/lit/ - Literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haman_(Islam)

Q40:38-39
Pharaoh orders a tower to be built up to heaven (Here the Quran amalgamates three original Hebrew stories: (Tower of Babel, The Exodus, The Book of Esther).

In general, Muslims have no protection against the hypothetical possibility that someone will come and declare himself a new prophet who restores pure monotheism. If Muslims tell him that Muhammad claimed that he was the last "messenger", then this person will answer that Muslim theologians distorted the Koran and Sunnah, and, therefore, you need to trust only him, and all the previous ones in Islam (i.e. all Islam ) is canceled.

>>17132757
>Muslims have no protection against the hypothetical possibility that someone will come and declare himself a new prophet who restores pure monotheism
They do. They murder people who do this

>>17132818
Kek

Pastebin deleted THIS. They don't want you to know about Islam.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200606133250/https://pastebin.com/2CJrErSe

Why are there so many islam threads tonight? are some muslim discord closet trannies spamming the board?

>>17132846
It's Christmas. Islam bashing threads become common this time of year

>>17132846
Salam from Sufi gang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHh1S5em6Ek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmM-2rFHyws

>>17132841
Hold on this guy sounds like some crime lord made up a religion to justify his actions?

>>17132736
There is another Haman in the Bible, the 'son' of Ahiqar, who in classical tradition (700 BC latest) was tasked by Pharoah to reach the heavens

>>17133276
Give me a quote please. Which book/chapter of the Bible talks about this?

>>17133459
In Tobit 14:10, the name Nadab is written originally as Haman for some reason, translations correct it assuming it is a mistake.

>>17132718
St. John of Damascustalks about how Islam is a shittier version of Christianity in his tract Concerning Heresies

>>17135653
Ironically, his citations of the Quran are among the first historical testimonies of its content, for historical veracity

Bump

>>17132718
Every scholar against Islam gets btfo by mere youtube preachers.

>>17135653
Man's been debunked, get with the times.

>>17137195
wrong

>>17135653
>Islam bad because... it's bad

>>17137204
Post one criticism.

>>17132718
Typical westerner, filled with stupid irrational hate for islam

>>17132757
Thats basicly what the Bahai did

>modern morality
First, isn't the Qur'an supposed to be eternal?
Second, similar arguements occur hundreds of years ago in the writings of Manuel Palaiologos who criticized Islam for being violent
In response, Muslims launched a mass slaughter of Christians in their states

>>17137245
>In response, Muslims launched a mass slaughter of Christians in their states
Yeah? When?

>>17137213
>irrational
It's not irrational. Not in the sense that you perhaps mean. After the Christianity was made the default religion of the Roman Empire it's spread seemed as though it will soon engulf the whole world. Then a few hundred years later the Islam came and within a 100 years they created an empire stretching from Spain to Indian and the spread of Christianity was mostly confined to Europe for the next 1000 years. All they had were words to fight them with as they couldn't go anywhere else. They spent the next millennia preaching propaganda about islam and muslims, so much so that it's ingrained within every Western person, even today. They might think that they're not religious and that they're ateists, but they can't escape the fact that The West is Christian to the core and they have inherited all it's values and norms whether they like it or not.

>>17137213
>>17137271
https://youtu.be/G0AnIKdC1fo?t=93

Ugh, so irrational

>>17134301
The Greek and Latin manuscripts mostly say Nadab, the Aramaic version has Nadin which is the name of Ahiqar's son in the Aramaic Story of Ahiqar. Very unlikely that Haman is the original reading.

>>17137296
Qur'an is a correction of faulty scriptures;

>>17137195
What? No, are you retarded?

good book about islamic legal history, the tradition that grew out of the prophetic beginning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_A._C._Brown#Misquoting_Muhammad_(book)

the wiki says it was overly critical of christianity, and maybe that's true I wasn't really thinking of that. rather I thought that it was very refreshingly candid about the processes underlying what became the practice of the muslims, with a fair number of warts included (for instance that some of the assumptions underlying what we now, somewhat incorrectly, refer to as "sharia-law" were aristotelian, and not from the prophetic tradition in any clear way, and so it should reasonably be fair to question them). And it is written by a well-regarded muslim scholar.

