Recently a Qur'an was found that is dated to between between 568 and 645 CE. The Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) was engaged in his active ministry in 610-632 CE. The wording of this Qur'an is identical to the wording today.
In case anyone is missing the significance of that, here is a comparison. The first time we have any two-page manuscript fragment of the New Testament is from around the year 200 CE. That’s 170 years after Jesus’ death in 30 CE.
Meanwhile the New Testament has approximately half a million different variations in text between different copies!!!
This finding proves the text of the Qur’an is exactly the same in 630-40 CE as it is in 1630-40 as it is in 2016, the scribes of the Qur’an simply didn’t change it. They made sure they copied it the same, every time, word for word.
If Muslim scholars over the centuries – from the very beginning – made dead sure that when they copied their sacred text they didn’t change anything, why didn’t Christian scribes do the same thing??? My answer is that the Muslim scribes had the guidance of Allah.
Clearly this proves once and for all the Qur'an is the word of Allah and Islam is the one true faith.
Truly God is Greatest.
Because the Bible was written by a bunch of semi-random folks many decades after Jesus lived.
The Qu'ran is also, dogmatically, the literal word of God, to be copied verbatim. Few other religions make this demand of their holy texts.
Before the first Council of Nicaea, Christianity wasn't so much a single religion as a spectrum, like Hinduism. You had all sorts of whacky cults believing in everything from "Only Jews get into heaven as Gentiles are creations of satan", a belief held by the author of Revelations, to "Eat semen, for it is the blood and body of Christ", held by the followers of the Gospel of Eve.
The Council just arbitrarily decided upon which texts were "right" based upon which would empower Constantine the most.
>Eat semen, for it is the blood and body of Christ
Explain yourselves Chrstians.
The biblical canon was not put together at Nicea. Early church leaders debated on which ones to use and the main books were already accepted by most Christian authorities long before Constantine
>Recently a Qur'an was found
No. It's literally only two pages, 27 verses of text all up (that's verses, not surrahs).
>dated to between between 568 and 645 CE
The parchment itself is but the text written on it isn't (i.e. the text could have been written on top of an old parchment that had been cleaned of text) and textual experts are unanimous that the text is from a later date.
>The wording of this Qur'an is identical to the wording today.
It's very similar but not identical.
>Early church leaders debated on which ones to use and the main books were already accepted by most Christian authorities long before Constantine
Well, versions of the main books anyway, not the same versions you have today, hee hee.
Because Christian scholars had to translate the bible from Hebrew, to Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to English over the course of 1000 years of language evolution whereas Muslims just had to copy the exact same shit they were already speaking you fucking sperg.
Childish, Abrahamic, manichean, desert gods. Moses, Jesus, Mohammad--all life-denying slave morality peddlers. They all deserve each other. Enjoy Eurabia.
Each book of the Bible was, at one point, literally that. A separate book. Revelations, John, Timothy, etc, were all separate texts. A single Christ Cult might only have, say, three texts, and there was no guarantee that they'd be shared by other Christ Cults.
The figures I was quoting are just for the collected NT manuscripts in original Greek. Not for the Bible as a whole and not from comparing English translations.
It's no good just making things up in response, anon.
Also I like how you ended with English as though the 'proper' modern Bible is in English. That's pretty funny.
I ended with English because its the language we're speaking right now retard, I could have gone just as easily with Spanish, French, German, Italian, Russian. Unfortunately I don't know any of those languages and must rely on the translation of ancient professionals far more intelligent than I. You however do not seem to comprehend that there are differences between languages and I must conclude that you are equally as limited in your linguistic capabilities as I am. Consequently, this places you in the category of "shitposter" not "Muslim."
I never made any such claim that they weren't, but if they were in Greek than they must have been translated from Aramaic because that's what Jews spoke naturally and would have had to convert it to Greek when they passed it on to other members of the Hellenized world, and that alone already poses a threat to absolute textual cohesion.
If they claim religion is not a tool for political elite to control masses, then why are/have most major religions actively trying to convert rest of the globe. If they say love thy neighbour like thyself or it is a religion of peace, why this conversion can be done violently if necessary?
WAKE UP SHEEPLES, SPACE CULTURE IS HERE.
They were written in Greek, anon. You really don't know much about your own Holy Book.
Prophet Jesus' (peace be upon him) original followers would almost certainly not have been able to read and write.
The authors of the New Testament Gospels would have been relying on some sort of oral story telling and yes I guess the original stories would have been originally spoken in Aramaic and passed from person to person to person until eventually after a few decades they were written down by Greek speakers.
However what we are talking about is even after they were written down they were copied sloppily (and possibly even changed deliberately for ideological reasons) leading to numerous versions.
Peace be upon you. I suggest you educate yourself on this issue, friend as I have made nothing up.
>Only Jews get into heaven as Gentiles are creations of satan", a belief held by the author of Revelations,
H abelieved that those who we call Christians are the Jews, regardless of national / ethnic origin. Christians are the chosen of YHWH, we are the spiritual children of Israel. Those who call themselves Jews are not, they are the Synagogue of Satan.
>gospel of eve
It's some made up shit by perverts.
>Be bloodthirsty Schizophrenic pedophile psychopath warlord under influence of Reptilians and other demonic interdimensional beings
>claims to receive word of 'God' and founded 'religion of peace,' yet is a religion of bloodshed and murder about bringing humans under the control of reptilians
>worshipping a Satanic conscious rock/meteorite
That's probably because Jews and Early Christians didn't have a meme of God "giving" books containing his words to people. This meme seems to be repeated over and over in Quranic verses. So naturally early Muslims thought that they were receiving their own book of literal words of God that should be written down accurately. Early Muslims were also much more organized, wealthy and powerful than Early Christians.
Bible was printed and the reason printing was outlawed in muslim nations was exactly because of numerous - intended or not - errors in print in the Bible. Similar thing happened to translations.
Papal state started issuing their own, very well checked Bibles after 1532 I think.
What you are saying is that protestardism which used printed bibles and translations of them, mostly based on King James Bible - with over 400 confirmed errors - on a large scale is dumb, especially since they don't supplement bible with tradition.
Also several verses are removed from most modern(newer than circa 800) Quran copies. Particularly the ones allowing for Arabia's indigenous religions to exist.
Mohammad didn't even know what he was talking about. He was repeating what he was instructed by his uncle and foreign slaves. Many verses in qoran are obscure in meaning due to faulty translation or foreign words. When asked about these verses, Mohammed stood in silence, hadith says.
Another example of Mohammad's ignorance of qoranic verses.
>During a sermon delivered in 2009, quoting the Quran, Hasan said to an audience: "The kuffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Koran; they are described in the Koran as “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Koran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world."
He is a lying manipulator like all muslims.
You piece of fucking shit shouldn't speak English or use western media, Go back to your mudhut shithole and stop proselytizing your fake, violent backwards bullshit cult. GET OUT AND STAY OUT OF THE WEST
Early Christians did not rely on scripture as much as tradition. The whole Muslim argument against Christianity and Judaism on the basis of corruption of scripture is totally farcical and in many cases inaccurate from a scholarly perspective
>There's nothing wrong with that. Look at the banter between Christians and atheists.
>Mehdi Hasan said nothing wrong.
And Muhammad is a pedophile who fucked a 9 year old and muslims are singlehandedly the most backward people in the world and will forever be the stain upon advancement and enlightenment.
The hadith cannot be considered historical. It is bitingly obvious that many of them were invented to explain Quranic verses.
Muhammad is an historical figure however critical scholarship has dismantled the account of his life taken from the hadith.
The Quran accuses Christians in the area of worshipping Mary as part of the Trinity. While there were indeed early Christians who worshipped Mary they were not in Arabia when the Quran is said to have been revealed
The Quranic subtext is distinctly Biblical and is an obvious amalgam of Biblical apocrypha that abounded in the region at the time.
Adam and Eve didn't exist.
Now, get out.
>actually believing that the world was created by a magical sky fairy because some sandy hermit thousands of years ago wrote it in a book.
I hope this thread is ironic
This post has the distinctly passive-aggressive arrogant muslim tone that I've encountered so often. Same with Jews.
Say whatever you want about Theology, but this is just insufferable.
Who cares if the New Testament was modified if no one in the general populace could even competently read it for at least 1400 years?
Meanwhile there are verses in the Qu'ran that make absolutely no sense, not even from a semantical standpoint and still Muslims will claim there is no Bid'ah. It's nonsense. Religion has always relied on training and tradition to work, not on scripture. No one would even care about the scripture if he wasn't told to.
Everything in the Qur'an is 100% accurate, how could it not be? The information is directly from Allah. This thread has proven that.
