/lit/ - Literature

>>12298449
Practicing Muslim here(born, Sunni, non-Arab). If you’re interested in learning more about Islam then I’d recommend studying the life of the Prophet(saws) first, because the Qur’an cannot be understood fully without the context of the society back then and the events which took place in the lives of the Prophet and the first Muslims.

I’d recommend Martin Lings’ work, “Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources”, if you’re looking for a bio of the Prophet.

Another great work which I’m currently reading is The Vision of Islam, by Chittick & Murata. It serves as a sort of introduction to Islamic theology, the texts, the foundations of faith, the basis for the division of Islam into Sunni/Shia and a lot of other basics. Bonus points since it was written for a western audience and thus employs the standards of western academia.

If you want to go ahead and read the Quran straight away, then I’d recommend the translations by Pickthall or Yusuf Ali. This is purely a personal preference, I like how these because of the “flow”. Disclaimer: not an Arabic speaker, so I can’t vouch as to how “accurate” these translations are, compared to original. Many people are of the opinion that the Quran is too complex to be translated, and that “translations” are works which can never match the original.

>>12298749
Read The Bible and realize you're following a massive lie, Muhammad was a terrible person.

>>12299033
I’m not asking you to follow Islam, but learn more about his life beyond the NPC propaganda on Fox and you’ll realize Islam is the religion after your heart, and the only one whose practical application to society will result in its development.

Ive read some of NT, and while I can think it (the KJV) is a magnificent piece of literature, I don’t think of it as the philosophy I want to live.

It also comes close to/actually is polytheism, at least the way most followers practice it. There’s a reason why Jews consider churches as places of idolatry, while simultaneously seeing the beliefs of Muslims as not conflicting with their own ideals of Hashem.

If you do decide to convert to Islam just keep in mind that 90-95% of its followers worldwide are at least some degree of inbred and mentally retarded. That takes its toll over the centuries.

>>12299054
I've read a book on Sufism, it was pretty good. I think Islam is certainly a viable philosophy to follow.

But Islam, as it seems to me, like Christianity relies on faith in one event. This event is the revelation of the Quran to the Prophet. I was once skeptic of this but the Sufi argument I read was, "As God made Mary, a virgin, pregnant, he made an illiterate man write a book."
Now faith in an event like this is built up by the surrounding doctrine and theology. If the rest of the religion seems correct, as we come to know God, we can have faith in something we cannot fully verify ourselves. I do not see how the God of the old testament could of made Prophet out of a man who who married young girls and did many other things which seem unholy.

Also, regarding the trinity, it is in no way polytheistic. Think of it as a hand. Each finger is separated but they are all part of the hand.

>>12299136
That analogy doesn't work, each member of the trinity is fully God, not part of God.

>>12299154
Are you denying the hand-ness of a finger?

>>12299136
I agree that in the end it all boils down to whether the primary account of event is true or not(i.e that the Prophet received revelation from God Himself).

I’m not going to bring up anything about the reasons for believing in his sincerity, but you should also remember that there’s a whole science dedicated to the preservation of secondary accounts the events, i.e the Hadith, with them being graded based upon several criteria ranging from the degrees of separation from the Prophet, to the trustworthiness of narrators in the chain of transmission of Hadiths, to even the intelligence of the narrators.

Add to this the claim that the Quran is virtually unchanged since its revelation(I say ‘virtually’ because diacritics were added only later, once non-Arabs came into the fold). In my opinion, the preservation of the Quran and the core practices of Muslims being unchanged to this day are the strongest reason to believe that this is the one true religion over others.

The trouble with Christianity(as I see it) is that the core texts come from second person accounts, i.e there were multiple writers none of whom were Messengers/Prophets themselves, and everything was compiled quite a while after Jesus(pbuh)’s time.

You could argue the same about the Quran, in that it was officially made into a physical copy a long time after the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)’s death, but the fundamental difference is that the source of the message is one book from one messenger in the case of Islam, it all came from one man/author, who claimed it was from God.

Islam having one unanimously agreed upon core text, in its original language of revelation, is a major reason why Islam has remained largely united. Both the Sunnis and (most) Shias consider the Uthmani manuscript(the first physical compilation) to be the real deal.

Christianity on the other hand, seems to be splitting into more and more denominations by the day, to the point where you have a hard time pointing out which one of them is the “right” one(or are they all right? I must admit my ignorance on Christianity). Are the practices of today’s Christians similar to those of the first Christians? If not, then who’s to say how much further things are going to get distorted till the latest version of Christianity is too far from the original to still be Christianity? (I’m talking about Protestantism here).

Also, one of the problems I see with Catholicism is how much veneration there is of Mary(pbuh), to the point where she is being worshipped in all but name. Asking her to bestow blessings, setting up altars, pleading for intercession on their behalf...doesn’t this qualify as deification?

>>12299136
Also, wanted to link an article addressing the part about him marrying a young girl.
Most apologetics try to whitewash things and present Lady Aisha(pbuh) as being closer to 19, in order to appeal to contemporary ideals about ages of consent and marriage. This article doesn’t do that, and accepts the traditional view that she was 9. Instead it seeks to explain why it wasn’t a bad thing, in the context of those times.

It’s warns against whitewashing events which are deemed “uncomfortable” in terms of contemporary morals, and how looking at past events through the lens of presentism can be dangerous.

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/asadullah/understanding-aishas-age-an-interdisciplinary-approach/


Long article, but the intellectually honesty is refreshing.

>>12299604
Jonathan Brown is a (((Jesuit))) shill and wrecker, an insincere revert in a long line of insincere reverts. I'm not surprised at all to see him double down on this slander and then top it off with questioning the neccesity of age of consent and other "what if we had a time machine?" bullshit.
No mention of Aisha's birth in 605, no questioning of the authenticity of hadith, just shilling that same (((academic narrative and tying it to the modern Jew normalization of pedophilia.))) Read the Talmud if you haven't already, goy.
Great work Jonathan, you fucking kike.

>>12299158
Its bad theology, the finger is not the hand.

When the ulama are perennially retards for hire, did we ever really need them? Who keeps paying these idiots anyway? Oh. Ohhhhhhh.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/10/25/the-doenmeh-the-middle-easts-most-whispered-secret-part-i.html
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/10/26/the-doenmeh-the-middle-easts-most-whispered-secret-part-ii.html

Also
>Brown serves as the director of the (((Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal))) Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
>He is also a term member of the (((Council on Foreign Relations.)))((spooky)))

Not a Muslim, but the Venture of Islam by Hodgson is a great historical overview. There are epubs on libgen

http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/wahhabies/htm/spy1.htm
>Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East is the title of a document that was published in series (episodes) in the German paper Spiegel and later on in a prominent French paper. A Lebanese doctor translated the document to the Arabic language and from there on it was translated to English and other languages. Waqf Ikhlas publications put out and circulated the document in English in hard copy and electronically under the title: Confessions of a British spy and British enmity against Islam. This document reveals the true background of the Wahhabi movement which was innovated by Mohammad bin abdul Wahhab and explains the numerous falsehood they spread in the name of Islam and exposes their role of enmity towards the religion of Islam and towards prophet Mohammad sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam and towards Muslims at large. No wonder the Wahhabis today stand as the backbone of terrorism allowing and financing and planning shedding the blood of Muslims and other innocent people. Their well known history of terrorism as documented in Fitnatul Wahhabiyyah by the mufti of Makkah, Sheikh Ahmad Zayni Dahlan, and their current assassinations and contravention is due to their ill belief that all are blasphemers save themselves. May Allah protect our nation from their evils.

>>12299136
But in Hinduism all the gods are fingers...

>>12299920
So the house of saud and the kemalists(unwittingly) are Zionists?

>>12300034
I'm not that guy, but in the most important Hindu literature (The Upanishads) they say that all the Gods are just One, Brahman; who is falsely appears as multiple as for example in 'The Lord, through His mayas (illusion), appears manifold' - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 5:19 and 'There is no diversity here whatsoever. He who sees as though there is difference here, goes from death to death' - Katha Upanishad. 2.1.11. Many Hindus understand this, and worship statues etc with the understanding that it just symbolizes the formless one God, although if people are not very well educated about it as with any religion you can have people who don't understand that part.

>>12298749
I hate your religion so much. So much suffering has been caused by those who profess your faith.

>>12300375
So why do Hindus worship other gods besides Brahman?

>>12300393
There are numerous reasons for this, pretty much throughout all of Hindu history there has always been groups of Brahmans passing down texts which say 'all the gods are really just one God etc' and teaching that idea, but over thousands of years with so many language and culture groups in India after some developed separate from each other because of distance, invasion etc each naturally came up with it's way of symbolically representing the divine while still following the Vedic texts and regarding them as the standard of orthodoxy. There is no prohibition of utilizing statues as a means for worship in Hinduism so these different cultures could still all follow the Vedas and have their statues without being unorthodox. All sects essentially agree that there is just One God, the 'godhead', some sects might disagree over whether the name of God is Shiva or Vishnu, but they both agree that the One God they are talking about is the God revealed in the Vedas/Upanishads and just falsely appears as or manifests the other Gods.

So despite that they might disagree on some external things like the name of the God (which amounts to just symbolism because the Upanishads say God is beyond any sort of description), all these sects still agree with eachother and are both Hindu because they all consider the same Vedic scriptures as revealing the one Godhead who appears as/manifests the other gods (which from an Islamic perspective would be equivalent to Angels or something similar). So, in this way despite the wide variety of worship in Hinduism there is still a close unity to it because almost all of them agree that the orthodox truth is contained in the Vedic scriptures which speak of one Godhead. It also naturally also follows that once people have a symbolic representation of Brahman then they will likely stick with it because Brahman is described in the texts as formless and all-pervading like the ether and so it's hard to come up with a good visual depiction of that without relying on some other symbolism.

>>12300383
not as much as Jews

Where is the /his/ poster who actually has read the relevant texts to completely annihilate this fag
>>12298749
When you need him?

>>12299054
>and the only one whose practical application to society will result in its development.

yeah. can't argue with results, right? kek

>>12300479
All the gods in Hinduism are supposed to be the depictions of the one god in the Vedic scriptures? And so there are no hindus that worship Vishnu, Shiva, and all the other gods at the same time? But I recently read that the different gods can interact with one another similar to the gods of the Greek pantheon, are all these gods just the one brahman interacting with himself?

>>12298749
>I prefer the translations of Pickthall and Yusuf Ali

Who cares what translation there is of "Allah is most merciful and polytheists/unbelievers/kuffar, will burn in hell for eternity"

The Qur'an is an absolutely dreadful book.

>>12300573
>polytheists/unbelievers/kuffar, will burn in hell for eternity
quit whining you satanic jewboy

>>12300547
>All the gods in Hinduism are supposed to be the depictions of the one god in the Vedic scriptures?
Yes, it's generally understood by Hindus (someone who is uneducated or dumb might not always understand this though) that God doesn't actually look like the statues and they just symbolically represent the one God of the Vedas. Some Hindus believe in a more personal Godhead that has something sort of like a personality or divine attributes but they still don't think there is something looking like the statue hiding in the clouds or whatever (although they consider that the Godhead is easily capable of temporarily appearing as this if it wants to come to earth to teach spiritual truths like Krishna), even when they conceive of it with personality they still consider it as existing everywhere and all-pervading.

