Is the Quran a good book?

yet another thread wherein the teen what made it bumps it for days on end

>>10010639
The best

>>10010639
Have only read it in English so I can't comment on it's Arabic poetry, but my reaction was mixed.

It contains some moments of fine imagery, and is successful in communicating its messages (monotheism, position of Muhammad, reality of the Judgement) but it is VERY repetitive. Pretty much every chapter ends up with depictions of the Last Judgement, the punishment of disbelievers and the reward of Muslims. Also, it really requires knowledge of the Biblical narrative, because it doesn't bother explaining who Moses, Abraham, Jonah (etc.) were, just retells snippets of their stories here and there. Worth reading for understanding Islamic civilization though.

>>10010643
bump

>>10010901
>it is VERY repetitive
Well, arabs are retarded inbreds. You better repeat the message 20 times if you want them to get it.

>>10010955
Ebin post my friend
upboated

it's the good book

>>10010901
>Worth reading for understanding Islamic civilization
The Quran alone is not gonna get you very far. You need to read:

>quran with a tafsir that explains the intended meaning of the hardest passages and the way muslims interpret them.

>sirat (biography of muhammad).

>at least some chosen ahadith from the collections of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

>collections of fatwas from famous theologians.

>sharia legal codes.

Then you will really GET them. Really understand their (extremely alien) worldview, that brings them to give drastically different meanings to concepts like "justice, peace, defense, duty, rights, equality, persecution, charity, science, progress", etc.
Talking to muslims (real muslims, grown up in muslim countries) without knowing the meanings they give to these concepts is completely useless.

File: Screenshot-2015-10-12-16.51.591.png (541KB, 1173x704px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1173x704px

>>10010960
Nigger, do some research. Arabs (and muslims in general) are literally inbred.
It has to do with their habit of marrying first cousins for generations.

File: 1505052955545.jpg (34KB, 466x413px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 466x413px

https://youtu.be/gCvMMSTOl4Q

>>10010639
Ideological considerations aside, it's a gigantic mess.

>>10010990
much civilization such culture wow

>>10010990
>It is told that Omar Ibn Al-Khattab had an anal disease, which could only be cured by semen

Damn, the Qu'ran says THAT?!

>>10010639
It was recited orally one verse at a time in the span of 23 years by Muhammad, and then written down 19 years after his death. By that time, most of the ones that had memorized the quran had died in battle, so there were lots of versions with countless differences. The third caliph, Uthman, destroyed basically all the deviant versions and declared his version the only correct one, so that's the one we have now.

It should be obvious from its origin that the book is going to be a complete fucking mess. Muhammad took things from every religion, pagan ones, zoroastrism, christianity, judaism. It mixed everything, added some peculiar rules (4 wives each, except the prophet, who could have an unlimited number) and called it islam.

The style of the book is trite, repetitive, annoyingly bad. The stories often feel truncated or started in the middle with no context and no reference to what the hell it's talking about. Muhammad didn't even know christianity very well, so he often makes stupid mistakes (like when he says the Holy Trinity is made of God, Jesus and Mary).

The suras (chapters) are not in chronological order, which makes it very difficult to understand what exactly are the rules of islam, since the practice of naskh (abrogation) invalidates the older rules in favor of the most recent ones, when there are conflicts between 2 verses.
(Btw: all the peaceful verses muslims always quote to prove that Islam is a religion of peace come from the meccan period, the oldest one. They've all been abrogated by the medinese suras, much more recent.)

Overall, it's a terrible book.
If you want to know what Islam says, read sharia manuals or fatwa websites like IslamQA.com

>>10011044
No, that's an hadith. Basically, an anecdote of stuff Muhammad said/did. The Sunna has a few millions of those, and some are considered as valid as the Quran.

>>10011084
I don't know what you're getting at

>>10011079
Pretty accurate in my experience. For a book that is accorded the highest literary value among Muslims, it's mostly incoherent trash.

>>10011094
I'm telling you that that story about Omar Ibn Al-Khattab having an anal disease which could only be cured by semen was NOT in the quran but in a hadith.

And hadiths (which are anecdotes of stuff Muhammad did or said) are contained in the Sunna, a different book from the Quran.

Is that clear now?

>>10011115
But you also said that some are considered as valid as the Quran, and I find it hard to imagine that not even the most flamboyant gay would go on arabic television to defend ass diseases cured by semen unless he was really fucking sure about what he was saying theologically. Seeing as you seem to know what you're talking about, how risque is this belief exactly in the muslim community?

>>10011079
How do you know this, because as a straight white male I find it hard to believe that the largest religion in the world would have these wildly inconsistent claims and beliefs.

>>10011132
>how risque is this belief exactly in the muslim community?
That caliph Omar was a power bottom faggot? Very fucking risky. Losing-your-head risky.

I think that the guy in that video is a shia muslim mocking Omar because he's a caliph that shias don't recognize as valid. Shias are assholes, they love to slander and mock personalities that sunni muslims worship.

He probably lives in a shia majority country, so in his case saying that Omar took it up the ass is not risky unless a sunni decides to kill him for it. Business as usual for shias.

(As for how can sunni muslims condemn homosexuality while admiring a faggot like Omar, you can't really understand muslims' ability to doublethink unless you've studied them and their culture. They can say that A is non-A without finding any logical flaw. They just DON'T KNOW HOW TO THINK.)

All of this is only from a view-point in time. To truly understand any scripture, one must have the capacity to comprehend That which the words are pointing to.

All scriptures point towards Truth, the source, god (or whatever name is suits your preferences).

The Quran in its essence has NOTHING to do with Islam.

>>10011157
Okay, but the distinction was originally due to Muhammad being unclear about who would be his successor, the first Caliph, so how could such a distinction lead to these radical differences in ideology and view of other muslims? It's ultimately the same book, right? So you'd think they would be able to kind-of get along.

>>10011155
>How do you know this
I've studied Islam for years. I've read the quran, the most famous tafsirs (commentaries on the quran), lots of ahadiths, the sirat, lots of fatwas, 4 sharia legal codes. Also talked to muslims on their forums.

>I find it hard to believe that the largest religion in the world would have these wildly inconsistent claims and beliefs.
This is really basic knowledge that everyone that studies the quran possesses. None of the things I said are even slightly controversial (of course I mean among non-muslims. Muslims will deny even the evidence and proclaim that the quran is perfect and undisputable).

Islam was a political system that Muhammad invented for the sole purpose of accumulating power. Political and military power. In the quran, the supposed "Word of Allah" perfect and immutable, Muhammad constantly "reveals" verses that give him special privileges and even refer to the particular political circumstances of that time. A timeless book that can't be understood unless you know the context in which every verse was "revealed". Hm.
Among the perks of prophethood that the quran gives to Muhammad:

>He can have all the wives and female slaves he wants.

>His followers were ordered to always obey him, even when he's not "revealing" the quran.
That's because Allah protects his prophets from committing sins or saying wrong things (doctrine known as ismah) and so Muhammad is always right. Even against evidence. No backtalk.

>Allah forbade poetry, songs and drawings of people because poets, singers and painters were mocking Muhammad.
They're still forbidden to this day.

>The quran orders Muhammad's followers not to marry his wives if he were to die, because it would annoy him.
Really.

>Once, Allah gave Muhammad permission to break the law and marry the ex-wife of his adoptive son because she was hot as hell.
The ex-wife was named Zaynab, if I remember correctly.

>Another time, 3 people were saying that Aisha (the wife he married at 6 and fucked at 9) had cheated on him, but Allah sent a revelation that said that you need 4 witnesses to prove cheating, so Muhammad wasn't a cuck.
Thanks to this, even today it's still pretty much impossible for muslim women to prove they've been raped, since they need to bring 4 (male) witnesses (women's testimony is not accepted).

>The Quran even orders Muhammad's followers not to stay and talk with him too much when they visit him because that would annoy him, but the Prophet is too embarassed to tell them, so Allah does it for him (what an autist!).
He used his book of divine revelation to escape social anxiety and small talk.

None of this is a joke. I am NOT making shit up.

>>10011219
But how did it become such a widespread religion? Clearly there must be something about these texts that people find comforting or inspiring. Why do people say Muhammad is a peaceful and kind man if he did all this crazy and awful shit?

>>10011177
>how could such a distinction lead to these radical differences in ideology and view of other muslims?
Thing is, Ali (the leader of shias) had slightly different views about some matters from Abu Bakr (the leader of sunnis).
(Btw Abu Bakr means "father of the foal" because he used to fuck camels and goats. Not joking.)

Also, because of the "insult" perceived by shias against Ali from Abu Bakr and his followers, some opinions and hadiths that were transmitted by them are not considered valid by shias. The sunnis by contrast consider other hadiths not valid because they were transmitted by filthy shias.
For example, the temporary marriages (mut'a), marriages that only last a few hours so you can fuck hoes without sinning, are something the shias consider allowed but the sunnis consider abrogated by hadiths that the shias don't recognize as valid.
And since the hadiths are MILLIONS, while the quran is a pretty short book, lots of islamic rules are found in the hadiths and not in the quran.

>you'd think they'd get along
You're underestimating the sheer amount of conflict that following to the letter 2 slightly different set of rules can bring. Islam is intolerant of any other faith and even any other slightly-different-interpretation.
According to sharia, if you deny even the smallest islamic rule or any attribute of the Prophet or of Allah, you're an apostate and must be killed. No ulema (scholar) doubts this.

File: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg (35KB, 618x412px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 618x412px

>>10011219
>Another time, 3 people were saying that Aisha (the wife he married at 6 and fucked at 9) had cheated on him, but Allah sent a revelation that said that you need 4 witnesses to prove cheating, so Muhammad wasn't a cuck.

>>10011250
A quick search of Wikipedia tells me Abu Bakr was called that because he enjoyed playing with goats as a child, which is a totally different thing. That honestly sounds like some sunni-shia animosity, like napeoleon being portrayed as really short while he was pretty much average for his time. It sounds really complicated, though, like, the scale you're talking about is massive. How do people make sense of it?

>>10011244
>how did it become such a widespread religion?
Good question. Here's how it happened.

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.

After he started provoking the pagans by telling them that their gods were false and ordering them to convert to Islam, the pagans kicked him out of Mecca (that's the "persecution" muslims always whine about).

Muhammad declared himself a poor refugee and went to Medina, a jewish city. Then, realizing that preaching peace and tolerance wasn't very effective, he became a highway man. A bandit.

He and his followers started to attack meccan caravans, killing the merchants and stealing all their money (the quran legitimized the practice by saying that "persecution is worse than murder", so the muslims could kill and steal to "defend" themselves from the meccan persecution. Muslims still use this logic to this day.)

The more money he got from these attacks, the more people wanted to join his religion, for 3 reasons:
1) so they could get a share;
2) so Muhammad wouldn't attack them;
3) for their war-like mentality, the winner was right. If Muhammad was winning battles, it meant Islam was the true religion.

After 5 years in Medina, Muhammed had killed/enslaved all the jews there and accumulated tens of thousands of followers.
After 10 years, he had accumulated an army and he returned to Mecca, conquered it and forced everyone to choose between converting to islam or dying.
Then he did the same thing to all other towns and tribes in the entire Arabia, unifying all of them under Islam with the sword.

When Muhammad died, his successor continue to pursue the command to "fight the idolaters until the religion will be only for Allah", and attacked Iran, India, North Africa, Spain, Italy, Eastern Europe, etc. Usually winning battles thanks to their superior number and their ferocity and surprise attacks (but getting buttblasted pretty much everytime they attacked westerners, starting from Charles Martel).

Meanwhile, they kept impregnating 2, 3 or 4 wives each, plus lots of female slaves, and shitting out millions and millions of kids that then became soldiers to conquer more infidel lands.

THAT'S how islam spread so much. With wombs and swords. Because of pure, simple, earthly greed.

>>10011244
>Why do people say Muhammad is a peaceful and kind man
Because the quran is full of verses that preach peace. But they are ALL from the earliest period of Muhammad's career, when he was a powerless prophet in Mecca. Which means they've all been abrogated by more recent verses "revealed" while Muhammad was in Medina, fighting the infidels.

Verse 9:5 alone is estimated to have abrogated at least 120 earlier peaceful verses.

>>10011244
insane birthrates, also you're fed these stories from childhood all the way through to graduation, friday sermons blasted through speakers at noon, obligatory quran classes where you have to memorize scripture even if arabic is a foreign language to you also a death penalty for leaving.
t. former muslim

>>10011268
>A quick search of Wikipedia tells me Abu Bakr was called that because he enjoyed playing with goats as a child
That's the sunni version of events. And it doesn't explain why he was called "Abu", which means "father".

Muslims are extremely active on wikipedia, quora and similar websites. They delete everything they don't like and try really hard to make it look like islam is a peaceful religion.

>>10011295
When and where did you grow up? And did they really give the death penalty to children? That's insane.

>>10011304
>did they really give the death penalty to children?
Not him but no, islam says that children can't be killed.

If a child apostatizes it's considered real apostasy. He doesn't get killed until he comes of age, then he has 3 days to recant his apostasy, or they kill him.

>>10011308
And coming of age is at like, what, 12 in Islam? Seems pretty harsh. I really remember my atheist, fuck-the-world mentality then, so do people just radicalize?

>>10011304
Born in 96, grew up in the UAE, government isn't really transparent so they don't release death row inmates info, but it states clearly that atheists (specifically former muslims) get the death penalty in their anti blasphemy law.

>>10011320
>do people just radicalize?
"Radicalizing" is one of those politically correct words that have no real meaning, like "islamism". Muslims don't radicalize, they grow up with beliefs incompatible with liberal societies all their life, and one day they simply act on them.

Saying that they "radicalize" shifts the blame onto the asshole doing the radicalizing, corrupting innocent muslims and all that bullshit. The reality is that if you follow islam, you are NOT compatible with any western country.

Also, islam and islamism are the same thing.