Studying the Hadith is a complex area of study with not all of the Hadith being accurate. No one claims they are as reliable as the Noble Qur'an.
>A man may literally marry a girl that isn't in Puberty
>Not one, but FOUR of them
>This thread has proven that.
The Hadith is a theological faux-debate field that only exists so Muslims can talk about Theology at all. They'll never be relevant because the Qu'ran always takes precedence. It's intellectual dishonesty. "Use your reason" is what Muslims often say. To do what? You only need to read the Qu'ran.
>I will pray for your salvation.
Salvation cannot be prayed for because its a control used by religious elite to get you paying before praying. Zakat as your owners(ulama) call it. Have fun deluding yourself for the prosperity of those who manipulated you. True faith and honest belief doesn't require dogma only a rational mind and will to commit good DESPITE there being some reward or imaginary after life.
>whereupon he spoke to one of them: 'Read it out to me,' and this one red it out to him. Whereupon the Prophet said: 'Correct!'
did muhammad have aspergers?
How can the information be from allah if he doesn't exist?
>Isn't it a physical representation of faith and therefore an idol.
No. It's the centre of the world in imagined Islamic geography, so it's a marker for the direction of prayer. Pilgrims circle around it to represent the oneness of God ([spoiler]a circle has no end and no beginning[/spoiler])
Why is there a center of the world? Are you saying God exists in a specific location in this world? Either that or praying towards Mecca is simple convention and nothing else.That's both blasphemy.
They literally pray in its direction. Why? Even Muhammad is buried in Medina, not Mecca. Mecca serves no purpose. It's convention and tradition, like most things in Islam, but they won't admit it.
Allah sent down a meteorite to show where it should be built.
You must bow down in humility to GOD Almighty. That's a must and a given. So, you must physically bow down somewhere, and naturally to some direction! If you were to do it right now, you would be bowing towards a random direction. Your physical presence on earth forces this upon you as a prostrating Believer to GOD Almighty, whether you like it or not. The bowing down to GOD Almighty in the direction of the Kaaba, or the city of Mecca in general, is a way to unify all Muslims to bow down to God Almighty, as one body and one unity, towards one direction.
>Why is there a center of the world?
I *think* Islamic tradition holds that it's where Adam was created and built the first church/mosque/whatever
>Are you saying God exists in a specific location in this world?
no, this isn't temple judaism. and I'm an agnostic you clown.
>Either that or praying towards Mecca is simple convention and nothing else.That's both blasphemy.
nice false dichotomy. I don't know why you think you are an authority on what constitutes blasphemy in Islam considering you're freely admitting you are clueless about any of its theology
You're right, I've literally no idea wether it's blasphemy or not, I don't really care. I just want an honest response that's not "I pray for your salvation bla bla" from the Muslim guy.
>simply didn’t change it.
Duh, they have a bunch of other books that provide interpretations et cetera.
The Qur'an is like the Old Testament to the rest of their Books.
Anyway, the Americans are the god of the Arabs, rather goddess.
pic related is what empowers Muslims.
They're complete sell outs.
I would also like to fuck a pre-pubescent girl until she sustains damage to her sexual organs strong enough to cripple her physically and emotionally for the rest of her life.
Where can I convert?
That is not true at all, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Qur'an is the unaltered word of God as give to Muhammad (peace be upon him) and by far the most important text to any Muslim.
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ata narrated this hadith from ‘Abdullah ibn Buraydah and he said in it,
“And that you see deaf, dumb, blind, barefoot shepherds of sheep competing with each other in building as if the kings of people.”
He said, “So the man [Jibril] stood up and left, and we asked,
‘Messenger of Allah, who are these you describe?”
He answered, “They are the Arabs.”
What have I dodged?
I have given clear answers as best I can.
Although quite honestly the thread was supposed to be about the topic in hand rather than some sort of Ask a Muslim Anything thread.
You can still find copies of the New Testament in the original Greek, and copies of the Old Testament in Hebrew.
And you can find copies of the Koran translated into English.
What's your point?
The parchment on which the (parts of the) Qur'an was written was dated to between 569 and 645
All that means is that the animal lived and died within that time. The words could have been written a generation or two later.
It's still a good discovery, I just wish people would understand what the carbon dating actually means.
Not really, it comes from carbon dating, which provides a date range using scientific testing, clearly combining it with the historical evidence it shows it was written in Mohammad's lifetime or very shortly after it.
Even if the Qu'ran has never changed, which is possible, People's associations and understanding of language changes. It's impossible to conserve the same meaning of just a single word over 1500 years, which means the Qu'ran is changing wether Muslims like it or not, they must just adapt to it.
There appears to be some miscommunication because I have no idea what your point is?
Did you read the whole of the post?
Taking a bit of a stab at what you might be asking, since you metioned English translations, the massive textual variance I am referring to in the New Testament refers to the early Greek manuscripts that we have, not to English translations.
Again, all the carbon dating tells us is a time range within which the ANIMAL may have most likely lived in died. If the animal was born in 610 and died in 630 and then the portions of the Qur'an were written on it in 650, that would fit well with the carbon dating we have.
If we wanted to date the ink, that would require taking samples that could damage the manuscript itself. With animal skin, you only need a small piece, but you'd have to scratch off larger portions of the writing to be able to accurately find a range for the ink. And even then, it would only tell us when the ink was likely produced, not when the portions of the Qur'an with the ink were written. So the ink may have been produced in 630-640 let's say, but the person who bought or made the ink may not have used it until 650-660.
This Qur'an fragment is extremely significant to Islamic studies, but I think some people are getting carried away in assuming it must have been written while Muhammad was alive.
Utham destroyed a huge proportion of Quran manuscripts
your entire religion relies on Uthman and what he did with the manuscripts
christianity has a huge textual tradition, it is a benefit to christianity that we have so many manuscripts, where 99.999% of discrepancies can be spotted thanks to the huge number of manuscripts
Peace be upon you.
Yes a very good and thoughtful post my friend and thank you for contributing an interesting and informative post to the thread rather than attacking me or Islam.
Yes I concede entirely what you are saying and I do understand (the implications of if not the science of) how carbon dating works.
It does seem unlikely to me that parchment would have been created and left a long time until written on but I agree, indeed, that the writing could be a bit later.
You still don't seem to have completely understood my original post and for that I apologise for miscommunicating and not speaking clearly.
The very earliest New Testament document anywhere near as good as this is carbon dated to approx 170 years after Jesus' (peace be upon him) death.
So clearly you have nowhere near as good a textual tradition as Islam, your historic evidence is far, far worse. The manucript I am talking about is dated to within or close to Muhammad's (peace be upon him) lifetime.
And no you are wrong the huge number of textual variances in the early NT manuscripts are enormous and you can't easily solve any of them, never mind, apologies for the crudity, pulling a 99.999% figure out of your bottom.
>your entire religion relies on Uthman and what he did with the manuscripts
It is generally acknowledged by Sunnis (who revere Uthman) and Shi'a (who hate Uthman, especially for his destroying Qur'anic manuscripts) as well as Ibadis (who also dislike Uthman) that the standard edition of the Qur'an based on the Uthmanic codex is legitimate and that nothing was taken out or added in. The dispute was mainly on the ordering of chapters. Ali's Qur'an was the same as Uthman's in content but was arranged chronologically and included his tafsir. This was rejected by Uthman by for all sorts of reasons that still form a point of controversy between the different branches of Islam.
>christianity has a huge textual tradition, it is a benefit to christianity that we have so many manuscripts, where 99.999% of discrepancies can be spotted thanks to the huge number of manuscripts
If all you care about is the GENERAL meaning of the words, maybe. But the fact that from what we can tell, the Arabs seemed more dedicated to preserving the literal text and not simply the meaning as opposed to the many Christian monks writing in scriptorums churning out Bibles in droves who seem to have had less concern for preserving the literal text as much as the general meaning makes Christian claims that the Bible is inerrant problematic. There's also the fact that some well known Bible stories don't appear in all the manuscripts and some of these stories have been extremely important for Christian ethics, which presents problems as to whether these stories are factually correct. For example, the story of Jesus and the sinful woman where he tells the Jews "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts we have.
One benefit the Arabs and Muslims had over Christians was that the text of the Qur'an was standardized fairly quickly by people who knew Muhammad well (controversies of the caliphate succession aside). This meant that debate centered almost exclusively on what the proper interpretative methods to understanding the Qur'an's meaning were with each sect having its own understanding based on their respective views of authority and proper methodology. In contrast, early Christianity took several centuries just to come to an agreement on which books were canon, let alone how to interpret them, as well as which versions of the canon books are most authoritative which still continues to this days.
>People's associations and understanding of language changes. It's impossible to conserve the same meaning of just a single word over 1500 years, which means the Qu'ran is changing wether Muslims like it or not, they must just adapt to it.