>And so there are no hindus that worship Vishnu, Shiva, and all the other gods at the same time?
Some do, but with the understanding that they are just symbolizing the one God. In fact one example of this, the Smarta tradition; is a sect of Hinduism that utilizes the symbolic worship of 5 deities to represent the Vedic Brahman, and it traces its origins to Adi Shankara, who is one of the main Hindu teachers of the idea that God is really formless and changeless, and the actual reality; and that this universe is just an illusion appearing like foam on the infinite ocean of God; and that individual beings are not real but there is only the one God observing its foam and that the the purpose of the spiritual path is realize that you as a person don't exist but there is just God observing the universe (similar ideas are found in Taṣawwuf and in the writings of Ibn Arabi, this is similar to what they call fanāʾ). Despite that this teaching does not have to do with the worship of statues, they are still able to harmonize that idea with rituals involving statues, in Hindu writings they talk about how ritual worship can help one purify one's heart and mind and can be used as a means for meditation. The Upanishads themselves talk about meditating on and feeling peace from symbolic acts of ritual worship.

>But I recently read that the different gods can interact with one another similar to the gods of the Greek pantheon, are all these gods just the one brahman interacting with himself?
Yes, it gets more complicated but that's basically how Hindus understand it

>>12300659
hell only has interpersonal and cultural purposes and has no bearing in reality. by telling me to go to hell you're saying i'm essentially abandoned to the outgroup, which i'm fine with, because there are a lot of them and they are in my estimation superior by a wide margin. you can trick your children into fearing hell but not a grown man.

>>12300696
imagine having to hear this kvetching
FOREVER

>>12300753
imagine getting dabbed on by fedoras FOREVER.

>>12300667
It seems counter-intuitive to believe that all of reality is the one god brahman, yet split that one god into many other deities and worship them. Why can't hindus just be monotheists and worship brahman directly?

>>12298449
I'm sorry that your worthwhile thread got derailed, op anon. It's a pity that there's too many triggered so easily by one word.

I'll go with what was said that it's best to read the biography of Muhammad(saas) because the revelation of Qur'an has historical and social context, Islam was established in stages. As for reading the Qur'an itself, it is only in Arabic but there's no harm in reading a good translation of the meanings in English. With some good tafsir (commentary of the Qur'an). Also something like an Outlines of Islamic Doctrine is helpful, and then some of the sahih hadith. Best of luck in your studies :^)

>>12300801
There are temples dedicated to Brahma in India, but they are only few in number

>>12300801
Because those things reflect the Vedic roots of Indian culture just as many certain practices in Islam not mentioned in the Quran or Hadith reflect the influence of Arab culture. It was in the context of a very ritual-centric religion with a rich oral literature full of beautiful hymns to many powerful and awe-inspiring deities that the more profounder ideas of One God behind everything emerged. The very deities celebrated in the Vedas are used in stories in the Upanishads to illustrate teachings of Oneness, if Hindus rejected the symbolic use of deities it would be a rejection of the very root of their culture and texts, it's through symbolism involving gods that the ideas of Oneness is conveyed in their most important scriptures.

>>12300853
How does this differ from the original deity worship of Mecca before Mohammed cleansed it of "idols"

Or what about this episode
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses
>Have you thought of al-Lāt and al-‘Uzzá
and Manāt, the third, the other?
(Sura 53, 19-20)

It is clear that those three Goddesses represnented aspect(s) of Allah

Bumping if only to call attention to Prince Alwaleed's bottom boy Brown

>>12299574
I'm trying to be open minded and I would appreciate a logical refutation but it seems to me that the compilation of the bible is seen historically as both logical to authenticity and connection to the Old Testament. I would rather trust multiple documents from men who were relatively close to Jesus Christ in both a time frame and connection than I would trust a single revelation that wasn't written down completely until 20-30 years after Mohammed's death.
Then some 20 years after the death of Mohammed so many people who had memorized what Mohammed had recited had been killed in the battles that Muslims fought, that the third caliph Othman decided to compile a Quran. He appointed people to find any verses that had been written down and what people had memorized and put them together in a book that was called the Quran. After he had compiled the Quran he had all other written verses burnt (Sahih Bukhari 6:61:510). It is recorded in the Hadiths that some people were not very happy about this as the way they had memorized some verses differed from what was recorded in the Quran. So I don't buy the whole argument of a unanimously agreed upon core text when the history of it's compilation as far more concerning than the New Testament's. Why would God's divine word lack this consensus you preach of? And don't Muslim's agree that the holy books of previous covenants' are sacred, so why would God allow his own past revelations to corrupt (Quran, 5:46, 48)? As a Catholic, I find it difficult to wrap around my mind how Islam is compatible with these past teachings, but I am willing to listen open minded if you can answer these inquiries with candor.

>>12300942
>How does this differ from the original deity worship of Mecca before Mohammed cleansed it of "idols"
Because the most important texts themselves use symbolism so it makes it okay to represent Brahman with symbolism in Hinduism, it's a different context than Islam. In the Upanishads it talks about Brahman in the form of different things but all of them are still Brahman, and the text repeatedly emphasizes this while at the same time keeping the symbolism. It would be like if the Quran explicitly said it was okay for Muslims to own or pray to some sort of object that symbolizes Allah, the Hindu scriptures do the equivalent so it's not a problem for them. They have a different sense or morality about idols and statues than Islam because their scriptures take a different attitude towards them

>>12300667
Are you a practicing Hindu? Similar to the OP, what books would you recommend for those wanting to learn about your faith.

>>12299574
Islamists are the Chads of evangelical rhetoric. Scientologists could learn a lesson from them really.

>>12299136
I don't see how the god of the old testament can be reconciled with the god of the new testament.

I swap books with my female Muslim friend, she's given me book like the Kite runner and A thousand splendid suns.

What non-meme tier Arabic story book could I give to her that I'd enjoy reading first?

>>12298749
I don't speak Arabic either, but Yusuf Ali won me over with his glosses, footnotes, and presentation. He's so lucid with his explanations and seems to understand his audience perfectly; it blew my mind to learn he wrote it 100 years ago.

This thread is retarded

>>12302496
those books are orientalist romantic garbage

>>12301643
the uthmani-manuscript-above-all thing bothered me as well, because it would mean that everything else was suscept as well.

however, I've done some reading, and here's what I remember. Firstly, the assumption that the Quran only started to be written down until way after the Prophet's death. This is not true, the different Surahs of the Quran were written down during his own lifetime, it's just that they were never compiled into one book.

You got mixed up when you mentioned the thing about the Quran being compiled 20 years after his death, following a battle in which many of the Muslim memorisers were martyred. This is incorrect, said battle(the Battle of Yamamah) took place in the same year as the Prophet's death, and it was the first Caliph, Abu Bakr(ra) who was convinced, after some initial resistance, by Umar(ra)(another major companion, who would be his successor) to collect all the scattered bits into one physical copy. In other words, there were already pre-existing pieces, but they had not been put together into one single book so far.

Also, another thing which I feel people fail to recognise is that there the Quran is recited on a regular basis every day, and during the month of Ramadan(the one with the fasting), reciting the entire Quran is an important tradition. So it's not as if the original revelations fell into disuse between the Prophet's death and the first compilation. Memorising the whole Quran was encouraged during the Prophet's own lifetime, and these people were the ones sent to newly converted tribes, to teach them the Quran and orally preserve it.

This brings me to the second major point of contention, namely the claim that there were several different versions of the Quran and Caliph Uthman(ra) destroyed them all save for the one he approved of, which became the standard henceforth.

Note that the Quran had already been compiled by Caliph Abu Bakr(ra), but for whatever reason, by the time Uthman(ra) came along, there were 7 different compilations available. Some scholars say the original compilation by Abu Bakr may have been copied down with errors added, and also that the Quran had been translated into the other dialects of Arabic, which had become popular with some communities, which is why Uthan sought to preserve the Quran in the original dialect it was revealed in, the Quraishi dialect(the dialect spoken by the clan of the Prophet), in order to prevent any distortion of the Quran down the line.

This is what I read anyway, and I felt it made sense.

>>12304924
BASED akh posting

>>12301643
same poster here, continuing from above.

One very interesting thing I learned was that the Quran was revealed to the Prophet in multiple variations(7 to be exact)(not the same as 7 dialects of Arabic btw).

Apparently a few Surahs had verses in which the wording was different, although the meaning remained the same. There is a Hadith on this as well, about an argument between Umar(ra) who heard another guy reciting something different from the version he was familiar with, and when they went to the Prophet(pbuh) with the dispute he told them that both were valid, and that there were seven different ways which were all correct.

For a more detailed explanation:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/5142/the-revelation-of-the-quraan-in-seven-styles-ahruf-sing-harf

Not an apologetic site btw. It's a popular Q&A site I use, for concerns about everyday stuff with rulings based on the Hanafi methodology(the school of jurisprudence my family subscribes to)

لما علي ان اقرأ خرافات زنجي صحراء مات من ١٤٠٠ سنة؟ جتفو. ٤ تشان بورد مسيحي.

>>12302496

>>12299574
Many parts of the New Testament were written by an Apostle of Jesus, Paul. And the earliest of the gospels was written by someone who learnt it from someone who had known Jesus. I see a lot of good points in Islam but Christ and his resurrection disprove it all. If someone can disprove the resurrection, than all Christianity falls apart.

Also thanks supplying an article for my query about Aisha.

I'm looking for a book that explains the rules of islam with scientific/causal reason, lik this:

Landlords had the right of the first Fukken -> Quoran set an end to that by forbidding it.

Landlords used to give their subordinated piglets and the burden to raise/feed them. -> Islam set an end to that by making pork haram.

Pork is the meat that gets bad in hot conditions the fastest. -> Islam set an end to that too by making pork haram.


I'm looking for a book that explains why certain rules were implemented in the quran like this (not by stating allah wills it).

>>12305225
>Subordinated piglets
KEK

Landlords used to give their subordinateS piglets*

>>12305225
A lot of things which are forbidden in Islam have more to do with developing self-discipline and benefiting the greater community, rather than purely scientific reasons.

Timothy Winters puts it excellently here: https://youtu.be/2rV5n0krVo8

Looking for (only) scientific reasoning in rituals robs the spiritual purpose. That’s not to say there aren’t scientific benefits to some practices, but those are secondary to the intended spiritual benefit.

A lot of my fellow Muslims nowadays, especially fans of certain hacks will resort to citing scientific backing as the reason for things which have been deemed haraam by Islam. For example, use faulty “””scientific””” reasons as to how pork is unclean, parasite-infested, and fans of one very popular hack talk about how pigs eat feces and are “shameless” animals(which copulate a lot), but I have yet to see any scientific reasoning given in the texts themselves.

Whenever the Prophet spoke about anything which was forbidden, it had usually to do with things like hygiene, or because said thing would interfere with dhikr(worship of God), or maybe it was bad for the family.

Realistically speaking there’s no difference between a chicken slaughtered in the name of Allah(swt) and one which had no mention of the name, so why is the latter haram, since there’s no physical, “scientific” difference?