>>10011330
I'm not sure if that's true. My driving instructor, for instance, is a muslim, but we often talk about the level of homophobia within the muslim community. He's told me Islam literally means peace, but at the same time he's also a firm supporter of Erdogan, and I can imagine him taking, let's call it 'extreme action' if he had to decide between Turkey and my country of origin. Wouldn't you at that point say that he had been radicalized, because he seemed perfectly fine with living in western society, but was politically motivated to act in his own county's best interests, that country being one wherein there is a muslim majority.

>>10011219
Interesting stuff any comments on groups like the Sufis?

>>10011343
>Islam literally means peace
It actually means submission, as in to allah and his prophet.

>>10011177
the Shia/Sunna hassle of today is mostly a political thing (read: Iranian Revolution) and only a cover up for a much greater conflict, which is between the Arabs and the Persians (the majority of the latter being Shiites) from ancient times.
Which explains why do they hate Omar the most because he's the one who ended their empire.

>>10011349
Right, yeah, but that point he's so worked up I don't really want to risk mentioning that hahaha

>>10011343
>My driving instructor, for instance, is a muslim
He's either one of those people that call themselves muslims without even knowing what islam orders, or a liar using Taqiyya (sacred deceit) on a gullible infidel.

>He's told me Islam literally means peace
Aaand he's a liar using Taqiyya. Islam means submission. Literally.

>I can imagine him taking, let's call it 'extreme action' if he had to decide between Turkey and my country of origin. Wouldn't you at that point say that he had been radicalized
No. I would say he always was a savage piece of shit. He only recently demonstrated it with actions, but he didn't become one recently.

>>10011343
>Islam literally means peace
Islam literally means "submission [to God]"

>>10011348
>groups like the Sufis
Sufis are a mystical sect of islam that is considered heretical by pretty much every other muslim denomination. They are by far the most moderate brand of muslims, for the simple reason that they IGNORE all of islam's most violent commands and interpret islam allegorically, in a philosophical way instead of in a literal one.

Problem is, Islam is very clear that ignoring the literal meaning of the texts makes you an apostate. Sufis call themselves muslims, but they're not really.

>>10011355
Did you just call me a gullible infidel? How dare you. I can laugh with him, though, he's a funny guy. Tends to whistle to women passing by, plus he could easily not talk about the homophobia in his community, so there's clearly a part of him that sees the value in western society.

>>10011354
cant blame you
>>10011355
>Taqiyya
funny thing, iv'e never heard of this practice until after i left islam, not from anyone ever.

>>10011361
>Tends to whistle to women passing by
Inbred animals will be inbred animals, I guess.

>there's clearly a part of him that sees the value in western society
Yeah. That's why he supports a radical muslim like Erdogan and would be ready to take "extreme action" if he thought his medieval death cult demanded it.

Do something fun: actually study islam and what it REALLY says, then argue with him about it.

>>10011369
>iv'e never heard of this practice until after i left islam
Because they never mentioned it or because they never USED it?

I mean, did you even have contacts with infidels in the UAE? A chance to use Taqiyya?

>>10011278
>>10011219
These are very interesting anon. I appreciate you taking the time to type the good words out

>>10011375
You're welcome. The more I learn about this medieval faith, the more pissed I get. It's fun to let off steam every once in a while.

I am angry. Angry about islam.

>>10011380
Word up man. Do you know anything about Saladin? I always hear he was an honorable historic figure but I don't know if that's bullshit or truth

>>10011371
never tried to convert anyone because i was never really invested in it, beyond the occasional sleepless night spent fearing eternal hell.

>>10011360
Thanks, what are the best scholarly biographies of Muhammad and exegesis of the Koran?

Do other religions run into simmilar historical issues like Islam does?

>>10011370
I really think I'm just going to get my driving license to be honest, but it sounds like you two would have a lot talk about. Do you meet any muslims where you live?

>>10011390
>Saladin? I always hear he was an honorable historic figure but I don't know if that's bullshit or truth
As a rule of thumb, if you hear that a muslim leader was honorable by western standards, that's bullshit by pro-islam orientalists. Saladin was as bloodthirsty as any other muslim leader, he was just a better military commander.

>>10011395
>the best scholarly biographies of Muhammad and exegesis of the Koran?
"The Life of Muhammad", which is the sirat translated by Alfred Guillaume. I'm sure you can find a copy for free on the internet.
The best tafsirs are that of At-Tabari and Ibn Kathir. Also on the internet. They're the most respected ones, their interpretation is the one still accepted by mainstream islam to this day (thanks to the anti-scientific belief that past generations were wiser than current ones and understood the world better).

>>10011395
>Do other religions run into simmilar historical issues like Islam does?
Meaning, being created by a murderous autistic (and probably epilectic) cunt by mixing other religions and then used as a weapon to submit entire continents?
I think buddists did that.

>>10011398
>Do you meet any muslims where you live?
Yes. They're arrogant, ignorant cunts. As expected from a religion that teaches them that western science is flawed bullshit made up by infidels and muslims are the only ones that know the TRUTH.
Also, they are ALL convinced that western women are worthless whores. Even the ones that don't beat them and rape them support these practices.
And muslim women are even fiercer than the men in calling western women whores.

>>10011427
>"The Life of Muhammad", which is the sirat translated by Alfred Guillaume.

Thanks

>Meaning, being created by a murderous autistic

I mean in their holy texts having simmilar indications of not being divinely inspired. From some of the study ive done what you are saying sounds a bit simmilar to Mormonism in some ways.

>>10011438
>their holy texts having simmilar indications of not being divinely inspired
Well, I haven't really studied any other religion, but since they're all bullshit (especially the abramitic ones) I would assume they all have a few indicators of their bullshit nature.

Mormonism is wacky, but in a harmless way. Joseph Smith was a complete fucking hack, of course. All that story about the golden tablets was ludicrous. And the rest of their doctrine is too.

Video related:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a3eJC3qAFU

>>10011451
Is acts17appologetics/ david wood a good source of info on Islam?

>>10010965
Solid post thanks

>>10011478
I've read some articles by David Wood and they seemed solid. But if you want to really know what it says, a quick and easy way is to download some sharia legal code and read the laws about the matters that interest you. Muslim legislators always justify every law by quoting the relevant quranic suras and hadiths.
I suggest these 2:

>'Umdat al-Salik (The Reliance of the Traveller).

>A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence.

You can find both on the internet.
The first is from the 13th century. The second was written in 2001. They're pretty much IDENTICAL. No progress in eight centuries.
Really drives the point home that islam is anti-science, anti-progress, anti-innovations, anti-freethinking.

>>10011079
Muhammad had scribes write it down, so it wasn't just recited orally.
>The third caliph, Uthman, destroyed basically all the deviant versions and declared his version the only correct one
Wrong, he destroyed the ones that went against Muhammads original Quran that the scribes wrote down, and he compiled the Quran. He burnt the wrong ones because he didn't want people in Syria to be reciting something different from people in Egypt, it would cause corruption.
>It should be obvious from its origin that the book is going to be a complete fucking mes
If you translate a 1400 year old language it won't make sense. In original Arabic it's a miracle, that's how Muhammad (PBUH) got so many followers in such a short amount of time.
>since the practice of naskh (abrogation) invalidates the older rules in favor of the most recent ones, when there are conflicts between 2 verses
There are only historical abrogations in the Quran, there are none relating to the tenants of Islam, so they don't matter. For example 9:5 is a historical verse, and by reading the verses that come before it you can see that the Muslims made a treaty with the polytheists, who broke the treaty and killed Muslims. So Allah allowed the Muslims to attack them.
If you read the verse after it clearly explains that if they seek protection and don't fight, then grant them protection and deliver them to their place of safety.
>Overall, it's a terrible book
That would be the opinion of anyone who picked out verses without reading the whole thing
>If you want to know what Islam says, read sharia manuals or fatwa websites like IslamQA.com
Fatwa websites? Anyone can post a fatwa, for all you know it could be a non-Muslim pretending to give wrong advice. And there are no such things as Sharia manuals.
If you want to know what islam says you don't go to random blogs on the internet from anonymous people.
>>10011478
>Is acts17appologetics/ david wood a good source of info on Islam
Why would you go to someone who's specialty is in philosophy for info on Islam? You go to a Muslim who's studied Islam. If you want to learn about Christianity you go to a Christian who's studied Christianity.

>>10010955
Well said my fellow 'pede

>>10011478
No, his understanding of Islam isn't what I would call great.

>>10011395
The Islamic narrative regarding the building of the Kabbah by Abraham and Ishmael is fucking retarded, to start.

File: 1503454544491.png (246KB, 484x605px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 484x605px

>>10011044
>>10010990

>Memri TV couldn't handle Momo's banter

>>10011495
>there are only historical abrogations in Islam
islamic defense force is here

>>10011514
Considering that there's so many easily refutable lies in this thread, I don't see why not. The reality is Islam is divine, Muhammad was clearly mentioned in previous religious texts (Torah and Bible). There's a reason why it's the fastest growing religion by converts in the west.

>>10011522
>There's a reason why it's the fastest growing religion by converts

Source on this? I thought it was immigration.

>>10011495
Pretty much your entire post is bullshit, as expected from a muslim. Greatest hits:

>>10011495
>Muhammad had scribes write it down
While some verses were written on scraps of paper, fabric, wood and even animal bones, the majority of it was memorized. Zayd had to gather all the ones that knew it by memory to write it all down.

>>10011495
>he destroyed the ones that went against Muhammads original Quran
Uthman destroyed any quran except his version and then declared that the other versions were "corrupted". There is no proof whatsoever that his version was the most faithful to Muhammad's original teachings.

>>10011495
>In original Arabic it's a miracle
And here we have the most retarded argument muslims always use: the quran is itself a miracle... but only in the original arabic. Christ...

>>10011495
>there are none relating to the tenants of Islam
Complete fucking bullshit debunked by every islamic scholar on the planet. Even the goddamn prohibition to drink alcohol is nothing but a later addition that abrogated a previous verse that instead allowed alcohol.
And Ibn Kathir and at-Tabari and EVERY OTHER MUSLIM SCHOLAR agrees that veerse 9:5 (the Verse of the Sword) made it forever impossible to coexist peacefully with infidels except for short truces (who cannot be longer than 10 years). This is not my opinion, it's mainstream doctrine. Study your own religion.

>>10011495
>the verse after it clearly explains that if they seek protection and don't fight, then grant them protection
Who the fuck do you think you're fooling? That verse talks about dhimmitude. If the infidels submit and "seek protection" (meaning = they become dhimmis) then they must not be killed, because the dhimmis have to pay "infidelity taxes" (jizya and kharaj) so they're an immense source of income for muslims.
That's what the quran means by "protection". The same thing mobsters mean.

>Anyone can post a fatwa
IslamWeb.net and IslamQA are run by respected sheyks, not by "anyone".
And each fatwa is supported by lots of quotations from the quran, the sirat, the hadiths and the tafsirs. They're doctrinally solid.

>>10011495
>That would be the opinion of anyone who picked out verses without reading the whole thing
I read the whole thing. It was a piece of shit.

>there are no such things as Sharia manuals
Are you high on donkey semen?? Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) is still recognized as a sharia manual to this day. It's given out in american mosques to new converts to teach them what sharia says. It was even recognized by the university of Al-Azhar (the most prestigious of the sunni world) as a valid source of doctrine!
And "A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence" was written as recently as 2001. Tell me this doesn't exist:
>https://www.amazon.com/Summary-Islamic-Jurisprudence-VOL-Set/dp/B004E4AHWE
I guess Amazon is a lying infidel too.

What a lying piece of shit. Go practice your taqyyia somewhere else.

>>10011522
>easily refutable lies
>doesn't refute a single one
That inbreeding really got to your head.

File: mfw muslim apologetics.jpg (34KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 375x375px

>>10011522
complete bullshit.

>>10011522
>The reality is Islam is divine,
May Allah kill me right now if he exists and if islam is really divine.
...
See? Nothing.

>Muhammad was clearly mentioned in previous religious texts (Torah and Bible).
No, he wasn't. You muslims just twist the meaning of a few passages to make it look like they refer to Muhammad. Bullshit.

>There's a reason why it's the fastest growing religion by converts in the west.
It's the fastest growing religion because of 2 dynamics:
1) FUCKING IMMIGRANTS.
2) YOUR WHORE WOMEN SHITTING OUT 7 LITTLE ROACHES EACH.
And that's it. The converts are an insignificant part of the equation (and the ex-muslims are probably more numerous).

Your religion is fake. Your prophet was a pedophile and a piece of shit. You're a piece of shit too. And your so called god can't even stop me from speaking.

Fuck you and fuck allah.

>>10011527
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/why-are-millions-of-muslims-becoming-christian/
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-17
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/world/europe/rise-of-islamic-converts-challenges-france.html

>>10010965
People aren't really that different, tribalism accounts for most conflict between cultures

Is it actually powerful in its own language? Is it by virtue of its tongue or quality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3MzZgPBL3Q

>Among the numerous situations that may arise during this season are the Christmas lights. Little Omar –with awe and delight, one evening as you’re passing by lit up houses on the way to the Masjid –may exclaim: “Look, the lights are so pretty!” you look at him frowning, “No, no, no! Omar, those are ugly!” you reply scolding him.

>Omar may never tell you he thinks the lights are pretty again, because he doesn’t want to disappoint you. However, that doesn’t mean that this is what he thinks. He may still believe that the lights are pretty; and in addition, he may feel that this is untrue!

>It may even be hard for you to tell someone the lights are ugly – possibly because you don’t even believe that yourself. Why? Because the lights are delightful to most, young and old alike, that’s why they are used for all sorts of festive occasions. The fact is, although they may be nice to look at, the underlying reason is that they are used at this time of the year, and this is what is ugly… not the lights themselves.

islamic autism, everyone

>>10011558
>People aren't really that different
Muslims are born and raised in a culture that did not have the Enlightment. A culture that is utterly dominated by a warring faith from the 7th century that cannot change and adapt to modern times because one of its basic tenets is its immutability. They're fucking aliens. Their worldview, their morals, their way of intending logic... everything is drastically different from ours, and in ways a westerner wouldn't even dream of.

