749]

>>21448730
Americans are already cut nothing to do with Ahmed lmao

[Anonymous No.21448752]

>>21448730
islam in america is like 1 percent of the population, mexicans are the growing part of the population and they are all catholic.

The studies show that christianity is dying down but no one is converting to islam, its just atheism and weird new age shit like wicca and astrolgy that grow

[Anonymous No.21448759]

>>21448748
Because they're retarded and the gerontocracy which has inherited their revolutionary islamist dictatorship actually believes its own bullshit as opposed to using it for noble lie purposes. On the other hand, hasn't been toppled yet, but certainly under a lot of stress

[Anonymous No.21448768]

>>21448752
Secular liberalism is an offshoot of Christianity.
All of West Eurasia should have become either Buddhist or Hindu. Pic-related.

[Anonymous No.21448781]

>>21448768
>All of West Eurasia should have become either Buddhist or Hindu.
based ashoka poster

[Anonymous No.21448802]

>>21448752
https://youtu.be/_rZwnJ1cE1s

[Anonymous No.21448806]

>>21448752
In Europe the change is demographics, there are very few converts. Muslims are still immigrating, they tend to form insular communities and have lots of children, so their population is increasing in western Europe. There's been no intellectual or apologetic flourishing of Islam in the West. People like Muhammad Hijab are known by Muslim teenagers, and nobody else has even heard of them unless they're really interested in religious debating.

Within that mini culture of apologetics and counter-apologetics, Christians are becoming much better at understanding Islam and making very strong, pointed attacks. One big example is textual criticism, when Muslim apologists discovered Biblical textual criticism, they immediately adopted its findings as vindication for the Muslim belief that Christians had corrupted the gospel (injeel). But Christians doing counter-apologetics against Islam soon found that the textual transmission of the Quran is seriously under-studied in Islam, and the trend is now turning entirely the other way with Muslim apologists having to be on the defensive. But those kinds of debates are very much on the periphery, 95% of Western Europeans have never read any of the Bible or Quran.

[Anonymous No.21448813]

>>21448781

[Anonymous No.21448824]

>>21448802
>>21448813
>>21448806
Muslims have much higher net convert rates (first graph is specifically a measure of that exclusively) and population growth (which is factored into the second graph) than Christians

[Anonymous No.21448833]

>>21448824
Those are 40+ year *projections*, there's no guarantee they're correct.

[Anonymous No.21448838]

>>21448381
When will Muslims stop having people that think god has a body be their speaker pieces to the west. Their dawah would sincerely be better if Mohammed Hijab, Ali Dawah, Shamsi, etc-etc, were all thrown into the sea. Just sink the entire British isles while we’re at it.

[Anonymous No.21448861]

>>21448381
is the salafis

[Anonymous No.21448864]

>>21448833
I mean if you care to look at the YouTube video

[Anonymous No.21448867]

>>21448838
No Muslim thinks God has a body, that’s a straw man and rather what Christians think

[Anonymous No.21448868]

>>21448806
>Muslim apologists having to be on the defensive.
I do think a lot of the success Muslims have in debates comes from them being on the attack. Even arguing with them on here, they practically break down when you start criticizing Islam (especially if it's a conversation where they're used to being on the attack) and try to change the subject back to criticizing some other religion. They really are pathetic and cowardly when things don't go their way.
You could see this in how Daniel changed the subject in his debate with Destiny every time Destiny brought up some relevant aspect of his beliefs that he would have difficulty defending outside of his echo-chamber.

[Anonymous No.21448881]

>>21448381
I think the problem is there are too many Arabists instead of Orientalists, you can only get one Islamic spirit by studying one culture, you're perfectly correct that shiaism was a great concept. Iran has reached the peak of Islamic culture and now Iranians don't see a future for themselves in which they reached perfection, but the Shia peak might not be the best and the problem is that they don't emulate the prophet 100% for an individual person emulating the prophet might be the best it might not however be the best for everyone to emulate him but it's a trustworthy source of happiness. The YouTube intellectuals have set the bar too low for themselves and if I dare say probably pray for more subscribers and converts instead of dedicating themselves to studying different cultures.

[Anonymous No.21448886]

>>21448381
>About 8 years ago, it seemed to me that Islam had finally conquered the Western media. But now it sounds ridiculous. /lit/ is full of threads about Christianity - Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Calvinism.
Just look at that picture ffs, those guys look mega cringe. They probably would scream and yell at you if you didn't say prophet Mohammad correctly one time as a new recruit. Even the based Muslims out there were pretty fucking cringe picrel. Religion is so much about aesthetics, why do you think Buddhism is so popular amongst hippie types even though Jesus aligns with a lot of those utopian ideas. The same reason why black Americans use Christianity for civil rights its the convenient aesthetic tool they need.

[Anonymous No.21448891]

>>21448867
just google salafi anthropomorphism

[Anonymous No.21448904]

>>21448867
"I saw my Lord in the form of a young man, beardless (amrad) with short curly hair (ja'd) and clothed in a red garment."

Narrated by Ahmad b.Hanbal in Tabarani; authenticated by Ahmed b. Hanbal in Creed 3 citing isnad, 'Abd al-Samad b.Yahya in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, 1:218, al-Marrudhi (d.888) in Tabaqat, 3:81, Ibn 'Aqil in Makdisi, Ibn 'Aqil, 130; Ibn 'Adi al-Qattan, al-Kamil fi du'afa' al-rijal, 3:49-50; al-Daraqutni, Kitab al-Ru'ya, 332-333; 356-357; al-Tabarani, al-Mu'jam al-Kabir, 25:143;
Sahih by Abu l-Hasan b. Bashshar in Ibn Abi Ya'la, Tabaqat, 2:59; Abu Ya'la, al-Muta'mad, 85: accepted by Ibn Taymiyya in Bayan Tablis al-Jahmiyyah, 7:192-198, 290

[Anonymous No.21448919]

>>21448904
Yes but all theologians agree this is an apparition not God’s substance, the Bible includes many prophets using such a form to refer to God in prophecy

[Anonymous No.21448946]

>>21448891
I don't know how true it is, but I remember reading that during their peak Muslims would ask people at gunpoint where God is, and if they answered something other than on a throne in heaven, they were executed.
Could have just been propaganda, but it is where I learned that this sort of thing was a debate among Muslims.

