Note: only the manlet incel didn't run away.
Note: only the manlet incel didn't run away.
Sharia is for barbarians. Western civilization is for cucks. Both should collapse immediately.
Imagine wasting your time with this chick thinking everything is going smoothly and buying gifts (ahahaha) only to find out it's an experiment. You thot? What you thot? You was gonna get lucky?
I think this is the only time I've ever seen an Egyptian sand nigger with a foid. Kinda sad how hard he needs to betabux.
What is sharia?
Lmao. Clearly a FOX newscel. Sharia and Islam were high IQ in the 10th century. It's not the 'backward', 'barbaric' and 'irrational' thing you see in Iraq or Saudi.
Good question. It translates to 'the way to the watering place' - A metaphor for a simple idea: applying reasoning and developing intricate methodologies to revealed sources (Quran, hadiths, fatwas) in order to deduct social, economic and political norms and rules that govern societies, cultures and governments.
Tbh he is chaddam facially. Only thing holding him back is he's a manlet.
Last edited:
Then they got destroyed by a bunch of semi-barbarian Germanic crusaders and never recovered while the West went on to become the West.
Yeah, in the TENTH CENTURY.
Are you talking about the backward Spanish?
West fucked the Islamic world after their ascendency from 17th/18th century onwards. Ottomans still dominant up till the 17th century at least. Most of Islamic history Muslims have been the sole or co-equal dominant power. Modern imperialism fucked the whole world. Muslim world never recovered. It's the last bulwark to modern degeneracy. There needs to be an Islamic revival. It's the ultimate dream of Islamist of all stripes.
read above low IQcel
Islamic law - it is good for controlling degeneracy in the Gulf states
Basicall - thieves get their hands chopped, fags get beheaded, and adulterers get stoned.
Polygamist Muslims create incels. Brilliant. You can get 72 virgins when you die though.
Sharia ≠ 'Islamic law'. It's better translating as jurisprudence or 'a way of figuring out the law'. There are 'laws' such as 'dos and don'ts' - but these are like 5% of the whole Islamic sharia corpus of texts.
Good stuff, should be applied worldwide
Another Fox news-reading low IQcel. Most muslims don't practice polygamy. If it was done, it was not by Chads for Stacies. It was by marrying refugee or poor beckies as wives not Stacies.
72 virgin thing is from a weak hadith. Try and harmonize that with the hadith that say's most women are in hell.
sharia is divine law. fiqha (idk how it spelt) is the human interpretation of sharia and its application
Precisely.
Fiqh is understanding the law. There is no Sharia without the accompanying understanding of it.
weak hadith, strong hadith, who gives a shit? The quran also says it's ok to lie to infidels. I hope muslims and westerners die in a nuclear holocaust.
I wonder how many closeted fags live in Saudi Arabia.
Look at all these Islamic countries that practice polygamy.
Pleasure marriage for SandChad
Nikah mut'ah - Wikipedia
West was already dominant in the 11th and 12th century when it gained naval superiority with the likes of le merchant republic of Venice. The continued naval superiority enabled the West to later conquer overseas territories in the New World. It was also the reason why crusading states in the Levant were able to exist in the first place (and why Muslims weren't able to do something like this in Europe).
The Ottomans were a backward empire that relied on sheer numbers and brute force, and even then they couldn't even conquer fucking Vienna let alone penetrate the REAL West. Also Ottomans came from outside and merely adopted Islam, they didn't have continuity with the Islamo-Arab civilization. The Islamo-Arab civilization was only civilized because of the contact with the Greco-Roman civilization of the people they conquered to begin with.
On it's own, Islam didn't really create anything other than being an effective means of mobilizing people for war and keeping degeneracy in check. Which is fine with me, but it's ridiculous to pretend Islam has any potential to produce a meaningful civilization on its own. It's a religion that fucking bans art and most forms of music and all kinds of things like Calvinists.
The only thing that Islam is good at is converting people into becoming a universalist mongrelized mass of barely literate warriors under a very simplified religion based on wordly rules like "you should do that, you can't do that" without any deep theology or mysticism. Again, it would be preferable to the current West, but it would be a pretty shitty society to live in as well. If things were like Muslims wanted there would be no local traditions, no local cultures nothing, just entire world LARPing as Arabs and repeating some Arab phrases.
West was dominant in the 11th and 12th century - don't make me fucking die laughter. Your reasoning? They knew how to sail the oceans lolol. Most of the world was bought to a standstill to in the 11th and 12th century due to the mongols.
The Ottomans would've conquered most of Europe if it wasn't for the Safavids.
And don't get me started on this 'new world' shit, The good ol' shitty USA has only been superpower the last 30 years and was co-equal power for the last 70 years prior to that. Barely a century and now is being overtaken by the beast from the East. Stop worshipping the WEST - for most of history it's been backwards utter garbage shitehole.
