>>68155 Most of the places on your map were christian or under a process christianization. Even in zoroastrian Iran the nestorian faith was spreading, specially in mesopotamia.
So a more christian world and wars mostly happening between different christian denominations. Considering Iran was pretty exhausted and almost a failed state, maybe it would've fallen under the turks anyways. Considering Byzantium was also exhausted maybe they woudl've ended losing N. Africa anyways. Don't know about Egypt and Syria, where there was a lot of unrest, but I suppose they would've managed to keep them without threats from the outside. Also I've heard some teachers saying that arab invasions where also triggered by drought and famine in Arabia proper, so maybe you'll have some arab invasions anyways (probably less succesful).
>>68352 Was uniting under Islam not the very thing that allowed them to expand and conquer? Without it I honestly don't think they'd ever leave their tribal ways. And the Sassanids and Byzantines would probably just continue beating each other up for another few centuries until one of them fell, or they realised it was pointless and made peace to some extent. I don't think either of them would change much, since they were the dominant powers in the world and nothing could really challenge them, and there would be little pressure to do so. Zoroastrianism and other pre-Islamic religions would survive, which is kinda cool.
>>68767 True, I was generalising a bit. Zoroastrians are one of the smallest religious groups on the planet though. It's miraculous they still exist considering they don't allow converts. I hope they do something about that because I don't wanna see it die.
>>69071 You're exaggerating. The civil war was between two branches of the Sassan clan, there was no shortage of manpower, money, and the exhaustive beliefs of wide spread plague and illness have been found wanting.
The Persians were able to successfully wage a resisting war 30 years against the Arabs, often time called up impressive numbers of bodies including the nobles that form the core of its Cataphracts and archers, and the House Karen, one of the seven Royal Houses, waged a continued war for another several centuries.
The Sassanid empire was not exhausted, the Sassanid dynasty itself was when Yadzgerd III was the last surviving male at age 8 to be installed on the throne by his uncle and members of the Grandee. If there was no Islam, the Sassanid state would've certainly lasted at least another century or longer without exaggeration.
>>69118 >Zoroastrians are one of the smallest religious groups on the planet though. It's miraculous they still exist considering they don't allow converts. Incorrect. Parsis do not allow conversion and these are the ones most people meet in the West. They do not allow conversion because of a deal they made with an Indian King which they still hold themselves to.
The Zoroastrians in Iran do allow conversion, but it is illegal for them to convert people under the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Hence no conversions.
>>69071 The Sassanid dynasty itself was tearing the royal family apart as well as members of the grandees and highest ranks taking sides between the time of Khosrau II Parviz's execution at his brother's hand to the coronation of the boy Emperor, his grandson, Yadzegerd III. End result was the boy was the last male surviving member of the clan who was part of the main family and not any cadet branches.
The Empire got fucked over because they were lacking a lot of veteran commanders and generals who were killed or died during the civil war after the last Byzantine-Persian War; not because they lacked any manpower or resources or money to fight the Arabs. I'll also point out the Persians and Byzantines jointly fought against the Arabs together too.
The Persians were weary of another long exhaustive war, but financially? Agriculturally? They were fine. This is why I love Harry Turtledove's AU semi-historical fictional novel series that focus on the Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Empire surviving into modern times.
But for the topic? If the Arabs had never exploded out of Arabia and Islam never existed, the Sassanid state would've had time to recover and rebuild the dynasty and it could've been reformed under Yadzgerd.
>>68155 - Arabia and Iran would have adopted Christianity - The central Asian tribes would have eventually adopted Christianity - The Arabic language wouldn't have spread, so the Levant and Egypt would be Greek, and North Africa would speak a Romance language - Hispania wouldn't have been occupied by Arabs, so the Visigoths would've been able to centralize the region even further - Europe, with no foreign threats, would have been able to peacefully develop more complex economies with the Mediterranean Sea safe from Muslim pirates, allowing for more commerce and trade. - Arabia would have prospered with trade of spices and coffee, and later on, oil - Eventually, the Romance-speaking Moroccan/Berber traders would've started trade with western Africa
These are just the most immediate things I could think about.