In spite of this negative association between science and western modernity, there is an emerging literature on science and religion by Muslim scholars (mostly scientists). The physicist Nidhal Guessoum (2009) holds that science and religion are not only compatible, but in harmony. He rejects the idea of treating the Qurʾān as a scientific encyclopedia, something other Muslim authors in the debate on science and religion tend to do, and he adheres to the no-possible-conflict principle, outlined by Ibn Rushd (Averroes): there can be no conflict between God’s word (properly understood) and God’s work (properly understood). If an apparent conflict arises, the Qurʾān may not have been interpreted correctly.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#ScieReliIsla

>>12304970
Ah ha yes yes this rings a bell
I believe Sh. Hamza Yusuf talked about it but I can't remember where/which video was it

https://invidio.us/watch?v=w8VPKl2xyvY

>>12305296
Absolutely, I agree. I always felt the so-called “scientific miracles” in the Quran were too much of a reach. They may or may not have been intended, but most of the times it seems forcibly juxtaposed.

A lot of the verses of the Quran are metaphoric and vague, so people read too much into them and find a “scientific fact”, which may never have been intended, and proceed to harp about how amazingly advanced the Quran was, for having modern science all the way back then.

But the problem here is that that particular “scientific fact” is based upon a current understanding of science. What happens when that “fact” is displaced by a superior theory? Wouldn’t that mean the Quran was wrong, and therefore a sham? This is a major problem which most Muslims promoting the Quranic scientific facts narrative don’t seem to realize.

I don’t deny that the Quran is capable of containing pearls of science, but this approach is dangerous in itself, since using science to justify religion indicates that the religion is secondary to science, and that scientism is the only valid way to approach the universe.

Paleontologist Stephen Gould proposed something called NOMA, Non-overlapping magesteria, which states that science and religion are separate domains which address different things and are equally valid at the same time, and I think this is the only way the two can co-exist.

When there is a conflict between science and Islam, then either the interpretation was wrong, or the science was flawed. Science by definition is constantly evolving, so it may be that the scientific methodology will eventually lead you to a position which is in agreement to the stance held by Islam on that matter, and Muslims should suppress knee jerk responses to declare science as heresy.

Sadly, the faith has been hijacked by Bedouins whose culture has never supported the spirit of scientific enquirer, and they’re going to be in power for quite a while. As long as these guys remain at the helm, the Muslim world will remain in darkness.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

A fantastic article on the fallacy of the scientific-miracles-in-the-Quran narrative:

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/does-the-quran-contain-scientific-miracles-a-new-approach/

Imagine being such an insecure hipster you actually want to be a muslim.
>th-this will make me unique and different
Ugh.

>>12306382
you are going to burn in hell for all eternity unless you make the right choice, and I'm saying that unironically.

if you have even a shred of God-consciousness left in you, I implore you to make a genuine enquiry into the truth while you still have time. And you will realise there are only two valid belief systems left - you either become a Jew(good luck with that) or you step on to the Sirat-al-Mustaqim, the Right Path.

Choose wisely, my friend.

>>12306525
Assuming your the same Muslim poster, I'm genuinely curious why you think Islam is more compatible to the OT tecahings than Christianity. From a Christian perspective Islam seems very disruptive in the flow of revelation and I can't reconcile Islam's role with Abrahamic tradition.

>>12306525
except that Jews worship Yahweh and aren't even monotheists and regularly deny the omnipotence of Allah so
it's only the Straight Path

>>12298749
>If you want to go ahead and read the Quran straight away, then I’d recommend the translations by Pickthall or Yusuf Ali. This is purely a personal preference, I like how these because of the “flow”. Disclaimer: not an Arabic speaker, so I can’t vouch as to how “accurate” these translations are, compared to original. Many people are of the opinion that the Quran is too complex to be translated, and that “translations” are works which can never match the original.
is there any literal translation from the original classical arabic? not this freestyle shit

>>12299054
>Ive read some of NT, and while I can think it (the KJV) is a magnificent piece of literature, I don’t think of it as the philosophy I want to live.
kjv is a cheap ripoff of dra
just like with classical arabic quran, you are best learning latin or greek if you want to truly enjoy it

>>12299054
>>12299136
The question I ask of you guys is why you even think that "polytheism" is so bad in the first place. I understand it is part of the beliefs for each religion, in Christianity's case from Moses and Islam's from Muhammad. But as individuals, why do you consider it so harmful, and feel need to distance yourself from it as much as you can? Everyone in the world was once polytheistic, so, all of your ancestors, and there are still cultures today which practise it. This Western civilization we sit in is founded on the culture Ancient Greece and Rome, which were heavily polytheistic in nature, and have provided a basis for so much subsequent-culture, such as literature, sculptures and otherwise. Give me a personal explanation as to why you despise polytheism so much, like it were some kind of plague you must stay far from.

>>12300573
This, lol. Abrahamists will act spiritual, but when genuinely confronted regarding this fact, they have no answer.

>>12306525
I'm sure you're very tall.

>>12307800
not him but I'm Muslim and 6'5", manlet

>>12300801
The different figures are representations of a single Divinity, hence it matters not whether they worship this reality directly or by a proxy. Also, Brahman is not a "God" in the theistic sense, but a Spirit which is both the source and substance of everything.

>>12300573
Replace "Allah" with "God" and congratulations, you've got Christianity.

>>12307957
I'm sure you have an 11" dick and 150 IQ too.

>>12308009
Eh, honestly not a lot about hell in the bible. Rest is just pagan myths adopted by the church.

>>12308915
This is bullshit
>>12308009
This is also bullshit, Islam is far closer to Judaism than Christianity.

>>12305284
How come all European Muslims go all out and have the weird little costumes and stuff. It is so weird.

>>12298449
http://www.shiavault.com/

>>12308009
t. hasn't read The Bible, believes what Zakir Naik told him about Christianity

>>12309205
>>12309222
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/hassam-munir/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword-a-critical-look-at-forced-conversions/

>>12306791
There’s A.J Arberry’s work, which is supposed to be quite close. Haven’t read it myself though.

>Arberry shows great respect towards the language of the Qur'an, particularly its musical effects. His careful observation of Arabic sentence structure and phraseology makes his translation very close to the Arabic original in grammatical terms ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Koran_Interpreted

>>12308949
>Islam is far closer to Judaism than Christianity
Muslims believe in Jesus(pbuh), Jews dont. Muslims believe that Mary(pbuh) was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus(pbuh), Jews don't.
Muslims await Jesus(pbuh) returning from heaven and will kill the anti-christ, Jews aren't at that stage yet.
Islam and Christianity are the two closest religions to each other.

Why would you think Islam is closer to Judaism?

>>12310251
Because Christianity associates others to God. God begets not, and cannot be begotten, as per my creed.

I’m unable to understand how the Trinity is not polytheism. Even ignoring the core belief, the actual practices still seem polytheistic to me. The idea that the Holy Spirit is worthy of praise(and in turn, worship), and that Jesus(pbuh) is also worthy of worship, is exactly the act of shirk, or associating partners to God.

My understanding could be mistaken of course, and I admit I do not know much of Christianity’s doctrines, but I have witnessed the practices of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant.

I have a friend who is a Pentecostal, I was surprised to learn that they are opposed to displaying any images of Christ.

>>12310357
Ok, I'm a Muslim that used to be a Christian and I would say that as a Christian that I never pracised shirk. The trinity itself is not common to all the Christian sects, and there are varying degrees of understanding and acceptance of that doctrine on an individual level. Many times in discussion as a Christian the topic of the trinity will be brought up and it was said that it is not found in the scripture explicitly. The word itself, as far as I know, is not in the bible.

As for, say, worshipping Jesus(pbuh), I found that again there were disagreements about this. For example it is not necessary as a Christian to pray to any other than God, so it becomes a question of is Jesus himself God, and if he is not God then one is not praying to Jesus.
Anyway, it's quite confusing. Ask a Christian priest to explain the trinity for you and whether or not they worship other than God alone. Or perhaps they do, and that's where they are astray and why I'm a Muslim and why Islam was revealed.
Nevertheless, I still say that we as Muslims have more belief in common with the Christians than we have in common with the Jews. Things like the doctrine of repentance are identical, our current timeline eschatologically is concurrent. Reminds me of what a turk told me: eat at the Jew's house but sleep at the Christian's house

>>12310441
Like I said, my understanding of Christian doctrine isn’t much, it’s just that the concept of the Trinity is what makes me feel Christianity and Islam differ more strongly than Judaism and Islam, since tawheed is central to Islam.

My understanding of Judaism seems to be inadequate too, I always thought it was monotheistic but people here claim it’s polytheistic? What?

>>12310741
Yahweh is Baphomet

>>12300573
The Quran literally has whole chapters dedicated to war ethics economic systems rights of the weak and the lore in general. This "It doesn't say anything" meme is super dishonest.

>>12309205
I understand the plight of the Indians but it's necessary to acknowledge most of the early invasions were by the descendants of the Mongols e.g.:Timur. They accepted Islam sure but they were still Mongols at heart which is to say crazy "smash everything kill everyone" invaders. The later kings of the Mongol(Mughal) Empire in India were far more peaceful and offered pretty substantial religious freedom to Hindus.

>>12311263
They don’t seem to realize it was turkic and Persians who did the invading, instead they think the Arabs are to blame lol

>>12311306
Exactly. Most of the contact Arabs had with Indians was trade via the Indian Ocean. Amazing how Indian "intellectuals" try to relate Arabs and Islam to Mongol conquest.

It's important for /lit/ to remember that this board is being flooded by Indian and Chinese posters trying to flex their ethnicities history and improve their reputations among the whites they worship.

>>12310741
If christians practised tahweed and accepted Muhammad(saas), they'd be muslims. Not trying to get an argument about it though bro :^) I'm quite certain there's something in the sunnah about christians and muslims being the closest to each other in deen but I didn't look it up yet, if I do I'll post

>>12312533
You really can't be this fucking stupid. Christians dogma and tradition would need to change dramatically to even be considered something resembling Islam. I could name more than a few things in which they differ, and I don't even consider myself an expert, but I do however, use my brain, unlike you Achmed.

>>12312681
well the central tenet of Islam monotheism so if you're saying Christianity differs there then it really is idolatry

>>12313369
>t. inbred muslim brainlet
By that logic all polytheistic religions are the same?
retarded muslim, an hero.

>>12313369
It's monotheism, but it's also the worship of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I am Muslim, and either you are baiting or you really are this stupid, to think that because Christians and Muslims are monotheistic they are practically the same religion.

>>12312681
Name a few then, I'll wait

>>12313407
I don't think he's thinking that actually. Slow,down,

>>12312681
>something resembling Islam
resemblance has nought to do with. It's off-topic itt anyway but the question was is about which is closer to Islam as a religion, Judaism or Christianity. Not about resemblance which would by necessity imply the outwardness, the facade, and the mode of worship. One could argue that Judaism is more in resemblance to Islam because no pork and more skull-caps, but it's not the point.

Basically, if it's tahweed then it's jews but if it's doctrinal and belief it's christians. None of this is in all honestly of great import, it's academic, maybe useful for the timeline of divine revelations from an Islamic perspective.

>>12313407
>Christians and Muslims are monotheistic they are practically the same religion.

never said that, the point in dispute was that Islam is more similar to Christianity than it is to Judaism(I support the latter, not the former)

>>12313391
>By that logic all polytheistic religions are the same
never said that lol, can you even follow arguments coherently without resorting to strawmanning randomly

>>12302240
Not that guy, but Guenon's first 2 books on Hinduism and Vedanta are good. Not everything is covered and some areas viz. Advaita are given more focus than others but they're good for getting a general sense of how a traditional Hindu would view their religion and talks about some of the deeper Hindu ideas about things like the oneness and absoluteness of God.