[Anonymous No.21448955]

>>21448806
>when Muslim apologists discovered Biblical textual criticism,
Careful where you aim that sawn-off shotgun. Leads to atheism in two generations. Oops.
>>21448868
>>21448864
>tubeshitter religion/philosophy debates
you get what you deserve
>>21448946
It really is a bootstrap war-band ideology. Create an in-group loyalty out of thin air and make war upon all outside the pale. The children of the vanquished might oust yours in a couple of generations on the same principle, but you'll be dead before then

[Anonymous No.21448958]

>>21448946
Muslims very often mindlessly repeat western news sources unfortunately. One recently put out that a Taliban commander had two women beheaded for being raped in spite of the fact that in the many decades of the Taliban’s existence and the thousands of executions they have carried out, not one has been by beheading, but only shooting in the head, hanging and stoning, since beheading is not a punishment specified in their school of law.

[Anonymous No.21448961]

>>21448955
The YouTube I posted isn’t a debate it’s about population growth

[Anonymous No.21448963]

>>21448961
Same illiteracy different topic

[Anonymous No.21448971]

>>21448963
No, you’re the illiterate one.

[Anonymous No.21448976]

>>21448946
You can get takfired online on Twitter/discord/Reddit for saying Allah transcends His throne. It’s still a thing

[Anonymous No.21448983]

>>21448971
>watch my video
I'm not a "visual learner," zoomie

[Anonymous No.21449001]

>>21448976
That’s bs

[Anonymous No.21449023]

>>21448958
Like I said, I wasn't claiming that it was true, just that it introduced me to a conversation that I was completely unaware of. I find it important to to think critically about specific claims made about the enemies of the west even if those enemies are actually brutal.
>>21448976
Well that's certainly fascinating. The thing about it that interested me the most was that I once saw a Muslim criticize Jews for having debates that appear pretty similar on the outside (I'm sure he'd have plenty of reasons to tell me why they're very different). It left me rather disappointed in him.

[Anonymous No.21449029]

>>21449001
Walk into any non-Sufi non-falsafa discord and say that and I promise you “Khalid abu-Salaf al-Hazimi“ will takfir you.

[Anonymous No.21449036]

>>21448381
I remember watching Jay Dyer absolutely destroy a renowned Muslim scholar. It was so funny to watch because the Muslim scholar had so many more credentials to his name and still lost bigly.

[Anonymous No.21449047]

>>21448868
Daniel won the debate with Destiny, and you're a moron if you can't see how. The point of the debate is that liberal requires domination of Islam, which is true. Daniel basically pointed out the hypocritical and parasitical nature of liberalism and how it corrupts traditions, leaving in place a gradual degeneration into unbridled, unregulated passions. Destiny is a bigger imperialist than Daniel, thinking liberal countries have casus belli to invade countries under the pretext of "human rights" when historically speaking most nations derived their values from traditions. Ironically, Destiny would have better a case if he were something like an ethnonationalistic Christian who claims Islam has no place in Europe.
The entire debate is brainlet tier, but it's undeniable based on the top Daniel won.
However, I would beat Daniel in debate by shifting it into a more metaphysical direction. Islam is philosophically indefensible and has aspects that show it didn't come from God (and none of the reasons come down to liberal reasons like "OMG sex with kids!!1 OMG killing those you don't agree with!!!1")
If there is an ever-lasting God, then something like the Upanishadic understanding is closer to the truth. I have philosophical arguments for this too, which I would brush up on by reading Ramanuja and Adi Shankara.
If there is no God or He is impermanent, then obviously Buddhism is the truth. I have certain arguments from Pali canon and Mahayana sutras.
I lean more towards the god(s) being impermanent and am therefore Buddhist. However, I would be willing to strongly entertain the possibility of an ever-lasting god in debate with Daniel, but I would argue from a Vedanta perspective.

The reality is that Abrahamism is not truly universal and there are several reasons for this. One is that natural phenomena is not seen as imbued with sacredness; god has a kind of distance from the natural world, hence why I posit the "black cube" of Jews, which also influenced Islam, to symbolize man's disconnect from body and the world (this is also noticeable from Islam's horrendous agricultural practices in the past). Two, in Abrahamism God has no experiential dimension the way he does in the Upanishads (note, I interpret atman and Brahman as having indeterminate border in Upanishads since atman IS Brahman but also a "dike"). The existence of God philosophically necessitates God as existing in the heart of the truly wise sage.

However, Daniel is correct that moralist arguments derived from liberal standards are two-faced, hypocritical, and so on. You cannot establish normativity in a materialist/physicalist conception of the Universe, and it just boils down to a cheap utilitarianism that is easy to dismantle.

I would have beaten Destiny in debate 10-15 min top. Daniel would take me 45 min. Christians would take take me 1.5 hr because they assimilate Greek understanding in ways that require much more finesse to disentangle.

[Anonymous No.21449048]

>>21449047
Ignore typos. Busy doing something else.

[Anonymous No.21449059]

>>21449047
>Islam is philosophically indefensible
I don't think Muslims care. If they have a quorum they can simply put our "philosopher" to death.

