How come Christians managed to outgrow their medieval barbarism but the Muslims did not...

How come Christians managed to outgrow their medieval barbarism but the Muslims did not? What is it about Islam that makes it incompatible with the modern world?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age?wprov=sfla1
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Location and geography. The Middle East was prone to violence long before Islam (i.e. Persians, Mongols, etc) since it's basically the cross roads of the world between Africa, Asia, and Europe. The Middle East is important strategically so anyone there would've been prone to violence if they stayed (just look at Israel)

Sidenote: The Muslims were making progress somewhat in the 50's to 70's until the Soviets came into Afghanistan and whatnot, so the USSR is also to blame.

We became soft and now we are paying for it.

Genetics, higher trust society, Jesus being massively morally more acceptable to non-crazies compared to Muh Hammed.

Because as western civilization faced hardship and slowly recovered and started to thrive and adapt, the middle eastern worlds kept the primordial aspects of their culture together after so many years due to them being a super power with constant conflicts.

Compare the prophets.

Enlightenment

They did outgrow their barbarism, even before Europe, but as said, they were in the middle of a clusterfuck, got shlonged by cristians and then mongols. Then some stuck up cunt managed to get in command and replace free tought by literal interpretation of the Qur'an.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age?wprov=sfla1

Christians continued to be barbaric (in your sense) through the Reformation, but our Occidental tradition of objective thought and lack of centralized government led us to accept religious diversity. Islam comes from a region where knowledge is not outside the knower, where what cannot be imagined must not be true, and where there never was a constitutional objection to a simple single absolute master. Our reaction to religious wars was to not seek a single unifying master religion and their conclusion was to pursue one.

The enlightenment. The whole idea of classical liberalism (free trade, the rights of man, limited government), the progress of science and industry. Muslim khalifa did not have this, the Ottoman Empire collapsed under it's own weight because of poor economics and lack of industry.

Attaturk was the secular enlightenment the Muslim world needed to some extent, but the entire 20th century and now into the 21st has been the struggle of Islam vs secularism (Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey recently, Egypt, Iran) with some interventions from the West throwing some more wood on the fire.

A lot of people say Islam needs a reformation like the Christian world had. The fact is the Muslim word is HAVING a reformation, and the reformation is the problem. When you return to the fundamentals of your religion and they are garbage then things get worse.

medieval barbarism?

the thing that saved us from ISLAM?
>why would you want to outgrow that?

This is wrong. "Non-barbaric" Muslims are just murderous barbarian dictators who currently permit you to breathe and read on a whim, but who can change their mind at any time. The genius of Europe was to compose legal systems that took the succession gamble and the dictator's whim out of good government. No Asian ever imagined the sentence, "the king must obey the law."

Muslims do not bow to modernism the same way christians do.

"Prone to violence" is wrong, they had long periods of stability and prosperity. If anything Europe was prone to violence and to a governmental arrangement any Asian would call chaos.

>Freedom of expression

Perhaps the most significant feature of theFatimidera were the freedoms given to the people and liberties given to the mind and reason. People could believe whatever they liked provided they did not infringe other's rights. The Fatimids reserved separate pulpits for different Islamic sects, and scholars expressed their ideas in whatever manner they pleased. The Fatimids gave patronage to scholars and invited them from every place, financially supported them, and ignored what they believed in, even when it went against Fatimid beliefs.

while were at it, what's Sup Forums's opinion of Saladin? He seemed pretty based, even the crusaders admired him. Are there any current muslim leaders comparable to him?

Yeah that's just not true. Similarly, the occupied Iberian peninsula was not a paradise. The idea of natural rights never had a place on Asia and were only stumbled across by accident in the Occident because of our tradition of decentralized rule. What you are describing is exactly what I criticized above: a dominating master, using violence to grab illegitimate authority, who happens to be nice to you. Not the same thing as government deriving legitimacy from limitation.

Asian history differs vastly from Mid East history. Most European conflicts themselves eventually poured into the Middle East somehow (last few Crusades, Macedonia, fall of Romans, WW2, British making Israel, etc)

muslims schlonged all of europe and that's the only reason the Christians started a schlong crusade

Christianity was driven out of the middle east and had a main hold in Italy, one of the most powerful nations in the old world.

The crusades brought about some of the best and worst of Christianity.
Way too much authoritarian power and control, so people began rejecting it and going against it which brought about things like the renascence which was one of the biggest shifts in what was the western world, the discovery of america and also the collapse of European powers between 1600 to 1900 brought us to where we are now.

But none of this happened in the middle east, they never had any radical changes, everything in the middle east stayed the same, the crusades happened, then everything went back to normal and religion was stagnate, never pushing any farther or retreating any more.

Philosophy and art during medieval times in the middle east was at a higher degree of quality then Europe, but that was because all art and Philosophy at the time was focused on religion rather then enlightenment, like the Romans and Greeks were once before, Philosophy, art, and science of that type was dead up until it's "rebirth" in France and italy, places like Florence, rome and Venice ironically embraced this rebirth even though they were all so connected to the Vatican.

Where was the middle eastern Renascence?

You really need to reform common core.

Because Western Christianity was heavily influenced by European Paganism, excluding the Dark Ages. Also, better genetics.

>Grew out of medieval barbarism
>Literally the largest and deadliest wars in human history that culminated in a suicidal embrace of tolerance and demographic collapse. A passive genocide against their own unique cultures and population. A depraved, upside down culture where being a whore, selfish, "empowering" to the point where a disturbing trend of men from fatherless families mutilate their genitals and inject themselves with female hormones.

Yeah, fuck off.