This is why I think Shi'ite claims to authority are stronger. For Sunnis, it's consensus among the ulama that determines the meaning of the Qur'an. For Shi'a, specific individuals are invested by God with the exclusive right to interpret the Qur'an and the obligation of the Muslims is to obey them. The former Sunni position carries with it two risks: the first risk is that the virtually anything can be justified at anytime by appeal to consensus of the majority of ulama, whether its right or wrong according to reason or intellect, and there's also the question of which ulama are the rightful authorities whose opinions may be counted as part of that consensus (in the past, the rightful ulama were usually those most closely tied to state authority). The second risk is that in order to prevent such chaos as I have mentioned, consensus may become strict dogma that even if the consensus changes, it is difficult to challenge because the old consensus is defended in the name of preserving tradition and consistency and slight deviation becomes suspect of heresy. This was the main reason Wahhabism and other Islamic reform movements gained converts in the modern period since the traditional Sunni ulama did not mount a good response to modernity coming from the West because they were so committed to keeping everything as it was, even when it was making the Islamic world "weak" in the face of a more powerful and modern Western Europe.
The Shi'a on the other hand developed a more monarchical understanding of religious authority that comparable though not identical to the Roman papacy and the clergy, like the Roman Catholic clergy, were a more independent institution from both the state and the common laity
>And no you are wrong the huge number of textual variances in the early NT manuscripts are enormous
99.9% of which don't change the meaning of the text, like spellings and punctuation
you have no textual tradition because Uthman destroyed it
the arabs didn't preserve, they were destroyed. and it was under the stewardship of Uthman, one man... the fact there's huge numbers of manuscripts of the NT, from a large number of areas, is a benefit, not a curse. it means we can deduce what was originally written... all muslims can do is know what Uthman wanted the Quran to be. if he was a fraud, then the entire religion is meaningless
the sinful woman story, we know was added, precisely because of the huge number of manuscripts... if there is a "sinful woman" equivalent in the Quran that Uthman added, we would never know
>you have no textual tradition because Uthman destroyed it
Even before examing this claim you should be aware that Uthman knew Muhammad personally and is the person Muhammad (peace be upon him) dictated the Qur'an to and the alleged incident that took place happened within a couple of decades of Muhammad's (peace be upon him) lifetime.
The manuscript we are discussing is dated within Muhammad's (peace be upon him) lifetime.
The Gospels were written by people Jesus (peace be upon him) never met. Decades after his death in a language he and his followers didn't speak. The earliest fragment is dated approx a century after his lifetime and is the size of a credit card and has a sentence or two on it.
There are dozens of apocryphal texts that never made it into the New Testament, a process of deciding what went in which was not completed for a good couple of centuries or more, whereas it is universally acknowledged.
An no I think you are now just pulling, to be crude 99.9% out of your bottom on no basis. There are huge and controversial discrepancies in the early manuscripts of the canonical New Testament texts.
>the arabs didn't preserve, they were destroyed. and it was under the stewardship of Uthman, one man... the fact there's huge numbers of manuscripts of the NT, from a large number of areas, is a benefit, not a curse. it means we can deduce what was originally written... all muslims can do is know what Uthman wanted the Quran to be. if he was a fraud, then the entire religion is meaningless
Your basic assumption is completely false though. Uthman did NOT destroy all the original manuscripts. Ali's Qur'an we know was not destroyed since he passed it down to his sons and grandsons and several other companions in both Sunni and Shi'a histories have been mentioned as having memorized the total Qur'an as well as written it. Uthman destroyed many manuscripts in order to standardize his version, but we know that he didn't destroy them all, nor did he suddenly remove the memories of all those who had memorized it from even before it was written down. We can check the authority of the Uthmanic codex.
>the sinful woman story, we know was added, precisely because of the huge number of manuscripts
And that is a huge problem, especially when the story of casting stones at the woman has formed a major part of the Christian tradition of forgiveness and mercy. If that story isn't true, then does that mean one can cast the first stone? If it is true, but isn't in the earliest Biblical manuscripts, what is the criteria by which we determine the story is true in this case if not it's appearance in the earliest manuscripts?
With the Muslim manuscript tradition, we have manuscripts which can be checked against traditions. We can more easily determine if Uthman's codex was close to Muhammad's version and how close than we can check the authority of any single full manuscript of the Bible. We know what the Church Fathers were writing in the 2nd century on theological matters better than we know what the Bibles they read during that same period looked like.
I know that matam (self-flagellation) is banned in Iran.
>Suffering and cutting the body with knives or chains (matam) was banned by the Shi'a Marja' Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon but still is practiced in Bangladesh and India.
Admiration for Ali, Hasan, and Hussein's revolution are certainly the original Shi'ite but certain "Shi'ites" take to too far, to pagan levels by "devoting themselves" and asking for their forgiveness.
>gospels writen by people Jesus never met
>the disciple whom Jesus loved
>An no I think you are now just pulling, to be crude 99.9% out of your bottom on no basis.
you're the one with the claims of all these discrepancies.. name them, if you're saying i'm wrong
>And that is a huge problem, especially when the story of casting stones at the woman has formed a major part of the Christian tradition of forgiveness and mercy. If that story isn't true, then does that mean one can cast the first stone? If it is true, but isn't in the earliest Biblical manuscripts, what is the criteria by which we determine the story is true in this case if not it's appearance in the earliest manuscripts?
the story isn't true. this is accepted by everyone except King James Onlyists, who have the same problem muslims do, with their text that is based on a tiny number of manuscripts, and as such can't be considered reliable.
but this is the point. you know that the sinful woman was added, thanks to the vast manuscripts we have of the NT.
Muslim stumped again. These people actually met Jesus, and saw him. How is it similar to an evangelical protestant writing his own fiction? Are you suggesting that evangelical protestants also know Jesus closely?
Mark, the earliest written gospel.
Didn't even have the resurrection in it
>These people actually met Jesus, and saw him
No they didn't.
There is not a single biblical historian who supports the idea that the gospels were literally written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
These are anonymous accounts written in the third person, decades after Jesus' life.
This is just pure desperation. Bart Ehrman has a Christian wife and is the top scholar on this issue on the planet and says no Christian should lose their faith based on his writings.
>not half a million then
Before you squeak "wikipedia" there are three scholars cited with the highest number 750,000
You Christians and your mental gymnastics have completely discredited monotheism in the west.
>Muh Church did nuffin wrong, Jesus gave the (4 "legitimate" ones, forget about the countless others) gospel writers time machines & possessed them so that they could write exactly what the Church wanted
>Saul of Tarsus dindo NUFFIN
This only proves op's point. Islam had in the medieval period spread from Saharan Africa to Southeast Asia across hundreds of unique languages and cultures and all recognized the original ancient Arabic and derivitive languages as the true word of God. Christians are divisive, petty and feudal, they could never have achieved such unification as in the Umma. God is Great!
an apostate cannot be unbiased on this issue. he spent many years of his life believing... it is natural for someone who loses their faith, to get everyone else to lose their faith, regardless of facts or evidence
again, the number of discrepancies is irrelevant if you don't have any facts to back up what those discrepancies are.
Erhman claims contradictions that aren't contradictions
you have to ask yourself he is really an honest scholar, or someone trying to dig for errors that aren't there, to make himself feel better for spending many years in the faith
Literal Arab imperialism ideology shouldn't be alowed to gain hold in Europe, don't you think so? Why would any White man want to adopt the religion started by the mendacious faker pedophile named Muhammad? Why would anyone want his society to turn into one resembling that of 7th century Arabia?
Jesus is LORD!
You have to ask yourself whether you are just trying to dismiss sources because you don't like them.
I would suggest you try giving me a serious source from a serious biblical historian that doesn't claim that the earliest uncovered versions of Mark end at the tomb, or that seriously still claims the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or that claims there aren't massive textual differences in the early NT manuscripts.
You might find a claim from an evangelical apologetics website to back you but you won't find a claim from a serious scholar, the vast majority of whom are believing Christians to back you.
>the story isn't true. this is accepted by everyone except King James Onlyists, who have the same problem muslims do, with their text that is based on a tiny number of manuscripts, and as such can't be considered reliable.
What you're not getting is that the number of manuscripts is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is whether the AUTHORITY of the manuscripts checks out. It doesn't matter if millions of manuscripts existed or only 100. What matters if whether there's an axis upon which the manuscript tradition rests and the Christian manuscript tradition's axis is a whole lot weaker than the Muslim axis, because there's almost no way to check the authority of any manuscript that has been passed down to us from the early Christian period. Authority it was what matters, not simply the numbers of texts, cause millions of manuscripts may be based on a false original
>but this is the point. you know that the sinful woman was added, thanks to the vast manuscripts we have of the NT.