It's uncanny to read and hear how they think. Aliens.

>>10011565
this is really beautiful, thanks anon

File: 1503424261308.jpg (542KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1500x1000px

>>10011427
>Also, they are ALL convinced that western women are worthless whores

They are sort of right but this really activates a tribal defense reflex in me, because I can tell when I meet them IRL(lot's of Arab exchange students at my college) they have no respect for our culture or people. Prior to meeting and studying Islam I thought I would sympathize because I'm right wing as well. But Islam seems to just be an Arab expansionist ideology packaged as Abrahamic religion. The fact progressives are so ignorant makes me rage and has caused a couple power level slip ups.

>>10011578
>They are sort of right but this really activates a tribal defense reflex in me
I completely understand you. Fuck our retarded women but fuck muslims even more.

Islam is not even right-wing. It's obtusity, ignorance, arrogance, arab suprematism. In one word, shit.

>>10011369
>>10011371
>Taqiyya

End this /pol/ meme, taqiyya is only a concept in Shia Islam

>>10011578
they are right about our women, but the facts are that their women would be just as bad if they weren't severely repressed, which is what makes them such insufferable cunts in the first place.

>>10011567
You want islamic autism? How about this quranic verse:

>(33:53) O you who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses, except when leave is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, DISPERSE WITHOUT SITTING FOR A TALK. Verily, such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet, and HE IS SHY of (asking) you (to go), but Allah is not shy of (telling you) the truth. And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them FROM BEHIND A SCREEN, that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not (right) for you that you should annoy Allah's Messenger, nor that you should ever MARRY HIS WIVES AFTER HIM (his death). Verily! With Allah that shall be an enormity.

In this single verse, Muhammad uses the quran to:
1) Tell his friends not to come in his house unless he invites them,
2) Not to stay in his house indefinitely but fuck off quickly because he's shy and too awkward for small talk,
3) He tells women to not show themselves directly, but from behind a screen (hijab),
4) He warns his comrades that no one should fuck his wives after he dies because the idea pisses him off.

This is islam's perfect man. This is islam's sacred, perfect, timeless divine revelation.

>>10011541
Rekt. Keep fighting the good fight anon.

>>10010639
Is the constitution a good book to read?
If you are a Law-maker the quran the only incorruptible constitution on earth.

>>10011541
Can you save some of your posts on a pastebin/do an faq your stuff is great

>>10011541
I think I might spend some time to make a sourced chart comparing Jesus and the NT to Muhamed and the Quran. And then try and get /pol/ to run with it and spread onto twitter/fb. Because the facts speak for themselves

File: taqyyia_infibulation.jpg (130KB, 872x433px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 872x433px

>>10011589
>taqiyya is only a concept in Shia Islam
Complete fucking bullshit.
In 'Umdat al-Salik, which is a SUNNI sharia manual (shafi school) there is a blatant taqyyia attempt in the paragraph about infibulation. Pic related.

While the english translation says only to cut the prepuce of the clitoris and not the clitoris itself, the arab texts says clearly to cut the clitoris.

The misleading translation was confirmed in a courtroom during a trial (case n° A392/2002) by professor of linguistic Mark John Durie. Here's his very interesting testimony (page 50):

>http://www.saltshakers.org.au/images/stories/attachments/284_313278_VCAT_-_DOCUMENTS_RELATIN.pdf

Sunnis use taqyyia just like shia. Claiming they don't is just part of taqyyia.

>>10011616
Excellent idea. Pictures and infographics are the way to go nowadays.

>>10011606
This constutution (the Coran) is such hermetic and solid that there Is a Law whithin it to read every lettre.

>>10011026
Look up "Qur'an Code."

The Qur'an is the exact opposite of a mess. It's ordered mathematically in ways which would've been impossible, especially when it was transmitted orally.

>>10011541
>While some verses were written on scraps of paper, fabric, wood and even animal bones, the majority of it was memorized. Zayd had to gather all the ones that knew it by memory to write it all down.
>Uthman destroyed any quran except his version and then declared that the other versions were "corrupted". There is no proof whatsoever that his version was the most faithful to Muhammad's original teachings.
I'm not sure you understand how the compilation worked.

Muhammad taught ONE Quran, with seven different ahruf (ways of reading in some cases).

This provision from Allah was given to help facilitate the easy recitation and memorisation of the Quran by the contemporary Arab speakers from all Arab tribes with their subtle linguistic nuances, especially focusing on the young, old, women, and those who could not read or write.

The written text of this quran has been standardized by the Caliph Uthman in agreement of the Companions of Prophet Muhammad so as to accomadate these readings. Where the text could not accomodate a particular instance of reading, often an addition/ommision of letter/word was required.

The fact remains that only ONE text of the Quran is preserved and read today in 10 authentic Qirat, (readings), each transmitted by two rwayats (narrations). Each of these readings are authentically transmitted by the prophet Muhammad and all of these are acceptable readings of the Quran. The meaning stays the same, grammatical rules and annotations are added to preserve the recitation and meaning of the Quran.
>Even the goddamn prohibition to drink alcohol is nothing but a later addition that abrogated a previous verse that instead allowed alcohol.
This is exactly what I mean. Only historical abrogations have taken place, the abrogation of the alcohol verses were historical.
First Allah sent down a verse stopping people from coming to prayer drunk, then he stopped strong drinks and eventually banned alcohol as a whole. You can't just
>And Ibn Kathir and at-Tabari and EVERY OTHER MUSLIM SCHOLAR agrees that veerse 9:5 (the Verse of the Sword) made it forever impossible to coexist peacefully with infidels except for short truces (who cannot be longer than 10 years). This is not my opinion, it's mainstream doctrine. Study your own religion.
Which mainstream doctrine are you talking about? All the shuyookh I've heard from say the exact opposite. And cite your source, don't just throw names of tafsir authors.
>That verse talks about dhimmitude. If the infidels submit and "seek protection" (meaning = they become dhimmis)
It doesn't say this though, if it talked about infidels I'd see your point. But the fact is the word "Infidel" isn't even mentioned in the Quran once. Clearly shows you haven't read the quran and are only copying from websites.
>Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller)
Umdat al Salik is a manual for FIQH, not sharia. Sharia is used in an islamic state, fiqh is used everywhere.

>>10011599
Always. Destroying lying mudshits is a moral imperative.

>>10011613
I'm actually writing a book about islam's teachings and the many ways it's incompatible with western civilization. 445 pages of evidence from islamic texts that islam has no place in the West.
It's a scholarly work, because I'm a researcher by formation, so every statement is carefully sourced. I want to make it ironclad, so no muslim can claim I'm lying.
If I can find a publisher that isn't too much of a pussy I'm gonna publish it. And then probably get killed by some inbred goatfucker.

Remember me after my death and keep up the good fight.

>>10011639
>is such hermetic and solid that there Is a Law whithin it to read every lettre.
Just buy a chromosome already.

its worth reading.

i personally preferred it to the bible from an academic point of view

>>10011650
>I'm actually writing a book about islam's teachings and the many ways it's incompatible with western civilization.

Should it get published will you let us know how to get it?

i'd fucking read that book. this thread has been very enlightening. im a liberalfag and am now even more disgusted by islam.

tell us more.

>>10011650
>I'm actually writing a book about islam's teachings and the many ways it's incompatible with western civilization.
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

be sure to let us know when its getting published/ self-published

>>10011541
The fact is the Quran is a divine book, it (and the hadith) contains many strikingly accurate prediction.
The fact that it claims to have been perfectly preserved should automatically tell you about its divine nature.
The Quran's eloutqent nature of recitation and rhyming of verses is thought to be the best Arabic book (by linguistic scholars).
The fact that the Quran is in accuracy with modern science also shows its divine nature. It explained embryology 1400 years ago.
The Bible and torah clearly predicted Muhammad, they said he would be 1.In the lands of Kedar. 2. The people of Selah will sing or rejoice. 3. He will be a mighty warrior. 4. He will turn back the idol worshippers and implement justice ( in the region of Kedar and Selah )
Kedar is the son of Ishmael, whom Muhammad is the descendant of.

>>10011647
>I'm not sure you understand how the compilation worked.
And I'm sure you understand, but are simply lying.

>The fact remains that only ONE text of the Quran is preserved and read today
Lol no. To this day, there are several versions of the quran printed and sold in various parts of the world. Also, some qirats change the meaning of some verses. That alone contradicts your claim that there is only one quran.
You can easily find lists of discrepancies between the different versions of the quran. But I'm sure that if I linked them you'd reject them because they're infidel sources and only muslim ones are reliable and unbiased, right?

>Only historical abrogations have taken place
I'm starting to suspect that by saying "historical abrogation" you're just trying to confuse the issue.
The fact is that several medinese verses have abrogated many previous ones, generally the ones that preached peace.

>cite your source, don't just throw names of tafsir authors
I assumed you knew about Kathir and Tabari because they're basic readings, but apparently you're either too ignorant or really like being assblasted.
Here Ibn Arabi says that the verse 9:5 abrogated 124 of the most peaceful verses:
>Ibn Arabi, in Suyuti, "Itqan", III, p. 69. See also John Wansbrough, "Quranic Studies", Prometheus Books, New York 2003, p. 184.
Here Mustafa Abu Zayd says the abrogated verses are 140:
>Mustafa Abu Zayd, "Al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh", I, 289 ff e II, 503 ff.
Here sheykh Muhammad al-Munajjid confirms:
>https://islamqa.info/en/34770
And here Ibn Kathir confirms once more:
>Ibn Kathir, "Tafsir 'Ibn Katjr", vol. 4, note to the ayah 9:5.
Ibn Kathir's tafsir is also on the internet, so it's easy to confirm:
>http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581
A quote directly from Ibn Kathir:
>This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term." Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed."

> the fact is the word "Infidel" isn't even mentioned in the Quran once. Clearly shows you haven't read the quran and are only copying from websites.
Who the fuck do you think you're talking too, mudshit? I know perfectly well that the quran doesn't say precisely "infidel" but "mushrikun", but the thing is that that word means "guilty of shirk", and that includes not only polytheists but also christians, jews and even atheists. Source:
>"Atheism is a greater sin than shirk", october 2009. https://islamqa.info/en/113901
So even though translators just translate "mushrikun" with "polytheists" in an attempt to make it look as if the quran is only talking about the arab pagans that Muhammed was fighting at the time, THE REAL MEANING is that every non-muslim, every infidel, must be killed.
Unless he becomes a dhimmi.

>>10011647
>Umdat al Salik is a manual for FIQH, not sharia
Fiqh is islamic jurisprudence. Sharia is islamic law, as described by fiqh.
Fiqh manuals = sharia manuals.

>>10011665
>>10011668
>>10011695
I'm sure lots of people would be interested in discovering what exactly islam actually says about stuff (women's rights, gay rights, laicism, science, justice, etc.).
Let's hope I find a publisher willing to take risks. If I succeed, I'll warn you all.

>>10011734
Thanks Ill cap some of your posts here as well

>>10011668
>tell us more.
On paragraph a7.2, Reliance of the Traveller ('Umdat al-Salik) says clearly that all our scientific disciplines are unlawful, thereby destroying any hope of coexistence between science and islam:

>(a7.2) «Unlawful Knowledge.
Unlawful knowledge includes:
-1- learning sorcery (dis: p3), since according to the most reliable position, it is unlawful, as the vast majority of scholars have decisively stated;
-2- philosophy (dis: w10);
-3- magic (Sha`badha, meaning sleight of hand, etc.);
-4- astrology (dis: p41);
-5- the sciences of the materialists (dis: w11).
-6- and anything that is a means to create doubts (n: in eternal truths), Such things vary in their degree of unlawfulness.»

Get that? Our sciences and anything that might create doubts in the quran or the sunna is forbidden.
Muslims love to repeat that islam teaches to think freely and to "seek knowledge even in China". What they never tell you is that islam with "knowledge" means only the sacred books. Everything else is considered as flawed, temporary theories and ideas made up by infidels. Wrong in the best cases, unlawful in the worst.

Want more?
Reliance of the Traveller also says not only that Jihad is also a MILITARY war, and not just a "spiritual struggle against sin" like muslims say, but it also clarifies that it's ALWAYS mandatory, even when the infidels stay in their own countries without attacking muslims:

>(o9.1) «The Obligatory Character of Jihad: Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others
[…]
«there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is WHEN THEY ARE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.
«The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).»

A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence confirmed it in 2001. It also added that muslims can break truces whenever they want simply by claiming that they fear infidels might break them first (Vol. 1, Part VI: "Jihad", p. 477).

>>10011713
>many strikingly accurate prediction.
Nope.
What it contains are statements like that the Earth is flat and that semen is produced between the ribs and the kidneys.

>the fact is...
None of those bullshit is a fact. Just bullshit.

>>10011713
>the Quran is in accuracy with modern science
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>It explained embryology 1400 years ago.
Brb pissing myself with laughter.

File: 1489699822351.jpg (477KB, 960x904px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 960x904px

>>10010955
Zzzzz

>>10010990
Truly popo the scatalogical toad is a sign of the edn tiems

>>10011713
>The fact that it claims to have been perfectly preserved should automatically tell you about its divine nature.
If you're an inbred goatfucker, maybe.
Where the fuck is the logic in your statement?? It claims to have been perfectly preserved... therefore it's of divine origin.
This is your brain on islam.

>>10011219
>>10011278
Source? It isn't that I don't believe you, I just want to be 100% positive.

>>10011815
Source about what, exactly? I'm willing to give you a source on everything but you need to be more precise.

The history of the rise of Islam is all narrated in the Sirat. Read Alfred Guillaume's translation: "The Life of Muhammad".