>>17137377
>>17137211

>>17132718

>>17137271
No Ahmed, your religion is just especially shitty and your ethnic group is actively annoying Europeans in Europe as we speak. That's why.

>>17137201
He points out the various logical flaws with the Quran and how on the whole it doesn'tmake sense when you compare it to Early Christian and Jewish Scripture.

>>17137208
He was a government official in an Islamic caliphate. He certainly goes into more detail than your failed strawman of what his wlrk entails.

>>17137208
>hasn't read the text in question

>>17137425
*work

>>17137425
Name one logical flaw.

>>17137436
inb4 some "d-doesn't add up with historical context!"

>>17137385
retarded clerics making videos with titles lie "muslim scholar absolutely btfos critic and defends the honour of islam" which then involves a bunch of badly cut together arguments that don't actually answer the critic in any way at all do not constitute a defence

>>17137436
They exalt the Virgin Mary over Fatima, yet they claim Jesus is lesser than Mohammed

They claim Christians worship the Cross, but go to the Qabba and circle it 7 times and have a pilgramage there

The Satanic Verses, where Mohammed puts verses that were inspired by Satan ( or a demon) in the Quran

They call Jesus the Breath of God, but if God is one, then if follows that God is His own breath. Ergo, Jesus is God.

>>17137455
Also, the general fact we have no archeological, cultural or any other evidence suggesting Islam existed before circa 630 AD, which Muslims claim anx say Christians and Jews corrupted their works to hide the truth. You would think we would have found some evidence on that level like the evidence of the Early Christian Church and that of a bunch of Hebrew historical records, written or otherwise.

>>17137455
>yet they claim Jesus is lesser than Mohammed
source?

>>17137453
Embarassing explanation.

>>17137455
We look at the man, not his mom.
Show me where it claims xtians worship the cross.
>satanic verses
and?

>They call Jesus the Breath of God, but if God is one, then if follows that God is His own breath. Ergo, Jesus is God.
Kek. Show me where. (inb4 hadeeth)

>>17137478
Birmingham Qur'an.

>>17137455
//>>17137455
But Fatimah was Muhammed's daughter, born of the flesh of mortals, while Mary is Jesus' mother who conceived him immaculately

>>17137455
Cite your sources before even attempting to slander Islam. Islamophobes are weak creatures indeed.

>>17137480
>and?
If your prophet is literally spewing out words Satan told him too, than how is he a prophet, let alone the greatest one?

>>17137509
Anyone can be deceived through ignorance.

>>17137529
Okay. But, no prophet in the Christian Old Testament, when they began their mission for God, was tricked by Satan. Nor was Jesus, who told Satan to get away from him even when tempted by Satan with earthly and temporal pleasures. How come Mohammad was?

>>17137504
And they say he was born without original sin, whereas Mohammed was born with it and had it cut out when he was a young child. So how is Mohammed greater than Jesus?

>>17137505
Look I'm not going to cite every source I make because that would be too time consuming and I'm already doing other things while replying to this thread. Suffice to say, Google is your friend.

>>17137539
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiy-5fuAxoM
You're finished boyyy

>>17137550
>just google it bro

>>17137554
It's funny how this video will get ignored because it's not a 50 page dissertation on why the "satanic verses" are wrong, a standard the kafirs don't hold themselves to when slandering Islam.

>>17137307
No

>>17137588
Archeological evidence agrees more with the Qur'an than the Torah and Christian Bible.

>>17137554
>>17137558

>Using some random Youtuber as a source
Even the fucking hodgepodge that is Buddhism and Hinduism has better evidence supporting it than that.

>>17137584
Becuse random retards can make videos on the Internet defending their faith, which is something I've seen from various stripes of New Age types, evangelicals, schizos and dumb white liberals who love Eastern religions. Unless all those thinks are suddenly true because they have YouTube videos defending them.

>>17137606
>resorts to ad-hom

Thanks for playing.

>>17137597
Give me concrete examples.