"The Islamo-Arab civilization was only civilized because of the contact with the Greco-Roman civilization of the people they conquered to begin with"
This is partially true, but this is a circular argument. You're clearly just looking at the 'exotic' middle east through orientalist lenses. Just because they read Aristotle, Plato or Euclid doesnt explain why there society was more developed than previous. Every civilization build upon the other. Kant, Newton, Copernicus, Descartes were reading ibn Hayytham, al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina. Likewise Aristotle, Plato and other Greeks borrowed heavily from the Indian, ancient Egyptians and Persians - but to orientalists to you they are the 'backwards' ones. No civilization exist in isolation from one another.
You're clearly a christiancel judging by your profile pic.
weak hadith, strong hadith, who gives a shit? The quran also says it's ok to lie to infidels. I hope muslims and westerners die in a nuclear holocaust.
I wonder how many closeted fags live in Saudi Arabia.
View attachment 162068
Look at all these Islamic countries that practice polygamy.
View attachment 162070
Pleasure marriage for SandChad
Nikah mut'ah - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Loq IQcel proving his fox news pseudo intelligence with stats.
Also nikah mutah is for Shia scum.
Lmao I can bet my fucking like you've never heard the names al-ghazali, Rumi, Abdl qadir gilani or Ibn arabi.
It's not just a 'do this or don't do that' religion like explained above. Clearly a orientalist who has no knowledge whatsoever of classical Islam. Must've read an intro to contemporary Islam book by some oriantalist.
Last edited:
How many millions of incels are living in the middle east. The demographics don't lie.
Naval superiority was key in those days when almost everything went through the sea as traveling on land was too risky and too long. Which is why small cities like Venice and Genoa were world superpowers.
The West was militarily and technologically superior in the 11th century and 12th century.
Mongols were no threat to the West, they got stopped easily by two fringe Western kingdoms of Hungary and Poland. They would get completely slaughtered by technologicaly vastly superior Western European armies at that time if they tried to go further West.
They couldn't even conquer Vienna twice and were stopped by a minor power in Austria. Imagine Ottomans trying to conquer Switzerland full of veteran mercenary warriors and difficult terrain, they would get slaughtered JFL.
The Ottomans were only ever a threat to fringe borderlands of Western Europe like Spain, southern Italy and Austrian lands and lost in all of those areas. Which is why a Christian European power like France was actually allied to Ottomans with little concern for being potentially attacked by them.
As for the Safavids well it goes both ways, if Europeans weren't infighting in the likes of Italian wars, 30 year war and all kinds of religious wars, they would be stronger also.
You're actually the one who is repeating the modern Western narrative that everything in the West was backward until modernity came in in 19th century which is ridiculous.
The Muslims are West worshippers and act like pets of Westerners most of the time. They accepted the status of being some exotic religion that is tolerated by the SJWs and have to sing to their tune which is basically adopting the modern Western anti-Christian narrative of history. Like "muh Islam was superior, Christian medieval Europe was backward..." Yet somehow that Christian Europe beat Muslims everywhere in battles even in their home lands.
Ask yourself, if Islam was such a threat to the West, why is it allowed and actually encouraged to praise it in the West?
The difference is that the West never stopped developing while the Islamic world stopped and started stagnating somewhere in 10th century. It was only briefly revived by fresh people accepting Islam like Ottomans. This is because Islam has nothing to offer in itself other than some simplified religion that is only useful for war. It doesn't offer any deeper explanations or mysticism, it doesn't have a complex theology or anything.
Christianity created the most powerful civilization ever that ultimately became so powerful that it lead to arrogance and discarding Christianity itself. Muslims basically kinda just existed from 11th century on.
Last edited:
This is uber cope. A city-state like Venice and Genoa were superpower retarded af.
Lmao they beat a small contigent of Mongols when they had already been defeated by Muslims at Ain Jalut near Egypt. They didn't even want to conquer backwards Europe. Retarded af. European and Christian powers - even when united, couldn't even hold Jerusalem or surrounding areas for long throughout the 11th and 12th century. This, despite dreaming about conquering Jerusalem all their lives.
Fucking cope again. Yes Vienna was an embarrassment but your acting like a whiny child now shitting over everything you don't like. This is the only empire that existed in the heart of civilization for so long and their rulers (Suleiman, Mehmet, Selim) sent a shiver down the spine of every European ruler for hundreds of years - this is a FACT! whether you like it or not respect it's power. I hate the crusaders but will acknowledge they were very deadly and fearless warriors that scared Muslims - and rightly so.
They did jack shit before that on the world stage. Muslim world had its fair share of sectarianism, that didn't stop them from expanding.
Simple. The SJWs suffer from cognitive dissonance. They support those 'liberal' and 'progressive' Muslims who have become westernized and want to turn Islam into a cucked religion following the same trajectory as Christianity.
What the fuck is 'developing'? 'Somewhere in the 10/11th' - a common explanation that something apparently happened and they stopped 'developing' sounds like a shitty argument: I have no other explanation for why it happened so my explanation is that it happened.
Ottomans revived it politically, but couldn't keep up with technological and scientific developments. Most of this wasn't even nourished in the arab world from the 8th-11th century - it was mostly in Persia. Most scientists, mathematicians, poets were Persian Sunnis - ALSO NOTE nearly every single one was an Islamic scholar who drew inspiration from the Quran and were legal experts or theologians.