>>10011815
Sources on a few statements:

>He can have all the wives and female slaves he wants.
As stated clearly in Quran 33:50.
https://quran.com/33/50-60

>His followers were ordered to always obey him, even when he's not "revealing" the quran.
Quran 53:3-4 (https://quran.com/53) is the sura taken as the basis for this doctrine, called "ismah". Google it for more. essentially, Muhammad was infallible, so every word or action of his was automatically right.
According to a closely related doctrine, "uswa hasana", Muhammad is the best possible role model for any muslim in any era or place. Which is a problem, considering what an asshole he was.

>Allah forbade poetry, songs and drawings of people because poets, singers and painters were mocking Muhammad.
"Reliance of the Traveller" forbids music, songs, picture making and sculpting in paragraphs r40.1, r40.2, r40.3, r40.4, p44.1, w50.1, and several hadiths (Bukhari 5960 and 6109 for example).
About the fact that poets and singers were mocking the poor Muhammad, here's a list of people he assassinated for this:
1) Al-Nadr bin al-Harith (Ibn Ishaq, "The Life of Muhammad", translated by A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, 2004, p. 136),
2) Uqba bin Abu Muayt (Ibn Ishaq, ivi, p. 308; [Bukhari 520 e 2934]; [Muslim 1794]),
3) Asma bint Marwan (female poet stabbed in her sleep while pregnant: Ibn Ishaq, ivi, pp. 675-6),
4) Abu Afak (blind, 100 years old poet killed for his verses: Ibn Ishaq, ivi, p. 675),
5) Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (Ibn Ishaq, ivi, pp. 364-9; [Bukhari 4037]; [Abu Dawud 3000]).
Muhammad had Ka'b killed in a particularly cowardly way:
>[Bukhari 4037] «Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b)." The Prophet said, "You may say it."»
Ka'b was stabbed by a group of muslims and beheaded. All self-defense, claimed Muhammad, because Ka'b had "persecuted" him by mocking and criticizing him. Same logic current muslims still apply.

Other sources I already quoted here: >>10011598

>>10011877
Do you have more stuff on Islam and science?

112 replies 30 posters
>>10010643
well predicted

>>10011250
Bullshit
1. Don't translare names
2. We don't know why he was called Abu Baker

What's the best translation of the bible?

Im an arab ex-mussie here you can ask me anything.
Some of the people here have good info but they exaggerate stuff without knowing,

>>10011296
>it's a moosleem conspiracy

>>10010990
>the false prophet
Given pepe really came into the mainstream with the presidential election, either hillary or trump. Given prophets get voted for and recognised, I'd say trump

>the beast
Kek

>the dragon
4chan

>>10012973
What are your thoughts on

>>10011079
>>10011219
>>10011278

And the discussion between that poster and the one in >>10011495

File: 1505195115994.png (19KB, 473x315px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 473x315px

>>10011643

File: 1498531612250.jpg (48KB, 628x442px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 628x442px

>>10011162
>bro the quran doesn't mean what it actually says even though it says it means exactly what it says
>dude it's just like a fragment of a higher truth, just look at the essence of it lmao

Damn someone screencap Islam getting btfo itt

>>10011278
>wombs and swords
If you're the book anon, that should be the title of your book

File: Anon BTFO Islam.png (786KB, 1392x5280px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1392x5280px

>>10013075
how's that look chief?

>>10013154
not that anon but thank you

>>10012848
Science is completely antithetic to Islam. The muslim conception of the universe is that of a chaotic thing that doesn't works according to stable natural laws that you can understand, but only to the whims of Allah. Allah can do anything, even produce an effect without a cause and a cause without an effect. This means that for our limited human minds, understanding nature is ultimately impossible.

Not only it's impossible, but it's actually blasphemous. "Reliance of the Traveller" in this long paragraph explains how incredibly easy it is to be considered an apostate. Look at point n° 17.

>(o8.7) «Acts that Entail Leaving Islam: […]
>4) to revile Allah or His messenger;
>5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him;
>6) to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His inderdiction, His promise, or His threat;
>7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does [not] belong to it;
>8) to mockingly say, "I don't know what faith is"; […]
>14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);
>15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;
>16) to revile the religion of Islam;
>17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;
>18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;
>19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
>20) to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message to be the religion followed by the entire world.

Not only denying even the smallest rule prescribed in the Quran (and even being sarcastic about it) is enough to be an apostate (and therefore killed) but the same holds true for "believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah". If you think that the universe respects stable natural laws independent of the whims of Allah, you're an apostate, and therefore must be executed.

This, added to the belief that past generations were wiser than current ones (the generation of the Prophet is called "the best that ever existed") and that Muhammad could do no wrong and should be imitated instead of corrected (ismah) make science and innovation in Islam IMPOSSIBLE.

>>10013161
Then what of the so called golden age and the great thinkers, philosophers and mathameticians ect?

>>10012959
>We don't know why he was called Abu Baker
Admittedly, it's impossible to know such a thing for sure.

>>10012997
>muslims don't lie about their religion.
I suggest you read this excellent book about the practice of Taqiyya: “Al Taqiyya fil Islam”, by Sami Makarem.
Quote:

>"Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream...Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era." (p. 7)

>>10011643
>It's ordered mathematically in ways which would've been impossible
Nigga it's ordered from the longest sura to the shortest.
"Mathematically impossible"? The fuck you on about?

>>10011162
>The Quran in its essence has NOTHING to do with Islam.
Congratulation, you're an apostate. See: >>10013161

File: 12 Angry Men.avi_004824116.jpg (36KB, 424x429px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 424x429px

>>10010639
>A good book?
It literally repeats itself a hundred times over (as if the redactors who compiled the thing wanted to make it bigger). Seriously. From about the halfway point it becomes tedious - incessant repetitions (surely Allah is all-knowing and munificent") - like, okay, we get it. Say something else.
>reads sura 4:34
Oh shit...

>>10013164
>Forgetting that it was all based on Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes, etc - which the Arab hoards looted from the Byzantine lands they conquered (destroying many priceless texts in the process). And their "Golden Age" lasted far longer than the Athenian one and produced next to nothing. Compare that to the European Renaissance where you had an EXPLOSION of brilliance that led to more and more brilliance with the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and modernity itself.

>>10013075

It's poorly researched or deliberately misleading desu.

for example >>10011278

>Muhammad declared himself a poor refugee and went to Medina, a jewish city.

> Then, realizing that preaching peace and tolerance wasn't very effective, he became a highway man. A bandit.

You fail to mention that he was only reclaiming the property of his followers which had been left behind at Mecca and consequently stolen by his enemies.
Medina was never a Jewish city, it was a mixed city with Christians and Jews

>After 5 years in Medina, Muhammed had killed/enslaved all the jews

Pure dissimulation. Muhammad made an alliance with the Jews wihch treated them with total equity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

The Jews then decided, when Mecca was under siege, to break their alliance and attack the muslims from behind. They still lost, and were asked by Muhammad whether they would like to be judged by Shariah law or Jewish law. They chose Jewish law. Deuteronomy 20:10–14 says: "If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench#Aftermath:_Siege_and_demise_of_the_Banu_Qurayza

The rest of your post is so full of nonsense that I only have time to respond to one point.

>
When Muhammad died, his successor continue to pursue the command to "fight the idolaters until the religion will be only for Allah", and attacked Iran, India, North Africa, Spain, Italy, Eastern Europe, etc. Usually winning battles thanks to their superior number

Pure lies. Let's take the battle of Yarmouk between the muslims and the Byzantines for example.

Muslims: 15,000–20,000 (modern estimates)d[›] 24,000–40,000 (primary sources)e[›]

Byzantines: 15,000–150,000 (modern estimates)a[›] 100,000–200,000 (primary Arab sources)c[›] 140,000 (primary Roman sources)b[›

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk

>>10013196
yeah but if they were hardcore anti science and the like why would they have preserved and developed these thinkers?

>>10013026
Firstly, the Quran we have today was written during Abu Bakr's reign, Uthman Ibn Affan was trying to unite it into single version so that people from different areas don't recite it the way they like, basically closing the doors for any garbling.

About Abu Bakr's name, it means father of foal, which is something Arabs were proud of. The use of father has always been a custom in the Arab world, it is used til today. A father can be called with Abu + his son's name/ what he is known for, so Abu David would be David's father.

When they say Quran is miraculous in the Arabic language, it can get a bit messy. As someone not extremely familiar with the Arabic language, you can never take it seriously. I myself find it's writing beautiful, it really is and I won't lie about it, but muslims exaggerate when they say it's one of a kind and no one was able to imitate it, well naturally you idiots, they wouldn't let such writings go where the sun shines. Anyway it's not that special, ancient arabian poetry is as good if not better.
It also sounds beautiful because of Telawa, but then again it was created way after Mohammed's death.

Islam is firm because it's excellent at brainwashing, particularly growing seeds of fear in the youngster the moment they start walking. Within an Islam only world, with disregarding other nations and setting aside our knowledge and wisdom, it makes perfect sense. But right now it's pretty outdated, saying it's timeless is crazy, you can look at the Islamic countries now and figure out how the Shariaa' laws are vanishing, modernity is everywhere and the Sheikhs hate to admit it.

About why it spread, infidel anon told you a bit about it, but let me tell you why they were fierce. Mohammed implemented Jihad in a genius way. Muslims longed to die in battle because it was the highest honor as a muslim, if you are a martyr not only you go to the highest levels of heaven but you can get 70 of your acquaintances with you, Also, the nation vows to take care of your family, so basically you have nothing to fear. Another reason is the skill of Khaled Ibn Il Waleed, arguably one of the best generals of all time, you can go ask /his/ about him.

Point out if I missed something.

>>10013199

None of his posts btw give a literary critique of the Qur'an, but instead use distorted historical analysis to attack islam.

On the Qur'an:

It's a very interesting book with beautiful passages that are rich in rhetorical technique and philosophical depth.

Muslims are right when they say you can't appreciate it in translation. I'm a Homeric scholar and feel the same way about the Iliad. The Iliad would be difficult to understand and appreciate without a requisite knowledge of Greek culture and language. it's impossible to properly understand or appreciate it without first knowing what, for example, kleos meant to Greeks and what place it held in their culture - the modern translation of 'glory' gives no hint as to it's importance.

In the same way, to properly appreciate the Qur'an you need a knowledge of the Arabic language and culture. The Qur'an makes use of rhetorical techniques that simply don't exist in English, such as iltifat.

While I see the practical necessity of the legalistic passages in the Qur'an, I found them mostly to be dull reading, though one or two of them were occasionally good.

There lots of verses with great depth such as 24:35. Imam Ghazali wrote a beautiful book on that verse called the Mishkat al Anwar which is a fantastic read itself.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/mishkat/index.htm

>>10013075
That would be a good title indeed...

>>10013164
>Then what of the so called golden age
Oh, brace yourself.
Every muslim apologist always babbles about this "Islamic Golden Age". Then when pressed, they either admit they don't know any muslim thinker/scientist/philosopher, or name these ones:

>Avicenna:
His progresses in medicine and logic were derived from the works of Aristotle and Hippocrates. His theology was a fusion of Plotino's ideas and Islam, he denied physical resurrection and thought the prophets were simply "inspired philosophers". Also, he said that Allah only knew the universal principles of the universe, but not the smallest day-to-day events in our lives, which denied his omniscience.
For this, he was accused of blasphemy by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Abu al-Ghazali and other scholars. You can clearly see that according to Islam's rules, he was NOT a muslim.

>Averroes:
Strongly influenced by greek philosophy as well, he dared to say that truth could be discovered using reason and logic and not only the holy texts. He was accused of blasphemy, persecuted and forced in exile in Marrakesh.
He wasn't considered a muslim either.

>Al-Razi:
Called the best muslim thinker ever, he called himself "a disciple of Socrates and Plato", he denied that the world was created from nothing, that Faith is superior to Reason, that Muhammad told only the truth, and that revealed religions in general are very useful. He considered them needlessly nitpicky and irrational.
He had the balls to write 3 books on the subject: "The Prophet's Fraudulent Tricks", "The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets" and "On the Refutation of Revealed Religions". He also called the Quran "a collection of absurd fables". Was obv. accused of apostasy.
Was not a muslim.

>Ibn al-Haytham:
Made some advancements in optics, but his most important contribution was the formulation of the scientific method: he claimed that every hypothesis must be supported by empirical data and experiments, not only by holy texts. Oddly enough, it seems he wasn't accused of apostasy despite this obviously heretical view, but the intellectual sterility of Islam is evident in the fact that his ideas were completely IGNORED, and continue to be ignored. They were instead immediately and enthusiastically received in the West.

(continue)

>>10013229
>Al-Sarakhsi
Philosopher. Studied the greeks and dared to apply rationality to the study of the holy books. Was executed in 899 d.C. for apostasy.

>Al-Farabi.
Philosopher. Thought that reason was superior to faith and that the body could not resurrect. Was accused of apostasy.

Starting to see a trend? Basically all the "great muslim thinkers" WERE NOT MUSLIMS AT ALL. They could only do good work because they rejected Islam and its intellectually crippling views. The exceptions are really few: Ibn Khaldun (historian), Al-Tusi (polymath) and maybe a couple of others that made some contribution in algebra or geometry. But that's it.

The "Islamic Golden Age" should actually be called the greek-dhimmi-golden-age, since it depended entirely on the translation of the greeks by the conquered populations. Yes, they started with the greeks. EVERY accomplishment muslims claim was actually a greek or indian one, like the so called "arab" numerals, invented in India around the 700 d.C., and the number zero, invented by Brahmagupta in 628 d.C., and so on.
Caliph Al-Mamun in the 9th century ordered dhimmis (all jews and christians) to translate the greeks because he wanted to use their knowledge. But, as Islam always does, he wanted ONLY the useful trinkets, not the scientific method, which was always rejected. Conclusion: no real progress possible. As soon as they exausted the greek well, their "progress" stopped.

An obscurantist, totalitarian ideology like Islam can never be fertile ground for scientific or intellectual research. Shit, some of his most basic laws expressely forbid to question and to research the Holy Books.

>>10013227
>It's a very interesting book with beautiful passages that are rich in rhetorical technique and philosophical depth.