>>17137611
>>17137584

Quranic manuscript, catalogued as BnF Arabe 328(c) commonly known as the Birmingham Quran Manuscript, now catalogued as Mingana 1572a, contains verses 17–31 of Surah 18 (Al-Kahf), the final eight verses 91–98 of Surah 19 (Maryam) and the first 40 verses of Surah 20 (Ta-Ha). The manuscript was carbon dated Between c.568 and 645 CE with 95.4% confidence, and can be identified as the first compilation of the Quran by Abu Bakr known as Mushaf al Hafsa. The text of this manuscript is the same as the modern one, with one verse division missing.A lesser known fact to the western world is that Muhammad is known by 99 names, among them is “Ta-ha” which was used by Allah to refer to the prophet Muhammad, and it appears in the folio 1 of the manuscript. It also mentions the word ‘Quran’ itself, hence eliminating the possibility of being a pre quranic manuscript, as climed by Christian apologists.

>>17137610
>Pointing out why your evidenceis shit is an ad-hom

Al-Ghazi really irreparably fucked Islamic philosophy and thought.

>>17137622
>>Using some random Youtuber as a source

>>17137622
Listen to the video disingenuous kafr.

>>17137627
Youtubers aren't good slurces of apologetics. That's not an adhom. The part about Buddhists and Hindus is, but that is besides the point. Anyone can put anything on Youtube, even if it's outright false. It's good for entertainment, but don't pretend it's good for anything other than that. Don't tell me you convertedto Islam over YouTube videos.

>>17137638
I did, brainlet. It really didn't answer any of the questions I had.

>>17137620
What about the 7 qira'at though?

>>17137490
That's a manuscript of a Qu'ran, not one the imaginary "original" versions of the Jewish and Christian scriptures that Muslims claim taught Islam.

>>17137670
What about them? Make your claim, seether.

>>17137691
There are 7 different readings of the Quran. Unless Allah revealed the Quran to Mohammed 7 different ways, there have been change in the Quran over time. 7 to be exact.

>>17137539
In the Bible, Aaron built the Golden Calf, Saul was possessed by an evil spirit supposedly from God himself, and Solomon was an idol-worshipper. (The Quran however maintains all prophets are righteous, "It was not Solomon who disbelieved but the devil disbelieved", for example). The story of 'the satanic verses' is not from the Quran or Hadith, but non-canonical early medieval writings

>>17137705
Like the Hebrew or Aramaic of former scriptures, the lack of vowel diacritics can cause different readings, but the consonants are the same - which is not a problem in semitic languages as word meanings have a unique root of 3 letters that identifies them.

>>17137554
The video presenter can barely speak English so it was hard to follow, but he seems to be challenging another youtuber about what Ibn Kathir said about the satanic verses story. He doesn't challenge the fact that earlier Muslim sources than Ibn Kathir cite the story as genuine.

>>17137708
The story of the Satanic verses is cited by early Islamic historians al-Taribi. Although the original is lost, it's thought that his source for this came from Ibn Ishaq, who was the earliest biographer of Mohammed, living ~100 years after him. So that's all the more reason to consider it genuine along with that fact that these historians did as well.

>>17137611
Not him but there is also the critique of John of Damascus born in 675, died 749, in which the chapters he cites seem to be in the order the Quran currently is. He openly criticises and insults Muslims, so he would have said something about the composition

>>17137554
The fact that you're trying to rely on this as evidence is actually quite sad.

>>17137717
Doesn't that mean there are variants of the Quran that aren't perfectly preserved though? This isn't like Christianity or Judaism where they say that the core message of the Bible and Torah are preserved and that there are slight human errors in transcription in these sense of some cultural/linguistic stuff (so in essence, the message of God is preserved but because it is written by men, there are some typographical differences between versions). You are saying the Quran is perfectly preserved. If there are 7 readings that differ because of dots and the how the Arabic abjad works, that's not true.

>>17137754
>>17137733
verses are not in quran

>>17137769
Word per word preserved.
Qira'at (which came later) doesn't change that.

>>17137777
If it's word for word preserved, then how come there are 10 schools of pronunciation? Either the Quran wasn't preserved perfectly or Mohammed received 10 different revelations from God. Either way, you arrive at a blatant contradiction to what Islam says.