Actually, we really don't know, because we don't have any earlier manuscripts to check. For instance, it's possible that the story of the sinful woman is totally true and that some 2nd or 1st century texts did have it and that's where it comes from. But it's pretty much impossible to check it for authenticity. Just because the story doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts we have doesn't mean the story is true anymore than it means it isn't true, because the story may be a true story that was orally passed down until someone got the idea to insert it in the Biblical text. It may have been in some early manuscripts which were copied by other groups of copyists but not all of them and this is why the earlier manuscripts don't have it because the earliest ones we have just happen to be the ones that do not possess it, though this isn't proof that all manuscripts didn't have it before. That's the point, we don't know and we can't know.
zakat is charity. it is given only to the poor. it is never given to any master or owner or leader. keep trying to project the characteristics of your pathetic race upon the world faggot. but it is not going to work as long as i am here.
it was not pushed to discredit his image. it was invented, like most of the hadith, to justify the traditions by the non arab muslims. this is what most hadith is and that is why the hadith was never important in islam until the last few centuries .
Just a quick search on wikipedia showed that the traditional view was that peters companion mark composed the gospel however modern scholarship reject this view.
You can look at the sources yourself although if you don't know how to I can explain it for you.
I already gave you a challenge, one you refused to accept. I understand your fear, changing to the true faith may be difficult for you after you have rejected God for so long.
The evidence is clear. Islam has a copy of the Noble Qur'an perfect in every way from within The Prophet's lifetime.
You have a credit card sized fragment from a century later with a sentence on it.
Think about is as a wager, you have nothing to lose by joining Islam, Jesus (peace be upon him is our prophet and Messiah.
The only mistake you have made is calling a Prophet a God, but Allah will forgive you.
If you join the true faith then you won't need to spend eternity drinking boiling metal. And if I am wrong you have lost nothing.
God is great, my friend, I can see you know that and want to submit to him and share his love.
the claim that muhammad could not read or write is probably a later invention. the quran calls muhammad unlettered but that does not necessarily mean illiterate. the quran also calls jews and christians as lettered. it appears that the words letterd and unlettered means people of the book and people of no book.
>Council of Nicaea
>decided upon which texts were "right" based on which would empower Constantine the most
I'm going to go ahead an assume your whole post about the early church is completely wrong based on your ignorance of one of the most basic events in early Christianity. The misconception that the Biblical canon was decided at Nicaea is debunked with even the most shallow study of church history.
The only thing semi-correct about your post is the claim that some believed that only Jews get into Heaven. It is only semi-correct because it was not saying that only Jews get into Heaven, but there was a prevailing mindset that many Jewish practices, the biggest of which was circumcision, were to be imported into the Christian religion.
>showed that the traditional view was that peters companion mark composed the gospel
i disagree, since a quick search on wikipedia holds that Peter was the one who made the gospel that was written down by Mark.
>however modern scholarship reject this view.
Wikipedia says multiple scholars reject this view. Multiple scholars sounds pretty vague actually, and it doesnt say anything about the reasons for holding the view. (Would you take the view that multiple philosophers believe naturalism is true as sign that it IS true? I doubt it, since several philosophers have criticized the mainstream view of naturalism as incoherent)
the Quran is objectively false. it claims that the christians of the 600s believed in the trinity, being the father, son and Mary, which is factually inaccurate
sorry, but islam is a false religion based on a ridiculous book that bounces about all over the place
it is natural that a person belonging to a slave race would prefer a tyranical version of islam. as for your question of which ulema to follow, the asnwer is simple. the power of the alim(singular of ulema) depends on how many people he can convince of his views. there is no institution of ulema that must be believed no matter what. even an ordinary man can become an alim if enough people are willing to accept his reasoning for what islam means. this is why all the western claims about how muslims are controlled by their mullahs is absurd. the mullahs are controlled by the muslims instead. if the mullahs start saying things that muslims do not agree with, they will soon find themselves very lonely and without followers. the west keeps trying to project its diseases on the muslims. no, all religions were not created to be a tool for the ruling class. islam instead is pure anarchy and a bane of the tyrants from the very beginning of its existance
The Qur'an is absolutely true. It is the Word of God sent down to mankind. Surely you can see this from the evidence provided to you.
You do not need to live a hedonistic, empty lifestyle.
God is Great.
uthman was not a god or a king that muslims would have simply followed what he wanted. stop trying to project your inferior western mentality on others. the western man is like someone who sees another man on the street and cannot think to himself that this man has his own life story and dreams and ideas. this is why the west has always tried to shove their way of life down the throats of others, no matter what that way of life may be. before it was christianity now it is democracy and capitalism. and before christianity it was romanisn being shoved on everyone. there was also the ideals of the french revolution that had to be shoved on everyone around france. and on and one and on. pretty much whenever a european finds a new way of life he begins the process of forcing it on those that do not follow it. this is because all european ways of life are really just one way of life in different skins. it is all slavery of their master. by imposing their way of life on others they want to create more slaves for their masters.
What exactly is wrong with the theology of ISIS? I keep on hearing how it's wrong and that the quran shouldn't be followed exactly but isn't the whole point of islam besides 'salvation' and god, the establishment of an islamic state? Are they just misinterpreting the quran?
They claim literally evey Muslim on the planet (that won't pledge allegiance to them) is an apostate based on takfiri doctrine. I know it is hard to understand but they want to kill us more than you.
Islam is a religion of peace.
the quran says nothing about any trininty. and christain catholics do worship mary. according to islam praying to someone for anything is taking them as gods. just because christians do not specifically call mary a god does not mean that christians are not worshipping her as one.
the third in the christian trinity is the holy spirit. the holy spirit has no personage, it is just a stand in for gods influence on earth. it is nothing like jesus who is an entirely different personality from the father but is still the same exact being as the father.
first of all the quran is calling all christians and jews lettered. i am pretty sure that all of them were not literate in those times. also why would being able to write syriac is considered literate and using the arabic alphabet to write is illiterate.
Anyone can interpret the Quran but most Muslims defer this and adhere to the interpretations of prominent and respected scholars, unlike ISIS who stuff their fingers in their ears and say WE'RE RIGHT EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO DIE and use student radicals as their ideologues rather than actual Islamic institutions
>200 replies in a thread about the historical documents that make up the biggest two religions on the planet, which even if you don't believe in have had a significant influence on history and current affairs
>with some decent sources provided for once.
Go back to your "what if" thread that belongs in a board about novels.
because the caliph is nothing special. during the times of the caliphate much of the people living its so called boundaries were not even affected by its laws.
there is lack of understanding of how anarchy works. from time to time some family with the help of their clan or larger tribe comes to control the commerce in a certain area. they then decide to exert more power by coming to some kind of understanding with those they are affecting (not ruling). as long as they can keep the understanding and the people trust their clan or tribe, they get to keep their position of authority. that is why there were so many rebellions to the caliphate through out its small history in baghdad. that is also why the later caliphs began using turkish mercenary tribesmen as their soldiers and proxies. this is because they could not trust the great majority of local muslim population to be loyal to them. the caliphs even granted many turkish tribes control over some areas with the understanding that the turks would bring the locals to heel and share the taxes with the caliph.
the caliphate was never a state or an empire. they could barely keep any control over the region of iraq throughout much of their history and had to use foreign turks to do it. since they could not trust the local muslims. so much from the grand romantic delusions of modern day muslims about the caliphate and how all the muslims were as one. the modern interpretation of the calipahate is a new phenomenon and is a result of westernization of the middle east. islam is its trues interpretation is pure anarchy. islams does not need a church or state or any temporal authority to exist and function within a society. this is because islam is an expression of the souls of the free and noble races of the middle east. and this is how these races have lived forever.
>quran is calling all christians and jews lettered
No it isn't. It calls them people of the book. Arabic was then very primitive as written language. It wasn't possible to write a literature with it for example. Thus it didn't even count as a written language.
the state is a tyranical western institution. it has nothing to do with islam. and isis is a product of western intrigue in the middle east. it has echos of what the british were doing in the middle east and south asia almost a hundred years ago. read some more about the leader of isis, baghdadi. there was an article last year about some guy who was in the same jail as him and the guy speaks of speical privelages given to baghdadi by the us forces running the prison. plus isis is run by chechens and america has been funding the chechens against russia since the 90s.
islam is not a religion of surrender and slavery. it is a religion of justice. the whole meme about islam being a religion of peace was first uttered by bush right after 9/11. and by peace he meant slavery and surrender to the west. like all good anglos he had to use one word but really mean another. and that is the problem with any western man who objects that islam is not a religion of peace. he is really saying that islam is not submitting to the will of the european and giving peace and prosperity to the euroepan parasites. what your words mean in a dictionary is different from what you mean when you say them. it is easy to see the meanings are different by the way your kind uses them. i am smart to your ways of conning people with your dictionaries while meaning something else. this bull shit will not work on me, you con man.