>>12313407
Muslims do not worship anything other than Allah. If you're Muslim please read up and learn about tahweed. Surah al-ikhlas. Do it now

>>12313410
Catholic/Orthodox Theology:
>Belief in the Holy Trinity
>Belief in the Immaculate Conception and the Resurrection of Christ
>Belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the only Son of God, and became Jesus Christ after having been baptized by John the Baptist
>Belief in the Saints, including our Lady the Virgin Mary
Theology also includes Tradition, which in turn includes many of the Rites that Christians observe such as:
>Attending Mass and belief in Confession and Communion
> Belief in the Eucharist
> Belief in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as the Bride of Christ
> The organization (Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, different for Orthodoxy obviously) and evangelizing efforts and groups (Dominicans, Franciscans, the Society of Jesus etc.) of the Church are also grounded in Tradition


Now tell me, Achmed, where can I find all of this in the Quran or in which one of the Hadiths?
>b-b-ut Jesus is a prophet according to the Quran hurr durr
This was nothing but a cheap tactic by Muhammad and his followers to win over Christians in the Levant and Asia Minor, and had absolutely no basis in theology. Muhammad probably knew next to nothing about Jesus, and had no access to any Christian writings of his time.

>>12313523
It's a figure of speech you dumb abeed, English is not my first language, it's not even my second. I meant to say we venerate our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as the perfect example of a man.

>>12313528
A bit off topic, but I noticed Mormonism has alot of wierd Islamic-type traits:

Polygamy, obedience above all else, built up respect for a prophet who was obviously a very troubled man.

It's obvious that Islam probably just came out of Arab tribal politics but it's wierd how such phenomenon occur

>>12313369
Ok Mehmet.

>>12313560
They're both basically cults that grew big and powerful enough to become major religions. You could make that same argument about Christianity, but at least we know Jesus was not a conman that was jailed for swindling people like Joseph Smith, or a paedo murderous warlord like Muhammad.

>>12313528
>Muhammad probably knew next to nothing about Jesus,

That's wrong. He had a history of interacting with Christians in his travels starting from when he traveled to Syria as a child with his uncle. A cousin of his first wife was a Nestorian monk. In actually Islam is more heavily influenced by Judaism than Christianity although both of them played a role in contributing to forming it.

>>12313581
And then there's Shabtai Zvi, who was just insane, but an outgrowth of Judaism!

>>12313593
The things Muhammad learned by coming into contact with Jews and Christians were fairly rudimentary theological concepts found in both religions. Things like belief in a single god, the importance of having holy scriptures, and the importance of prayer and daily observance.
Muhammad had no idea about equally important, yet more complex concepts, otherwise there would at least be some semblance of them in Islam. For example, the Christian concept of Sin, Confession, Salvation, and Evangelism, and Jewish concepts like ritual purity and atonement, simply flew over his head.

>>12313542
Do not become angry. I'm sorry but that is what you wrote and I did nothing against your rights on me.

God is dead.

>>12313572
Why don’t you post some scholars other than random Shia heretics or charlatans propped up by the west itself LOL

>>12313657
Or maybe they constituted part of the corruption that had crept into Christianity and thus had to be cleansed

>>12313528
Ok, I can see that you are not very well educated regarding Islam. Some of those examples are the same in Islam.
Muslims believe in the immaculate conception, hold Mary(as) higher than the saints, and have the friday prayers (it's equivalent to sunday mass for the purpose of my argument). I think it's best if you just go and read some basic Islamic doctrine.

>>12313657
Religion C does not necessarily have to follow all the rites and practices of religions B and A to genuinely be the successor religion to those ones. For a religion whose major thinkers all emphasize our utter inability to understand God in his entirety Christians sure love to get presumptuous when it comes to God's plans after 0 ad.

>>12313693
OK. Take your pic.

>>12313581
Mormonism is not a major religion, it may not even qualify as a religion desu. Muhammad(saas) was not a pedo or murderous, I'll give you warlord for now but in a broad sense (although it's debatable).

I think a few of you need to observe the OP topic. If you want to sperg out about sand niggers and shit please kindly fuck off back to your Facebook closed group.

>>12313707
Nice try Achmed. You and I both know that's not true. Maybe in theory but definitely not in practice. In countries like Pakistan, you can be charged with a crime and incarcerated for being Christian and having any images of the virgin Mary. That's supposedly a more """moderate""" country, to say nothing of shitholes like Saudi Arabia.

>>12313712
Literally who are these people and why should anyone care about their opinions?

>>12313657
The doctrines of repentance in Islam and Christianity are identical.

For ritual purity you can look up for yourself wuhdu and ghusl

>>12313741
>Muhammad(saas) was not a pedo or murderous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Marriage_to_Muhammad
>Aisha's age at the time of her marriage is frequently mentioned in Islamic literature.[11] According to Sunni hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad in Mecca. The marriage was consummated after the Hegira to Medina, when she had reached the age of nine or ten years old

"O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful."
lul

>>12313744
This is not an argument against what I said. I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam with you because of your absolute lack of reading comprehension. Whatever the laws of Pakistan the fact is that Mary(as) is held in higher esteem in Islam than any saint, in fact she is higher than anyone except for the prophets.

>>12313763
to add to this:
>Muhammad has been accused of sadism and mercilessness—including the invasion of the Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina[325][326][327][328][329][330]—sexual relationships with slaves,[324] and his marriage to Aisha[324] when she was six years old,[324] which according to most estimates was consummated when she was nine.[331]

>>12313780
Stop trying to appropriate Christian beliefs and figures to win over converts. Taqqiya spouting shit. An hero.

>Are there any nonwhites here?

No anon this is a predominantly english literature board filled with 75% shitposts.

Anyone who says they are a "practicing Muslim" is about as competent as the "practicing Buddhists" on this board. At least the "practicing Christians" have some sort of connection by heritage

btw fuck islam, kill or deny passage to all muslims that pass through your land or pay the fool's price

>>12313763
The marriage was consummated after Aisha had reached puberty. The next line of the article, which you conveniently did not copy, says as much that most scholars believe that. There are numerous sources.
The hadith itself, in that article, is not sourced and there are differing opinions about her age amongst the ulema today, some say 17. The consensus of opinion is that the marriage was consummated after she had reached puberty.
So not a pedo.

>>12313751
They are Sunni Muslims just like you, Achmed. They're the kinds of Imams you can find everywhere, London, Cairo, Gaza, Mecca, doesn't matter.

>>12313744
>Pakistan’s supreme court has struck down the death sentence for blasphemy handed down to Christian woman Asia Bibi, in a long-delayed, landmark decision that will free her after nine years on death row and has ignited countrywide protests from Islamist groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/31/asia-bibi-verdict-pakistan-court-overturns-blasphemy-death-sentence

https://www.dawn.com/news/1448807

You desperately want to believe that these places are intolerant of minorities, but don’t start plugging in your eyes just because you don’t like the truth.

>>12313815
I know it's hard for your retarded inbred muslim ass to comprehend this, because your nasty Paki mum got pregnant from her first cousin at 15 and had you at 16, but a girl can reach puberty at like 13 or 14. Let's assume you are right, and she was 13, don't you think it's not at least a little bit weird that a 59 year old man married and had sex with a 13 year old?

>>12313763
She is documented to have passed menarche.

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/asadullah/understanding-aishas-age-an-interdisciplinary-approach/

>>12313821
Yawn. So much taqqiya. Don't you have a kebab place to run Mehmet?

>>12313790
How is it taqqiya if it's been established in doctrine for over 1400 years. We also don't try to win over converts, you can believe whatever you want to, all I'm doing in accordance with my religion is calling out wrong interpretations and misinformations. The Qur'an says there's no compulsion in religion and also that the non-believers are deaf, dumb, and blind and that it doesn't matter whether we proselytize to them or not, they won't believe. I also don't want any Muslims being mislead by some of the bullshit itt, myself included.

>>12313839
I don't eat lizards, but some arabs do and that's fine with me. It's permitted to eat lizards, it's not compulsory to do so.

>>12313839
You do realize that the age of consent in the US was 13 not a century ago right?

Stop viewing things through the lens of presentism and applying your contemporary ideas of morals to pre-modern societies.

Back then it made no sense for a person who had reached puberty to wait till 18 to get married. The principle in Islam is to allow marriage so long as puberty has been reached, and there is no age fixed precisely because different people reach puberty at different ages. Why is that so hard to grasp?

>>12313867
Some girls in western countries reach puberty as early as 8yo

>>12313840
Oh no! Islamophobia is growing in Western countries because we can't stop migrating there and killing them and raping them! Whatever shall we do! I know! Let's try to make our murderous, paedo prophet a little less unappealing and let us say that his his 6 year old bride was actually 13 instead of 9 when muhammad had sex with her! Perfect plan! That should make those dumb infidels think he was actually an honourable man.

>>12313842
How does it feel to lack the ability to respond with a legitimate counterpoint and instead resort to memes and name-calling?

Also kebabs are delicious and I know you love them.

>>12313865
What does that have to do with Muhammad being a paedo?
>>12313867
Who said anything about age of consent? If you marry and have sex with a literal child you are a paedo. It doesn't matter what the law in your jurisdiction says or what century you lived in. Dumb inbred muslim apologetic.

>>12313884
I hate kebabs, my country has way better food than your contaminated, fake meat shit with yogurt.
Also, I replied with an image to prove my point. You said here:
>You desperately want to believe that these places are intolerant of minorities
Which is a a huge fucking joke. There would not be 99-100% Muslim places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan if they were peaceful and tolerant. They drove out and exterminated any non-Muslims long ago, at the behest of your sadistic false prophet muhammad..

>>12313877
She was 9, and we are not going to whitewash things.

Sexual abuse of children leads to severe defects in the mental maturation of a child, as a person. Such people are damaged and suffer from major impairments, in terms of personality, functioning in society, dependance issues etc.

Did she suffer from any of these? From what we know of her life, it is the exact opposite, she was outspoken, gifted intellectually and played a big role in the community, both politically and religiously.

Her relationship with the Prophet (pbuh) was one filled with love and affection(she even played pranks on the Prophet). He often stated that she was his favourite, after Lady Khadijah ra.

She had an strong personality, she was not afraid of speaking her mind and didn't shy away from directly questioning the Prophet (pbuh) even in matters of the religion.

She was reknown for her intelligence and memory, responsible for narrating over 2000 reliable hadith.

After the death of the Prophet, she was often consulted regarding religious matters, considered an authority in all sorts of matters related to the religion.

She played an active political role for much of her life, so much so that some of the other companions would question why she was there, stating her place was at home.

She even was involved in a military campaign, on her camel with her at the head leading the troops(the eponymous "Battle of the Camel").

Do any of these sound like something a victim of abuse would have been able to accomplish?

You can name call and slander all you want, but history doesn’t support your claims, and you know it.

>>12313807
The UK has a lot of Muslims. I am one of them. I love my religion, my language (English), and my country, England. I can be both as British as fish n' chips, yet retain my ancestor's beautiful religion.

>>12313932
>She was 9, and we are not going to whitewash things.
>proceeds to whitewash

>>12313932
That still doesn't justify a 53 year old man having sex with a 9 year old. It doesn't matter if she was the greatest woman to ever live, Achmed. That has nothing to do with it.

