Is /lit/anon right?

>>3372864
>>3372870
Pretty bitter sounding but it matchs what I briefly learned in my religious class that was taught by a leabonese refugee who naturalized and got US citizenship, so I'm inclined to agree.

From a cursory glance looks like the old technique of bringing up obscure occurrences on the hopes that no one else knows enough to be able to disprove it. For example, he mentions the Banu Qurazya but doesn't mention that they (supposedly) had broken a treaty with muhammad at the battle of the trenches.

>>3372864
About some things, yes. He sources his posts, which is commendable, and is pretty well read on Islamic literature (or at least more so than most). However, he's failing to view Islam as a whole. He doesn't place the religion in much of a historical/cultural context:

>I've studied Islam for years. I've read the Qur'an
This is my point exactly. Islam emerged from a diverse cultural and religious milieu with numerous influences from Judaism, Christianity and Hanifism (which the poster fails to mention despite its significance). Poetry was an integral part of the culture of pre-Islamic Arabia, hence the importance of the language of the Qur'an. It was composed in such a way as to be appealing to culture fond of poetry; him trying to insult it by calling it 'repetitive' makes him seem pretty stupid.

During the first 10 years as a 'prophet', Muhammad preached peace and tolerance because he had no military or political power. In those 10 years of hard work, he converted 100 people. Only ten people a year.
What he fails to mention is that Muhammad spent these early years in Mecca, the religious hub of the Arabian Peninsula. That he only managed to convert 100 people in the most Pagan place in all of Arabia shouldn't be all that shocking. Also, Muhammad was Quraysh, part of the ruling elite who oversaw the Ka'bah, so although he didn't have much power, he had more than your average street preacher. In fact it was his status as Quraysh that made his anti-pagan preaching so dangerous, hence his journey to Medinah.

>Then, realizing that preaching peace and tolerance wasn't very effective, he became a highway man. A bandit.
Again this demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of Arabian customs. Arab warfare at the time consisted of just that, raiding caravans. Attacking a caravan did not make one a bandit, it was an act of war, and no Islamic source tries to say that by this point Muhammad was not at war with the Meccans.

>>3373070
>cont

>after 5 years in Medina, Muhammad had killed/enslaved all the jews there
See >>3372957, he's conveniently leaving out information that doesn't agree with his opinion
He also stresses this point of Islam spreading by the sword, yet by the time it was an empire, the taxes raised from the non-muslims was such that complete conversion to Islam would not have been economically viable

Either way, the second someone appears to question his narrative and doesn't lick his arsehole because they're so in awe of his rather superficial sourcing, he goes full autismo and resorts to swearing, caps lock and racial slurs. If my above arguments don't convince you that this guy is an idiot then that at least should.

>the koran is repetitive
Yep. It's repetitive to the point of being a psyop, it's pretty much a brainwashing technique, probably explains why Islamic religious scholars are usually such rigid autismos. The writing style is very conductive to breeding fanaticism.

>>3372957
this

>>3372864
yes

>>3373168
Huh, turns out religious texts want you to believe what they say as true gospel. Really fires up the old synapse.

>>3375630
The koran is especially repetitious in its structure and prose.

>>3375634
Because it comes from an oral as much as a literary tradition? Oral tradition requires reptition as a mnemonic, structural and stalling tactic

File: images.jpg (3KB, 267x189px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 267x189px

I'd rather a million Muslims than a single fedora