>>17137789
Without the qira'at they'r the same.

>yes but there are other schools!
so? what does this change?

For polemics, check out Christian Prince's books. For something more scholarly go for Dan Brubaker. He's one of the biggest reasons Yasir Qadhi accidentally told the truth about the preservation of the Qu'ran which resulted in his meltdown.

>>17137769
The exact statement is "We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth better than it or similar to it."
Quran 2:106

The Quran has seemingly many mechanisms to ensure that the verses are preserved as they are, such as rhyming schemes, repetitions of verse or phrases and inter-references between chapters, withstanding different contexts, which work altogether to restrict the readings to the correct one.

>>17137799
>Christian Prince
He got humiliated by M. Hijab.

>>17137789
Its more like accents and pronunciations, then reading. In British and American English, "Apple" is read the same, but sounds slightly different.

>>17137828
That's untrue. Qira'at change a lot, including the meaning of a word.

>>17137793

But you're not really answering the question. How did these 10 schools of pronunciation arise if the Quran is word-for-word preserved perfectly? It doesn't make sense that 10 different qira'at would arise if the Quran was perfectly preserved if it was the same as it always was.

>>17137809
But I'm looking at a source right now and there are some qira'ats that just change the pronouns of the text and give it a different meaning, albeit very slightly.

>>17137828
I'm looking at the wikipeida page and it doesn't seem to be that. There are some verses that change a word from plural second person to a plural third person (so from you to they) depending on qira'at, which isn't really accent change like toe - mate - o versus toe-mah -toe (where both refer to the same word tomato).

>>17137864
Probably when it was revealed, the prophet recited all variants, that's how I always understood it.

It creates interesting meanings sometimes, but no serious errors as its constrained by repetition to withstand different contexts, so a certain interpretation has to be consistent to fit seamlessly across passages

>>17137906
Got any evidence that amounts to this?
>the prophet recited all variants, that's how I always understood it.

Because if versions started popping up at different times rather than simultaneously we're gonna have a problem.

>>17137932
They did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira%27at#Seven_qira'at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira%27at#Ten_qira'at

>>17137938
I take that back. That's the dates the various Qaris and Rawis lived.

>>17137814
I have no idea what you're talking about but even if that was the case, who gives a shit? It says nothing about the books.

>>17137938
There's this on the wiki page for qira'at.

>>17137958
If his arguments are that easily refuted then there's no real need to get his books.

>Not a single dot of the Qu'ran has been changed
What about this dot?
>You just don't know Arabic
Every. Single. Time.

>>17137981
Again, I don't know what you're referring to but even if one of his arguments is easily refuted this doesn't mean all of his arguments are easily refuted.

>>17137932
>>17137938
>>17137973
Also, if you want to read more about this topic there's a paper on it:
https://zenodo.org/record/3989900

>>17137986
Name any of his arguments.

>>17137932
not him, but

Narrated `Umar bin Al-Khattab:

I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to that of mine. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) had taught it to me (in a different way). So, I was about to quarrel with him (during the prayer) but I waited till he finished, then I tied his garment round his neck and seized him by it and brought him to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and said, “I have heard him reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.” The Prophet (ﷺ) ordered me to release him and asked Hisham to recite it. When he recited it, Allah s Apostle said, “It was revealed in this way.” He then asked me to recite it. When I recited it, he said, “It was revealed in this way. The Qur’an has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easier for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 2419; Book 44, Hadith 9)

Narrated Ibn Mas`ud:

I heard a person reciting a (Qur’anic) Verse in a certain way, and I had heard the Prophet (ﷺ) reciting the same Verse in a different way. So I took him to the Prophet (ﷺ) and informed him of that but I noticed the sign of disapproval on his face, and then he said, “Both of you are correct, so don’t differ, for the nations before you differed, so they were destroyed.” (al-Bukhari 3476; Book 60, Hadith 143)

I’ve come to realize that anti-Islam people are simply embarrassing. Why do they lie and seethe constantly? Does this mean Islam is true?