>>12313894
It's an analogy. I didn't marry a woman who had just reached puberty but there's nothing wrong with doing so. Especially considering the historical context. A girl who has reached puberty is no longer a child according to God and by extension science, so having sex with a post-pubescent is not pedophilia by definition. This is easy to understand. Again, it's permissible but not compulsory, and the appropriate age of marriage can be determined by such things as local custom, personal preference, necessity to prevent adultery, among other things. In most places today it's usual for the girl to stay unmarried whilst she receives her education, not that it's necessary for her to be unmarried whilst she is in school, it depends on her personal situation. For men also it's easier to get married once you've left your parents or can sustain your own family financially. Also, stop being a retarded brainlet.

>>12313985
>Also, stop being a retarded brainlet.
Don't worry, I'm not Muslim.

>>12313961
fish 'n chips, being a fried food, would not exist in europe except for fried foods being introduced via muslims in spain :^)

>>12313985
I love how we went from "Muhammad wasn't a paedo, Aisha was older!" to "ok he was a paedo but it's ok because he lived a long time ago!" fucking taqqiya to the max. lmfao

>>12313894
Pedophilia is defined as a sexual orientation with a preference for pre-pubescent children. It's not a one time thing, it's recurrent and pervasive.

The Prophet (pbuh) married many women throughout his life, and with the exception of Lady Aisha, they were ALL of an older age, and nine of them were widows. The Prophet married primarily for political purposes, not sexual. If he had a preference for children(astaghfirullah), then why did he marry only one younger female, Aisha ra? Nothing was stopping him, he had God's backing as well as the community's. The very definition of pedophilia requires a repetitive fixation, and this clearly wasn't the case.

Not to mention that Lady Aisha ra HAD reached the age of puberty when the marriage was consummated, to be specific her cycles had already begun(explicitly documented in Hadith) So she doesn't even meet the requirement of being a child(not physically, at least). If anything, the term hebephilia would be more appropriate, and even that would not be applicable, since he married no other females of this age.

So where’s your proof that for your claim that she hadn’t reached puberty and that he was a pedophile?

Be intellectually honest, if at all you value having a proper discussion.

>>12314000
I know, I am Muslim, you dumb abeed. Learn to read you dumb christian/hindu shit.

>>12313984
Your problem now is the age difference?

>>12314009
Yes there needs to be an age difference for there to be pedophilia. You think you're clever making short statements like that? You are retarded.

>>12314004
>It's not a one time thing, it's recurrent and pervasive.
According to who? You? I want you to try to use that excuse in a court of law or with anyone else.
>Look judge, I'm not actually a paedo, because I only had sex with one underage girl

>>12313922
The places that the early Muslims conquered were majority non-Muslim for literal centuries after having been conquered.

> for at least two centuries the majority of the inhabitants of the Islamic empire were non-Muslims.”[22] Furthermore, according to Hugh Kennedy, forced conversion to Islam was “almost impossible” following the early Muslim conquests, as Muslims were a small minority in newly-conquered areas―perhaps about 10% of the population in Egypt and 20% in Iraq. “In these circumstances, forcing unwilling people to convert was out of the question.”[23]

>In the regions conquered by Muslims by 732 (i.e., in the first century after Prophet Muhammad ﷺ), Islam did not become a majority religion until 850-1050. Nearly all of Iran, for example, had been conquered by 705; however, empirical research by Richard Bulliet has shown that it was only in the mid-9th century that the Muslim population of Iran reached 50%, and it took nearly another century for that figure to hit 75%.[24] As some historians have pointed out, “if forced conversion to Islam had been the impetus behind the conquests, they were a miserable failure.”[25]

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/hassam-munir/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword-a-critical-look-at-forced-conversions/

Check the citations.

The first Muslims wanted to keep non-Muslims as non-muslims, because that was the only way to extract Jizya from them.

>>12314035
stop posting your shitty food. It doesn't even look good

>>12314008
I am Muslim too. Is this bait? Don't say you're Muslim if you're not and don't call me a non-Muslim if you are.

>>12314035
>The first Muslims wanted to keep non-Muslims as non-muslims, because that was the only way to extract Jizya from them.
Oh wow that's so nice of them! After conquering them and murdering most of them let's just try to keep them out of our religion so we can tax them extra. Such a peaceful religion.

>>12314018
You just don't actually know what pedophilia is, do you?

>>12314046
I don't know, my friend, this thread clearly has got a lot of anti-Muslim trolls. I am sorry if I offended you if you really are Muslim, salaam.

>>12314056
Maybe not, I'm not a Muslim nor am I an expert on Muhammad.

>>12314001
Imagine being born into a family consequent generations of which have been living in a culture which claims to be the successors of the masters of rhetoric and logic and philosophy, the Romans, and to disregard all of that and resort to shitslinging like a bunch of Pajeet monkeys.

I truly wonder whether people like you are deserving of claiming this heritage.

>>12314051
So it wasn't forced conversions and emigration then. Must be to keep those sweet jizya gibs coming in. But it's all taqqiya. Why are you even here?

>>12314000
>literally "We wuz kangs n shieet" muslim edition
What are you going to claim next? that you invented the union jack?

>>12314059
wa'salaam habibi don't worry I'm not so sensitive

>>12314034
>>12314034
>According to who? You?

It is the definition taken straight from the DSM, all I did was paraphrase it. It’s one google search away.

>>12314065
most of us muslims go for the full brazilian, long before it was brazilian. I'm claiming that. We never waz kangz though, we waz sultans and caliphs and shit, get your terminology right

>>12314062
>disregard all of that and resort to shitslinging like a bunch of Pajeet monkeys.
Oh wow! look how peaceful of you. I thought you were meant to be so tolerant and accepting of others. lmao only takes a little to make you muslim shits show your true colours.
>>12314062
>everyone on the internet is European or American
extreme fucking kek. You can't be this retarded. Neither I, nor my ancestors have anything to do with Romans or their "heritage". Believe it or not, I live in a Muslim majority country. I'll give you one clue: it's in south east asia.

>>12314087
lmao you actually mad me chuckle, Achmed. Well done, I'll give you that.

>>12314051
As opposed to forcing them to convert or turning them into slaves or straight up slaughtering them? Yes, taxing them is infinitely more merciful and literally centuries ahead in terms of progression compared to what every other conquering army did back in that era did.

What would you have them do instead?

What did the Christian armies do? Forgive them and turn the other cheek?

>>12313752
Repentance in Islam is killing infidels in the name of Allah, while in Christianity it's confessing your sins and praying.

>>12298449
Wheres Reliance of the Traveler? I guess Milestones is included in Sayyid Kutbs Anthology?
Should put A Bridge to Nowhere and Catastrophic Failure by Coughlin on there somewhere.
Fucking dunecoons want us dead or converted, don't let these taqiyyaniggers trick you.
The Quran is the worst book I've ever read. The Sunnah shows how fucking inbred and sub 80 IQ Muslims are.

>>12313985
> Again, it's permissible but not compulsory, and the appropriate age of marriage can be determined by such things as local custom, personal preference, necessity to prevent adultery, among other things.
What the fuck my dude its the 21st century hello?

>>12314115
>What did the Christian armies do? Forgive them and turn the other cheek?
Nothing. There is no such thing as "Christian armies". Except for the armies that participated in the Crusades, which only sought to defend lands from Muslims, re-conquer if you will. Same with the Spanish re-conquest.

>>12314115
Who the fuck said i was christian?
Christianism has done more good than harm tho, through western morals.
They were actually the only ones who tried to help people during the black plague
yeah they did some shit in the past but none of the regular christian man thinks beheading is okay but Islam actually believes homos should be hanged rofl

>>12314088
Pardon me for assuming an anti-Muslim troll on a site known for having a massive American/European male preponderance was an American/European, I am truly sorry for not correctly identifying you as a Pinoy or whatever your non-euro identity is.

>>12314128
>it's the current year
>modernity = good, ancient = bad and dumb

yikes

>>12314140
Is that nasi goreng?

>>12314147
That's literaly true don't matter how you look at it.

>>12314136
Not hanged, thrown from a cliff and if no cliff drop a wall on them. If they survive they're free but they must repent

>>12314158
Peace religion btw modernity sucks!!!

>>12314163
The world is objectively more peaceful sans faggotry.

>>12314131
And what did the Crusaders do to the captured areas? The Franks ran out of supplies and literally roasted children alive to keep their men fed. Read John Man’s Saladin to double check my claims.

The Crusaders pillaged and slaughtered civilians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, not even the Jews were spared when they took Jerusalem. They locked them into the synagogues they were taking refuge in and burnt the buildings down.

So much barbarism has been committed by them and then you have the audacity to put charges of violence and anti-semitism on Muslims instead, trying to project it on us, eh?

>>12314181
Well, luckily I'm not Christian so I could not care less how much they project on you. I do, however, would prefer living in a Christian majority nation even back then, then in a Muslim one. I think most people would agree with me.

>>12314140
I'm Malaysian. If I was Pinoy you would actually have a point in saying my country has Roman roots. I've seen firsthand how abhorrent and backwards your religion is. I hope one day your religion is nothing but a relic of the past, same as other religion that are no longer practiced.

>>12314158
No, the Hadith say men engaging in homosexual acts should be stoned to death.

Not going to defend faggotry either, you can empower them however much you want.


Even then, the Ottoman Empire was the first to decriminalize homosexuality in their tanzimat reforms, all the way back in 1758, a full 30+ years before France did in 1791. And surely homosexual behavior would have been normalized way before the Tanzimat reforms officially were put in place.

Islam does not define even define people by gender orientation, it prefers to group people based on the acts they commit.

Most of the hatred for gays in third world countries suspiciously seems to coincide with areas which were formerly ruled by Christians, who were notorious for preaching against sodomy, in contrast to
Muslim cultures where homosexuality has been normalized amongst the elite(much like the ancient Greeks).

But sure let’s forget recorded history and accuse the Muslims of being super anti-gay and throwing them off roofs!

>>12314153
He's muslim, they're stuck in the past. That's why they still behead people and all of their countries are third world shitholes, unless they have oil.

>>12314239
Only if you were a Christian at the time, else they might burn you or drown you

>>12314115
All Abrahamism is backwards relative to the superior Pagan cultures which they have replaced or helped destroy. Do show me stories of all the numbers of people who were forced to convert from their own pantheon to their invader's. Oh wait, no such events on record. Instead you'll see that polytheistic cultures were gladly able to trade elements of their traditions between eachother. It's only when you backwards MAHNOTHEUSTS came onto the scene that the very concept of "holy wars" came into existence. Your religions have reaped the most destruction of any other cultures of the past 2000 years, your "holy books" don't have a fraction of the objective wisdom which are found in ones like the Dharmic cultures, your minds are smaller than any other group on the planet (believing that literally GOD, the creator of EVERYTHING, would speak to some nobody-man in some tiny region of the world and instruct them on some system they wanted them to follow, which is rife with elements from that specific cultural era despite GOD supposed to be being eternal and beyond cultures, and that you think that God wouldn't just speak to everyone on Earth at once and tell them of the system needed for them to follow, and lo, the whole planet would be following Islam right then and there) Your religions are largely political control-systems that have unsurprisingly seen such histories since their inceptions, with some pseudospirituality sprinkled in.