[Anonymous No.21449078]

>>21449047
I've gone over this before, the reason Daniel's performance was a losing one is that he precisely failed to defend his position when difficult aspects of his beliefs were brought up.
Muslim intellectuals really seem to depended on having the comments of their videos filled with spam. Something makes me thin that it is somewhat, but probably informally, organized.
I think his debate with Destiny sums it up:
>Debate is about conflicts between Islam and Liberalism
>Daniel uses the dictionary to define liberalism,
I would hope that he knows that a dictionary would not be able to provide a adequate definition of an ideology that has been developing for hundreds of years, and I bet he would say that if Destiny were to do the same to define Islam.
>Destiny brings up behaviors allowed by Islam that Daniel believes supports and which clearly conflict with the principles of liberalism.
>Daniel responds by complaining that Destiny is reducing all of Islamic practice to these behaviors.
It's clear that Destiny is bringing them up because they are relevant to the conversation. Daniel complains about reductiveness as a way to change the subject because he knows he can't openly defend these behaviors without instantly losing. This was clearly bullshit. If you're to much of a coward to stay on topic, just concede the fucking debate.
His failure to actually condemn these behaviors was also meant to imply that that he does support them, but he's too much of a bitch to say it.
It honestly may have been the worst debate performance I've ever seen. It was hypocritical, stupid and cowardly, but the comment section was full of Muslims saying something like the following:
>Destiny clearly hasn't memorized a bunch of irrelevant trivia about Islamic jurisprudence, so he was so about of his depth, even though my retard champion of the faith literally just changed the subject every time something relevant was brought up because it was unpleasant.
Is there any Islamic "intellectual" that isn't a total fraud? That debate is an IQ test, if you think Destiny "lost," you're clearly several standard deviations below average.

[Anonymous No.21449083]

>>21449078
And here's part two:
There were some other parts I remember:
>the subject of marriage and divorce comes up.
>starts whining about how he's oppressed because liberal societies allows women to leave relationships when they want
>Instead asserts that he wants a system that forcibly deprives women of their autonomy and free association but whines about how people call him sexist for wanting that.
>says he's not sexist because he means well and that there would be some restrictions on men too.
He was just making a fool of himself. But the worst part is that I bet, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that this guy asserts that one of the good qualities of Islam is that it produces strong, masculine men, but throughout the whole debate he embraced the feminine tactic of crying about how oppressed he is (and remember he is oh so "oppressed because he liberal society won't allow him to kill gays, force women to stay in relationships, and rape children) in order to garner sympathy. It's clear from his performance that he's a total bullshit artist, yet the comments are still filled with people fellating him.

[Anonymous No.21449087]

>>21449078
>That debate is an IQ test
And what does that make you, king of tge smoothbrains? Imagine spending even five minutes of your life watching a YouTube debate about Islam and "liberalism"

[Anonymous No.21449092]

I can't take Youtube religious debates seriously. The only ones that are decent are some of the Christian ones done by reasonable adults that are meant to elucidate each other's positions rather than in some kind of combative spirit.

[Anonymous No.21449093]

>>21449087
Someone who demonstrated patience and impulse control by sitting through the whole thing and good critical thinking skills by evaluating it correctly.

[Anonymous No.21449115]

>>21448381

For those actually interested in the Muslim perspective, here are some links to websites where they actually touch on scholarly topics:

https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/
https://traversingtradition.com/

Muh MI6/CIA subversion plant ranting aside, some Muslims do try to get past the red-meat polemics (a lot like the reactionaries do on this site) and analyze how Islam is an optimal solution versus modernity, and it can be worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ien1qo_qI

[Anonymous No.21449123]

>>21449093
The "liberal" form of Islam only exists when it is on life support from Western institutions and in their absence you have an aggressive adherence to its legal codes, which pre-date and are rivalrous toward any sense of a liberal, secular, humanistic moral order. This is true the world all over and the evidence is readily available, much like water being wet or most birds being capable of flight. You'd only need to watch two nerds discuss this if you are totally oblivious or simple.

[Anonymous No.21449128]

>>21449078
>>21449083
Harsh punishments are a part of many traditions and simply whining about traditions not "allowing women to become liberated" is not a valid argument. On what basis does the liberal argue? A world hegemony run by greed and mutual self-interest, based on a half-baked utilitarianism.
You are liberal trash. If an Indian Hindu has an ancient tradition of burning widows based on certain interpretations of the Vedas, then it is not my position to critique that. In fact, they have a stronger justification for burning the widowed women than liberals who adopt the secular materialist atheistic worldview. Daniel's point was valid in that Destiny is merely arguing from a kind of disenchanted secular perspective that merely seeks to displace world traditions with soulless materialism.
>>Daniel uses the dictionary to define liberalism,
Liberalism is more of a trend of certain ideologies and behavioral patterns emerge from modernization and industrialization, which involves prioritizing market economy, economic growth, and the dollar over "regressive" traditions.
>Daniel responds by complaining that Destiny is reducing all of Islamic practice to these behaviors.
He actually said numerous times he is fine with those "vile" practices because they align with Sharia. The sensible thing at this point is to attack Islamic metaphysics, not cry about how "oppressive" they are like Destiny.
>His failure to actually condemn these behaviors
Why should he condemn them if they are encouraged by his tradition? Why not attack the metaphysical axioms of said tradition?

Bbl, will give better response.

[Anonymous No.21449136]

Who cares? All of you fuckers are just a bunch of faggot larpers

[Anonymous No.21449163]

Muslims are playing the long game. All they have to do is have 1 more child per couple than everyone else for 3-4 generations to become the dominant religion.