> The first time we have any two-page manuscript fragment of the New Testament is from around the year 200 CE.
That is because it is a anthology, at first the Gospels were standalone. The cannon Gospels were written in between 62 CE and 134 CE.
i never said they worship her as one god. i said they worship her as if she was as god. and the same goes for the so called veneration of saints by catholics. they are your gods in the eyes of islam.
There's been speculations within early western scholars but it's now pretty much proven that when it says lettered it means someone who can write and read Syriac. For further reference you can check "the syro-aramaic reading of the quran".
Hey guesss what? Even though I am a Muslim I got your reference to Mos Eisley Cantina scene in the New Hope.
Peace be upon you Brother and stop imagining we all live in a cave and want to kill you.
are you talking about the anglo race ? the islamic revolution was the middle eastern peoples liberating themselves from the centuries long slavery of the hated roman and the persian. there were plenty of christian arab tribes in the armies of muslims that fought the romans. read about the ghassanids and lakhamids as one example of it. also read about the followers of arianism and the welcome muslims received from the copts
I said it was a marker sent from Allah to allow everyone to pray in the same directtion.
Allah would be happier to see the Kaaba destroyed then he would one innocent human be killed. It is just a building.
God is good and he is the greatest.
>because the caliph is nothing special
watch yo mouth boi
>The Quranic subtext is distinctly Biblical and is an obvious amalgam of Biblical apocrypha that abounded in the region at the time.
Corrylidianism, infancy gospel, gospelan arian monk and some other stuff like that contributed to what is "christianity" in the Quran.
Daily reminder that a saint from a caliphate dismantled your religion a long time go.
Hell doesn't exist only heaven does
I believe in god but in a way that makes sense to the narratives of the modern world
Heaven is the surge of brain activity that you experience when you die
Time is relative so the last thing you will ever experience you will experience forever
It's because I love you that I don't want you to drink molten metal forever.
Imagine burning your finger on a hot stove, then imagine that feeling over every part of your body including the insides of your eyelids and the tip of your penis and all your fingers and toes and under your fingernails and inside your intestines and your stomach. That's what Hell is like.
Now imagine the best sex with your wife you ever had then imagine a place where you have a permanent erection and are served by a troop of perfect women who do not fart or poop or menstruate and some pearly young boys that will see to your evey desire and whim. That's what Heaven is like.
It's your choice brothers. Consider it a wager, you have everything to lose for all eternity by hating God and everything to gain by converting to the one true faith and submitting to God's will.
There is no metaphysical or epistemological basis for this materialist worlview where you worship science and Richard Dawkins and naturalism and Marx. You should submit to God.
Muslims feel threatened by a stupid charicature in a low-circulation Dansih newspaper. Not that much a suprise the texts are unchanged if muslims through all history have gotten butthurt over any little change or dent to their belief.
like a typical lying christian you have done it again. you article says
>And again, in the book of The Heifer,  he says some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because of their great number, I think must be passed over. He made it a law that they be circumcised and the women, too, and he ordered them not to keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized.
i am refereing to part about circumcising women. the mutilation of female genatalia is an african practice. it has nothing to do with islam and it is almost absent from the arabian peninsula, the land of the birth of islam. only a few africans might practice it there. also this practice is not present in over 90 percent of muslims around the world and i am being generous to western statistics here. i do not really believe the western statistics about genital mutilation in the non black population of the africans. since the about quote is claiming that it is said to in the quran and it is even telling the name of the chapter, would you be willing to show me which verse?
You do realise logical positivism was BTFO decades ago?
Submission to God is the only way to eternal life (at least one that isn't full of pain for billions and billions and billions of years and so much longer than you can even imagine for infinity).
People like you worship science, but science is not God.
>Science is not God
Why can't they co-exist, obviously science is an important part is Islam, otherwise we would never have been in the golden ages when everyone was interested in astrology and stuff
tHANKS TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU sTALIN AND mAO KILLED ONE BILLIOION PEOPLE IN WEKK
cONVERT TO iSLAM NOW OR YOU ARE A FEDORA, PINKO, COMMNUNIST, LOGICAL POSITIVIST, NATURALIST, MATERIALIST, HEDONIST, WHO HATES GOD AND WANTS TO DESTROY THE WHOLE OF SOCIETY, JUST THINK OF THE MOSQUES WE HAVE BUILT
jUST REMEMBER IF YOU WANT TO PROVE THIS WRONG THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVE EVERYTHING, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER.
hOW DID THE uNIVESRE COEM FROM NOTHING?
dARWINISOM IS A HITLERITE FANTASY
God is the force of ambiguity that hides in the core of all meaning. He cannot be labeled and categorized by your impish warmongering. Do not claim to be in service to the almighty divinity when you sit there and claim that people should come under one flag, unchanging and unwavering. Your words cannot contain it. God is your entire universe and you are but a single algorithmic possibility within it's matrix.
They can, and do.
The Quran contains many metaphors which allude to scientific phenomena. Many of these have been proven to be accurate.
What can't co-exist is the philosophical positions (and downright dogmas) that are championed by New Atheists like Richard Dawkins.
Rupert Sheldrake wrecks it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
islam did not goto the americas and africa and all of fucking asia to rape and pillage and force other people to be just like them. i am not sure you understand the meaning of the word parasite. or is this another case of redefining the word in the dictionary.
no, then how do you explain the proselytizing in the middle east, south asia, even south and south east asia and forcing them to adopt arab customs like circumcision arab/persian names and the like?
Why does almost everyone in Europe have a variant of a Christian name or the name of a saint of their culture?
South East Asia was certainly not forced to convert to Islam. The rest is dubious and most likely propaganda.
Historically forced conversions to Islam were rare, especially post-Rashidun, where Arab monarchs wanted to consolidate power among themselves and allowing non-Arabs to convert and wasn't advantageous to that.
Bismillah we shall destroy the abominations that are ar-rafidah, al-batiniyya, qadiyani trash and all of the munafiqeen and mushrikun (laknatullah alaihim) who pose as MUSLIM. Inshallah the day shall come and the lying kafirs shall be punished, Allahu akbar!
there is no indian ethnicity. the indian identity is a creation of the anglo race. even the word indian comes from the english language. also there is no such thing as hinduism either. it is another name coined by the anglo about 300 years ago as a blanket term for most of the religions that they had not yet classified in south asia. this is why jainism and budhism are considered separate religions from hinduism, because the british deemed it so.
which is why the muslim world is culturally and morally stagnant. Christians can rationalize major societal and technological changes by admitting the bible isn't the literal word of god and can be interpreted many different ways. Meanwhile muslims can't ignore the iron age bullshit that muhammad wrote down considering it's the actual word of god.
have fun with ISIS OP.
i assume you mean the mughals/mongols did that. you realize the mughals were ruling in delhi as their capital for centuries. and yet when mughal rule ended delhi was still majority non muslim. what kind of a muslims crusader would seek forced conversions of people hundreds of miles away before forcing the people in his capital to convert. and what would conversion to islam of a sikh have accomplished. it is not as if the muslim punjabis were best buddies of mughals. the mughals invaded punjab more time than they invaded any other part of so called "india". even though the punjab was the first area in south asia to go largely muslim.
irony of this is that the mughals were invited to attack the muslims delhi sultanate by the non muslim punjabi rajputs. at the time lahore was a governorate of the delhi sultanate.
also if somehow you example is true. then you giving me a case where one man was forced. this is not a case of an army or an organized group of people forcing an entire population to islam. therefore it is hard to find the truth of the matter
>The Qur'an can't be interpreted
When will this meme die? This has literally never been the case and literally only terrorists insist on this. Congratulations, you think like a terrorist.
that part about aurangzeb is nothing but indian delusions. aurangzed had even a non muslim general in his army. he had plenty of non muslim rajput as well. and most of the wars he fought were against muslims fiefdoms of north india. he even invaded the largely muslim punjab. many years ago i had read about a caste of nonmuslims in india that worship aurangzed as a god for some reason. the banya is truly the lowest of creatures, right after the anglo. you have invented a series of lies which not only contradict reality on the ground but also contradict your own history going back thousands of years.
as for the case of tipu sultan. i have never heard of him being maligned by banyas before. but he was well liked by both the muslims and non muslims as far as i know. sounds like another bull shit. tell me is the capital of his kingdom of mysore is still mostly non muslim.
the problem is that you indians have taken your entire identity from the anglos. so you have also taken their attempts that europeanization of islamic history as facts. the forced conversion of muslims of south asia to islam is the greatest fantasy the anglo ever invented.