There's also a lot of zoroastrians in the USA (some are parsis and some are actual persian-americans). But they don't really preach as they mostof them adapt pretty well to the american lifestyle and the young ones ignore their background.
>>69071 That's true.The Sassanid dynasty, like the Parthians, would've fell; but someone else would've came along and did what the Sassanids did initially. So Persia would probably either still exist under a new Iranian dynasty, or be taken over by someone else. And the latter probably wouldn't last long; look at Alexanders empire and the Seleucids. Other Iranians would retake their land, or the new rulers would adopt the local culture and religion. I doubt the entire of the Middle East would turn to Christianity, especially Iran, as many of the already existing religious groups there were vehemently against it.
>>69507 Arabs would've adopted Judaism actually, Iran was already experimenting with Christianity. Khosrau II Parviz's son and choosen successor was his favorite and his wife was a high ranking noblewoman from Byzantine, and he had allowed his son to be baptized as a Christian.
Khosrau II had debated embracing Christianity as did Persian Emperors before him. Iran to this day still has a Patron Saint unlike the US or Canada for example. Its not really far fetched at all. The main reason it didn't happen rapidly like in Armenia was because of the political connotations of Persian Christians and other Iranian Christians being subservient to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch.
Christianity would be practiced throughout most of what's now the Islamic world. It would be more diverse, with Assyrian and Miaphysite Christianity being more prominent. Arianism might have survived as well.
>>69541 There were not many preexisting religious groups in Iran by the late Arsacid rule much less the Sassanids turn. You had Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, and Christianity. Though the Magi of the Zoroastrians and the Rabbis of the Jews both hated Christians but the Christianization of Iran was not impossible and was occurring already in the late 4th century, its just debatable what the end result would've been had Islam not come. Iran in fact did not become majority Muslim until the late 10th century.
And I already covered why the Sassanids were not a "failing" state earlier.
I heavily doubt the arabs would've adopted judaism. Both the ghassanids and the lakhmids were christian, and they're the more relevant ones in a world where romans and persians still called the shots. The jewish "arabs" in Himyar were a related but different civilization than that in north arabia. And I'm sure they would've survived as a different entity without islam. Jews in Himyar were not a majority but the defenders of paganism against christianity, so south arabia would be mostly pagan or nestorian christian (or any kind of chirstendom that didn't imply ethiopian dominance). Judaism is not really a religion for masses.
>>68155 Hard to say. It is possible that the Roman Empire could keep greater control over Christendom. It is unlikely that Persia would resist much longer to the Avars and Hephalites. The global trade gears would tend to be even more paralyzed, with stiffer borders and more unsafe routes.
The progress of science would be perpetually stagnant, with no incentive to its development, and without any profitable activity linked to it. With a possible breakdown of trade routes without a consumer market, and with even higher taxes, the Roman Empire would soon sink. The autarchy, as during the crisis of the third century, and after in the Western Roman Empire, would be the natural outlet, with a productive setback to the Bronze Age.
It is implausible that the Mongols would face significant resistance. Without any significant force, it is likely that the Chinese would take the lead in the world. But that does not mean imperial dominance, which has never been of their interest.
It would be a very unpleasant scenario. An intermittent and remote power, and the Mediterranean basin chopped into fiefdoms.
>>70217 Not quite, the Persians under Khosrau I and Goturk forces united and ripped the Hephalite Empire in half, the White Huns existed but they were mainly confined to parts of Afghanistan and a small territory bordering into India.
They were literally a buffer or rump state that existed as boundaries between the Persians and Turkic tribes.
>>70217 >The Persians wiped out the Hephalites completely. The Avars also were traditional allies against the Byzantines.
Yes, the Avars collaborated with the Persian-Roman war, surrounding Constantinople, and Hephalites were scattered.
This type of alliance is very unstable. Look at the Roman Empire. The Goths and Franks were full members of the Empire's border rows. Enough that there is an imbalance, loss of internal order, and old allies become an uncontrollable plague. Moreover, the borders become unmanned and vulnerable. And the Persian Empire was far from stability in the seventh century, after its defeat against the Romans.
>>70402 There are records of the Persians having trade agreements and accordances with Germanic tribes in the 5th and 6th centuries. They also coordinated with Bulgarians and Avars against the Byzantines.