You speak of idols and idolatry, yet the only idol is the one you have made in your own mind, to actually believe GOD would speak to some desert-dweller of one cultural era rather than reveal itself to the whole world at once, and automatically have everyone following its will. This is how small God is to you. You have zero desire or concern for what may be taught by other cultures, because your own teaches you quite explicitly that yours alone is true, a position you are expected to hold to if you are to even follow the culture at all. Your religions make you closed-minded by their very tenets.

I exclude Jesus here because he's a true spiritual teacher to me, but everything of the Old Testament, Paul, the Church, and the Islam stands.

>>12314260
lmao homos

>>12314251
You clearly have strong emotional reasons for hating Islam. I don’t know who has hurt you but get over it and stop collectively blaming all the 1.5 billion plus other Muslims for whatever was done to you.

And yeah, fat chance of Islam going away, it’s not going to happen anytime soon, buddy.

>>12314260
>>12314140
>>12314115
>>12314062
>>12314035
>>12313932
>>12313884
Muslim internet defense force.
Literally every post this goatfucker has made is "muslims dindu nuffin, we good people until dem evil christians came n slaughtered us." Fucking pathetic shilling.

>>12314280
Absolutely seething

>>12314280
Literally not. Can you even read? gtfo of /lit/ you're not welcome

>>12314275
Also, I'm not even slightly surprised to see the pedophilia-apologists in this thread, for what else does Islam do to you? It tells you that both the book and the prophet are perfect, and you must accept this fact to follow the culture. Therefore, everything in the book and done by the prophet are flawless as well. So you have modern humans, with plenty of intelligence in any other regard, justifying shit they'd have not even the slightest defense for in any other context but these political cults you've been indoctrinated to follow.

>>12314304
We've established that it wasn't pedophilia. You're wasting your ink.

>>12314279
No one has hurt me. I just hate Muslims, and I hate Islam. Your religion is a blight on humanity.
>And yeah, fat chance of Islam going away, it’s not going to happen anytime soon, buddy.
I bet the Mayans and Aztecs felt that way. I bet the Chinese Dynasties and the Romans felt that way. I bet the Grossdeutsches Reich and Imperial Japan felt that way. You never know what the future holds for us. Food for thought, Achmed ;)
Anyway, I can't say it's been nice chatting with you, but have a good rest of your day nonetheless, old chap.

>>12298749
>non-Arab muslim
Wow that must suck.

>>12314300
>Can you even read? gtfo of /lit/ you're not welcome
>gtfo of /lit/ you''re not welcome
>of
>doesn't know the difference between off and of
I think you're the one that shouldn't be here Achmed.

>>12314275
based and wiccanpilled

>>12299154
Fuck off Athanasius

>>12314295
Yeah I wish there weren't muslims in my country. Also, I don't know why you keep posting pictures of food, stop pretending like arab food is good. Hundreds of countries have better food. Your shit isn't even in the top ten. Even indian food is better.

>>12314239
>I do, however, would prefer living in a Christian majority nation even back then, then in a Muslim one.
trust me you dont, christians were much much less tolerant than muslims

>>12314315
>oh really

>>12314310
Wishful thinking on your part and the numbers strongly disagree with you, but whatever helps you sleep at night, my friend.

Insyallah you’ll open your heart up someday, but not with that attitude. So selamat puggi to you :^)

>>12314366

>>12314359
Why should I trust a taqqiya spouting goatfucker?

>>12314379
Is that rendang?

>>12314334
Most of the food I posted was Indian cuisine(Mughal food) and there was literally not one Arab dish with the exception of hummus, which is more of a Levantine/Mediterranean thing.

Your prejudice blinds you, habibi.

>>12314379
>t. brainlet
I think he meant to say that every empire and religion that has existed had numbers yet most of them are no longer here. Come on, I know your inbred brain can't process complex thoughts, but try a little harder please.

>>12314407
he is just one of mentally retarded creatures that accidentally escaped his quarantine is /pol/ you shouldnt take him seriously, in these cases its preferrable to report and move on

>>12314387
Nihari, which is basically beef/mutton curry. Naans on the side. Both Indians and Pakistanis make this(the Pakistani version is a lot spicier though).

>>12314407
You just don't know when to stop with your taqqiya do you? Are you just going to deflect every criticism and assume Islam is perfect? Your religion is shit. Your culture is shit. Your cuisine is shit. That's the point. Stop deflecting.

>>12314407
I've had those, literally in the kitchen of my turkish friend's kebab shop. They also had something similar but with cheese inside

>>12314432
I forgot to add, they were really disgusting. Muslim food not even once.

>>12298449
Muslims should not be on 4channel. We literally hate you here.

>>12314407
Those little dough balls are so good. The only time I’ve eaten them was at an Indian festival in Toronto though. The lady who made them was very sweet.
I’ve been craving them so bad, but alas no Indians in my country.

Completely unrelated to the discussion. Was just scrolling through. Carry on with your autism

>>12314461
I don't.

>>12314467
t. muslim

>>12311184
Baphomet means Muhammad. Say Muhammad 30 times while putting on a arab accent.

>>12314448
Have them warm with syrup. I dunno what the cheese balls are but these are fried dumplings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulab_jamun

>>12314379
That literally looks like shit with grass on top of it. Is this muslim cuisine?

>>12314448
No they were nice. Had them with turkish tea

>>12314487
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ras_malai

Wikipedia says a Hindu invented the dish.

Now what

>>12314140
The phillipines isn't muslim majority. Pick up a book for once Ahmed.

>>12314478
This wasn't me >>12314448

>>12314503
If a Hindu invented them, why did you post it then?

>>12314508
Parts of the Philippines are though, and country doesn't necessarily mean nation state

>>12314461
Fuck off boomer
I fucking hate /pol/ holy shit
Can’t g00k nuke you now that he has split the site?

>>12299065
>>12299033
Based and redpilled.

Arguing against Islam, saying it is immoral leads to nothing. You have to disprove it theologically, since just because you don't like something does not mean it is not true.

>>12314508
not yet. But with time, they will be, Insyallah.

>Duterte Signs Law Giving More Autonomy to Muslims in Southern Philippines

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/world/asia/philippines-rodrigo-duterte-marawi.amp.html

>>12314524
>Parts of the Philippines are though, and country doesn't necessarily mean nation state
Man are you always this slimy? He clearly said the Philippines as in the country, not a specific state or region or island, and in colloquial speech country=nation state. Stop being such a slimy retard and weaseling your way out of arguments by moving the goalposts.
You're like the kid who wants to always be right. It's pathetic.
I bet you're the one making posts like this:
>>12314503
and defending Muhammad for marrying a 6 year old.

>>12314513
Yeah, I figured that out later. No problem.

>>12314515
Because they’re delicious and I can enjoy non-Muslim food provided it’s halal?

Besides, it’ll become Muslim cuisine eventually, once we take over. We’ve already co-opted Christian and Jewish scriptures, why the heck should we not co-opt Hindu food as well?

might also be a good idea to read some Persian poetry, especially Rumi

>>12314529
Keep seething mohammed.

>>12314574
face it kuffar, your days are numbered
just embrace the eternal wisdom of islam and you will be spared

>>12314585
There you are again moving the goal posts.
>posts food claiming it's muslim
>someone says it looks like shit
>oh it's not actually muslim it's hindu
You're pathetic.
>We’ve already co-opted Christian and Jewish scriptures, why the heck should we not co-opt Hindu food as well?
So what you're saying is your religion and culture thrives on stealing or "co-opting" from others. Gotcha.

>>12314620
Who gives a fuck about food.

>>12314649
then why were you posting it? Literally no one else but you has been posting food.

>>12314668
Not same poster

>>12314574
Wales is a country so just settle down and stop seething so hard you'll pop something in your head

>>12314593
Mathnawi is good

>>12314620
He never claimed that it was "muslim food" whatever that even could mean

>>12314809
>>12314792
>>12314738
still moving the goal posts. Go to bed ahmed.

>>12313839
Off topic but Paki qt3.14’s>>>roasties

https://youtu.be/MqQhXFj7_90

>>12314865
They may be cute, but good luck getting one to marry you, even if you're muslim. You could get beaten or arrested for even asking her out on a date.

>>12314809
I would say "muslim food" is defined as food made by muslims, just like you said Ras Malai was a hindu dish because it was invented by a hindu.

>>12314792
>Wales is a country so just settle down
Man are you seriously this dumb? What does that have to do with anything?
You're literally blurting out incoherent things and moving the goalposts. We're not arguing about the definition of a country, or about Wales, it has nothing to do with what we we're discussing.

>>12315162
That wasn't me but ok.

>>12315181
>We're not arguing about the definition of a country
That's exactly what that argument was about

>>12315191
No it's not dipshit. That anon erroneously said the Philippines was a majority muslim country. Anon B says, no, so then Anon A says that some regions in the Philippines are. Go back and read. One of them is just trying to weasel his way out of the argument and pretend to be right when he's clearly wrong.

>>12315200
One anon failed to correctly guess the other anon’s nationality? That’s what the argument is? Are you retarded

>i-it wasn’t me

>>12314552
How the hell are we supposed to either prove or disprove details regarding information beyond ordinary human comprehension, lmao. My gosh, what a post you wrote here. Yes, let's all get to work and figure out if Muhammad REALLY spoke to an angel named Jibril, or rode on a winged horse with a woman's head, or split the moon in two. C'mon everyone, bring your best evidence and let's get to the bottom of what really went down back then!

>>12315241
>Fire bush: Moses, it’s me, G-d
>take this magic staff

Or
>be born from a virgin mother
>”I am the son of God”
>gets killed by the Jews
>Respawns on the third day
>I-I’m back!

>>12315200
One anon said that the Philippines isn't majority Muslim (correct) and then another anon said that the country could mean a predominantly Muslim region or other within the Philippines. Then an anon said country like how people say Wales is a country. So yes, one of the arguments was about the definition of country in language. And I don't know if there's parts of the Philippines which are referred to as a country without meaning the entire nation, maybe an island can be a country especially when they've their own language and unique customs, I mean people do call Wales a country after all.

>>12314115
What would we have them do? Jeez, I really don't know dude - maybe, just MAYBE, let them follow their own, ancestral cultures? Rather than murder them, destroy their culture, subjugate the rest and force them to follow yours? Is this some kind of revolutionary concept for you, the notion of NOT disturbing and destroying other groups of people who share this Earth with you?

>>12315241
I've been told that one can see the healed crack in the moon with an telescope

>>12314462
You are such a sweet anon. Thank you for the friendly and peaceful remark in the middle of this warzone of a comment section. I'm Indian so it's kind of nice hearing someone not be mean to me for a change, tbhfampai.

>>12315295
Name one group of peoples that were destroyed by Islamic conquest.

>>12315321
the egyptians

>>12315295
Compared to previous invaders from the middle east the Muslims were tame. The Assyrians did mass flayings and enslaved everyone they conquered. They were hated so much they got the Carthage treatment.

>>12314261
>behead
>all
you almost made it, lazy silly niggerfaggot.

>>12299896
The problem I see with this is that, functionally, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost all operate as different entities to believers. You can say "the Son came to redeem man", but it would be incorrect to say "the Father came to redeem man", even though they're both God according to Christians. This also makes a mental disconnect, where followers will see the Son as being distinct from the Father simply due to the way the human mind works.