>Quran 9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
care to interpret this?
>.11: Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.
>4.12: In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.
Wife: 1/8 = 3/24,
Daughters: 2/3 = 16/24,
Father: 1/6 = 4/24,
Mother: 1/6 = 4/24,
Total = 27/24=1.125
The total does not equal to 1. This error can never be reconciled in any way.
>le why are there still non-muslims then???
not them but because islam's aim is to politically dominate the world by subjugating other religions
it is literally a religion originally shaped and designed by nomads for nomads as a way of live that allows them to effectively subjugate other peoples in the name of God, only much later did it come to dominate the middle east by the number of followers, initially it was an elite thing
incorrect. hind is a persian word that came into arabic. the original word is sindh. it is the name of the river indus in the local language. in the old avestan language the vedic 's' sound becomes the 'h' sound. for example seven is sapt is aryan and hapt is iranic. the iranic ahura, as in ahura mazda, is asura in aryan. the avestans and later the persians called sapta sindhava, hapta hindva. it means seven rivers by the way. the arabs took it from the persians and called it hind as well. the greeks took it from the persians and called it Indee/indus. that is where the english name for the sindh river comes from. the ancient india of history is the land of indus river, which is pakistan. it is a great irony of history that the pakistanis are the historical indians and the indians are just a bunch of people living to the east of india. you can thank the british for this naming. the euros had a hard on for india. they came to america and called the natives indians. they found some islands in the pacific and called them west indies. actually the mughals are partly to blame as well. the mughal first took over lahore and called their land hindustan. then they took over delhi still called their land hindustan. then they were kicked out of lahore and they continued calling their lands hindustan. when the british came they were looking for india and they found it in hindustan. the mughals did not even rule over all of north india for much of their history. only the lands ruled by the mughals were called hindustan at any given time. when the british created the name india, they did not mean to say that hindustan and india are synonyms. infact the british only called the mughal part of india hindustan and other parts that they had added to it as india. first they called newly taken teritory greater india and then when they were politically colonized, only india. the british did not begin calling pakistani areas as part of india until about 1890s or something.
Yes, this is pretty fucking basic, this is read in conjunction with the ad infinitum other suras which specify the conditions in which you are allowed to use violence. In this case, this verse is saying: if you've ticked all the boxes and it's okay to fight these guys, go hard or go home
This ayah gave the Muslim community the right to fight back against the Meccan polytheists, especially the ones persecuting them. It took a long time, but they finally got the go-ahead. Mohammad was being beat up in the streets every time he tried to preach or walk anywhere. The other followers fared no better and couldn't find the means to support themselves. There also was psychological warfare with the use of "magic" against the Islamic prophet. It was a dark time, which led to the Hijra from Mecca. This led to the creation of a new calendar, with the year starting at the year of the Hijra or flight.
Muslims call the party that fled Al Muhajirun, or the immigrants/refugees.
off the top of my head
>fight in the cause of god against those who attack you, but do not aggress, god does not love the aggressors
>don't fight in a mosque unless you're attacked there
>If they resort to peace, so shall you
>if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then god gives you no excuse to fight them
It was radically different. The Meccan pagans were dead set on driving the early Islamic movement into the ground. The reason being that their financial gain from the yearly pilgrimage to the Kaaba was at stake. They thought Mohammad would stop that, which would lead to the money being lost. Pilgrims would not come and the businesses that prospered from them would fail. It was as much about the greed of the Meccan and Arab pagans as it was about the Muslim's conduct. The persecution was real and quite fierce because of this. None of the other monotheistic religions at the time had to deal with the same kind of crap the Muslims did.
>The reason being that their financial gain from the yearly pilgrimage to the Kaaba was at stake.
that's why the whole pilgrimage to Kaaba later became a pillar of Islam, the Meccans didn't want to lose their shekels ;)
you dishonest anglo (is that redundant?) faggot. if you were really intrested in learning the meaning verse that you took out from a chapter, which is a poem, you would have yourself read the few verses that came before it and a few that came after it.
all one needs to answer you faggots is to quote the full context from the quran. no other book is required. infact no other chapter is required. when i was 18 years old and looking for such verses in the bible on certain internet sites, i would never take their word for it. i would always goto the bible on the internet and read the few verses before and after the quoted verse so that i can honestly say that i understand what the verse is saying. this is because even 18 year old me had more intergrity and concern for being truthful than you do.
>4. Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous.
>6. And if anyone of the polytheists asks you for protection, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God; then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
>8. How? Whenever they overcome you, they respect neither kinship nor treaty with you. They satisfy you with lip service, but their hearts refuse, and most of them are immoral.
>10. Towards a believer they respect neither kinship nor treaty. These are the transgressors
it is talking about a particular group of people who violated their treaty with the muslims over and over again. the verse you quoted does not mean all non muslims.
Mekka used to be a place where every nation would go, to worship their own gods. That meant a lot of people would buy things sold in the markets. It wasn't just a big profit, but on par with the release of a new iPhone in scale. In our money they were making millions of dollars every hajj season. The Muslims made the hajj a mandatory thing because they saw the benefit of controlling that, so you are right about that. It was dinar though, not shekelim ;)
From what I read, they were being treated worse than stray dogs by damn near everyone. The tribal system of the time was the only way a person could be protected from being murdered. Mohammad had protection for a time because of his uncle, but that didn't last. After his uncle died he became vulnerable from the rest of the tribes. Islam had to become militant to protect the people who had no tribal protection, which is what they became known for. They acted as defenders and on occasion acted to stop future violence. The misunderstanding of many of the Quran's verses is because people fail to realize this minor fact.
I know the Bible is made up, but it seems so is the Quaran. It appears to be written by someone who only has knowledge of 700 AD middle east.
It has no understanding of human physiology and astronomy.
Also mentioned above... It fails at math.
>that part about aurangzeb
>the part where he destroyed temples and created mosques in their place
>that part where he actively taxed hindu merchants extra and suppressed european padres.
He had non muslim generals because the rajputs were a major part of mughal strength since post akbar days. Religious zealot that he was, even aurangzeb wasn't dumb enough to threaten core regions of his empire.
>tipu sultan literally writes a letter to the dharmaraja of travancore saying that he has converted the people of the malabar to islam and he is next
The sultans themselves were never heads of state of mysore as the wodeyars still were nominally in power when haider ali came to dominate the court in mysore. It was never their capital to begin with.
>forced conversions that the rulers themselves mention is a anglo myth.
yeah, sure thing. primary sources themselves are an anglo fabrication. Islam never was enforced upon a sword in india, so on and so forth.
>From what I read, they were being treated worse than stray dogs by damn near everyone
All primary sources being Muslim :^)
Still by the time of the ayah they weren't the persecuted group they had used to be. Wasn't that surah the last to be revealed?
>Parthenogenesis is a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization. Natural parthenogenesis has been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the rotifers), especially insects, e.g., the aphid. In many social insects, such as the honeybee and the ant, the unfertilized eggs give rise to the male drones and the fertilized eggs to the female workers and queens.
>Note that the aphids, bees and ants are not true parthenogenetic organisms as they are also capable of sexual reproduction.
>However, Muhammad apparently did not know about the 15 species of whiptail lizard (genus Cnemidophorus) that are wholly parthenogenetic, for example Cnemidophorus tigris (Western whiptail) and C. neomexicanus, nor did he know about the Ambystomids, the unisexual hybrid salamanders.
>He also did not know about the Island or Brahminy Blind Snake, Ramphotyphlops braminus, the only parthenogenetic snake in the world which happens to originate from the Pacific Islands (lands unknown to Arabs in Muhammad’s time).
first of all here is a verse from the quran for you to digest.
>2:256. There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way. Whoever renounces evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handle; which does not break. God is Hearing and Knowing
the above verse is wrongly translated because of the word religion. the word religion in west does not mean what the muslims in the middle east think it mean. the arabic is deen. deen means way of life. thte verse is saying that there is no compulsion in whatever way of life you choose becasue the truth has been set clear from falsehood by the creator. so anyone can use their intellect and figure out the truth.
here is another one for you to chew on
>10:99. Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Will you compel people to become believers?
forcing people to convert goes against the very foundation of islam. it goes against the reason why humans were created according to islam. in islam the life of this world is a test to see which human choose the right way of life and which ones choose the wrong. if allah tells muslims to force others to convert then how is this a test ? then the whole point of creating the universe is moot.