The Empire was far from stable but it wasn't any less stable then the Byzantines. Remember, the end of the 602-628 final war was a return to the status quo of borders, boundaries, esteem, and standings betweeen the two empires.
Heraculis sued for peace, Khosrau II's successor accepted it, Ctesiphon was not sacked or looted, and the status quo remained. Between the Iranian and Roman Empires just as it did before for the last 700+ years.
>>68155 Crusades likely wouldn't have happened, neither would have the Reconquista. Eastern roman empire would likely still exist America wouldn't have been discovered in 1495 but quite later Africa wouldn't have suffered as much from triangular trade with the Iberic peninsula (aka Spain and Portugal) With the same extent, i could guess the Maya, Aztec, Amerindians and Inca civilisations potentially would still exist, but i'm not sure of what I'm saying And that's allI can think of for now
>>69507 Islam was basically a Christianized Judaism (or a Jewish-Christianity) that absorbed a lot of Zoroastrianism and Byzantine-Sassanid Universal Imperialism that made it branch off into what it became later.
in where the most advanced parts of the middle east would be more like japan japan is like the cream of the asian crop but compared to westerners they are still like primitive tribal squid people, but they are still the closest to the real western whites compared to africa and china
>>69621 There are some branches of Zoroastrian that existed alongside mainstream Zoroastrian, like Mazdakism. If I remember correctly some of the more significant revolts against islamic rule came from Mazdakis.
>>71111 >Islam promotes consanguineous marriage. Support the claim that Islam "promotes" incest. From my understanding, cousin marriages is allowed, but nowhere is it islamically promoted as you are claiming.
>People living today in Islamic countries are incredibly inbred. Any scientific studies showing most Muslims are inbred? Otherwise you are making a baseless claim.
>Moreover, sultans often had many black sex slaves, which introduced negroid genes into the gene pool. First of all, that would only affect a very small part of the Muslim population. Secondly, how is the religion of Islam related to that? Thirdly, you need to support that "niggergenes" actually have a noticeably detrimental effect (this is not /pol/. You can hold that opinion, but at least back it up). Fourthly, you need to show that children with black slaves were even common for Sultans.
>Compare the average IQ of armenians, lebanese christians and parsees to that of their muslim brethren... Provide the studies that show this please.
>>71111 >Islam promotes consanguineous marriage How. At most it doesn't get in the way of tribal cousin marriage custom, which is far older than Islam and was present in Zoroastrian Persia (with even fewer restrictions).
>>71493 >It's once again the bedouin culture of Islam. It sounds like you mean Bedouin culture of... Bedouin culture. If it was Islam, you'd get a huge showing of cousin marriage in Northern India and Indonesia, as well as Bosnia/Albania or all of the Central Asian Turkic states along with Subsaharan countries like Mali or Somalia.
>>71660 You are correct that generation after generation is bad, but it's still not in itself incest. Also I wouldn't really blame a 1'500 year old book for not knowing advanced genetics. Anyone can tell that brother to sister incest can lead to bad shit, but cousin to cousin takes documentation. Even the Habsburgs fucked that one up. >>71688 Euros did it all the time mang.
>>71624 >We're talking about the middle east, not Turkestan. Your map doesn't differentiate, which means it should be a relevant factor if the supposed dividing line is religion. Clearly it's not, but instead a matter of tribal marriage culture.
Rather than any religious prerogative, cousin marriage is a social phenomenon that aims to link branch families into subordinate relationships. The only influence Islam seems to have is family inheritance law which, in a marriage outside of a tribe, is a drain of wealth from one tribe to another.
You find similar economic pressures when studying Zoroastrian incest.
Plus if consanguinity is related to IQ, this would affect IQ disparity between Northern and Southern India. But in fact Southern India seems to rate higher despite the greater percentage of cousin marriages according to the posted map.
>>68726 >>68767 >>69118 >>69370 >>69524 Actually, many Kurds are unironically converting to Zoroastrianism, partially because it is a local, historical religion, but partially because they see how truly fucked to its core Islam is, and they want nothing to do with it anymore.
It's just like having a society where people tend to get married over forty. The "over forty" bit is fairly safe; the "whole society does it" isn't.