So all that stuff about the repetition, it not being in order ect arent true ?

>>10013229

>You can clearly see that according to Islam's rules, he was NOT a muslim.

Yes he was. Neither Ghazali nor anyone else accused him of blasphemy - Ghazali at least merely critiqued his epistemological methodology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna#Metaphysical_doctrine

>>10013201
Same reason they now use ALL our technologies but still reject the scientific method in favor of faith.
You must understant that Islam distinguishes between innovations that are PRACTICAL in nature (a new technology) that are considered allowed until proven otherwise, and innovations IDEOLOGICAL/RELIGIOUS in nature (bid'ah), considered forbidden until proven otherwise.

In other words, Islam can take all our useful tools while rejecting the mentality that produced them, without feeling any contradiction.

>>10013201
>if they were hardcore anti science
Anti-science doesn't mean anti-technology.

>>10013237
No they weren't muslims, the moment they started thinking made sure of that.

>>10013235

Of course it's repetitious, it was primarily an oral composition, and repetition is necessary for memorization . And the order of chapters is not chronological. I don't see how that takes away from it though - it is, after all, a mix between verse and prose.

I did find lots of the passages which simply retell biblical fables to be boring though, because I was already familiar with them from the Bible.

>>10010639
I'm sorry I don't read fantasy

>>10013242

What's important here isn't what we think bout Avicenna, but what his contemporary muslims did. Which of them with any influence declared him to be an apostate? As I've already pointed out, Imam Ghazali didn't.

>>10013258
Who gives a fuck about Imams, I studied Avicenna and Averros, and know half the quran by heart and I'm telling you their metaphysical jerking isn't 1% Islamic.

>>10013249
Can't you 14 year old fags just fuck off
I thought 4chan was 18+

>>10013161

>The muslim conception of the universe is that of a chaotic thing that doesn't works according to stable natural laws that you can understand, but only to the whims of Allah.

What kind of conception, by what kind of Muslim? Is this the Ashari view, or perhaps the Mu'tazili view?

It's 100% nonsense, that's what it is.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/ghazali-the-alchemy-of-happiness

According to Imam Ghazali, the material universe is:

- perfectly ordered
- completely knowable through reason

>>10013199
>he was only reclaiming the property of his followers which had been left behind at Mecca and consequently stolen
HAHAHAHAHA no. He was robbing meccan caravans for YEARS because he wanted money to fund his army.
Are you seriously telling me that ALL the robberies he ordered or even participated in himself (at least 26 as described in the Sirat) were to reclaim stuff stolen from his followers?
This is a perfect example of how muslims twist reality to justify any brutal or disgusting act committed by Muhammad.

>Muhammad made an alliance with the Jews wihch treated them with total equity.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What about the time Muhammad attacked the Banu Qurayza in 627 d.C.? The men had surrendered, but Muhammad still had them all beheaded, one by one. 700-900 men, all killed for hours on end. Then the women and kids were enslaved. (Source: A. Guillaume, "The Life of Muhammad", Oxford, 1955, p. 461-464. And also the hadith: Abu Dawud 39,4390).

Or what about the time he attacked the Bani Mustaliq without any provocation, so much so that he surprised them without any weapons? His men raped the women and then enslaved them and the kids. (Source: Bukhari 2541 and 4138).

And what about that time he attacked the jews in the Khaybar oasis in 628 d.C.? They were completely unprepared to battle, hadn't done anything to Muhammad, but were still slaughtered because Muhammad wanted their money. To find it, Muhammad even tortured and killed the treasurer. (Source: Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, “Sirat Rasul Allah”, 757 and 764.)

Yes, Muhammad was such an honorable man.

>Pure lies.
How the fuck can you deny that muslim armies invaded Iran, India, North Africa, Spain, Italy, etc., when it's not only in ALL our history books, but in YOURS too?? Your historians BRAG about it to prove Islam's "might". (They tend to ignore the fact that western armies always destroyed muslim ones unless they were overwhelmed 10 to 1.)

Or are you denying that Muhammad was ordered to keep fighting the non-muslims until "the religion is only for Allah"? Because that's both in the Quran (8:39) and in the Sunna (Sunan an-Nasa'i 3966).

Either way, you're lying your ass off and this is hilarious.

>>10013262

>Who gives a fuck about Imams, I studied Avicenna and Averros, and know half the quran by heart and I'm telling you their metaphysical jerking isn't 1% Islamic.

We are discussing what muslims thought about Avicenna and how they perceived them. You claimed they were seen as apostates,and now that you're asked for proof of that claim you fly off the handle.

>>10013218
>father of foal
Giggity.

>I myself find it's writing beautiful, it really is
It really isn't. At a certain level it's not even a matter of personal tastes, the Quran is objectively badly written, badly structured, badly thought, and waaay too busy describing Muhammad's personal privileges and current political situations for a text with ambitions of timeless and universal validity.
It's a mess. If anybody wrote something similar today, even without claiming to be a prophet, they would drown him in laughter and suggest he finishes grade school before writing anything else.

All the rest you said about islam's brainwashing and jihad is true.
Even today's sharia manuals point out that part of the zakat (charity) must be given to "warriors in the way of Allah that don't perceive a regular salary from the State" = terrorists.

>>10013277

>What about the time Muhammad attacked the Banu Qurayza in 627 d.C.? The men had surrendered, but Muhammad still had them all beheaded, one by one. 700-900 men, all killed for hours on end. Then the women and kids were enslaved. (Source: A. Guillaume, "The Life of Muhammad", Oxford, 1955, p. 461-464. And also the hadith: Abu Dawud 39,4390).

Did you just ignore what I said about that alread? Here it is again

. Muhammad made an alliance with the Jews wihch treated them with total equity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

The Jews then decided, when Mecca was under siege, to break their alliance and attack the muslims from behind. They still lost, and were asked by Muhammad whether they would like to be judged by Shariah law or Jewish law. They chose Jewish law. Deuteronomy 20:10–14 says: "If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench#Aftermath:_Siege_and_demise_of_the_Banu_Qurayza

>How the fuck can you deny that muslim armies invaded Iran, India, North Africa, Spain, Italy, etc.,

Can you read? I don't deny that they conquered those places, I denied that they only won through superior numbers as you claimed and provided proof.

>when it's not only in ALL our history books, but in YOURS too??

My history books say nothing about muslims.

>>10013280
We have facts, so why don't we just go by facts
Imams aren't the ones who decide who is what, go open a book by Avicenna and Averros and judge, If you can't at least do that then excuse me from continuing this. Averros and Avicenna were great men, I hate to see them disdained by a barbaric religion.

>>10013246
It takes away from it because you can't know which verses are superceded by which if it's not chronological

>>10013227
>distorted historical analysis
If by that you mean "objective, free of islamic brainwashing", yes.

>rich in rhetorical technique
Repeating 20 times that Allah is the most gracious and you must obey him is not a rhetorical technique. It's what happens when an illiterate epilectic moron tries to dictate a book in the span of 23 years and he REALLY wants you to obey him.

>and philosophical depth
Islam is ethically, morally and philosophically DEAD.
Its message: obey Allah because Allah says so, even if you don't understand why. If you obey Allah, you're a good person, otherwise you're bad. The end.
Much ethics such philosophy.

>>10013227
>you can't appreciate it in translation
Muslims don't just say that you can't appreciate its literary value in translation. That would be acceptable. They say that you can't understand ITS MEANING in translation. Which allows them to lie their ass off and deny that passages that clearly order to slaughter/mutilate/crucify the infidels actually mean to hug them lovingly.

>>10013290
You'll never get it will you
I'm speaking as an Arab. I read part of it in English so I understand why you think it's horrible, it's disastrous actually. In Arabic the writing can be so beautiful that you completely disregard the inconsistency and repetition.

If he wasn't a prophet, Mohammed would have been one of the best poets in his times.

>>10013235
>So all that stuff about the repetition, it not being in order ect arent true ?
Jesus Christ how about you spend 30 seconds googling shit instead of asking to be spoon fed?
That the quran is immensely repetitious and not in chronological order is known to anyone that has ever opened the book. It's not controversial. Not even muslims deny it ffs.

>>10013297
You have to use chronological time tables:
>https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Qur'an
This muslim source agrees:
>https://www.missionislam.com/quran/revealationorder.htm

Note that the 9th sura, by far the most brutal one, is the second most recent one. It's orders to kill and mutilate the infidels whenever you find them are therefore the only valid ones.

>>10013237
How about you stop lying? Like I said, he denied physical resurrection and thought the prophets were simply "inspired philosophers", and he said that Allah only knew the universal principles of the universe, but not the smallest day-to-day events in our lives, which denied his omniscience.
This, according to Islam itself, is MORE than enough to be considered an apostate. See: >>10013161
You don't get to decide who is or isn't a muslim whenever you want. Islam's laws decide that.

>>10013237
>Ghazali at least merely critiqued his epistemological methodology
Stop playing with words. He criticized it not because it was illogical but because it contradicted Islam - i.e. Avicenna was an apostate.

>>10013291
Not him, but you should read the bible fully, that section of the bible is specifically directed as an order in that specific time. Don't quote out of context verses

>>10013274
>According to Imam Ghazali, the material universe is:
>- perfectly ordered
>- completely knowable through reason
Another example of giving different meanings to the same words. Islam says that the world is "perfectly ordered" because Allah made it, not because it obeys inviolable natural laws. And it's "completely knowable" by applying "reason" to the holy scriptures (meaning: studying them and understanding them).

We must keep in mind that Islam traces a clear (albeit fictitious) distinction between "rational thought" and "critical thought": the second cannot be used to question/debunk the holy texts, you can only use rational thought to study and better understand Allah's orders.
This essay explains it well:

>Muhammadullah Muhammad Khalili Qasmi, "Does Islam permit critical thinking?", Markazul Maarif Education & research Centre, Mumbai, India.
>http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_351_400/does_islam_permit_critical_think.htm

The mere fact that it's forbidden to look for "causal influences outside of Allah's will" for the workings of the universe is enough to destroy any hope to do science. Unless you want to say that Umdat al-Salik is lying here: >>10013161

>>10013296
>Averros and Avicenna were great men, I hate to see them disdained by a barbaric religion.
I hate even more when current muslims take them as examples of what great thinkers Islam can produce. When Islam only shat on them and persecuted them all their lives because they dared to dafy its intellectual cage.

>>10013308
>Mohammed would have been one of the best poets in his times
Well, in his times only, what, 0.5% of the population knew how to write? The best poet of his times was probably a guy writing sonnets about a particularly sexy goat.

>>10013356
Fuck off, Arabs were very decent prior to Islam, their culture was beautiful and rich. Read some history before you spout shit about it.

Goat

>>10013291
>I denied that they only won through superior numbers as you claimed and provided proof.
You didn't "prove" shit. If you read about muslim battles, you see that they always attacked numerically inferior peaceful populations, often by surprise, in a disorderly way. They were the soviets of ancient times: just throwing wave after wave of men against the enemy. This is why western armies regularly pushed their shit in even when they were overwhelmed 5 to 1.

And Muhammad beheaded those 700-900 men because he was a sadistic piece of shit, no other reason. He even sat on pillows to watch the show for hours. He LIKED it.

>>10013331
Don't quote out of context verses
Muslims always quote other sources out of context. They even manage to make Jesus sound bloodthirsty by quoting that verse about "I didn't come here bringing peace but a sword", ignoring that he was talking about an ideological battle and not a real one.
But when Islam's critics quote properly THEIR scriptures, with context and interpretation from their scholars, they claim that it's taken out of context. It's nothing but Taqiyya.

>>10013320

>You don't get to decide who is or isn't a muslim whenever you want. Islam's laws decide that.

That's exactly what you are doing though. He was judging whether they were Muslim or not by what other Muslims said about them, while you are deciding for yourself who is or isn't Muslim based on your arbitrary understanding of 'Islam's laws'.

>>10013291
>My history books say nothing about muslims.
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? How can they not?

>>10013363
Come on, they were always inbred savages. Let's not glorify them just because current muslims are even worse.

>>10013291

To add to what I said in
>>10013331
, muslims believe the quran supercedes the bible, and some Christians believe the Bible supercedes Judaism, and the OT is the core of Judaism so you're almost using a doubly replaced document to justify something

>>10013376
>>10013331

It's clear you didn't even read my posts. If you had read them, the context of the verse would be clear.

>After a 25-day siege of their neighbourhood the Banu Qurayza unconditionally surrendered. When the Banu Qurayza tribe surrendered, the Muslim army seized their stronghold and their possessions.[30] On the request of the Banu Aus, who were allied to the Qurayza, Muhammad chose one of them, Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, as an arbitrator to pronounce judgment upon them. Sa'ad, who would later die of his wounds from the battle, decreed the sentence according to the Torah, in which the men shall be killed and women and children enslaved. Deuteronomy 20:10–14 says:

>When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.[31]

>Muhammad approved of this decision, and the next day the sentence was carried out.[30]

I'm done here. if you're not going to bother reading my posts then there isn't any point in me writing them.

>>10013369
>That's exactly what you are doing though. You are deciding for yourself who is or isn't Muslim
No I fucking am not. I'm directly quoting from islamic sources to prove that Avicenna was not considered a muslim ACCORDING TO ISLAM'S STANDARDS. As I quoted here, Umdat al-Salik, paragraph o8.7:
>>10013161

He, on the other hand, is IGNORING those islamic sources and changing the rules however he wants to deny reality. There's a big difference between pointing at a law and changing it.

>based on your arbitrary understanding of 'Islam's laws'.
Please tell me how else are you supposed to interpret this law:

>(o8.7) «Acts that Entail Leaving Islam:
>[…]
>5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him;
(INCLUDING HIS OMNISCIENCE).
>[...]
>17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;
(I.E. LOOKING FOR STABLE NATURAL LAWS, IN OTHER WORDS, DOING SCIENCE.)

Avicenna said that Allah is not really omniscient because he has no awareness about the daily events in the lives of people, he only created the general principles that the universe follows (the physical laws).
Conclusion: he was an apostate.