>18:29. And say, "The truth is from your Lord. Whoever wills-let him believe. And whoever wills-let him disbelieve". We have prepared for the unjust a Fire, whose curtains will hem them in. And when they cry for relief, they will be relieved with water like molten brass, which scalds the faces. What a miserable drink, and what a terrible place.
i dont think that i can be more clearer than this.
no those are just your delusions. those words do not mean what you monkeys think they mean. none of them refer to all of modern day india, much less all of south asia. jsut because someone conquers a hundred nations and gives his teritory a name does not make the nations living within it the same people.
i am not sure why you are responding to me. i am not here to defend the internal laws of muslims. i am only going to defend the parts of the quran that pertain to dealing with non muslims. since that is all a non muslim should care about. you should have no care how muslims live amongst themselves.
yes, common mythological stories that rulers from all over the continent attached themselves to for legitimacy are my fantasy.
Jambudwipa for instance refers to the indian subcontinent because it is the place where the fucking tree grows.
fucking delusions. aurangzed hated the banya of north india. because he had seen what the banya had done to the mughal family in previous generations. his heavy handedness and war making were about getting back the lost glory of the mughals and punishing those who were responsible for the mughal rajas becoming pusillanimous drug addicted junkies that squandered all their wealth. and your explanation for the rajputs is laughable. tell me when he was razing temples to build mosques how did he keep his "hindu" armies in line?
i told you in my last post that i am not aware of what tipu sultan did. since this is the first time i am hearing about him forcing other to convert. i will look into this more when i have time.
If the Quaran is scientifically wrong, it is not the word of real god because its apparently the word of a man who does not know all the things god should know.
Ergo, whatever you say about conversions doesn't matter because its just the word of man anyways.
>posting an abrogated ayah
real meaning: make people of the book (may also include zoroastrians) pay jizya and force pagans into islam
>inb4 w-why are there still pagans in India
cuz there was fuckload of them and it was easier and more profitable to make most of them just pay the jizya
t. islam pro
>aurangzeb hated the bania
>so he razed learning centers headed by brahmins that had among other things muslim students.
>his heavy handedness was trying to find lost glory
and he ran his entire kingdom to the fucking ground because of it. initially with his wars against the uzbeks, and later when he literally used his army as a battering ram to invade the western ghats.
>mughal kings were drug addicted junkies
they became that because aurangzeb took the stable state that had existed since akbarid times occupying roughly the same area that the guptas did and burned it to the ground trying to invade southern india, which is not really a great place for fighting pitched battles.
he died a broken man and had his empire rot away after his death.
>rajputs is laughable
>rajput generals were primarily sent against shivaji until aurangzeb took personal command.
>how did he keep his hindu armies in line?
via the mansabdari system and letting the rajput clans he was allied with doing their own thing as mughal vassals.
give me an example of this very day. you are talking about isis? the western spawned entity that does everything to look like the western caricature of islam? that does everything to calm the vain hearts of the western races so they can congratulate themselves that they were always right?
this universe was created for a game. the game is a test to see who chooses the right path and who chooses the wrong path. forcing people to convert goes against the very root reason for the existence of creation as explained in the quran.
well you are wrong about the india part.
Islamic rule was far less tenuous than you make it out to be, since there were large hindu kingdoms as well as central asian invasions into india as well.
that does't make stable states.
No, I am talking about the noakhali riots where hindus were forcibly converted to islam
I am talking about the kashmiri pandit exodus from kashmir
I am talking about the steadily declining number of hindus and sikhs in pakistan.
Your mental gymnastics are hilarious.
>interpret quranic verse entirely wrong
>imply it makes a scientific claim that you know is incorrect
Abrogation is a myth/misconception popularised by 19th century Orientalists. Nothing in the Quran contradicts itself, rather it gives specifics that when viewed as generals look like contradictions.
>le how is Islam a religion of peace when there are "violent verses" that justify killing ("all") non-Muslims, never mind that it is obvious that this is in pure self defence
>therefore the Quran's commandment not to harm non-violent non-Muslims a le abrogation
Keep jumping through hoops, Kaffir. Deep down you know you're doing this to justify your pre-conceived notions that terrorists funded by the CIA are genuine Muslims. Cognitive dissonance at play.
i have no idea what you are saying. there is no need to continue this discussion in this thread. it was my mistake for bringing it up in the first place. i have no wish to debate an imposter who defames my anscestors by claiming they had the same religion and culture and identity as his. specially when india is a land filled with thousands of castes and have been invaded for more than 2500 years, as recorded in "your" own history books. you can deny all you want about the invasion of aryans but you cant deny what is recorded by people living in south asia. only war is the way between me and you.
sorry butthurt paki, you are part of the same genetic pool as me.
face it, your ancestors were weak kneed faggots who converted to islam rather than fight the good fight or were colonists brought by islamic rulers to make their cities a little bit more stable.
>war is the only way between me and you.
yes, I know. just don't go running behind american or chinese skirts next time.
>no actual examples of cities being sieged and destroyed
>looking over data that shows that aryans were migrating slowly and steadily into the subcontinent over a long period of time like the fire temples at kalibangan or the fact that post IVC cities have the same layout that they did
or the fact they used same units of base 16
>Abrogation is a myth/misconception popularised by 19th century Orientalist
also how is the "real meaning" of the verse in my post related only to terrorists? and I never said what's written in your greentext, stop strawmaning plox
what is this bull shit about abrogation? how can quran contradict its message and still be considered the word of god by the people in pre-islamic arabia? there is no abrogaition only one verse superceeding the other with the same message. one example is the verse about drinking alcohol. in the beggining muslims were allowed t odrink a little everyday. this is because the arabs drank all the time and it was not possible to stop cold turkey. then another verse comes around later that says that from now on drinking in entirely forbidden. this is one verse supoerceeding the other but having the same message. there is no contradiction in the message. you are making a disgusting anglo tier claim that quran would completely contradict its previous message and it would not raise any doubts in the hearts of the early converts who were there as the verses were being revealed. not to mention it would even raise doubts in the hearts of people thousand years later, once they find out about it. you have no understanding of the idea of god in islam if you think that an islamic god would first say something is the right way to behave and then later completely contradict what was said to be the right way. allah had know the right way even before the universe existed. allah created the right way. the right way is nothing but the will of allah. how could allah make such a mistake? if allah wanted the right way to be different IT(not he) would have made the universe with a different set of laws. unlike christianity, in whch god is a superman wizard creature that exists within the universe and is subject to its laws but is so powerful that it can bend or break them, in islam allah is a shapeless formless entity that exists outside the creation that is the universie and the laws of the universe are merely the will of allah. the god of christianity is not the god of islam. infact i would say that allah is not even a god but a creator entity.
Learn to poo in the loo first, you Dindu.
Your ancestors turned the original monotheistic Dharmic religion into a freak-show of worshiping cripples and drinking cow urine & brahmin semen for "special blessings" from statues.
You have no self-respect.
come on now, you know when punjabies use the word bunya we do not mean actual caste of banya. it means any group of people who behave like banya. hence the phrase banya brahman is what is generally used. ofcourse the brahman were the greatest allies of the mughals as they had been the greatest allies of every invader that came before the mughals. how very banya of them. men without morals or principles that only care about getting wealthy by aligning with whoever is the most powerful
how gullible of muslims or how chanakya of hindus ? those indians are a cheeky bunch. all those idols hanging around and they still made the muslims believe that they were not mushrikun. 10/10 for making me laugh.
fuck off mcbuddhist.
you are probably one of the faggots who has been supremely enlightened by zen buddhism and fails to understand the idea behind rituals.
>you have no self respect
well, not to turn this into a muh ancestor's thing, but my family still worships the gods they worshipped millenia ago.
you sound like one of those edgy born again faggots with a dharmic coating on top
fucking /v/ gets 500 post bumps
ah, punjabi. that explains everything.
>brahman was the greatest ally
which is why every ruler trying to create a non dharmic state in india suppressed brahmins because they secretly were allies.
not because they were largely lorekeepers or the spiritual centers of populations that people looked up to when the power of rajas had gone.
but because they were weak compared to brave muslim men.
>there is no abrogation because I said so!!
Each verse still has its revelation time and context etc
also, nice try, we both know that allah is just an arabic pagan moon god
Also, this thread has shown that you are a disgusting sufi meaning you aren't a muslim, so whatever you say on the topic of Islam has no value anyway
what has happend in the last hundred years in pakistan is the result of great enlightenment and civilization of the western races. pakistan is a nation state and like all nation states it is built on lies deception and ethnic cleansing. what happened to the pandits and the non muslims of pakistan has to do with the great gift of the white man who gave us the concept of borders and nation state disease. it has nothing to do with islam. i do not know anything about the naokhali riots and i doubt that in this day and age, when muslims are a persecuted minority in india, there are muslims forcing hindus to convert in india. sounds like BJP propaganda. i will not respond to anymore india posts.
you are forgetting that mughals were not the only muslims power in north india. but most importantly you forget that before the mughals there was the delhi sultanate that lasted for centuries in north india.in total the muslim rule from delhi was over 800 years. and yet after 800 years delhi was still majority non muslim
yeah, facts are so inconvenient to your narrative.
better not respond to them.