And I know you can say that the human mind is limited and unable to grasp God, in which case I say what's the point of God being a trinity in the first place then? Why did God make himself into this strange, three-part God-thing? Or was he always like that? In which case, why? Why does the Supreme Creator of Reality, the Ultimate Source of All Things and the Unmanifest Ground of All Being have seemingly distinct, separate properties? How does that follow?

>>12314385
This only makes sense if you think literal armies with swords, horses, pikes and arrows are the same thing as unarmed people fleeing persecution.

>>12315446
that only matters if you don't believe the onus is on countries that identify with these unarmed people fleeing from persecution should house them. otherwise, why share these signifiers?

>>12313922
>They drove out and exterminated any non-Muslims long ago
Utterly false.

Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Persia, etc. all had significant (and I mean SIGNIFICANT) non-Muslim minorities up until recently. Copts, Yazidis, Druze, Nestorians, Mandeans, hell even pre-Islamic pagans like the Kalash all existed within these countries. If anything, their presence in the Middle East compared to the relative religious homogeneity of Europe during the same time period could be used as an argument for these areas (historically) being MORE tolerant of minorities than Europe.

It's really only been in the last 30 or 40 years, when secular power has been breaking down and chauvinistic Islamic groups have instead been clamouring for the expulsion, conversion of genocide of these minorities.

>>12315485
Saying "the refugee situation is complex and the responsibility of who should look after them has no straight-forward answers" is not the same as saying "refugees are literally Seljuk invaders looking to violently conquer European countries."

>>12299054
>you'll realize Islam is the religion after your heart
>if you just believe this thing the way i believe in it as i was raised to believe in it or as my personal life choices led me to this forgone conclusion, you'll see the truth i promise!
No, I won't. Studying religions directly took my faith away entirely, because the only lesson you should take away from a theological study is that man is duplicitous, vague, and self-serving, and so it is that everything he touches is twisted to make him something from it - power, sensations, wealth, a sense of security most often, whatever it might be.
Ironically, it wasn't until I stopped wasting my time studying what men had the audacity to proclaim about god and started studying physics that I was able to see that the possibility for something more again.
Every religious person honestly believes their personal decision is the truth, exactly the same way every single person believes their own perception of things is accurate. That alone should make you doubt every single bit of it and everything you've ever thought about it.

>>12315401
>asserts that god is all powerful and all knowing
>as a criticism for doing something that """""""""""doesnt make any sense"""""""""""
>WHY DOESNT THIS THING WHICH IS ABOVE AND BEYOND US CONFORM TO MY SIMPLISTIC LOGIC
As you can see, your typical religious person isn't any less of a pseud about religion than your edgy teen atheist. You can't even discuss god as god is for more than half a second before you immediately try to reduce god to something it isn't.
>theyre separate entities
You're absolutely right. And they're also the same entity. The Holy Trinity is itself its entire own entity comprised of three individual entities while all being only God. Welcome to how a higher function to reality that is all powerful and all knowing would work - it doesn't have to fucking make sense to you. Why is this so damn hard for pseuds to get?

>>12315601
Alright, let's say I accept that God could be a trinity, somehow. My question is then what evidence for this trinity is there? How did we come to know about it being a trinity? Who do we trust to make these claims for us?

>>12315315
It’s better not to let oneself be affected by these discussions anon. People can be very mean when not facing each other, and won’t care for what their words may do to a person.
Don’t blame them, but it’s better to not engage with them either.

>>12315295
Do you not know how things were in history? Do you think ideas just naturally spread, through out some sort of a tribal twitter network?

Are you not aware of the concept of Might Makes Right, the belief that certain things had to be enforced in order to become popular? Why are you behaving as if Muslims were the only ones who had conquests and empires when literally every major power did that?

Didn’t Genghis Khan and the Mongols believe that they had Heaven’s Mandate to conquer everything in their path, that victory was granted to them only because the Eternal Heaven was favouring them? What about the Chinese with their God-Emperors?

And what of Emperor Constantine, who dreamt of Christ ordering him to carry the Holy Cross against the enemies of the Roman Empire?

How is this any different from the early Muslims, who believed that God had given them the task of bringing all lands to the (their idea of) the Right Path?

Even the British Empire believed it had the task of civilizing lesser peoples, and accordingly spread out colonise new lands(the White Man’s Burden).

Heck, even in the modern America seems to think it needs to bring Democracy ie civilisation to backward countries around the globes and their citizens by and large do believe their government, laws and beliefs are the pinnacle of reason and justice.

So again, why demonise the early Muslims for this, when their methods were far less barbaric and humane than their contemporaries?

>>12315527
no shit, but there is not a difference for people who don't want them building lives in their motherlands.

>>12315625
>Alright, let's say I accept that God could be a trinity, somehow
>somehow
You have to, or you aren't discussing an all powerful, all knowing existence. You can either discuss god, or you can discuss your strawman.
>what evidence is there
What evidence is there that literally any of the tens of thousands of claims that man has produced about the transcendent state of the universe are true? Because someone said so, and other people put faith in it. That's it. If you've got some objective, factual evidence that proves any particular claim against the transcendent state of the universe, I'd fucking love to hear it and so would the rest of the world. It'd be some fresh news.

>>12315661
The guy pissing on the fire he started isn't a saint compared to the dude just starting fires.
>we were the most humane group of people to try to rape and pillage our way across the world
This is your brain on whataboutism and ego.

>>12315500
The fact that Egypt has been under continuous Islamic rule for over a millennia and still has a Coptic Christian community should put an end to this idea that Muslims sought to exterminate the day previous peoples. Lebanon and Palestine and Iraq still have Christian communities to this date, despite their faith’s empire having long been extinguished. A huge part of India was under Turco-Mongol rule for nearly 8 centuries, and Hindus still have a massive majority there to this date.

No one is denying that Muslims killed non-Muslims, but the bulk of that was in battle.

I don’t know why this point is being brought up again and again, it’s literally been explained thrice in this thread.

This link has proper western academic citations, it’s not the usual apologetic drivel.

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/hassam-munir/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword-a-critical-look-at-forced-conversions/

>>12315699
>This is your brain on whataboutism and ego

Except this isn’t an attempt to deflect criticism, but a pointer that this was the norm, and singling one group as being anomalous while this was literally the norm across the world.

But I get it, no one is interested in actually addressing the substance of the argument, and instead prefer one-word refutations

>*Rolls Die of Refutation*
>TAQIYYA!
>*rolls die*
>WHATABOUTISM!
>*rolls die*
>ACHMET!

>>12315401
It really is not that complex.

Let us use a human example:
Steve is a truck driver.
Steve has a son.
This makes Steve a father.
But since Steve was born he is also a son.
And he also drives trucks for a living.
He is a truck driver, a son and a father.
His quality of being a son does not conflict with his quality of being a father, nor does it conflict with his quality of being a truck driver.
And none of those roles he has make him any less Steve.
And that does not mean Steve has multiple personality disorder either, or that here are three Steves.

>>12315661
You're right about everything you said, anon, and I appreciate your well-written post. The only difference in the case of Islam and the other groups is that Islam is still here and still spreading itself, through violence in some cases and deceitful means in others. Christianity's reign ended a century or so ago, but if it was still expanding as it formerly did I'd criticize it equally. Islam, however, has not stopped, and is currently converting much of Europe to itself, however steadily and however steathily. Much of Asia is already a lost cause, seeing as numerous regions which followed Dharmism are now entirely Islamic, and even within India there is much unrest caused by Muslims intolerant of the very culture whose lands they live in. I'm not saying Hindutva is right either, not at all, but that if you look into the stories you'll see clearly that there are Muslims living in a nation of Hindus that are intolerant of said culture's practises and are causing conflict by showing so. I am Indian, and am genuinely terrified of our civilization ultimately being overtaken after some time, and I'm worried for Europe's future too. I've seen many Muslims, like one here in this comment section but there are many elsewhere too, who speak of their elation knowing Islam will one day be followed by the whole world, and while I cannot say that all Muslims secretly desire such, it is a comment which keeps me vigilant, and I don't feel I can truly trust Muslims at this point in time. If they would follow their own culture, and keep it to themselves, I'd have no problems, as it's not my right to judge another culture so long as they aren't commiting massive violations of basic human rights. But if said culture is spreading itself everywhere, then I cannot afford to hold such an attitude, and I need to do my part to voice my dissent against it and help prevent it from overthrowing existing civilizations. Keep in mind, I'd say this even if it were my own culture which was steadily spreading itself across the world, as I don't want any culture to become another except by that culture's organic and voluntary embracement of it. This is my stance on the matter.

How anyone can actually believe Mohammad is the perfect man is beyond me. And I mean taking Muslims' own accounts of him as the example. By their own admission their perfect man was an illiterate polygamist warlord with a love of executing those who mocked him. Further the theology he professed was equally vulgar: harems of virgin Houthi awaiting the faithful debases heaven into a fucking whorehouse.

>>12315939
>Houth
*houri

autocorrect

>>12315875
Thank you, I cannot tell you how glad I feel that at least someone has read my post and what’s even better is that you’ve articulated your fears about Islam in a straightforward, polite way.

One thing I’d like to say is that Muslims are people who are very vocal about their beliefs in general and won’t let them go, and the more you try to force them to let go the harder they cling on to them and start facing inwards. Being Indian you obviously know that a separate homeland was granted to Muslims in the form of Pakistan, and the affair of Partition remains one of the bloodiest conflicts in the past century, with estimates of over a million deaths(Hindu, Muslim and Sikh), and up to 15 million people displaced thanks to the population transfers. Death squads being formed, trainfuls of passengers slaughtered, riots in cities. It was a bloodbath, and it still remains fresh in the minds of people, and I think Indians especially think it is unfair that Muslims are still being “appeased” even after getting a whole country to themselves.

My two cents on the matter is that(and I don’t like this idea, but feel it is inevitable) India should have adopted Hinduism as the state religion. It’s easy for me to say this right now, but it seems to me that Hindus are frustrated at the hypocrisy of the things expected of them.

Hindus feel that Muslims are encouraged to be Muslim, while Hindus are discouraged from being Hindus(“right wing” is a slur, if I’m not wrong). I don’t personally think Muslimness is encouraged by the government(with Congress being soft Hindutva to BJP’s hard brand), but a lot of the populace does seem to feel this way, and this resentment is only going to rise till the right wing are able to take control and go nuts. This is going to be a really bad time for minorities in India, but I don’t see how this course can be prevented, it is inevitable.

>>12315875
Same essayfag poster here, wanted to add a note on the Muslim world domination plans.

I’m sure most every practicing Muslim wants to see his faith spread, but it’s not in a nefarious way. If you’re Indian and residing in India, then you’ll know what I mean. They’ll maybe engage with you in discussions about religion, but they’re hardly plotting to take over the country. I mean you know how pathetic the state of education in madrasahs is, you cannot seriously expect that these people are somehow going to take over the country in 50, 100 years. All the key positions are held by Hindus, and even in the army, Christians have held the top posts while this will never be given to a Muslim for reasons you explained.

Muslims do multiply, but this is an expected pattern of growth which will stabilize and decline eventually. This fear that Muslims are outbreeding Hindus seems unfounded to me, when you consider that Hindus have also tripled from 300 million to their current 900 million.