>>71819 I wonder when /pol/acks will realise that their board is called "politics" for a reason.
It's like they don't get that when they can't keep their effectively homogenous beliefs unchecked and simply MUST force their views on others no matter what the context, people will get annoyed. Doesn't matter what those views are.
This image was meant for you.
>>71879 Yes really.
Nobility were famous for it, but IIRC peasantry did it too 'cause you didn't move around that much.
>>71879 >My map doesn't, but I do. I meant the arabized zones, obviously. Now fuck off with your "but in northern kazhakstan the inbreeding rate is low, so clearly Islam is a religion of peace which discourages inbreeding!!"
What reason do you have to purposely ignore evidence that doesn't suit your conclusion? Why shouldn't Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation on Earth, not count when discussing the influence of Islam on consanguinity?
Again, your issue seems to be more with Bedouin culture that you want to equate with Islam, even if the evidence doesn't support that equivocation.
>>70177 Dude, I realize that the Arabs made many contributions to science, and especially to mathematics, but asserting that the progress of science would be perpetually stagnant is absolutely absurd, and makes you sound like you listened to too much propaganda.
Also, there is a reason that the Mongols didn't expand too much into Europe: It simply wasn't worth it to them, family. Don't make it sound like the Arabs made it so hard for the Mongols that by the time they were through with them, they didn't have enough strength to make it into Europe.
The Mongols pulled an absolute curbstomp on the Arabs, that they are still butthurt about to this day. The reason why they didn't conquer Europe wasn't because they couldn't, it was because it simply wasn't worth it.
To them, the lands in the Middle East were ripe for the taking, full of cities that held great riches. But the lands in Europe were very, very far away, any place that held even remotely any wealth was heavily fortified (castles, fortified cities and the like) because the Europeans had spent all this time fighting eachother, and besides those isolated spots of material wealth, all you have in between that are vast lands of forest and plains, which were really only suitable for agriculture, and the Mongols weren't really interested in that.
I'm not saying they couldn't have done it, the Mongols were a badass bunch. But the simple fact is, is that it wasn't worth it to them. Don't make it sound like the Arabs put up such a resistance that they tired the Mongols out.
Another thing, someone would've established those trade routes, with or without Mohammad. It was too lucrative not to.
>>68155 Then it would have been the Jews or the Christians.
Instead of Al-Qaeda, we'd likely get some kind of extremist Christians declaring Crusade on the infidels, or maybe a rogue Jewish organization would produce deadly biological weapons to recreate the Plagues.
>Islam is basically a religion of bedouin tribesmen. Bedouin tribesmen have limited breeding opportunities. Consanguinity is a staple of their culture. Neither this nor your link supports that Islam actually promotes cousin marriages. Now you're making a new argument of "It's the Bedouins", which isn't the same thing as "It's Islam". You were the one that said "promote", so actually back up the claim that Islam "promotes" it. Allowing something is not promotion.
>Sure. See pic What study is that pic from?
>No it wouldn't, because the children borne out of those relations were not slaves, and mixed with the general population. The negroid admixture is most visible in Saudi Arabia. Even if your claim had merit, it would mostly affect Arabs, which are only 20% of the world Muslim population. It would have no effect on Indonesians, Chinese Muslims, etc. secondly, the aledged negroid genes would have been diluted by now to a very small percentage. But anyways. There is no way those genes would spread to such a large percentage anyways. Even Genghis Khan wasn't that successful at it.
>Minnesota twin studies, etc. There's plenty of literature on the white/black IQ gap. Even if there were a IQ gap, that is a different question than is being half/quarter/etc black a noticble negative effect on success. And it goes without saying that your idea that blacks are indeed objectively "significantly" dumber is not a mainstream academic view.
>Stop being a butthurt libtard. Ad hominem is for /pol/ and people who are afraid of argumentation.
>It's common knowledge. No it isn't. Furthermore, not only is that a blog and not an academic link, that article literally only included on relevant academic source as a support for your idea.
>>72004 >Bedouin culture is inextricably linked to Islam
Except when it's not, because apparently Indonesia was Islamized but not Arabized, in your own words. If your comments really are focusing on Arabization, a cultural event, then how do you justify bringing Islam into this without the evidence to support the claim that Islamization leads to consanguinity?