You need to twist logic and the laws until they're unrecognizable before you can call a man like Avicenna a muslim.

>>10013388
Wow, you failed really badly at understanding that sentence. I mean in the context of the bible, not in the context of the quran. And there's no reason for Muslims to even follow the torah, it's superceded by the quran and that specific OT verse doesn't come from God himself; Muhammad only wanted to get in there and enslave the women and children and merely recognised them the torah as a superficial justification

>>10013392

And what Muslim applied that reasoning to call Avicenna an apostate?

>Please tell me how else are you supposed to interpret this law:

What makes you think Shafi is the definitive exponent of Islamic law? What about Hanifa, or Shafi's own master, Maliki?

That Ghazali fella the other guy mentioned seems to be a far more authoritative source to use. According to wiki he was literally called "Proof of Islam" (Hujjat al-Islam).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

>>10013388
>I'm done here.
Not so fast, faggot. First of all, that time Muhammad purposefully misunderstood jewish law to slaughter his captives with impunity. Think about it for a second: if the jewish law really prescribed to murder all the men and enslave women and children, WHY THE FUCK WOULD THE BANU QURAYZA ASK TO BE JUDGED BY THAT??
Truth is, the jewish law generally does not prescribe that at all. Either Muhammad didn't know it, or he pretended he didn't and used that verse out of context, as a general law instead of a ruling delimited to a certain historical event.

Also, you still have to explain all the robberies he did for YEARS on meccan merchants and the slaughter of the Khaybar and Bani Mustaliq.

>>10013373
Hatem Al Tai, basically the most generous and welcoming man ever, had an astonishing thoroughbred stallion of great beauty. A certain ruler wanted to buy this horse and sent a messenger to Hatem informing him of his wish. After 3 months of traveling, the messenger finally arrived, exhausted as he was, Hatem immediately rose on his feet looking for food to prepare. After he realized he ran out of sheep to feed his guests, he sacrificed his beloved horse to feed the guest. So the messenger rests and all and decides to get straight to the point
"My lord is offering to buy your great stallion"
"Kek sorry you just ate it"

Generosity and hospitality have always been the pride of arabs, even til this day. Arabs were always proud people with great accepting standards, people of multiple religions and faiths lived together in harmony. They loved their women, drank their cups, wrote their poems and lived happily.

>>10013406

>First of all, that time Muhammad purposefully misunderstood jewish law to slaughter his captives with impunity.

First of all, Muhammad did nothing of the sort.

On the request of the Banu Aus, who were allied to the Qurayza, Muhammad chose one of them, Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, as an arbitrator to pronounce judgment upon them.

Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh made the call, not Muhammad.

>WHY THE FUCK WOULD THE BANU QURAYZA ASK TO BE JUDGED BY THAT??

They thought a fellow Jew would let them off lightly. Sa'ad instead fucked them over with a literal reading of the Torah.

>Truth is, the jewish law generally does not prescribe that at all.

Yes it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_warfare#Wars_of_extermination_in_the_Tanakh_and_Jewish_responses

Goodbye.

>>10013404
>What makes you think Shafi is the definitive exponent of Islamic law? What about Hanifa, or Shafi's own master, Maliki?
Shafi is not the "definitive exponent of islamic law", but in the case of apostasy, all the 4 madhhab (schools of thought) agree. Shit, even the shia agree. If someone denies ANY attribute of Allah, like his omniscience, or ANY islamic article of faith (like physical resurrection), that person is an apostate. Period. Done. Finished. End.
Apostasy is like homosexuality: a case when all muslims agree, except for fringe sects that are insignificant in number and influence.

If you want to claim some muslims schools don't agree, prove it.

>That Ghazali fella the other guy mentioned seems to be a far more authoritative source to use
That Ghazali fella spent decades attacking Ibn Sina (Avicenna) on his philosophy because he considered it anti-islamic, and he eventually rejected socratism, aristotelism and all greek philosophy and effectively LOCKED islamic thought in place for centuries. How the fuck someone can deny that he considered Avicenna's views blasphemous is beyond me.

Also, another very famous scholar, Ibn Taymiyyah, has attacked Avicenna calling him heretical in innumerable occasions. This article collects some examples with even the arabic text of the quotes for transparency:
>http://www.bakkah.net/en/the-reality-of-ibn-sina-avicenna-famous-scientist-and-philosopher.htm

Avicenna was just not a muslim. Just like most "moderate" muslims of today who don't perform the salat (obligatory prayer), dont' pay the zakat, don't participate in jihad, etc. are NOT muslims. Even if they call themselves that. This is not my opinion, it's what ISLAM says.

>>10013417
Arabs don't seem to understand that anyone can quote/invent anecdotes like that. They don't prove shit.
Everytime you come at them with facts, logic, laws, etc., they reply with anecdotes. They just don't get it.

>>10013420
>Yes it does.
You inbred mongoloid. The wikipedia page you quoted immediately debunks your bullshit when it says:
>"The Tanakh (Jewish Bible) contains commandments that require the Israelites to exterminate seven Canaanite nations".
They were NOT general laws with universal validity. They were only for those 7 canaanite nations.
Conclusion: Muhammad twisted the jewish law because he really wanted to behead hundreds of jews that day.

>But... but it was Sa'ad
I'm sure he was not corrupted/blackmailed/forced by Muhammad at all to purposefully misunderstand his own law.

>>10013274
>http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/ghazali-the-alchemy-of-happiness
>According to Imam Ghazali, the material universe is:
>- perfectly ordered
>- completely knowable through reason
Can I have an exact quote?
Because what you've linked is a book-length article and reading through it I can't find a single passage where al-Ghazali says that the world can be investigated and understood through reason and not only faith.

>>10013434
>anecdotes
>Still better than "lel goatfuckers"

Come on, I would like to hear your facts, logic and deduction on your previous statement.

Inb4 you reply with an anecdote about some guy fucking a goat.

Don't be a retard and try putting some effort on reading history. What we got was mostly from poem, there are tons of them, hope you find some translation.

Before you leave, please tell me how it is possible to obtain facts from historical events, cultures etc.

>>10013237
>Neither Ghazali nor anyone else accused him of blasphemy
>>10013404
>And what Muslim applied that reasoning to call Avicenna an apostate?
Besides the already quoted Ibn Taimyya, you two might wanna read this:
>http://www.bakkah.net/en/shaykh-abdul-azeez-ar-raajihee-on-those-who-consider-ibn-sina-to-be-a-musilm.htm
Muslims are forbidden to consider Avicenna a muslim.

>>10013471
>I would like to hear your facts, logic and deduction on your previous statement.
About the fact that arabs were savages even before islam?
How about the fact that they already practiced nomadic assaults and robberies on stable populations, slavery, mass rape, infibulation, human sacrifices, female infanticide (Muhammad stopped this last one: he wanted a yuge army to fight infidels, he needed wombs)? Is that enough to consider them savages?

But please, give me some more anecdotes. That will trump history books.

>>10013471
>tell me how it is possible to obtain facts from historical events, cultures etc.
What the fuck kind of question is that? If you think history and cultures are not valid sources of knowledge then you're denying the validity of entire fields of study, in fact of every field of study which is not a hard science. And if you do that, you can't use your little anecdotes to "prove" that arabs were a great people.
>lol I can quote fairy tales and those are facts but history and cultures are not
What the fuck.

>>10013476
>http://www.bakkah.net/en/shaykh-abdul-azeez-ar-raajihee-on-those-who-consider-ibn-sina-to-be-a-musilm.htm
This is a muslim source, btw. Not an infidel one.

>>10013487
Great. these were very good "facts". you should become a muslim, only they are as bad at debating as you are.

Besides slavery, and probably the rare human sacrifices, do you know of anything that wasn't spoiled by Islamic traditionists' sources?

"Nomadic assaults" did you ever read the history of any fucking civilization?! Or country?!
Inb4 I'm a fucking eunuch monk living in a mountain

>>10013506
Nigger the 7th century wasn't such an immensely remote era that we don't know anything about it. There's no need to put "facts" in quotes. They ARE facts. There are entire libraries of history books about the period.

As for debating ability, I'm starting to suspect your mother is also your aunt.

>>10013506
>slavery, human sacrifices and continuous raids and mass rapes of stable populations are not enough to be considered savages.
k.

>>10013237
>>10013404
This shaykh has some bad news for you:

>Question: With respect to the proper understanding of the issue of people who do not hold the polytheists to be disbelievers, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), if a person comes along and says, “I do not hold Ibn Sina to be a disbeliever. He is a Muslim to me.” Has this person committed disbelief?

>Answer: If he is confused about him and is not aware of his condition, he does not commit disbelief until his (Ibn Sina’s) affair is first made clear to him. However, someone who knows he was a disbeliever and a heretic, yet does not declare him to be a disbeliever, falls under this nullifier of Islaam (i.e. he is no longer a Muslim). This may not be clear to some people, however, so the one who is not aware of his condition should be made aware of it.

>Question: [Continuing…] But if he rejects this and says, “I am not required to do this”?

>Answer: He IS required to do this. This means that he has fallen into one of these nullifiers of Islaam: “Whoever does not consider the polytheists to be disbelievers, or has doubts about their disbelief or considers their ways and beliefs to be correct, then he has committed disbelief.” You are required to hold the polytheists as disbelievers and have enmity and hatred for them for the sake of Allaah. Allaah has required this from you.

http://www.bakkah.net/en/shaykh-abdul-azeez-ar-raajihee-on-those-who-consider-ibn-sina-to-be-a-musilm.htm

>>10010639
It's a cancerous book. Possibly the most cancerous because there are so many idiots who believe it's the absolute word of the creator of the universe even though such a belief about the book especially given its content makes zero sense to anyone with even functioning brain.

>>10013523
Well come on you retard, why won't you tell me what you know.

>>10013530
If you think slavery is barbaric you're a nigger
Rarely, and willingly, some wanted to sacrifice themselves, they can fuck off.
Mass rapes of MUH STABLE POPULATIONS = basically every fucking nation that ever existed you retard, better than invading countries for oil, pieces of trash.

>>10013546
>If you think slavery is barbaric you're a nigger
Inbred logic, everyone.

>>10013546
>Mass rapes of MUH STABLE POPULATIONS = basically every fucking nation that ever existed
Nigger there's a difference bewteen occasional wars and a culture like that of nomadic arab tribes that was BUILT AROUND THE CONCEPT OF RAIDING STABLE VILLAGES to steal food, money, products, women and slaves.

This is NOT something every nation has done, inbred lying piece of shit.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the reason Islam is so brutal and retarded is that ARABS WERE LIKE THAT, and Muhammad when he had to invent a religion had to speak to them in a language they understood. This is why after he became a bandit, he started getting tens of thousands of converts. Islam is barbarous because arabs have always been barbarous. A peaceful religion would have never appealed to them.

>>10013546
>Mass rapes of MUH STABLE POPULATIONS = basically every fucking nation
Not. Only the most backward ones survived like that.
Keep in mind that nomadic raiding cultures like the arabs have no hope of ever becoming civilized, because for that you need to settle, farm, specialize labour, etc. In this crucial aspect, they're drastically different from any other culture.

>>10013546
>If you think slavery is barbaric you're a nigger
you camel chasers really should be genocided.

File: the future you chose.gif (321KB, 606x423px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 606x423px

Great thread op. Have you read Stephen coughlins books?

Can you explain the Islamic concept of blasphemy

Do you know anything about the organization of Islamic cooperation?

>>10013631
>the Islamic concept of blasphemy
Blasphemy is contradicting any islamic principle whatsoever. Apostasy is persevering even after someone has warned you that your beliefs are wrong.
See: >>10013161 for an overview of anything that might constitute blasphemy/apostasy.

>>10013618
Only I have that mentality lol
But yeah the roman empire was doing good
And instead of having secretive slavery as the world does now, it should be out in the open.

>>10013657
roman slavery was more humane (in most cases) that the later european and arab slave trades.

This actually reminded me of the niggers that convert to Islam because it isn't a honkie religion, without realizing that historically muslims have treated blacks like total shit and enslaved them longer than the honkies did

>Question
>Assalaamu alaykum. Will there be ethnic differences in Paradise? I know that everyone will be 60ft tall, but I am asking about different ethnic groups such as whites, Asians, blacks, Indians, Arabs, etc.?

>Answer
>All perfect praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is His slave and Messenger.

>Your question is not clear. If you mean to ask whether people in Paradise would have the same characteristics that they have in the worldly life in terms of color, height, shortness, and the like, then you should know that their characteristics in Paradise will be different from their characteristics in this life. What you referred to, that they shall be as tall as Aadam (Adam), may Allah exalt his mention, is proof of this. Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said, "The first group (of people) to enter Paradise will be as bright as the moon on a full-moon night. Then will come those who follow them, who will be like the brightest star in the sky ... all in the same form; in the image of their father Aadam, sixty cubits tall." [Al-Bukhaari and Muslim]

>Al-Haafith Ibn Hajar may Allaah have mercy upon him wrote, "His statement that all those who enter Paradise will be in the image of Aadam means with his description, which indicates that (what some perceive in the worldly life as) shortcomings, such as blackness and others, are non-existent upon entering Paradise." [Fat-h Al-Baari]

kek

>>10013657
>the roman empire was doing good
No it wasn't. Slavery is a retarded idea for ignorant and lazy cunts. Romans produced very few inventions in their entire era. Even though they knew of stuff like a primitive steam engine and other prototypes, they never developed them. Why? Because using slaves was cheaper and faster.

Slavery makes you stagnant. Why invest in tech research when you have millions of slaves to use?

Also, slavery always ends up causing problems. Rebellions, etc.

Also, if you're not a nigger you consider it morally unacceptable.

>>10013692
>niggers that convert to Islam because it isn't a honkie religion
Yes. They have no idea of the tens of millions of africans enslaved/murdered and castrated by arab slave traders (they didn't want them to reproduce freely).

They have never heard of the Zanj Rebellion, the greatest slave uprising in history.