[Anonymous No.21449181]

nobody has to care because islamic nations are the ones being hardest hit by the changing of the climate. the increase in temperature will render areas uninhabitable and no longer arable, the majority of areas under those criteria happen to be populated largely by muslims. I cannot really speak for Europe but North America has already signalled their intention away from muslim immigrants and has switched the focus to hindu immigrants - a non-muslim group from another area that will be severely affected by temperature increase. I'm not here to talk about what's causing this, as far as my understanding of history we're overdue for an ice age

[Anonymous No.21449192]

>>21449181
>we're overdue for an ice age
The first Ice Age was kino the rest are soulless cashgrabs

[Anonymous No.21449238]

>>21449128
Tradition is never a sufficient reason to defend any practice. Every aspect of every tradition is and should be totally open to criticism, and it is your position to do so as a person capable of reasoning.
>Liberalism is more of a trend of certain ideologies and behavioral patterns emerge from modernization and industrialization, which involves prioritizing market economy, economic growth, and the dollar over "regressive" traditions.
Liberalism is a centuries old ideological framework that has seen a great deal of debate within it. You're certainly correct about some aspects of liberalism, and some of them very relevant tot this
>He actually said numerous times he is fine with those "vile" practices because they align with Sharia. The sensible thing at this point is to attack Islamic metaphysics, not cry about how "oppressive" they are like Destiny.
In a debate between the relationship between liberalism and Islam, calling something oppressive (the metric which liberals often use to evaluate the moral status of social practices and institutions) is meaningful. What Daniel needed to do was either claim that the practices he supports are not oppressive (which he tried and failed to do by talking about divorce, and only divorce) or attack the moral axioms of liberalism by showing that oppressed-oppressor relations should not be the metric which we use to evaluate the moral status of social practices and institutions, which he not only failed to do but went as far as to affirm that method by shedding crocodile tears about how he as a big strong, masculine Muslim is oppressed by those evil liberals.
Destiny merely pointed out that some of Daniel's beliefs are oppressive. When that happened Daniel changed the subject and cried about how oppressed he is.
>Why should he condemn them if they are encouraged by his tradition? Why not attack the metaphysical axioms of said tradition?
Because it's on the duty of the person supporting a tradition to establish that their tradition is justified in a way that makes it immune to any such criticism. Instead of explicitly saying that god commands me to kill gays and have sex with children, he changed the subject and whined about Destiny "reducing all of Islamic practice" to these (totally relevant points). The duty was on Daniel not on Destiny here, and he failed to defend his position. He needed to bring up the metaphysical justification in order to push conversation in that direction, otherwise it's just appeals to tradition which will always be less grounded and more self-referential than the "half-baked utilitarianism" as you put it.

[Anonymous No.21449325]

>>21449163
That doesn't really workout when Western Muslims are becoming increasingly secularized (Western Muslim women are massive whores) and the ones back home live in the most unstable region in the world, which is only propped up by the West due to oil being there. As soon as the tankards run dry, they're fucked. I guess Indian and SEAsian Muslims are relatively safe, but they have a whole host of other problems to deal with.

[Anonymous No.21449345]

>>21449238
>Tradition is never a sufficient reason to defend any practice
The point of that debate is that liberalism fundamentally erodes and supplants traditions based on a flawed notion of (secular) "reason".
>Every aspect of every tradition is and should be totally open to criticism
But from what vantage point? That is the key. From a liberal vantage point is completely weak because the assumptions of liberalism are very easy to expose. In some sense, liberalism is its own tradition based on material, industrial progress above higher spiritual ideals like enlightenment.
All traditions have metaphysical axioms, holy texts, and so on. Yes, you can adopt different hermeneutical approaches, but there are constraints in regards to how far you can go with reinterpretations before you leave, said, tradition. The problem with liberalism, which Daniel pointed out, is it infects traditions and forces them to adapt to its supra-standards, which ultimately erode it.
>it is your position to do so as a person capable of reasoning.
Spoken like a true liberal. "Reasoning" in the way you are using it is the true poison. Secular reasoning has no place in genuine Dharma either.
I hate all Abrahamic belief systems, but I hate liberalism even more.
>Liberalism is a centuries old ideological framework that has seen a great deal of debate within it.
True, but there are many problems here that become exceedingly difficult to analyze. There are some presumptions here, and no "open dialogue" can truly be open 100%. There are always certain tacit assumptions driving it such as how everything must fit into internally consistent mechanistic frameworks of reality. It is these assumptions I am dismantling, and when I say "secularism" and "industrialization" were mistakes, I mean this sincerely in its full implications. It is historically unprecedented and has caused more trouble than good in its ramifications that are of an entirely new and different order.
>the metric which liberals often use to evaluate the moral status of social practices and institutions
The metric has absolutely no foundation in a purely physicalist or materialist view of the world, so anything goes. It becomes a matter of baseless rhetoric to serve one's self-interest then.
>attack the moral axioms of liberalism by showing that oppressed-oppressor relations should not be the metric which we use to evaluate the moral status of social practices and institutions
He did that near the end. That's why I say that debate would have been better off evolving into a theological and metaphysical direction because the argument would then revolve around challenging claims like the "Final Seal of the Prophets", which of course I do not agree with.
>how he as a big strong, masculine Muslim is oppressed by those evil liberals.
No, he pretty much justified slavery from an Islamic angle and seemed unabashed about it. Then Destiny, with his womanly voice, keeps crying about minorities and "oppressed" women.
CONT.

[Anonymous No.21449353]

>>21449345
> When that happened Daniel changed the subject and cried about how oppressed he is.
>Instead of explicitly saying that god commands me to kill gays and have sex with children, he changed the subject and whined about Destiny "reducing all of Islamic practice" to these (totally relevant points).
No, he really did just refer to Sharia.
He said Islam is not reducible to only those specific aspects, but he's fine with accepting them (it doesn't fill him revulsion because it is a part of what he considers true). Some older Christians held similar views too.