I'm not arguing your point on Arabization, I'm questioning your focus on saying its Islam despite clear evidence not only to the contrary, but evidence that disputes your claim that Islam = beduoin culture.
Clearly, if non-cousin marrying non-Arabized cultures have adopted Islam in vast numbers, then the two are and have been separate for a long time.
>>72109 Bedouin culture is linked to Islam, it's very entwined. It's possibly to strip it away but not if you're a Sunni Muslim. The majority of modern Islamic traditions are in fact Bedouin Arab traditions, such as the headscarf.
>They're way more successful and educated. This is a mark of higher IQ. ...you're pulling my chain here right? If you want, I can give an essay of counter arguments as to why this line of thinking is bullshit. No one uses that type of thinking as proof, not even the academics who agree with you. There are multiple logical fallacies you are making.
>Look, I get it, you're a mudslime. You've been indoctrinated since birth that the bastardized christianity of that pedophile bedouin caravan bandit is righteous. Oh look. More ad hominem.
>Anything I say won't convince you. It could. If you actually give support for the claims you are making (like how you refuse to show how Islam (the religion, not some sort of Arab culture as you brought up with the Bedouins) "promotes" incest, in contrast to "allowing" it.) and don't resort to ad hominem when someone disagrees with your views.
>>72213 >It's possibly to strip it away but not if you're a Sunni Muslim Indonesian, Balkan, Turkic, and Sub-Saharan Muslims are all mostly Sunni. While Bedouin culture might be linked with Islam, Islam is not linked with Bedouin culture. The map proves as much.
>>71937 If inbreeding isnt mostly a thing with islam, why are 20 of the 30 countries with highest rate of birth defects Muslim? There are plenty of countries like Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that arent affected by bedouin culture that still make that list. And all the rest of the 30 have a sizeable muslim minority also.
>>72287 I don't think you get it. Sunni Islam is Bedouin Islam. After Muhammad died the Bedouins became the primary adopters and propagators of Islam and it was their traditions which stuck, not the core group of original Muslims who followed Muhammad. That would have been way better for Islam.
I know people in this thread don't want to hear it, but Muhammad was a bleeding heart progressive liberal for his time.
>>72228 What about Muhammad marrying Zainab bint Jash, who was not only the daughter of Umaimah bint Abd al-Muttalib, one of his father's sisters, but was also divorced from a marriage with Muhammad's adopted son, Zayd ibn Haritha.
I thought muslims were supposed to follow Muhammads example?
>>72339 And how does that upend the fact that the majority of non-cousin-marrying and non-Arabized Muslims are following Sunni Islam?
How can Sunni Islam be just Bedouin Islam if Indonesian Islam is Sunni Islam, yet they have so little cousin-marriage? You have to back up this claim with some data if you really want to be convincing.
>>72290 Cousin marriage has nothing to do with Islam. It's simply a cultural aspect of that part of the world, more to do with honour and family name than religion.
Don't make the mistake of seeing that it's an Islamic country and therefore assuming everything that happens there is due to Islam. That would be like saying everything in America is due to Christianity.
>>71718 >implying Islamic scholars didn't have an atomic conception of space time and all that that implies (including multiverse theory and a theory of causality that wouldn't be seen again until David Hume) in the 9th fucking century >implying the west isn't about 1000 years late to the party >Americans will somehow find a way to ignore this because it isn't compatible with the propaganda train that's been chugging along for 15 years now
What about Muhammad marrying Zainab bint Jash, who was not only the daughter of Umaimah bint Abd al-Muttalib, one of his father's sisters, but was also divorced from a marriage with Muhammad's adopted son, Zayd ibn Haritha.
I thought muslims were supposed to follow Muhammads example? How is cousin marriage not part of islam if the prophet himself did it? Isnt the point of hadith to follow his example?
>>72367 Obviously the small fact that a relative chart won't show you all that missed your genius intellect, anon. If one society stops incest for five hundred years, and another doesn't, that other society will show up as worse than the society that stopped. >>72400 Because you didn't read anything before jumping into the argument with your self-righteous shitposting. >>72443 Charts make everything factual, right?