>>17137998
Do you understand why this isn't an argument against the books? Many of his arguments could be bad but it doesn't follow that all of his arguments are bad. If the books are so bad then refute them instead of the man who wrote them.

I feel either you'll get criticisms that apply to religions more generally or, if they are criticize it in favour of other morals, are per definition morally tainted.
E.g. Islam is expansionist and proposes the tactic of lying when interacting with non-believers. That's immoral from e.g. Christianity, as it's less of a slave-morality virtue ethics.

>>17138013
Just name any and i'll refute them.

>>17138023
Yeah, I'll do that.

>>17138017
>proposes the tactic of lying when interacting with non-believers
t. totally wouldn’t lie to save his skin

>>17137982
Where did anyone say that?

>>17138030
You mean Muslims cannot tell the truth to non-muslims or they'll get killed by their own?
Damn..

>>17138033
From many different apologists. If I was motivated I could easily grab clips of Yasir Qahdi saying on one hand that not a single dot has been changed, but then accusing actual scholars of not knowing Arabic when they point out variances in manuscripts.

>>17138045
No one in this thread said so. Stop strawmanning, Yasir Qadhi got refuted long ago by more honest Islamic scholars.

>>17138044
t. has no clue what taqiyya is and that only Shia heretics do it

>>17138002
>Get BTFO with basic logic
>Proceed to pretend you won the argument
Simply embarrassing. This is why Islam will always be the biggest meme r
they eligion in the world. Moreso than Hinduism and Buddhism. At least debate in good faith and can actually argue for their faith rationally (somewhat).

>>17138077
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya#Sunni_Islam_view
>The basic principle of taqiyya is agreed upon by scholars, though they tend to restrict it to dealing with non-Muslims and when under compulsion (ikrāh), while Shia jurists also allow it in interactions with Muslims and in all necessary matters (ḍarūriyāt).

>>17138078
*the biggest meme religion in the world
Fucking autocomplete

>>17138077
t. has no clue what taqiyya is and that both shia and sunnis do it >>17138084

>>17138099
Oh no. He knows. He's was just applying it right now.

>>17138108
That's just so sad. A tactic endorsed by religious leaders to mislead and frustrate the outgroup, all while claiming to be the one true belief.

>>17138147
>>17138108
READ:

The practice is much less prominent in Sunni Islam, but may be permitted under certain circumstances such as threats to life.[9] There are two main aspects of taqiyya; avoiding the disclosure of association with the Imams when doing so may expose the community to danger or harm, and keeping the esoteric teachings of the Imams concealed from those who are not prepared to receive them.[10]

>>17138108
This is such a gay argument, because you can use it dismiss anything a Muslim says that would refute you and claim it’s just a lie, and that you know what they REALLY believe

>>17138073
I'm not strawmanning anyone because I wasn't replying to anyone. I'm relating my experience with Muslim apologists. I really wish you people would stop being so dumb.

>>17138244
I agree because it denounces the belief in the other person's good faith, although one can still say that it's a real thing.
It's observable in many Islamic "scholars" that just dismiss valid questions or play dumb.

>>17138248
Stop.

Trinity is an unironic strength for Christianity if you've grappled with pagan metaphysics (east and west) and questions of the one and the many.

I admire aspects of Islam but find Muhammad unappealing. Sufism is overrated also. It appeals to the same white liberal materialist who likes Buddhism.

>>17138400
>God died because for your sins and then he resurrected but God is one ok?

Mods make this sticks asap: https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html

>>17139362
>wikiislam tier site
Lolx

>>17137379
Thank you anon, will look into that

>>17139416
It’s a good starting point.

>>17139362
Thanks a lot!

Anything on population genetics of the Muslim world. Most of them are so inbred they are mentally retarded by Euro standards.

>According to Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who has done extensive research into Muslim inbreeding, close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred:
>70% of Pakistanis are inbred.
>67% of Saudi Arabians are inbred.
>64% of those living in Jordan and Kuwait are inbred.
>63% of Sudanese are inbred.
>60% of Iraqis are inbred.
>54% of Muslims in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are inbred.
>25-30% of those in Turkey are inbred.
>In England, at least 55% of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins.
>In Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%.