Anyways, my problem with Islam is not its "barbarity" but with its poor philosophical foundation. Liberalism is more barbaric than anything else with its idea of "scientific and material progress" as the main metrics of civilizational progress. I would be totally fine with destroying the industrialized world and people "regress" back to rural traditional ways of life, but obviously I consider the Buddha dharma as the true tradition (while respecting Upanishadic traditions). Buddhism is, in reality, incompatible with MODERN Western sorts of understanding.

>becoming increasingly secularized
The death of tradition. The idea tradition and way of life is unsecularized Buddhism. And guess what? Buddhism is a celibate tradition and you better give alms to those monks if you don't want a negative rebirth, and if you slander the Buddha, I will kick your ass (though I won't kill you because it is against precepts and not because I respect icchantikas like you).

[Anonymous No.21449358]

>>21449353
>idea
ideal*
>supra-standards, which ultimately erode it.
which ultimately stretch it out to the point it snaps*

[Anonymous No.21449595]

>>21448415
why is it almost always gingers?

[Anonymous No.21449659]

>>21449345
>The point of that debate is that liberalism fundamentally erodes and supplants traditions based on a flawed notion of (secular) "reason".
The point of the debate is to determine whether liberalism would require the "domination" of Islam, to claim it was about this is to adopt a very loose conception of "domination."
>But from what vantage point? That is the key. From a liberal vantage point is completely weak because the assumptions of liberalism are very easy to expose. In some sense, liberalism is its own tradition based on material, industrial progress above higher spiritual ideals like enlightenment.
There's o reason to even believe that these higher spiritual ideals are meaningful. Every assumption of liberalism is infinitely better grounded than the metaphysical claims made by the likes of you.
>The problem with liberalism, which Daniel pointed out, is it infects traditions and forces them to adapt to its supra-standards, which ultimately erode it
Or it may cure them of from the infection of tradition. There's no reason to accept his vantage point.
>Spoken like a true liberal. "Reasoning" in the way you are using it is the true poison. Secular reasoning has no place in genuine Dharma either.
If a metaphysical system is true, the case for it should be able to be made within the bounds of "secular reason" or be able to prove that "secular reason" is inadequate. Despite your assertions, you haven't really demonstrated this.
>There are some presumptions here, and no "open dialogue" can truly be open 100%. There are always certain tacit assumptions driving it such as how everything must fit into internally consistent mechanistic frameworks of reality.
Sure, but I think liberalism just due to the development of history has had to contend with challenges both internal and external, and those assumptions you're claiming haven't been true of materialists since the 19th century. The reason it's important to not reduce longstanding discourses into little soundbytes is so that you don't embarrass yourself by claiming that materialism today is the same as it was for someone like Le Mettrie. It also makes the incorrect assumption that all liberals are materialists, which is also incorrect.

[Anonymous No.21449660]

>>21448381
Untrue, you just narrowed the definition of what Muslims "thinkers" are today to being essentially a salafi. God knows I don't like them but you will find hundreds of thinkers having neo-mutazilit views, liberal views, cartesian, skeptical, etc. Not to mention the new age sufis- that I despise above all - spreading the "religion of love" meme. Islam is a fertile ground for debate, the only problem is that they don't discuss interesting or profound subjects anymore. You either have debate over detailed behavior (how to take a shit, how to drink a glass of water) or sophistic debates over who will larp the hardest as the most rightful/strongmind/pure etc., with no theological arguments whatsoever. Also, there's a renewal of Ash'ari thought but maybe you don't really have them outside Arabic-speaking sphere.

[Anonymous No.21449665]

>>21449659
>The metric has absolutely no foundation in a purely physicalist or materialist view of the world, so anything goes. It becomes a matter of baseless rhetoric to serve one's self-interest then.
Why not? What's interesting is that liberalism is often criticized for the many ways it makes people act outside of their own interests for the good of something else whether it be others or ideology. What's interesting about people who try to moral behavior based on religious grounds is that the reason for doing so is alignment with the will of the universe or its creator and often time reward from that will or creator. Most of this rhetoric yours and Daniel's included is just a poorly grounded way to justify self-interest, as it would be in the interest of anyone who believes in such metaphysical grounding to be aligned with it.
>He did that near the end. That's why I say that debate would have been better off evolving into a theological and metaphysical direction because the argument would then revolve around challenging claims like the "Final Seal of the Prophets", which of course I do not agree with.
He really didn't, and he affirmed that metric with his own arguments earlier. There's nothing interesting about taking an argument about how a society should operate to to one about speculative metaphysics. It's just a waste of time.
>No, he pretty much justified slavery from an Islamic angle and seemed unabashed about it. The
No, he frequently whined about how liberalism oppresses him. This was something Daniel explicitly claimed, and it was the most womanly thing done in the debate. Daniel even went as far as to complain about being called a misogynist when he totally isn't. The only thing I can fault Destiny is not calling him out when he tried to change the subject, but I can understand not wanting to engage with someone who was there to stif

[Anonymous No.21449757]

>>21449353
>He said Islam is not reducible to only those specific aspects, but he's fine with accepting them (it doesn't fill him revulsion because it is a part of what he considers true).
The problem with this response is that it only functions to change the subject. Nothing Destiny said was to reduce Islam to only that. He brought up those points because they were relevant. Anything other than explicitly saying that you think such behaviors are good and are willing to partake in them is changing the subject and running away from it with your tail between your legs.
>Anyways, my problem with Islam is not its "barbarity" but with its poor philosophical foundation. Liberalism is more barbaric than anything else with its idea of "scientific and material progress" as the main metrics of civilizational progress.
At the end of the day the worldview that labels them barbaric is going to be better grounded than one that requires the kind of theological metaphysical speculation you offer. But I'm sorry, but respect for the autonomy and dignity of human beings just cannot be more barbaric than one that doesn't. And no, before you say it, it does not a downward spiral into pure hedonism. Such an ideology must oppose it as it must put restrictions on individuals who would violate the dignity and autonomy of others, because of that entire sets of pleasures, like those grown men who want to sleep with little girls would derive from committing the act, would be excluded.
>you better give alms to those monks if you don't want a negative rebirth,
Sounds like you're appealing to my naked self-interest. Are you sure you aren't at least a little bit of a liberal?