>>72051 >Dude, I realize that the Arabs made many contributions to science, and especially to mathematics, but asserting that the progress of science would be perpetually stagnant is absolutely absurd, and makes you sound like you listened to too much propaganda.
The problem is that there was no incentive. The Roman Empire was in serious economic depression, and tended to worsen. No safe trade routes, and oppressive taxes, shortages in cities provided a massive urban exodus. I'm not talking about anything new - it happened and continued going.
The Persians, in turn, were too enfeebled, and the social crisis increasingly aggravated. It was they who received the academic escaped religious persecution in the Roman Empire. If this bastion to fall, who would propel the scientific development?
The great merit of the Arabs were not scientific contributions. This was a consequence. The great merit was to reactivate the trade routes increasingly dwindling. Reduce taxes and restore the sanctity of property. It was left to the conquered to build a vast scientific legacy, with no other purpose than to improve the production, efficiency and profits.
>>72582 >Cousin marriage has been allowed throughout the Middle East for all recorded history. Anthropologists have debated the significance of the practice; some view it as the defining feature of the Middle Eastern kinship system while others note that overall rates of cousin marriage have varied sharply between different Middle Eastern communities It's not Islamic, it's cultural, from before Islam.
>>72581 >No, feelings and emotions do, right? What actual reason would I have to argue that European peasants fucked each other? >>72582 This is what I mean. I'm not even arguing what you think I'm arguing.
But you've just gotta defend your views against that Big Mean Librul Mudslime, right?
>>72611 Trust me dude, most Muslims don't even know Muhammad married his cousin, that isn't why they're doing it. They do it to stop the family unit spreading out. They'd fuck their sisters if they could, their honour culture is that strong. I'm surprised they're not pioneering cloning.
>>72051 >The Mongols pulled an absolute curbstomp on the Arabs, that they are still butthurt about to this day. The reason why they didn't conquer Europe wasn't because they couldn't, it was because it simply wasn't worth it.
First, imagine if instead of the Mamluks and Seljuk, the Mongols had faced the Romans in the Levant and Anatolia?
You underestimate the influence of Islam in the Mongol Empire. It was not mere lack of interest, or they would have stopped even before Russia. Many of the troops were simply converting on the way. The implosion of the Empire, apart from Ming Revolution also had support in dissent, who adopted the faith of the conquered. The Golden Horde turned against Ilkhanate, under the leadership of Berke Khan, a convert to Islam, a member of Genghis offspring.
The Mongol Empire was exhausted when the domination project was exhausted. A foreign faith was enough to shred the mandate of the Great Khan into pieces.
>Another thing, someone would've established those trade routes, with or without Mohammad. It was too lucrative not to.
The profit question seems self-evident now, but it was not so at that time. Very high taxes, lack of legal certainty, inflation, economic intervention on a large scale, poor protection of private property, and lack of secure trade routes.
What profit? I do not see any. Having your cargo plundered in the first week? Receiving a fine from the imperial treasury? Having your cargo of silk confiscated and yourself executed? Where's the profit?
>>72550 >That's what I've been doing for the past 10 posts you fucking retard. Except you didn't say Arabization, you said Islam, then failed to convince everyone that Arabization = Sunni Islam because the hard data just doesn't support that.
I actually think you're somewhat right when it comes to tribal marriage culture, but I'm calling you out on leaps of logic that just don't have the same level of data to back it up - specifically whether or not arabization increases cousin-marrriage or if it simply became adopted in places where cousin-marriage was already a major cultural factor, and whether Sunni Islam is the same as Bedouin culture when, clearly, it is not.
You wouldn't have to shout so much if you spent more time distinguishing between arguments you can back and arguments that you can't.
>>72225 >cousin marriage was promoted in the ARABIZED regions of the middle east. You said "Islam promotes consanguineous marriage. People living today in Islamic countries are incredibly inbred." Are you now backing away from this statement and saying instead that Bedouin culture, not Islam, promotes incest? If not, what Islamic authoritative texts include an active "promotion" of incest rather than an allowance?
>Oh hey, maybe that's why I said I was talking about the MIDDLE EAST, NOT FUCKING CHINA!!! as per your above quote, you said "the Islamic world", not "the Middle East". Don't shift goalposts.