>what happened with the pandits is the result of the white man
pretty sure it was the local peaceful islamic community blaring warnings telling the pandits to convert or leave- with their women behind.
>muslims being oppressed in india
yeah, having their own law code and parallel court structure AND international support in the form of bleeding heart liberals is so bad. truly the muslim is under attack in india, maybe they need another country where they can live peacefully?
lol, this much delusion. my ancestors were the only people who constantly put up a fight. the people living in the majority of pakistan are the only people who remained free of muslim rule for the 800 year period that they ruled north india. this is despite the fact that the muslims had to cross through pakistan to make their way to india and even used india as a base to laughed attack after attack on the people of modern day pakistan. if my ancestors were not fighters and yours were, then the truth would be the reverse of what it is.
btw people related to the ancestors of pakistanis have been raping your kind for thousands of years, far longer than even the birth of islam. every ruling prince and feudal lord in india comes from tribes that originated in pakistan.
the delhi sultanates ebbed and flowed over a long period of time. Most of their time and resources were spent subjugating the rajputs with very limited success or they had revolts from greedy fucks wanting their own slice of the pie.
not a conducive atmosphere to facilitate large scale conversion.
yet they brought along afghani colonists and settled them around delhi - the place is called rohillakhand.
>delhi is not majority muslim
but pre partition a huge chunk of delhi was muslim. there is evidence of rioting in old delhi during religious processions.
gentlemen, here we see the delusion of the paki
>muh ancestors consistently put up a fight
which is exactly why the punjab fell repeatedly to invaders ranging from the achmeniads to the afghanis under dost mohammed.
>used india as a base
yes because the region around pataliputra had more population and was economically more developed during ancient india. A much better place to project power from.
>if my ancestors were not fighters
then why did they convert dipshit?
why did they instead offer up their sisters and daughters and became nice muslim lapdogs?
>every ruling prince in india came from pakistan
I am not gonna bother with asking you for a source on this one.
it was most likely an multiple invasions and migrations. but whatever it was is irrelevant to the present reality. the majority of people in pakistan and the ruling elites of india are not descended from those early rig vedic invasions or migrations. most of us are descended from those who invaded later and whose invasions are recorded in history books. for example almost 50 percent of pakistanis are the result of gujjar and hun invasions that began in the 4th century AD. first the gujjars came and then the huns came in waves upon waves. the pashtoons and baluchis are of hun descent and the gujjars are obviosuly gujjar and also hun descent. also the south punjabi and sindhi rajputs are also mostly gujjar hun descent. the north punjabi rajputs are mostly jatt descent. the jatts came around 500 BC. and their invasion in also recorded. they were known as Guts then. they are the same as goths of europe. the goths were an aryan not a germanic people. most of the ruling castes of india are also the result of the gujjar hun invasions.
i am not a muslims AT ALL.
fucking delusions about the delhi sultanate. nothing more. i am done with this. keep dreaming about your brave ancestors. we will see how brave their descendants are on the field of battle. and i do not mean the pakistani state. when the state is dead the gods of war will be set free.
>the state will be dead
>then I will ride with sword in hand planting the green flag on the red fort
this is you with a green shirt
faggot there were no nation sates back then with boundries and armies that were suppose to defend then. punjab did not repeatedly fall to invaders. armies came to punjab they tried to control it and lost repeatedly. some had more success than others but there was never a time that all or most of punjab was ruled by any muslim ruler. defeating an army is not ruling or conquering people. and armies passing through punjab does not mean that they have conquered the people living in that land.
>I am not gonna bother with asking you for a source on this one.
much of the sources are your own history books and rest is common sense and logic applied to history.
yes they indeed are. the name of jatts was gutts or gautam as in siggharth gautama, the man known as budha. also sometimes called gutians. btw many jatt tribal names are the same as anglo germanic last names. some examples, Mann, Gill, Grover. i cant think of anymore because i am not a jatt. but there are more.
no the ruling castes and the ruled treated each other as different races and nations. I was making a point that the brahmin was not some spiritual leader of this thing called hinduism that was practiced by all. the brahmin only cared about the religion culture history and descent of the castes that were or araynic heritage. even if they were not ruling over anyone, like is the case in pakistan. for much of india the aryanic or one type or another were ruling over masses of natives.
if there was no pakistan, there would be no india. india would have shattered into tiny little pieces. the only thing holding it together is pakistan's existence. the only reason the punjabis in india are not separating is because of pakistan. once punjabis separate the other parts of india will follow. it will have a snowball effect.
mistake or not, making pakistan as it was made was the best the anglo could do to save his centuries of investment. pakistan was never suppose to be a land for muslims of india. that was a con created by jinnah, who came much later to the movement of pakistan. jinnah was most likely a british agent.
>common sense and logic
>applied to history
and yet you are unable to apply this logic to you speshul snowflake punjab
you mean to say that punjab wasn't dominated by muslim rulers who were more interested in india proper but they would neglect punjab even though it was their entry way to the subcontinent.
>yes they are
>gautam buddha was a jat
>GAUTAM BUDDHA OF THE SAKHYA TRIBE WAS A JAT
>EVEN THOUGH HE WAS BORN AT A TIME WHEN THE JATS DIDN'T EXIST AS AN ETHNICITY AND WAS IN A PART OF THE SUBCONTINENT THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL JAT POPULATION EVER.
are you the product of cousin marriage?
well he just insinuated that siddharta gautama was a jat.
this is the level of intellectual honesty that you deliberately lie about my positon. i made it clear over and over again in that thread that pashtoons were called turks who had jewish tribes among them. i made it clear that they are the same as the turkish jews that invaded eastern europe. i never implied that the khazars or the pashtoons were actual israelites.
as for my claim for jatts being goths. that is not just me saying it. more that hundred years ago even your anglo race was saying it. there are books written by anglos in punjab in the early 20th centruy where they talk about jatts being the same as goths and the fact that so many of them had the same tribal names as anglo germanic names. one british author talking about his jatt friend going to england tells him that you are going to the same people as you since you are going to Manchester, the city named after the tribe of Man, same as the jatt. you can easily do research on this on the internet. there are plenty of sites opened by indian jatts that mention this. in any case the jatts are the gutians or history and even some western historians have tried to match the gutians of central asia with the goths of germany.
faggot, the name gautama means that he was a gutt. in modern punjabi the gutt is jatt. the gutt became jatt in punajbi late but the ancestors of jatts did exist before. and in the modern day the tribe of buddha would be a rajput tribe.
being this retarded should be punishable by death. you know nothing about how castes are formed and how they change. if buddha was a sakhya that simply means that the sakhyas used to be part of the same population as jatts of their time. now things have changed.
also another name for the jatts is gatae used by the greeks. connecting gatae/gutians to goths is not 19th century ideas of race. it is merely attempts to understand history that are happening even now. the british calling jatts the same as them has nothing to do with british comparing racial feature but tribal names. neither i nor the british invented those names.
did buddha radiate light? why was his name gautama before he became buddha. i will give you this for now. since there is no historian that has made this claim and it comes from my own understanding. but the claim about jatts/gutians/gatae/goths being the same general people comes from work from historians and it is further confirmed by the fact that they share many last names.
you are making no sense. i was responding to the man claiming that if jatts are called gautama then they must be radiating light. >>553994
yes mother fucker. just like the good book i will write myself will say. when my kind is done with yours there will be nothing left to remember your lies.
the name gautama means one who dispels darkness.
that has nothing to do with your 19th century /pol/ tier racial theories and racewar fantasies.
now breathe, and learn some history.
i know my claims of gautama have nothing to do with anything related to the 19th century or any /pol/ tier ass fagotry. why you would assume it did is a wonder. but then it is always difficult to figure out the next delusion of a banya con man.
the getae/gutians are the ancestors of jatt. that is undeniable. it is a stretch to claim that they are the same as goths. but considering the same family names, it is very likely that the core tribes of the goths were getae/gutians and goth is just a europeanization of those words. but i do not see what this has to do with this thread. if you want to discuss who were getae/gutians make another thread. this is the history section after all.
just put your name on. this is pretty embarrassing.
the jats were largely peasants living in the indus valley and punjab for the most part.
there may have been some intermixing with the hepthalites but thats about it.
no goth/getae fairytales.
i forgot to put my name on in the last reply. the juts are also invaders just like the hepthalites. i know it is a difficult thing to swallow for an indian but it is true. this is my last post in this thread. the thread is dead.