[Anonymous No.21449802]

>>21449659
>Or it may cure them of from the infection of tradition
You lost the argument. The point is: liberalism and tradition cannot coexist.
>The point of the debate is to determine whether liberalism would require the "domination" of Islam, to claim it was about this is to adopt a very loose conception of "domination."
And my point is that liberalism dominates via "infection" of these traditions. For example, for most of history Buddhist sanghas have been sex segregated. When it came to the the liberal West, many sanghas ceased with sex segregation in order to appease liberalized Westerners. I guarantee you many past Buddhists would consider this adharmic, and in a sense, liberalism has dominated institutionalized Buddhism in the West.
>There's no reason to even believe that these higher spiritual ideals are meaningful.
Then the best approach is separation/distance, and I do not want cultural interaction with the depraved liberals like you. However, liberals are not satisfied with this given their proselytizing drive; this is also why industries use liberalism in adverts, slogans, and more to their advantage for spreading capital and economically dominating other nations, weakening their traditions and solidarity in the process.
>Every assumption of liberalism is infinitely better grounded than the metaphysical claims made by the likes of you.
Not at all, I have two STEM degrees, and I repeat, not a single positive thing has come from science, math, or etc. It is asinine to also claim they lead to greater ontological truths.
>be able to prove that "secular reason" is inadequate
Secular reason is inadequate because it already assumes a predefined framework where everything can be neatly classified. It already presumes the law of the excluded middle to be true, but it is undeniably false. Paraconsistent forms of logic are superior in addressing the deeper questions of life, and I recommend looking into Graham Priest's inclosure schema. If necessary, I will summarize it for you in a future post, for I already have thorough notes on it, which is my position but difficult to summarize here.
In short: there is no ground to reality due to the emptiness of phenomena. Emptiness points to how all phenomena arise in relation to another, and this happens ad infinitum whereby there is nothing to grasp or cling onto, including your silly notions of progress. With nothing to grasp, one comes to a deeper epistemic aspect to reality where boundaries are not always clearcut. Breath can tie to the sun, moon, in numinous ways that are unseen and hidden. This is only possible to deduce from meditation and solitude.

[Anonymous No.21449806]

>>21449595
they saw images of the "real afghan people" and saw a bunch of them are gingers with blue eyes and thought, "woah... this is my homeland. this is where i'm meant to be, spiritually"

[Anonymous No.21449869]

>>21448381
Why do they look angry?

[Anonymous No.21449917]

>>21448381
>but they were mostly Shiites
they were mostly Persians you mean. Arabs were retarded since the start. The Islamic golden age was the product of Greek philosophy and Persian genius, nothing more. Islam had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.21449925]

>>21449806
Very nice beard in that pic.

[Anonymous No.21449926]

>>21449802
>You lost the argument. The point is: liberalism and tradition cannot coexist.
There's no reason to believe it can't unless you the aspects of these traditions that violate the dignity and autonomy of the individual are integral to it. There's a difference between it being eroded away over tie due to any reason (which is not domination) and the forces of liberalism actively stopping the tradition (which would be domination). There are two ways to approach the subject either domination is not required because the tradition is strong enough to adapt ad survive or it is disease that liberalism must cure. I win in either framework which is way you changed the subject from the domination of Islam to out-competing tradition.
>And my point is that liberalism dominates via "infection" of these traditions. For example, for most of history Buddhist sanghas have been sex segregated. When it came to the the liberal West, many sanghas ceased with sex segregation in order to appease liberalized Westerners. I guarantee you many past Buddhists would consider this adharmic, and in a sense, liberalism has dominated institutionalized Buddhism in the West.
Choosing to appease someone is not the same as domination. Orthodox Jews still segregate by sex. These temples could do the same, but they choose not to because they feel that it does not destroy the core of the tradition that they are still able to preserve. I don't really care how the majority feel because they simply could, and in this case are, all wrong.
>Not at all, I have two STEM degrees, and I repeat, not a single positive thing has come from science, math, or etc. It is asinine to also claim they lead to greater ontological truths.
Every ontological position claimed by you and your ilk is based on tons of speculation. I agree that reductive materialism isn't a strong position, but I don't think the alternatives proposed by religions offer a better explanation.
>there is no ground to reality due to the emptiness of phenomena.
I'd appreciate if you could elaborate what you mean by this precisely. I'll look into the enclosure schema, but I would appreciate an explanation if you're willing to provide one.

[Anonymous No.21449929]

>>21449757
>you think such behaviors are good and are willing to partake in them
Daniel did pretty much imply or say that, hence why I say it would have been better for the debate to take a philosophical turn. However, that isn't to be expected for such a sideshow catered to the insipid masses.
This brings me to a second point: mass literacy was a mistake. The masses are unsuited for engaging in deep introspection, reading enriching works, re-evaluating deeply held assumptions, and making proper choices for themselves. There needs to be a strict hierarchy and tradition in society where people know their places and roles, and the sages can have the solitude to contemplate, practice rituals, and teach others.
>respect for the autonomy and dignity of human beings just cannot be more barbaric than one that doesn't.
I respect sentient beings because of their "Buddha nature", capacity for awakening (which has been reduced to next to none thanks to industrialization & modernity), and not because of "autonomy and dignity". I follow the precepts in this regard.
I bow to the Buddha and not your Trinity of the Dollar, Economic Growth, and Market Economic, and though you may try to corrupt the Buddha and bring about the Dharma ending age, you will never succeed in tarnishing my true original Buddha nature. However, there is no doubt the likes of you have impeded my advancement to awakening, but I have had glimpses from time to time.