>Cousin marriages in Muslim majority countries are often preferred and even encouraged in some regions, and the prophet Muhammad himself had married cousins.

>Nearly 70% of Pakistanis are the product of inbreeding in Islam, mostly due to the Muslim tradition of marrying cousins via choice or arrangement. BBC also released a study, revealing that approximately 55% of Pakistani immigrants in Britain were married to a first cousin and that Pakistani-British were “at least 13 times likely to than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.

>>17140484
wtf

>>17140484
>this meme map again
what's wrong with first cousin marriage? (defined as inbreeding)

There's almost no significant extra chance for genetic defects/retardation.
Marrying a first cousin, by the way, is legal in the West too.
So again, the kafir exposes his hypocrisy quite clearly here, without any regard for his own country.

>>17140484
Having kids with women over 35 brings about worse defects than you pretend first cousin marriage has and how many times has the west forbidden that? zero.

>>17140484
"Whilst consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3 percent to 6 percent, the absolute risk is still small."

Damn, Islam btfo...

>>17141080
>>17141071
Our mentally troubled friend is very quiet now..

>>17141071
Muhammad married his first wife when she was 40, and he was 25...

Six children. All the boys died in early childhood, all the girls lived til the beginning of the 'mission' of Mo, converted to Islam and moved from Mecca to Medina, and they all died before the death of the Mo, with the exception of Fatima, who survived him by several months.

>>17141038
>>17141071
>>17141080
>So what we're all inbred, who fucking cares?! You whitey gaijins sometimes do something that's also tenuously related to dysgenics!
Unironically, your inability to reason clearly is showing, which proves my point that constant normalised inbreeding is dangerous. You are offended, but you can't even keep yourself under control enough to respond well, so you flail. This is the mild retard vibe that most Arabs give off. No offence. No matter how much you proselytise, you'll always seem slightly retarded to Europeans, like you do in these posts.

That's why nobody in Europe is really interested in Islam, because it has the same spooky feeling of a forgotten backwoods hicktown where everybody has been inbred for generations. Humans are naturally good at detecting this Deliverance vibe because it's so dangerous to the gene pool. Genetically degenerated retards are instinctively to be avoided.

>>17141366
What's wrong with inbreeding?
It's not medically significant until it's repeated, which Muhammad clearly spoke against in the hadith.

So again, what's the problem? Where did Islam hurt you?

>>17141388
>medically
Muslims have a specific view of medicine. They drink camel urine and dip insects into their drinks.

>>17141445
So you're not going to answer the point then? Just remember that you look ridiculous in front of every reader right now, just a friendly tip.

>>17141388
>What's wrong with inbreeding?

>defending inbreeding
There's no way the pro-Muslim debaters aren't false flagging

>>17141491
>>17141488
Think for yourself for just one second instead of regurgitating gulf war propaganda and answer my question.
If first cousin marriage is allowed under the condition that it's not repetitive in the same family, something doctors would agree to as having no medical significance, where is the issue?

>>17141388
Don't worry dawg, it'll be legal soon enough.
Then you'll get to either fuck your sister and never have children or fuck your sister and have mutations.
Either way the inbreeders will finally be left behind where they belong

Don't (you) the troll

>>17141473
>imbrodding good u know?
kek

>>17141518
>>17141512

First cousin marriage = fucking your sister
heard it here first in seethe town

>>17141038
>>17141071
>>17141080
>>17141388
You spergs might want to reflect on the difference between marrying a first degree cousin once, and doing it systematically over the course of centuries, before spamming the same type of answers in five different forms.

>>17141388
>What’s wrong with inbreeding?

>>17141488
>>17141518
>>17141530

>>17141515

>>17141529
Applies to >>17141473, >>17141508, >>17141512 and >>17141528 as well.
I literally have no moral qualm about incest, but it's obvious that if it becomes systematic society-wide for centuries it will have a deep impact.

>>17141529
>>17141529
You can do it in the West as well >>17141038
If this is a criticism of Islam then it's not a good one, as Muhammad saw spoke against doing it repeatedly.