As for the Europe thing, I feel that is exaggerated as well. Islam has been in the spotlight since 9/11, and thanks to the conflicts in the Middle East, Muslim immigrants continue to be scrutinized and accused of disloyalty despite them having low crime rates on an average. The attacks by terrorists are politically motivated, not religious, and the one who commit them are either fresh converts(easy to brainwash and picked for that purpose) or mentally deranged individuals. I’m not trying to explain away attacks and push them under the rug, but I find the idea that someone would kill a stranger because of something written in a book to be laughably preposterous. It’s a stupid way of looking at things and ignores ground realities like the destabilization of the Middle East(and attacks are always mentioned as being payback).

>>12315939
Honest question, man: have you actually made an attempt to study his life objectively, without going through it with the express intent of finding dirt? Did you just swallow the narrative that’s been fed to you, which comes naturally since this is the “Other” we’re talking about and we like to think our own side is the good one? Can you be sure you’re not guilty of confirmation bias? (Something I have to remind myself too, of course).

I’m going to give you my view of him, take it how you will, and I’m not going to cook up anything and I will provide sources for each and every point, if you ask for them.


So anyway, the conditions he was born into were less than perfect. His father passed away before he was born, his mother died shortly after, his grandfather died before he turned 8, and he was left in the care of an uncle. If I were an orphan, I can’t imagine how much bitterness there would have been inside me at the unfairness of life/god to take away the most important things that any kid should have, parents. Granted, he belonged to the most powerful tribe in the region, and his grandfather and uncle were both respected within the clan, but that doesn’t mean much since he grew up in what was basically poverty and a lack of a proper emotional support network. I wouldn’t have been surprised if such a person grew up angry and bitter with life. But look at the prophet’s life.


He was considered a trustworthy person by his community even prior to receiving Prophethood. They called him al-Ameen, literally the Trustworthy One, and people would entrust their belongings to him for safekeeping. It is through this reputation of honesty that he came into the employership of Lady Khadija(Ra), a wealthy widow who entrusted him to carry out transactions on her behalf. She would later ask for his hand and marry him, when he was 25 and she 40.

So anyway he was considered a honest man by his community long before he was appointed a prophet, to the extent that he once called a gathering and asked them if they would believe him, were he were to claim there was an invading army approaching, from behind the hill around which the people were gathered, and the replied in the affirmative. He followed up by revealing that he were appointed by god(this was the first public reveal of the message, if I remember correctly).

>>12315939
Pt.2
Later when he’s publicly started preaching and had gone to another town,at-Taif, to spread the message about the faith, he was hounded by mobs, pelting him with stones till he was bleeding, and when he sat down to rest and was visited by an angel who asked him if he wanted the town destroyed as revenge(“crushed between the two hills”), he refused. Another time, during the battle of Uhud, he was badly injured and was still praying for the enemy to be guided, so his companions asked him why he didn’t pray against them instead, for them to be destroyed. He replied, "I have not been sent to damn people. I have been sent as a caller and a mercy. Oh Allah, forgive my people for they know no better."

I mean think about it. Man refuses to pray against an enemy who have done nothing but mock him, insult him, attack him, try to assassinate him and openly wage war against him, and he STILL refuses to even say something to ruin the tiny chance they had of changing their ways? And after all this, some people still have the nerve to claim he was a "bloodthirsty warlord".

Even if he wasn’t a messenger, he was still an outstanding human being. I can’t imagine anyone else going through what he went through and still remaining a nice person at heart.

He hardly gained much physical benefits for all the suffering he went through either. He refused riches on the multiple times he was offered them in return for quitting, the women he married were mostly of an older age/widows, and he died in virtual poverty, despite being the head of a newly born and starting-to-prosper state(used to sleep with a pillow containing dried date palm leaves, and was asked why he didn’t upgrade to a softer one, despite being fully capable). He hardly left anything to his own descendants(of whom there weren’t many, in the first place).

Plus there are some incidents when he downplayed things which he could easily have claimed as miracles(anyone else would have, in his place). For example, when his only son Ibrahim passed away, there was an eclipse, and people asked him if it were a sign from god. He replied no, that the heavens don’t align themselves for the death of any man.

What was the point of all this, if he wasn’t at the very least sincere and genuinely wanting to help mankind?

>>12316247
These are compelling arguments. But none of it is meaningful unless one can somehow disprove the Lordship of Jesus, which is impossible because that is simply fact.

>>12316238
>Honest question, man: have you actually made an attempt to study his life objectively, without going through it with the express intent of finding dirt?

Yes, the first book I ever read of his life is done from a neutral to positive angle. It details his military genius. A genius I will not contest. He was a phenomenal general who possessed an extraordinary intuition and understanding of the logistics of warfare.

>And after all this, some people still have the nerve to claim he was a "bloodthirsty warlord"

Because he was. This is not even contested. You can find easily a list of the dozens of executions he personally ordered, and among them you will find recurring people killed for mocking him in poetry. His act of previous mercy does not erase this.

>Even if he wasn’t a messenger, he was still an outstanding human being.

Outstanding is FAR from perfect, which is what the Muslim faith professes. Indeed, if there was no claim to perfection then he would be laudable as a hero who united the Arabian peninsula and ended several barbaric pagan practices. But he is instead damnable for this over-reaching which is the claim to perfection.

if he wasn’t at the very least sincere and genuinely wanting to help mankind?

You know what? I think he was sincere, but I do not think he was a prophet, or perfect. Unfortunately the dogma of Islam means his followers are now forever saddled with needing to see him as the perfect man, and they believe the prurient theology he espoused. This means what good he did bring is tainted by the inability to correct any errors (personally or theologically) he did make.

>>12316323
I have a feeling your definition of perfection involves something along the lines of life being sacred, and enemies being forgiven no matter what. That if a man has killed, then he stops being pure. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I believe that there is such a thing as righteous violence, that sometimes it’s necessary to resort to violence and that doesn’t make taint you forever. It’s easy to say that we should all be non-violent and turn the other cheek, but when the survival of your people, and the survival of your faith is at hand, then you must turn to the sword.

Maybe Christian doctrine places Mercy above all, but Islam values Justice as the highest principle.

Out of the half dozen people whose death was demanded by the Muslims upon the conquest of Makkah, half of them were forgiven, and of these 2 in particular declared fealty to the Prophet, only to attempt to assasinate him(unsuccessfully).

Also, you make it seem as if people were sentenced to death just for reciting poems. Allow me to suggest another take on that: tribal Arab society valued oral traditions like poetry to be the highest form of art, and poets could be seen as part of the propaganda machine of tribal societies. It is very likely that they played a big role in promoting false information and discord among communities, similar to how we have propaganda wings established by governments, and so it wouldn’t be a case of ordering people to death just for reciting some cool rhymes. Just my take on it.

>>12316458
Mercy and the death penalty are not mutually exclusive.

>>12316495
Perhaps I should have said forgiveness instead of mercy.

>>12316458
>I have a feeling your definition of perfection involves something along the lines of life being sacred, and enemies being forgiven no matter what. That if a man has killed, then he stops being pure. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Violence does not inherently irk me. However, the problem is since he was perfect, that means his use of it becomes the standard par excellence, thus the use of assassins against artists now becomes seen as legitimate so long as they are blaspheming. Further, he has vulgar views of sexuality and pleasure. The concept of polygamy is something I find highly offensive and running through his theology is hedonistic and carnal rewards for piety. Eating in heaven, drinking in heaven, fucking in heaven. If he was simply a political leader, such beliefs and proclivities would be forgivable. But since they are actions of Mohammad or saying from God they become perfect, dogmatic, and unrevisable.

>Maybe Christian doctrine places Mercy above all, but Islam values Justice as the highest principle.

Close, Charity is. However actions by nations and states are not necessarily measured the same as the actions of individuals. For example, a state must punish criminals, it is not simply allowed to "forgive" them even if they repent of their sin, it must seek justice. Yet it would be pious for an individual to forgive such a repentant criminal. But this is a digression.


> poets could be seen as part of the propaganda machine of tribal societies.
This is true, however, this does not make them legitimate targets for violence. Except in Islam, since Mohammad used violence against them and he is perfect, as said above.

Do you see the problem with the perfection claim? It means we cannot concede anything he did was the least bit imperfect, even if it would otherwise be well within the bounds of merely "reasonable" given the circumstances.

>>12316547
Not him but forgiveness and the death penalty are not mutually exclusive

>>12313807
I'm from Israel, HELLO

>>12314529
Unironically go back to tumblr. You'll be happier there, inasmuch as someone like you can be happy.

>>12315294
Well the phillippines is 1 country, the uk has more than 1 country. Stop trying to move the goal posts, you piece of shit.

If anyone wants to know the true nature and intentions of Muslims just read through this thread.
They start out with "we're peaceful people and our religion is perfect, we've never done anything wrong" and if you don't fall for their shit, before you know it, they'll be spouting things like:
>>12314555
>>12314607
>face it kuffar, your days are numbered
just embrace the eternal wisdom of islam and you will be spared

read persian philosophers only

>>12305024
>لما علي ان اقرأ خرافات زنجي صحراء مات من ١٤٠٠ سنة؟ جتفو. ٤ تشان بورد مسيحي.
You don't, you could easily leave this threat. 90% of /lit/ are educated and open mind enough to discuas anything

Also don't use fkn google translation to make yourself brainle, cuZ you are NOT

>>12318800
80%

>>12316247
>>12315939
I think the fact that he wasn’t perfect makes him relatable. He was a real person who had flaws but still accomplished a lot and spoke to God. Jesus on the other hand is so perfect that he’s not human (I know he is meant to be the son of God as opposed to a prophet) but how can one relate to him, let alone aspire to be like him?

>>12318864
like Superman

>>12318864
>relatable
Is Islam the Marvel of religions?

>>12318511
I don't think it's moving the goalposts.

>>12319104
It doesn't matter what you think. It's what you said, and you moved the goalposts, that's a fact. You're trying to argue an unrelated point when our discussion is about Islam, and not how to define a Nation-State.

>>12298749
DEPORT

>>12298449
What do you guys think about Seyyed Hossein Nasr?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmdZCkJhJ4o

>>12298749
Thanks for the recommendations anon. Too bad this thread was derailed.

>>12298449
If you know Arabic, then just read al-Quran al-Kareem.

>>12313884
>>12314035
>>12314062
>>12314115
>>12314140
>>12314260
>>12314279
>>12314478
>>12314407
>>12314295
>>12314379
Based food poster anon.

>>12320212
Also, the Hadiths.

Happy new year.

>>12318800
This.

>>12314260
years yeah muzzies love fucking little boys and have a long storied history of fucking little boys and marrying and impregnating pubescent girls. muzzies love pedophilia

>>12320179
Don't know much about him. Sounds alright from the video though.

>>12320212
>>12320323
This tbqh.

>>12320179
Don't know him.

>>12298449
You're guide is mostly good, just go with it.

>>12320193
I've read 33 pages of Vision of Islam. It is pretty informative. I wanna get some of the literature in the OP's list but The Book of Strangers is like $60.

>>12320424
You could just find a book copy to rent from a library or borrow one from someone if it's too expensive.

>>12298749
Hmmm, if you read the gospel and don't agree with it then I really don't know what to say. Maybe it wasn't meant for you. Even if it didn't convert you I find it really depressing when people say that they read a gospel and it did nothing for them. Quite sad actually. But then again Christ said that his sheep hear his voice.