[Anonymous No.21449945]

>>21449595
they are targeted my muslims the hardest. Muslims absolutely love northern european converts. A european convert is worth 5 times compared to other converts. That's a fact. Muslims hate Europeans for being unbelievers, but they admire their accomplishments, their beauty, and their superiority.
So, why do Muslims target gingers and promote them? Because there's nothing "whiter" than a ginger. Gingers are native of northern Europe. Nowhere else in the world are ginger to be found. Non-european gingers are the product of race-mixing. So, Muslims promote gingers because they look undoubtedly European.

[Anonymous No.21449952]

>>21449806
that's a descendant of ancient Greeks. Notice his hat. It's a copy of the ancient Macedonian hat known as kausia. These people are ancient Greeks unironically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kausia

[Anonymous No.21449967]

>>21449952
The wikipedia article for the "pakol" hat disagrees with you

[Anonymous No.21449985]

>>21449952
Also they are really just Iranians but with minimal Arab/Mongol/Turkic admixture. The Greek would have been bred out a long time ago. After the collapse of the Seleucid empire takes away the land route from the east mediterranean through Persia, no new Greek immigrants to Bactria or Northern India, just a surviving "colonial" population that probably became increasingly mixed, although continued to write in Greek until the Kushans come in.

[Anonymous No.21449994]

>>21449926
>I win in either framework which is way you changed the subject from the domination of Islam to out-competing tradition.
All frameworks are empty. Only suffering arises, only suffering ceases. It is best to abandon all notions of "progress" and devote oneself single-mindedly to the Buddha way.
>Choosing to appease someone is not the same as domination.
The Buddha way is absolute. All other things in life are a waste of time. Genuine contemplation on the Dharma, and preferably in solitude and "absorption into that which drives everything", is equivalent to wisdom.
When the sky tips over like a jar flooding the inner vision, only then you will truly know.
I want to destroy the entire industrial order and create a New World wholly and solely devoted to the Buddha way. All things but awakening to the true nature of one's mind, which is empty, are frivolous wastes of time, and if you disagree, then you, sir, are an icchantika.
>I don't think the alternatives proposed by religions offer a better explanation.
All explanations are empty.
>I would appreciate an explanation if you're willing to provide one.

I will now defend how "All things have one nature, that is, no nature."

Check out Graham Priest's Inclosure Schema.
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/NagarjunaTheLimitsOfThought.pdf

The essay begins by positing everything lacks a determinate character (i.e., they do not have an underlying essence that comes to rigidly define them) due to it dependently originating (i.e.,defined as emptiness, "Shunyata", in Buddhism). Emptiness denotes things always arise in relation to something else, understood in relation to something else, and lack a determinate nature due to both co-dependent origination and impermanence. Accepting either impermanence or co-dependent origination, or both, causes an inclosure schema, as explained here:

Summary:
1. The article goes on to claim emptiness is their ultimate nature.
2. Consequently, not even this statement can be claimed to possess any determinate character. It lacks an ultimate nature.
3. It is empty of essence and independent reality,and thus, nothing can be said, even that all phenomena are empty. Nor its negation.
4. We can’t even say that nothing can be said. But we just did. And we have thereby characterized the ultimate perspective, which,if we are correct in our characterization, can’t be done.
5. From the conventional perspective, this can be discussed: the relation of the ultimate to the conventional. It can be pointed at. "All things have one nature, that is, no nature." All phenomena are empty, and so ultimately have no nature. But emptiness is, therefore, the ultimate nature of things. So they both have and lack an ultimate nature.

[Anonymous No.21450010]

>>21449929
>Daniel did pretty much imply or say that, hence why I say it would have been better for the debate to take a philosophical turn.
Eh, he needed to explicitly state it and try and defend it rather than try to slip away and change the subject to things not relevant to the debate.
>I bow to the Buddha and not your Trinity of the Dollar, Economic Growth, and Market Economic,
You're attributing a lot of ideas to me that I don't have. I for instance fully support moving way from economic models that prioritize financial growth and wealth accumulation over all else and moving away from market-oriented models in whenever possible.
I also don't believe in secular reasoning as described by you earlier:
>Secular reason is inadequate because it already assumes a predefined framework where everything can be neatly classified.
Which is why I found that part of your post genuinely fascinating. I intend on looking more into what Graham Priest has to say, so even if you hate me, I still appreciate you for the recommendation.

[Anonymous No.21450023]

>OP talking about how a few years ago Islam was taking over Western media, huh that's weird what the fuck is he talking about I've never seen anything close to this
>scroll down the thread, it's literally just all youtube debate bullshit
None of this stuff matters outside of your particular niche internet communities. Islam has never come close to taking over anything in the West, the vast majority of people have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.21450029]

>>21449967
>the pakol originated in Chitral and Nuristan
These places were all conquered by Macedonians. If the pakol had originated in a place not conquered by Macedonians, you might have had a case.
>However, the pakol has no historical links with the kausia
That's just a claim. How is this claim supported? It's supported by a link to an article from 1986 that's behind a paywall. Good stuff, anon.
>>21449985
Iranians don't look like that. It's only some groups of people, mostly in high altitudes, that have red/blonde hair and blue/green eyes. In other words, these people are the exception, not the norm. And that's because Greeks have been bred out over the centuries, and only a few groups of Greek descendants survive today.

[Anonymous No.21450034]

>>21449994
>>21449926
Forgot to share image of Inclosure Schema.

[Anonymous No.21450056]

>>21449945
Yeah but when Europeans convert to Islam they racially transmogrify into Eastern European mountain people like Bosnians and Chechens. Any quality they had that was admirable to Muslims before is epigenetically removed when they convert. It's like capturing a bird because you love how they fly then clipping its wings so it can't get away.

