first read Plato's Republic

The venture of islam by Hodgson

>>7432392
this

start with the greeks

White peoples burned them all

>>7432341
>Islam
Hi pol.
Just be warned, if this b8 turns out how you want it to be, we will be seeing you in 3 days(if you aren't the fag who got banned before, then it might be a week).

>>7433077
...what?

>>7432341
For a good insight into Mazdaki heresy, read Nizam'ül'mülk's Siyasatnama

www.iranicaonline.org
muslimphilosophy.com
Brill Encyclopaedia of Islam
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Jonathan AC Brown, Lings, Madelung, Daftary, Robert Gleave, Calder, Hallaq

>>7433109
/pol/ pretends to be an SJW caricature to entice other /pol/tards to attack that post and ruin a thread. Just ignore it and following responses.

Try Catcher in the Rye if you want to get some perspective on incest in Sassanian culture.
Alternatively, this
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/marriage-next-of-kin

>>7433888
Reminds me
كانت المجوس تأتي الأمهات وتنكح البنات والأخوات
from Wasa'il
And “The xvaetvadatha is attested in the younger Avesta, but not in the Gathas. Unfortunately, the examples of the term occurring in the Avestan scriptures do not convey any clue to the meaning of the word. From a passage in the Vendidad, however, it may be inferred that the term denotes some kind of act performed by a man and a woman. Corpse bearers, it is stated, may purify themselves with the urine of cattle or with the mingled urine of a man and a woman who have performed xvaetvadatha. The Pahlavi texts, on the other hand, are wholly unequivocal about the connotations of the term. Xvetodah is quite obviously used about a union between father and daughter, or brother and sister, or mother and son. This has been vigorously repudiated by Parsee scholars who claim that this type of union was never practised among Zoroastrians. The practice of consanguineous marriage was abandoned at some stage between the time of the Pahlavi Rivayats and the Persian Rivayats when xvetodah has come to signify marriage between cousins. At some stage the Parsees have evidently adopted the incest taboos of the surrounding societies viz. the contentious assertion of the above-mentioned scholars. There can be no doubt, however, that this type of union did exist, but there is some uncertainty as to the origin, the where, and the when of the custom, nor do we know how widespread it was.” from Bodil Hjerrild, Studies in Zoroastrian Family Law: A Comparative Analysis, Copenhagen, 2003.