Lolol Muslims had theologians way before Christians did -despite being the younger religion. As for mysticism and 'deep theology' like I said before - just read (probably can't do this) so google the likes of al-ghazali, Juanyd of baghdad, rumi, chisti, said nursi, ibn arabi, ibn taymiyyah. It's a shame most of their major works of some of these authors arent even translated. The orientalist scholars only picked and chose what fit their westernized narratives.
What Christian civilization was this? The secular age is the age of 'civilization' in the West. Other than the Byzantine Empire in late antiquity I see no powerful Christian civilization. Just cucked Christians everywhere.
They were the reason why crusades to the Middle East were successful and were crucial in sending crusaders over sea. Venica controlled colonies as far east as Caffa in modern Ukraine. They conquered and sacked Constantinople way before Ottomans did when Byzantium was still a legit power. Muslims pride themselves in Ottomans conquering Constantinople when in fact they just destroyed a shell of what Byzantium was after Venice got through with it.
It looks to me like you think power is equated with holding a large territory and having huge but technologically useless armies that you can't even use to full extent logistically. In reality, controlling the sea and the trade was crucial.
Also Genoa and Venice could just use mercenaries whenever they needed to due to their wealth. Ottomans tried to destroy Venice but couldn't do shit and got destroyed at Lepanto.
It wasn't a small contingent, they outnumbered the Christians but got destroyed because Hungary employed mercenaries with crossbows. They would destroy Mongolian armies of any size because Mongols weren't able to deal with advanced European military technology and military tactics of the time which included heavy armored knights mixed with crossbowmen mercenaries. They had zero answer for that with their primitive horse archer tactics.
Also they would never be able to conquer European castles and fight on European terrain.
Another thing, this whole "small contingent" is always a lame excuse whenever Europeans beat some invading army. Why weren't those advanced empires able to send more men then? Did they just deliberately send a small army to die? JFL. The reason why they couldn't send more men is because they sucked at logistics and couldn't afford to. When Spanish actually sent a small contingent in conquered entire Aztec empire.
JFL. "Backwards Europe" that was building complex cathedrals at the time and universities. The "backwards" Europeans had to teach "advanced" Muslims living in the Middle East about agriculture.
They would never be able to conquer Europe because they were literally centuries behind (I mean Mongols, not Muslims).
"Couldn't even hold Jerusalem" JFL as if Jerusalem is in Europe or what? The fact that they were able to conquer Jerusalem in the first place shows how superior Europe was at the time. A small army of volunteer crusaders managed to conquer big cities in the heart of the Muslim world and held them for centuries despite being vastly outnumbered.
A Muslim equivalent of that would be like going to Northern Italy and conquering Milan, Bologna, Genoa and Venice all in one go.
Also crusades weren't a case of European powers uniting and sending everything, it was just a group of knights and common people from various European states uniting under an ideology that eventually faded in the 13th century. European kingdoms were too busy with their own affairs. It wasn't like every king was obsessed with Jerusalem, in fact in the first crusade there were no kings present.
I never said they weren't powerful, they simply relied on brutal force and intimidation. They never developed a lasting civilization that could rival the West which is why they eventually started copying from the West and fell behind. But yeah at one point they were militarily stronger than any single Western country, but that doesn't mean they would actually be able to conquer it. In return, no European power would be able to conquer Ottoman empire at its peak either. It was a military stalemate that ultimately benefited the West that had other things going for itself.
Europe is the world stage. It's the heart of the world and where most important things happen. Christian civilization civilized the north of Europe all the way to Finland and Baltic which the crusaders conquered. These were the lands that Romans couldn't even dream of conquering. Also Ireland, Azores etc.
The Muslim expansion was mostly converting people in geographic vicinity. Christian Western Europe had no pagans to convert (other than those areas I mentioned) up until the discovery of the New World. Where could they expand? It's not like they needed to anyway.
Why didn't the Muslim world try to expand to the Americas? It was all Christians.
There is no cognitive dissonance. SJWs love Islam because it fits their modern liberal world perfectly as a wordly sexualized religion with rules, instead of mystical Christianity which praises virginity and celibacy and where kingdom is not from this world.
Islam is simplified religion that has no room for any sort of deeper meaning. It's literally just do this don't do that because Allah says so. It's also simpler and easier to follow than Christianity, there are no difficult things like "love your enemy" etc.
Islam is basically like Protestantism, a wordly religion dependant on fundamentalism and rules, lacking traditionalism and with no respect for celibacy and virginity. It was created by some warlord who wanted expansion and personal glory and spread through violence while Christianity spread through peace. Also the female-worshipping and sexualized element in Islam is so strong, the whole virgins in "heaven" thing and all that animalistic shit.
Christian civilization = Christendom circa 800-1800. From Charlemagne to French revolution, roughly speaking. The secularism was just degeneracy inheriting the strong Christian civilization that gave everything to the modern West on silver platter.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Similar threads
LonerLothario
Users who are viewing this thread