[Anonymous No.21450072]

>>21450056
i dont think they see it that way. To the eyes of the moslem, it's an improvement, the cherry on top.

[Anonymous No.21450097]

>>21450029
>Iranians don't look like that.
Pay attention anon. I said Iranians without the admixture from all the invading populations over the last thousand years. And why would they not have this admixture? Because they live up in the mountains and it is too much effort to rape them. They aren't some relict Greek population just because they look like they could be from Athens, Ohio. That whole region of the world was significantly fairer-skinned before the middle ages. If anything, the Greeks of the Hellenistic period would have been swarthier than the Bactrians of the same.

[Anonymous No.21450104]

>>21450072
Of course they don't see it that way, but it's true nonetheless. Were all of Europe to adopt Islam tomorrow, its populace would physically, materially, genetically transmogrify into Chechens within a generation. And all of the worth qualities, beauties, and possibilities of the previous races would be whitewashed into the lowliness of those of Eastern European mountain men.

[Anonymous No.21450125]

>>21449945
Probably more because mohamed was said to have had red/orange hair. They still dye their beards red/orange to honour him. The ancient Berbers were red-haired, you can see it in old illustrations.

[Anonymous No.21450134]

>>21450023
Ya, nobody cares about it, in fact most people rightfully see them as dumb 3rd worlders. The next step is sending these brown welfare-leeching retards back.

[Anonymous No.21450141]

Jannies need to give us a religion board already

[Anonymous No.21450142]

>>21450023
He’s one of the biggest schizos on this board. Seems to stalk Muslims on twitter and YouTube all day and thinks their views are somehow representative of broader society

[Anonymous No.21450159]

>>21450029
>>21450097
The answer is that only a few genes select for hair and eye colors, and they don't really determine race. It's not uncommon for brothers or cousins to have different eye or hair colors.

[Anonymous No.21450170]

>>21450142
I usually ignore Islam-centered threads but for some reason I was drawn to read this one. My mistake, will go back to ignoring them.

[Anonymous No.21450179]

>>21448381
Religion is going to completely die out in the developed world except for a few dedicated holdouts that keep themselves apart from mainstream society.

[Anonymous No.21450227]

>>21450179
I disagree

[Anonymous No.21450450]

>>21448388
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.21450472]

>>21448643
So do I

[Anonymous No.21450499]

>>21449078
>is there any Islamic intellectual that isn't a total fraud
I dont think so

[Anonymous No.21450517]

>>21449353
Denounce the Quran in writing right now

[Anonymous No.21450530]

>>21450134
>ya nobody cares about it
They should shouldn't they? Isn't like 10% of France Muslim now? With huge concentrations in all cities?

[Anonymous No.21450540]

>>21450517
I tore up a couple of Korans in the past, and I could only get halfway through it. I was able to read the Lotus Sutra and others in one sitting though.

I am the greatest intellectual alive. I deserve a platform, not these morons like Daniel and Destiny. My arguments would be far more advanced and sophisticated, and I still have a lot of reading to do.

[Anonymous No.21450685]

>>21450540
But do you denounce it as not containing the perfect word of God?

[Anonymous No.21450715]

>>21448381
>/lit/ is full of threads about Christianity - Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Calvinism.
larpers

[Anonymous No.21450768]

>been laying in bed awake for a week straight now reading both quran and the bible
i can't take this shit anymore I have to make up my mind bros it's killing me

[Anonymous No.21450769]

>>21450685
Of course. Why would someone rip up the Koran (after reading half of it) if they believed it's the word of God?
Are you stupid? It's pretty much implied I consider the Koran destructive nonsense.
On the other hand, I would never rip up the Pali canon or Lotus or Platform Sutras or Taotejing because I consider them as containing the truth.
Also, what's weird is I had a very powerful spiritual dream after deeply studying the Upanishads, so I have a soft spot for that. Not sure if it's true, but that dream does give me a lot of doubts.

I wouldn't mind ripping up the Bible or Old Testament either. Something tells me I would finish the Bible in its entirety and then rip it up, but I would only get 1/4th into the Old Testament before ripping it.
I can respect the Gathas though. I never ripped that one, but I do consider it nonsense too after reading 3-5 translations.

[Anonymous No.21450774]

>>21450769
>of course
So write it out then

[Anonymous No.21450789]

>>21450774
Are you even reading my messages? I said I consider "the Koran destructive nonsense". What more do you want me to say, retard.
Damn Allah. Muhammad was a piece of shit warlord Bedouin who just twisted a Nestorian text to justify his expansionism (that is if he existed which I doubt).
Brahman is a better conception of God and the only one that is believable to the moderately intelligent.

[Anonymous No.21450797]

>>21450789
Out of curiosity, I've been seeing more people claim that Muhammad might not even have existed lately, but can that be taken seriously at all?

[Anonymous No.21450804]

>>21450789
Okay okay calm down. I see you've played denounce the Quran before

[Anonymous No.21450805]

>>21450797
Yes, there are decent arguments. A few scholarly ones were published under pseudonyms for obvious reasons.

[christcuck !BRtcYR7eHM No.21450807]

>>21448381
The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.

[Anonymous No.21450809]

>>21450530
Ya, nobody cares about the superstitions of the dumb 3rd world underclass beyond the violent attacks they commit every other day. Only autistic losers going through an existential crisis are seriously considering converting to your shitty jew religion because they are being groomed by brown inbred pedophile faggots who wish they were white.

Islam is a cancer to the West, part of a much larger semitic virus going back thousands of years. As you point out yourself, hordes of these violent, simian semitic simpletons are being forced on the West to her detriment.

Islam is much worse than Christianity, it is a slave religion for braindead nig-mutts.

[Anonymous No.21450820]

>>21450809
That's why people should care about it. It's bad if it grows in Europe. It's objectively and obviously awful with absolutely no redeeming virtues.