>>10013709
>blackness is a shortcoming
>no manlets
>= heaven
Checks out.

>>10013710
Romans were better at practical engineering than anyone else in their time, whereas the ancient greeks were much better at theoretical stuff, and I am flabbergasted that anyone would say the Romans produced very little, considering they are more important in developing western civilization as a whole than anyone else.

>>10010643
bump hehe

>>10013726
They were important because they built lots of stuff like muh aqueducts. But their contributions were more marvels of engineering, public health and coordination. Not marvels of invention

>>10013726
>Romans were better at practical engineering than anyone else in their time
Yes. They were great at APPLYING previous discoveries. But they invented very little.
Be less flabbergasted and try to list roman's inventions, besides concrete. You will find very, very little for such a brilliant people. Why? Because they had slavery to make them lazy and stagnant.

>>10013726
>they are more important in developing western civilization as a whole
The fuck you on about? The greeks gave us the first theoretical principles and the first seeds of science. The Enlightenment gave us rationality and the scientific method.
The romans simply built huge buildings and roads and aqueducts and fought wars. How were they essential in the history of our civilization? Erase them from the picture and you lose very little.

t. italian.

>>10011323
Except this law is not enforced at all since UAE is rulled by atheists, just like Saudi Arabia

>>10013766
Oh you so naughty anon :D

>>10013726
Their only real theoretical contribution was roman law, whose basic principles we still use.

>211 posts
>42 posters

What a fantastic thread about literature!

File: 1505185959267.jpg (58KB, 625x628px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 625x628px

>>10013891
>UAE is ruled by atheists

>>10013915
Crypto-atheists who hate Islam, yes.

>>10013916
Ah, you mean muslims that are not really muslims because they ignore Islam's most brutal commands.

>>10013916
Why do you think that?

>>10013905
Islamic theology is philosophy related, and philosophy belongs on /lit/

>>10013918
>philosophy belongs on /lit/

No, philosophy belongs on /his/

>>10013921
Read the sticky faggot

>>10013855
what the fuck is a marvel of invention? that phrase is meaningless, and at the very least marvels of engineering require invention of some kind, dont they?

>>10013871
>erase us from the picture and you lose very little
u wut m8? read some more history. while philosophically they don't compare to the greeks, there is a reason why everybody larps as romans. In terms of law, language, architecture, and military matters the Romans are simply unparalleled in their influence and importance.

>>10013861
>they had slavery to make them lazy and stagnent
nearly every society ever has practiced some form of slavery
A quick google search will show you that the romans were extremely inventive, and that your claim is baseless or ill-informed.

>>10013952
and actually, I take back my statement about the romans not comparing to the greeks philosophically. the christian church and all of its philosophy and tradition was born from Rome.

>>10013952
>law, language, architecture, and military matters
I don't know what you mean by "language". I already said roman law was one of their few valuable innovations. Militarily they were unparalleled in their time, but even if they never existed we would still be using our current weapons and strategies. As for architecture, they were applications of previous ideas.

I renew my invitation to list their inventions. In more than a thousand years they invented:
>Concrete.
>Roman Law.
?

>>10013952
A marvel of invention is a fairly obvious phrase to decipher unless you're esl

No, the underlying concepts of a creation are essentially never invented in engineering. It's just scaling things up and accounting for structure and usage and whatnot

>>10013958
Can't really give Rome the credit for christian philosophy, dude. Larp a little less.

If anything, you could credit Christianity with making romans more philosophical by substituting their old polytheism with a monotheism that was concerned about morality and eternity, not just with fertility of the fields, etc.

>>10013958
So Rome gave nothing of value philosophically

>>10013952
>A quick google search will show you that the romans were extremely inventive
I did more than a google search. Didn't find any evidence of this.

>>10013965
I'm not going to do your research for you, faggot. If you can only list 2 inventions/innovations you need to read more.
>hurr invention is only something that is 100% entirely new
nobody thinks like this, stop it

>>10013975
Yeah bro, no inventiveness required to build the Pantheon or the Flavian amphitheatre, huh?

>>10013977
who do you give credit to then? surely not the jews

>>10013979
kek

>>10013980
you obviously havent, sorry anon

>>10010639
nope, it's pretty shit, the quran is the worst book mankind has ever known.

>>10013988
>I'm not going to do your research for you, faggot
So you don't know what you're talking about because you're just an ignorant larper. Gotcha.

I suggest you read a book every once in a while. Just to try the feeling.

>>10013988
Another anon explained how their architecture was just application, application is not invention

>>10013988
>no inventiveness required to build the Pantheon or the Flavian amphitheatre
Inventing new concepts =/= applying old concepts to greater scales.

>>10013988
>who do you give credit to then?
Mmm... the first christians that established the religion and made it grow within Rome?

>>10013988
>invention is only something that is 100% entirely new
Well... you know... it's the definition of the word...

We still use the mathematical theorems invented by the greeks. Which math innovations was invented by romans?

>>10013998
>if you dont spoonfeed me you're the idiot
im not going to spoonfeed you, you could even take the easy way out and just go to wikipedia and look at a list of innovations there

>>10014001
you could condense almost anything down to that paradigm, that is extremely reductionist.

>>10014005
you are being disingenuous. applying an old concept in a new way is an innovation, isnt it? naumachia in an ampitheatre was entirely novel and had never been done before Nero, would you say that isnt inventive?

>the first christians that established the religion
ah yes, so roman subjects or citizens.

>>10014010
no its not.

>Definition of invention
>1 :discovery, finding
>2 :productive imagination :inventiveness
>3 a :something invented: such as (1) :a product of the imagination; especially :a false conception >(2) :a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment
>b :a short keyboard composition featuring two- or three-part counterpoint
>4 :the act or process of inventing

these things aren't done in a vacuum, almost all inventions are innovations of a previous invention

>>10014093
Condense something that we usually consider an invention to simply an application, go.

>>10014103
of course not everything would be subject to this, as there are inventions that are mostly entirely unique and i am not retarded enough to think that it would universal or even anywhere near universal, though my post was poorly worded

the low-hanging fruit here is something like the incandescent lightbulb though

File: IMG_3438.jpg (29KB, 229x346px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 229x346px

It's a terrible book. "Hurr durr Kmart knockoff Jesus is a retard."Just read cliffsnotes

>>10014161
my favorite part is how Muhammad just changed biblical stories to fit his narrative, or how he took shit from the Mishnah and talmud (I bet he thought it was biblical though, because he was really preoccupied with making his religion palpable to christians, at first) and threw it almost verbatim into the quran

Some guy did a screenshot of the best posts from this thread and posted them on /pol/:

>>>/pol/141266812

>>10014093
>im not going to spoonfeed you
No, it's different. You're pretending to have arguments you don't have.
I've googled it. I've gone to fucking wikipedia. I have read BOOKS about the issue, and I'm telling you you're an ignorant piece of shit.

>naumachia in an ampitheatre was entirely novel and had never been done before Nero, would you say that isnt inventive?
Caesar had done it in 46 a.C.
Also, they're just a kind of show, a mock naval battle done in a theather. Impressive engineering, yes, but what novel concept was invented toi make them possible? Ships? A way to make the theather hold water? What new math principle was discovered to make them possible?
And even admitting they count as inventions, you're ignoring the fact that most roman theather was just a copy of the greek one. Except maybe for the comedies.

Looking hard, you will find some small innovation here and there, but not enough for a civilization that lasted as long as they did. Certainly not enough to claim that the romans were "essential" for our civilization. Pitagora alone was more important than the entire roman empire.

And the first christians were "roman citizens" like africans coming to italy now are "italian citizens". A piece of paper doesn't change culture. If those africans started to spread their african customs in Europe, would you say that italian culture was responsible?

And that definition of invention confirms that I'm right: the romans did very little of those things, discoveries, findings, intellectual constructs, devices, etc.
Very little for a civilization that lasted that many centuries. All your buttpain can't change reality.

>>10014295
Just like the Christians did

>>10014367
Caesar and Augustus had naumachia held in basins they dug off the Tiber, not in an amphitheatre. Nero holding one inside an amphitheatre is what is novel, how is that not inventive?

Is the incandescent lightbulb a legitimate invention then, or is this simply application?

>and the first christians were "roman citizens" like africans coming to italy now are "italian citizens"
Paul was a Roman citizen, and many Jews were extremely hellenized. And no, not all the founders of Christianity were roman citizens, they were Jewish subjects of Rome. Why didn't you include that I said citizens/subjects? And why are you attempting to constrain the scope of christian theology only to apostolic age, when Christianity theology developed after them with men like Jerome, or Augustine? Are you going to tell me they weren't "real" romans? By this bullshit definition most of Italy couldn't be considered real roman for a long while as well.

>romans did very little of those things
maybe in mathematics, otherwise you're wrong

>>10011278
What are the best resources you'd recommend for learning about the glaring problems with Islam? My mate studies under Tim Winter (Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad), probably the biggest intellectual in modern Islamic academia, and I want to discuss Islam with him but have no idea where to start when it comes to literature that is actually factually accurate.

>>10010639
Posting in an epic thread.

File: david 16inch robocock.webm (364KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 640x360px

>>10014711
ebin

>>10014367
Which forums have you debated muslims on? Mind sharing your username?

>>10011734
Fight the good fight anon!

TFW MUHAMMAD IS THE BROWN CHARLIE MANSON

The most amazing thing about this thread are the muslims who were straight up lying about their religion in order to "refute" the posts of anti-islam anon. Such relentless dedication to writing heaps and heaps of lies until being completely cornered by unequivocal evidence from your own books is staggering. Only now that it is *impossible* to lie are they finally fucking quiet.

This thread has been a mindblowing experience. Muslims zealously lying on a low traffic corner of an anonymous imageboard. You inbreds are fucking insane.

>>10015233
>Muslims zealously lying on a low traffic corner of an anonymous imageboard. You inbreds are fucking insane.

It really is unreal.
Even on YouTube videos with only a few thousand views, guaranteed there will be a Mohammed in the comment section.
>That's not real Islam!
>No you see that's a bad translation!
>But Christianity did a bad thing also!

Do they do it for free?

>>10015259
>do they do it for free
I have no idea. I couldn't imagine what the internet would look like if more than 5% of their population had the mental capacity to learn basic English and write down comments on the internet. The whole fucking web would be flooded with their bullshit.

>>10010639
DEUS

>>10015259
>Do they do it for free?
yes and that's the saddest part

don't know what they're expecting really apart from perhaps evangelion-style instrumentality when islam hits 100%

File: 1426682088791.gif (790KB, 375x304px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 375x304px

>>10015259
>Do they do it for free?
You must do your part for Allah, infidel! The spoils of war come after, INSHALLAH

>>10015233
>Muslims zealously lying on a low traffic corner of an anonymous imageboard. You inbreds are fucking insane.
It is lefties posing as Muslims trying to push the agenda, muh "religion of peace" muh "we dont fuck sheep."
Its just like how the biggest race bait faggots are white males who are pushing shit on the niggers who don't even want it. ie. aids skrillex.

File: python-romans.gif (879KB, 245x118px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 245x118px

>>10013965
>>In more than a thousand years (the Romans) invented:
>Concrete.
>Roman Law.
>?
gif very much related

>>10013710
>Why invest in tech research when you have millions of slaves to use?
Amen. Asimov's Foundation series springs to mind

>>10015387
Almost every ancient civ had slaves of some sort, I dont think that is a fair critique of the ancient world.

Modern world is different though, holding slaves past ~1800 is both wrong and lazy

These comments were posted on the /pol/ thread

>>>/pol/141316268
>>>/pol/141316373

Maybe the OP wishes to rebut.

>>10011478
He is OK, check out Jay Smith and Christian Prince as well.

>>10015532
Robots

>>10015622
These are true to an extent, but I dislike the liberal narrative denying violence in Islam, and because of that, perhaps irrationally, I hate Islam more than any other religion.
Taking Istanbul through war was always an objective of Islamic civilization, the red Apple and that jazz, and Rome was a consideration as well. It is in the blood of Muslims to try conquering their rival and I find that vile, more vile than the crusades, Arab and Albigensian. Christianity has its own history of violence but it at least wasn't engrained from the start.

It makes sense if you aren't trying to read it as a 20th or 21st century Western book

>>10015694
the New Testament still stands on its own, why is the Quran so shit despite being written 600 years later?

>>10011718
>No responses
The Mudslime fears the scholar

>>10011079
Can you give us a run down and signifigance of all the different schools of jurisprudence? I occasionally hear things like Hanafi and Maliki thrown araound

>>10015387
What the Romans did for Britain was through their widespread introduction and building of simple things, like aqueducts. Not inventions

>>10015532
Why is that not a fair criticism of those civilisations? The fact lots of them did it is irrelevant

>this thread
one retard making rational discussion impossible and drowning out others with his superficial knowledge of islam
really made me think

>>10016906
Those citations show that its more than superficial even if the insults mixed in with it are unfortunate

>>10010639
depends on the print and paper quality i suppose.