>No, they lingered quite a bit. Look at modern-day Zanzibaris, and think that they started out looking like Yemenites a few centuries ago. But for them, that would be because having children with Africans would be common, since they are literally in Africa, so maintaining a high level of "African genes" is no problem. Not so up in Sultanland and the rest of Western Asia. This is not a good comparison you are making.
>It is actually a mainstream academic view within the psychometrics community. I literally just made a cursory check and found otherwise. I see that they do worse on IQ tests usually, but not to a degree that they become imcompenant in relativity. Even these results are mixed and the articles I read in the conclusion often argue that one needs a nuanced approach to the results suggested by the study at hand.
> It's common knowledge for people who aren't braindead retards. My bad. Gonna stop with the ad hominem buddy? Doesn't do your arguments any good.
>>72681 Wikiislam is not a valid source on Islam. It's a bias hate site. If you have any respect for objectivity please do not use it.
But no, it's not part of Islam to marry your cousins, it's a cultural tradition from before Islam. Again almost all Muslims don't even know he married his cousin so how can they be copying him. Everything Muslims do is not part of Islam. I don't know why you can't understand this.
>>72693 It isn't just Bedouin. It was practiced by the Persians and everyone else in the middle east, literally everyone there did it, before Islam. You are really, really grasping at straws.
>>72755 Well for starters you implied cousin marriage is not inbreeding, you claimed islam doesnt promote cousin marriage which it obviously does as the prophet did it, you claimed muslims arent the most inbred. I proved you wrong on all accounts but somehow you still think theres an argument going on
>>72772 >muslims dont know about the prophet muhammed
How do you know if they know it or not? I'm sure a lot of for example pakistani men ask their imam if marrying your cousin is ok, he checks the quran that indeed muhammad did it himself, and gives his blessing.
I have already proven that in Islam one should look at the prophet Muhammad as an example, that Muhammad did marry his cousin, so how is it not part of islam?
I mean eating pork was banned before islam too but that doesnt mean abstaining from pork isnt part of islam either.
>>72812 >Well for starters you implied cousin marriage is not inbreeding Incest, and that's because it isn't. >you claimed islam doesnt promote cousin marriage No, I didn't. I claimed it didn't promote incest, because I claimed cousin marriage wasn't incest. >you claimed muslims arent the most inbred. No, I didn't. Feel free to quote me on that, by the way.
Maybe you understand now why I'm saying you're an insecure faggot who can't even be bothered to read what he's arguing against.
>>72888 >Incest is sexual activity between family members or close relatives. This typically includes sexual activity between people in a consanguineous relationship (blood relations), and sometimes those related by affinity, such as individuals of the same household, step relatives, those related by adoption or marriage, or members of the same clan or lineage.
How are cousin relations not incest? Youre literally trying to grasp at straws with your semantics, but even failing at that as cousin marriage is indeed incest.
>>72803 That's not Wikipedia... >>72800 Armenia isn't the middle east. What evidence do you have that Lebanese Christians don't? You just pulled that out your ass.
>The Ancient Egyptians >The Persian king Ardesher advised his lawyers, secretaries, officers, and husbandmen to "marry near relatives for the sympathy of kinship is kept alive thereby." >The same motivation is given in ancient Arabic sources referring to the practice of marriage between paternal cousins prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia. >The highest frequencies of cousin marriages were found among Jews from Iraq (28.7%) and Iran (26.3%). >According to anthropologist Ladislav Holý, cousin marriage is not an independent phenomenon but rather one expression of a wider Middle Eastern preference for agnatic solidarity, or solidarity with one's father's lineage. According to Holý the oft-quoted reason for cousin marriage of keeping property in the family is, in the Middle Eastern case, just one specific manifestation of keeping intact a family's whole "symbolic capital."
>>72753 >Now that's a lie Your quote is right here >>71111. You used the phrase "Islam" and "Islamic world", not "Arabs and Arabized peoples" and "the Middle East". How am I lying if it is literally right there for all the world to see? I claimed you said "Islamic world", and in fact you did. If you are changing to the Middle East, ok. But don't act like you didn't say Islamic world.