>>17141530
t. can't answer the question
Show me where the fault lies, and I'll produce an excerpt from the hadith that demolishes your allegation.
Go ahead, try it and I'll leave the thread after admitting defeat.

>>17141528
>Seethe town
Literally told you it would be legal soon. If you wanna do it go right ahead, have fun with the grandkid/nephews. The truly depressing thing is that you have no concept of how pathetic you really are.

>>17141551
>You can do it in the West as well
Yes but we don't. We didn't. Look up marriage patterns in Western Europe, we are the among the incestual place in the world.
You did it systematically. If Islam criticizes that, then that's good for Islam, but sadly, Islam's image will forever be tainted by its association with a population that practice mass inbreeding.
Again, it's not even a moral problem. I guess now that we have condoms it shouldn't matter as much. But for centuries it did. The result is probably arabic clanishness and slight retardation.

>>17141552
>The truly depressing thing is that you have no concept of how pathetic you really are
And the rest of the world laughs at the West for destroying itself intentionally, which one is more pathetic?

I'm convinced you are replying to yourself. There's no way somebody could be retarded enough to reply to your posts
In case there is, snap out of it retard

>Show me a single hadith that says I can't fuck my sister!

Inbreeding is the only way out for Muslim incels.

They have even FEWER options due to polygamy (rich chads take all the girls).

>>17141573
https://www.popsci.com/marrying-cousins-genetics/

>>17141588
>salaam brother, may i marry your cousin? i require your permission as her first male cousin
>i am also her first male cousin but i already gave myself permission

>>17141600
You fucking retarded sandnigger this was adressed already here >>17141529.
Your own article's subtitle is literally : "Just don't turn it into a family tradition." That's what you've been doing for *centuries*.

>>17141609
>>17141588
Wojakposting. I win :)

>>17141552
>>17141573
RESULTS
During the two-year study period (2004–2005), 11 554 of 11 874 (97%) mothers answered the question on consanguinity, and 6470 of 11 554 (56%) were consanguineous. There was no significant association between first-cousin consanguinity and Down syndrome (P=.55). Similarly, there was no significant association with either sickle cell disease (P=.97) or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (P=.67) for first-cousin consanguinity. A borderline statistical significance was found for major congenital malformations (P=.05). However, the most significant association with first-cousin consanguinity was congenital heart disease (CHD) (P=.01). Finally, no significant association was found for type 1 diabetes mellitus (P=.92). For all types of consanguinity, similar trends of association were found, with a definite statistically significant association only with CHD (P=.003)."

**********To the rest of the thread (regarding 1st cousin marriage)**************
Your posts here present no empirical evidence to neither of your claims. Neither you justified which elements of the paper makes it anecdotal. Henceforth I deem your comment as anecdotal and void of any intellectual validity. Not only, aswell logically flawed. Just because you disagree with something, it doesn't make a valid scientifical research supporting that position anecdotal. If your next comment won't be worth my time , don't expect a reply. Warm regards.

>>17141625
May I redirect you to >>17141616 and >>17141529. Your article doesn't address repeated occurence of consanguinity. Can't you get this through your skull? It's the academic consensus that *repeated* incest is very harmful, which is what has defined the arab world for at least half a thousand years if not more.

>>17141648
Repeated consanguinity is very rare and people already understood that it's unhealthy during the times of the Prophet, so they don't practice that..

Now if you have any evidence that people aren't following Islam and are indeed committing repeated consanguinity then I'd like to see it.

>>17141388
>Muhammad clearly spoke against in the hadith
Post it here, bwoy

>>17141682
https://seekersguidance.org/answers/hanafi-fiqh/did-the-prophet-peace-be-upon-him-discourage-marrying-cousins/

>>17141682
This guy is a doctor btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhQXgYvW-7o

>>17141691
Regarding these and similar narrations, the 7th century hadith specialist Ibn Salah said, “I found no reliable basis for them.” Many eminent hadith masters mentioned his statement and concurred, such as Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn Mulaqqin, and others. [Ibn Hajar, Talkhis al-Habir; Ibn Mulaqqin, Khulasat al-Badr]

Taj al-Subki said regarding these narrations, “I found no chain of transmission (isnad) for them.” [Subki, Ahadith al-Ihya Alati La Asla Laha]

Hence it can be concluded that these narrations — as statements of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) — are fabricated.