>>10016963
>literally quotes le salafi meme scholar munajjid

>quotes some shafi manual (most sunni muslims are sunni, only a small minority are shafii) on islamic law, which i've never heard of

>relies on old orientalist critique of islam, which have long been debunked/refuted

the thing is, he's right that some of the stuff he has posted are legit muslim opinions.
for example, that the universe is a product of Allah ta'ala, or that there are debates on the surah 9'5 and if it means that only short truces are possible in Islam.

but he cherrypicks his sources from a large pool of scholarly opinion on different matters, and his conclusions are not necessarily truthful.

for example. science is not discouraged by a worldview that casuality does not exist, and it most certainly does not make science impossible. it does require a different mindset that exists in the west, thats true, but thats it.
furthermore, there are strands of islam that accept casuality as the fundamentals of the universe such as mutazilism, which is, despite what many people say, still very alive in for example shia islam.

he also doesnt mention the different legal traditions of the blessed religion of islam. there are 4 prominent legal schools in islam
hanbali, hanafi, shafii, maliki
(most sunni muslims are hanafites)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab), he mostly quoted one "sharia manual" (whatever thats supposed to mean) from one school of law to support his points, and he does quote out of context.
even in the respective schools of law there are debates what is forbidden and how it should be punished.
for example, homosexuality is either punished by death (throwing off the roof and hanging on cranes comes to mind) or an arbiitary punishment of 70 lashes in order to "reform" (http://al-qantara.revistas.csic.es/index.php/al-qantara/article/viewFile/172/165) and not do it again.

he also shows his complete disdain of hatred of islam in every single instance possible and most of his arguments are full of insults or laughter, which do not strengthen the arguments themselves but rather appeals to emotion.

it doesnt help that hes arguing with muslims who rarely have busied themselves with the exact matters that hes arguing with them about, so its easy to outargue them and emerge victorious.

what a pathetic excuse of a human being.

i'd like to continue but i'll leave now. if the thread is still alive upon return and you are willing to know more, i'd gladly continue to elaborate.

>>10016906
>>10017021
mahmud al-ahmedi...

You want to know how Romans contributed to our current advancement? They simply conquered niggers and shitholes, that's the only thing I need to know. If they weren't there to do so, we'd still be in 6th century. What a faggot you are anon.

nope

>>10017021
If causality doesn't exist, the mindset you'd need seems like it would have to be so different from a scientific viewpoint that's it at odds with it. Uniformitarianism, specifically of every phenomenon in the universe having a cause, is a big deal in rationalising the world

Also, not the guy you're replying to, but if you want to address his arguments (itt if not going into another thread due to post limit), I'd appreciate it for a diversity of opinions

>>10017021
>70 lashes is an arbitrary punishment
fuck you, youre a barbarian

>>10017664
t. Doesn't understand what arbitrary means

>>10013726
>western civilization
You mean the shit slingers that came into the game so late they had to take from other cultures.

>>10010643
fpbp

Ok one thing I have to agree with this Islamopologist about is that the Verse of the Sword doesn't say that you should kill an non muslim you see regardless of context.

>Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
>And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
>And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
>How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
>How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.


Again Islam is trash but that does seem to regard a more specific set of circumstances then "if you see someone who's not a muslim kill them!"

>>10015728
The Quran is perfectly clear if you're not a complete retard.

It has its own style that if you can't figure out how to read than good luck reading ancient Arabic poetry.

It's really quite clear. In most surahs, it begins with the glorification of God, then discusses various doctrinal principles, then brings up examples from previous nations or jurisprudence laws, and then concludes with a reminder of the hereafter or the glorification of God.
This of course isn't the path laid out for every surah but it really is quite logically laid out and organized.

>>10015259
Yes they do it for free. They have to defend their religion against infidels. There is also immense cognitive dissonance in their minds so they have to reassure themselves by telling the same lie over and over again to others.

>>10015349
Not always lefties. There are over 1 billion Muslims and if they see something, they have to defend their religion, even on 4chan where they spend all their time on the porn boards.

>>10012920
>/lit/ is for the discussion [...]
When people discuss something they usually make more than 1 post.

>>10016783
There are 4 madhhab (schools) in sunni islam: Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali.

They're pretty much identical except for really, really small differences. Like: 3 of them think that women should cover their body and their faces when out of the house, but 1 allows them to show their face.
Or maybe 2 say gays should be thrown off buildings and 2 say they should also be stoned afterwards.
This kind of insignificant differences.

>>10017021
>quotes some shafi manual (most sunni muslims are sunni, only a small minority are shafii)
NIGGER SHAFI IS A SUNNI SCHOOL OF LAW.

SHAFIS ARE SUNNI.

MONGOLOID.

>>10017021
>most sunni muslims are sunni
This sentence makes no sense. All sunni are sunni obviously.

>only a small minority are shafii
1: small minority my dick.
2: if the other 3 schools differ in a significant manner about the questions discussed, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. Post excerpts from hanafi, hanbali or maliki fiqh manuals.
Any fiqh manual is extremely useful because the 4 sunni school agree on pretty much everything. You're just trying to obfuscate the discussion.

>relies on old orientalist critique of islam, which have long been debunked/refuted
Again, PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.

>his conclusions are not necessarily truthful.
PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.
Your word without islamic sources is worth zero.

>science is not discouraged
>it does require a different mindset that exists in the west, thats true, but thats it.
Yeah, islam does not discourage science, it only destroys the possibility of developing the mindset that makes it possible. Also, it explicitly classifies the "sciences of the materialists" as illegal. But that's it.
Islam loves science. This is why it has always invented so many things and even today, we have so many muslim scientists and philosophers... so many... I'm not gonna name them but believe me, they exist... really...

>there are strands of islam that accept casuality as the fundamentals of the universe such as mutazilism
So you admit mainstream Islam does NOT accept causality. Only some "strands" of islam do.
How can you have science if the universe is NOT bound by causality, so NOT knowable and only dependent on the whims of Allah, exactly?

>he does quote out of context.
Bull-fucking-shit. Each paragraph in the manual is very fucking clear about its meaning.
If you want to say something was out of context, PROVIDE THE REAL CONTEXT. Prove it.

>hes arguing with muslims who rarely have busied themselves with the exact matters that hes arguing with them about, so its easy to outargue them and emerge victorious.
And YOU have? *snort*

What an ignorant, stupid piece of shit you are. Not only you follow a retarded medieval religion made up by an illiterate inbred autist, but you don't even know it.

Now go back into the sewage you crawled out of. The humans are talking.

>>10017021
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%27i#Demographics
Small minority... it's the second or third largest school of jurisprudence, depending on the census. And the other three agree on basically everything.

As for the homosexuals in particular, anyone that wants to just lash them "to admonish them" is denying the validity of several passages from the quran where Allah narrates that time he killed the "people of Lot" (sodomites) because they were gay (7:80-84, 15:58-74, 27:55-58 and 29:40), and several very explicit hadiths:

>[Abu Dawud 4462] «The Prophet said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.»

>[Abu Dawud 4448] «If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.»

>[at-Tirmidhi 1456] «Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: That the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Whomever you find doing the actions of the people of Lut then kill the one doing it, and the one it is done to."»

>[Al-Muwatta 41,1513] «[…] Malik related to me that he asked Ibn Shihab about someone who committed sodomy. Ibn Shihab said, "He is to be stoned, whether or not he is muhsan."»

Both male and female homosexuals are unlawful:

>[Sahih Muslim 338a] «The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "A man should not see the private parts of another man, and a woman should not see the private parts of another woman, and a man should not lie with another man under one covering, and a woman should not lie with another woman under one covering".»

Some muslims claim (in ignorance or lying) that this verse orders only to punish & admonish homosexuals:

>(4:16) And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

Which is bullshit, because as the previous verse makes clear, that verse refers to man and women fornicating without being married:

>(4:15) And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.
(Btw this punishment was later abrogated and turned into stoning.)

As definite proof, Muhsin Khan translates 4:16 in a very clear way:

>(4:16) And the two persons (man and woman) among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, punish them both. And if they repent (promise Allah that they will never repeat, i.e. commit illegal sexual intercourse and other similar sins) and do righteous good deeds, leave them alone. Surely, Allah is Ever the One Who accepts repentance, (and He is) Most Merciful.

Man and woman (neither of whom is married, otherwise it's adultery and they must be stoned). So we're not talking about gays, which must simply be killed, the giver and the receiver.
But nice try, taqiyya-kun.

>>10015622
>Maybe the OP wishes to rebut.
There's very little to rebut. It's just another muslim angry that someone has pointed out the general shittiness of his medieval death cult.

>He doesn't place the religion in much of a historical/cultural context
As I said, Islam is brutal and backward because the arabs Muhammad wanted to attract were brutal and backward. That's the historical context: nomadic arab tribes constantly fighting and raiding and valuing strength above all else. Therefore Islam worries a lot about jihad and booty.

>Poetry was an integral part of the culture of pre-Islamic Arabia, hence the importance of the language of the Qur'an.
That might be true, but it doesn't change in the slightest its meaning. Islam is still a brutal, backward cult.

>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.
It is pretty shocking, if we consider that in Medina, while raiding and murdering (even during the sacred months) he was """converting""" up to 10.000 people a year. It's shocking and telling of the real reason why so many people were joining him.

>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.
What does this change? If anything, it makes his failure as a peaceful preacher even more telling.

>Arab warfare at the time consisted of just that, raiding caravans.
What bullshit. First of all, even at the time there were armies fighting on open fields, sieges, etc. Muhammad is the one that will prove it by participating in several major battles and sieges.
Second, the one ignoring arabian customs was Muhammad, which broke even the sacred months of truce and killed/robbed meccan caravans in total disregard of the law. So much that even his companions got worried they might be overdoing it.
But don't worry, Allah came to the rescue for his beloved prophet by allowing him to do whatever the hell he pleased:

>(2:217) «They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. [...]»

One more instance of Muhammad using his """revelations""" to his personal advantage.

Also, note the extremely elastic meaning given to the word "persecution": preventing muslims access to their Sacred Mosque in Mecca, hindering the spread of Islam and refusing to convert to it. That's what muslims mean STILL TODAY with "persecution worse than killing", which means that they can attack you whenever they want and still whine about persecution and "self-defense".

>>141316373
>He mentions the Banu Qurazya but doesn't mention that they (supposedly) had broken a treaty with muhammad at the battle of the trenches., he's conveniently leaving out information that doesn't agree with his opinion
I'm leaving out the details because otherwise I'd have to write a goddamn encyclopedia. Not because something "disproves" me.

The Banu Qurayza affair, according to muslim scholars, worked out like this:
>Muhammad and the Qurayza jews make a deal to fight on the same side.
>Meccans arrive pissed as hell because Muhammad has been killing/robbing them for a decade.
>The Qurayza SUPPOSEDLY (important detail) betrayed Muhammad by giving weapons to the Meccans.
>Muhammad after the battle goes there to get revenge and lays siege to the city.
>After weeks, the Qurayza surrender.
>Muhammad for some reason SUPPOSEDLY refuses to pass judgment. Instead, he nominates another jew, Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, to take a decision.
>Sa'ad asks the Qurayza if they want to be judged with sharia or the torah.
>They choose the Torah,
>Sa'ad sentences the men to die and the women and kids to be enslaved because SUPPOSEDLY that's the punishment in the Torah.
>Muhammad dindu nuffin.

A few problems:
>1) We have to trust that muslims scholars are not embellishing the truth.
>2) That punishment in the Torah does NOT have a general validity (it referred only to 7 Caananite tribes).
>3) Sa'ad was NOT A JEW anymore. He was a muslim convert.
>4) Muhammad not only allowed the massacre (700-900 jews beheaded, it took from morning till dusk) but watched it while sitting on pillows.

The story is a bit different now, isn't it? Instead of having a jew killing other jews, we have a muslim misinterpreting the torah to kill jews.
And the kind and compassionate Prophet enjoying the show for the entire day.
(You see why I left out this long-ass story?)

>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
How exactly does the existence of dhimmis prove that Islam did not spread with violence??
Islam's "spreading" consists of 3 options: killing infidels, converting them, or making them dhimmis.

>superficial sourcing
So superficial not a single mudshit could find a rebuttal worth mentioning.

>>10010639
no

>>10020164
how do you deal with the whole pedo angle? tried arguing with a few mudshits about it before but they basically said that girls were taken must younger then, because they were more mature and hence could consent at a younger age? baka the mental gymnastics

>>10021711
There were no 2d lolis or Asian fleshlights so they couldn't safely satisfy their pedophilic urges, so they needed an outlet. It was a different time.

A better time.

File: Girls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>10010639
>>10010639
no

>>10013575
Not all forms of slavery are bad.

File: WwqIJoB.jpg (20KB, 512x641px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 512x641px

What if one were to apply the same critical standards used in this thread to examine another form of faith, such as Christianity, Judaism or even Atheism?

>>10024076
Jesus actually walked the walk on the whole "peace" thing.

Some week ago there was a post saying that the Quran is basically all peace preaching. Hence I had an impression that's it's not bad book like the huge number of autistic jihadists and rapists, members of the religion of the Quran, make it look like.
Then I heard that in the Quran there's some part that talks about how virgins will await in paradise.
This broke my positive impression, pretty awful actually.
So, what's /lit/'s opinion on the fact that this can be found in the Quran?
And what the fuck will await the female members of the muslim religion when they go to paradise?

>>10013921
Maybe this is /pol/ / /antipol/

File: 1489362838858.png (307KB, 898x790px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 898x790px

>>10013277
>The men had surrendered, but Muhammad still had them all beheaded, one by one. 700-900 men, all killed for hours on end. Then the women and kids were enslaved. (Source: A. Guillaume, "The Life of Muhammad", Oxford, 1955, p. 461-464. And also the hadith: Abu Dawud 39,4390).

The Torah literally states that defeated people should have their men killed and women+children enslaved. He basically honored them with the same treatment they believed in :^)

>They tend to ignore the fact that western armies always destroyed muslim ones unless they were overwhelmed 10 to 1.)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Preveza
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Varna
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

whereas all it took was for just about every euro nation to win against muslims
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Keresztes

But yeah, the other stuff makes sense, obviously he was a shifty sandnig

>>10013277
>Or what about the time he attacked the Bani Mustaliq without any provocation
they were literally allied to the quraish you absolute retard, there was even a battle over it, now surprise attacks in literally 600 AD are off limits? Oh, the horror!

>>10025498
mixed up Lepanto and Keresztes

>>10024076
they'd find that abrahamic sandnig religions are all cancerous

>>10024125
lmaoing, he was actually a /b/eta cuck who allowed himself to become a victim

File: 1505339448549.png (226KB, 595x595px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 595x595px

>>10025498
>decontexualising Torah quotes

>>10011296
Abu Harrayrah was called father of the cats not because he fucked lions but because he loved cats you stupid fucking imbecile. You don't understand jack shot about Arab or Islamic culture if you don't understand such a simple naming system.