>>72886 >How do you know if they know it or not? I'm sure a lot of for example pakistani men ask their imam if marrying your cousin is ok, he checks the quran that indeed muhammad did it himself, and gives his blessing. I have lived amongst Muslims. They are very ignorant of their religion. They would not ask their Imam if it's okay because everybody knows it's okay. The Qur'an says anothing about Muhammad marrying his cousin.
>I have already proven that in Islam one should look at the prophet Muhammad as an example, that Muhammad did marry his cousin, so how is it not part of islam? Muhammad as an example doesn't mean do literally every single thing Muhammad did. He had 11? wives, but they're going all going around trying to marry 11 women. All it would mean is that it's okay, it doesn't encourage it.
>I mean eating pork was banned before islam too but that doesnt mean abstaining from pork isnt part of islam either. Arabs ate pork before Islam.
>>72964 Cousin marriage has the same defect rate as having a child with a 40 year old woman. This is actually proven, and the reason it isn't illegal in most places, or else you'd have to ban 40 year old women from having kids.
>In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0% over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40. In terms of mortality, a 1994 study found a mean excess pre-reproductive mortality rate of 4.4%, while another study published in 2009 suggests the rate may be closer to 3.5%. Put differently, first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30. Critics argue that banning first-cousin marriages would make as much sense as trying to ban childbearing by older women.
>>73097 Yes. That is the first definition. It's also utterly useless for the purposes of this conversation, as it relies on subjective decisions, and anyway- it favours me you immense faggot. Most nations don't recognise cousin marriage as incest, especially not any that might promote it you fucking retard.
>>72962 >>72979 The national IQ of Armenia is about 10 points higher than the Gulf States, which are about middle of the road when it comes to IQ world ranking. Cousin-marriage doesn't seem to affect things as Indonesia is about 3 or 4 points higher than Saudi Arabia. It affects birth defects, but 40 more births out of a 1000 with health issues wouldn't affect a national average drastically.
The real problem with cousin-marriage is the tribalization of society, which destabilizes attempts at running a democratic nation-state leading to conflict between a state dominated by one ethnicity and the rest of the people organized not by citizenship to a regional state but by tribes that function as their own independent governments rather than as part of the country.
>>73082 Nobody is talking about banning either though. Cousin marriages are legal in most of the western world yet not as prevalent as in muslim countries since they are not part of the culture. Neither is having kids with women over forty, thats why western world has such low amounts of birth defects.
I'm definitely not advocating either, so your point is moot.
>>73174 How the fuck did this turn into a semantic debate? Incest, inbreeding, fucking what ever, Muhammad still married his cousin, thats inbreeding, islam encourages inbreeding and thats why muslims are the most inbred people in the world.
>>73295 >You were the first to use the word incest. No. >>71493 It was fucking deleted, you retard. >>Support the claim that Islam "promotes" incest. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Islam
>>70922 The history of nestorianism in Iran is way older than muslim presence. There's no reason no say it wouldn't have continued it's expansion if the Sassanian dynasty kept the control, specially since the sassanian king presented himself as the protector of the nestorian church.
>>71084 It will be more correct that the Khurramites were spiritual successors of the mazdakites, among others, as they also owed a lot to shia islam. Also it wasn't a revolt against islamic rule, it was against the Abbasid Caliphate.
>>68155 It is really impossible to tell, but I can give my two cents. I believe that the Arabian area would actually be pretty successful. In terms of location, it is situation perfectly for sea travel between Europeans and East Asia/Mid-Asia. Due to its influx of money from said trade, I have a feeling that it would have gone along a route similar to Europe post-feudalism, building a strong base of property rights (Which had existed pre-islam, banning the attack of merchant caravans on certain if no most days, ect and so forth). With this influx of Wealth, Arabia would have likely expanded unto its neighbors, and had a small area of colonialism similar to Europeans. However, they would also be a more splintered nation due to all the small religions in the area, and would have to contend with the Sassanids and Byzantines, the result of those wars I cannot give an estimate on.A strong trend of Christianity would survive in the middle east today, which would result in events I cannot ever hope to get into thoroughly enough.
Thread replies: 175 Thread images: 13
Thread DB ID: 69436
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.