>>17141705
I told you to post a specific hadith text, not a video.

>>17141663
If a high percentage of the population is incestual, how does this not imply repeated consanguinity?
Also, here is a study following four families from afghanistan : https://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/consanguineous-marriages-increase-risk-of-congenital-anomaliesstudies-in-four-generation-of-an-afghan-family.html
It seems to describe quite a harsh impact of those incestual marriages.

>>17141720
Do not marry within the family [i.e., cousins], as that leads to children that are thin and weak.”

– “Do not marry within the family [i.e., cousins], since the child would be born thin and weak.”

– “Marry outside the family, lest the offspring be thin and weak.” [Ibn Hajar, Talkhis al-Habir]

>>17141741
>4 families from a desolate village, practicing afghani culture rather than Islam

lolk

>>17141764
>>17141711

>>17141783
Does Islam promote cousin marriage?
No, it says it's legal, just like the map in >>17141038 says

Just like the West.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/25/half-of-british-men-descended-from-one-bronze-age-king/#:~:text=Half%20of%20Western%20European,take%20power%20in%20the%20continent.

>>17141764
First of all I never made the claim that Islam valued incestual marriages, I explicitly adressed this here but you people don't know how to read >>17141573
>If Islam criticizes that, then that's good for Islam, but sadly, Islam's image will forever be tainted by its association with a population that practice mass inbreeding.
Also, these afghani did nothing but practice incestual marriage, probably after generations of doing so. That's precisely what we're talking about.
Again, if a high percentage of the population is incestual over a few generations — let alone centuries, how does this not imply repeated consanguinity? It just logically follows.

>>17141795
>half-of-british-men-descended-from-one-bronze-age-king
You don't understand how ancestry works. This isn't indicative of inbreeding, it's inevitable in any society. Go back 6000 years ago and we all share all ancestors, doesn't mean we all have take as much from the same genetic subgroups of 6000 years ago.

>>17141798
>Also, these afghani did nothing but practice incestual marriage, probably after generations of doing so. That's precisely what we're talking about.
And in Bosnia and East Asia this doesn't seem to be a problem, both have Islamic cultures.
Your point?

>>17141814
You really can't fucking read. I literally quoted my point — so I'll have phrased it three time now — in the post you answer.
>If Islam criticizes that, then that's good for Islam, but sadly, Islam's image will forever be tainted by its association with a population that practice mass inbreeding.
Why do you keep seeing "muh Islam doesn't say it's good"? That's never been my point. My point is that the vast majority of muslims are inbred, it's affected their culture and probably genetic makeup, and that's one reason why people in the West dislike Islam ; it's mostly popular among weird people.

>>17141837
*keep saying

>>17141795
Idiot, you tried to prove above that Mo stated in the hadith that Muslims should not repeat inbreeding. You have not cited a single reliable hadith that even Muslim scholars themselves would recognize.

>>17141837
>>If Islam criticizes that, then that's good for Islam, but sadly, Islam's image will forever be tainted by its association with a population that practice mass inbreeding.

Islam will be tainted by its association with cartoonishly wrong stereotypes perpetrated by Westnern news outlets too.. why should Muslims care about what kafir think of them? Genuinely ask yourself that question when you know that no Western nation will hold hegemony over its territories for longer than a few more decades..

West will be tainted by its association with cartoonishly wrong stereotypes perpetrated by Muslim news outlets too.. why should Westerners care about what Muslims think of them? Genuinely ask yourself that question when you know that no Islamist goverment will hold hegemony over its territories for longer than a few more years..

>>17141864
>Islam will be tainted by its association with cartoonishly wrong stereotypes perpetrated by Westnern news outlets too..
That's assuming the stereotypes are wrong. Here, it's not wrong. It's true ; most muslims truly are from an incestual background, and it truly has affected their culture and probably genetic makeup.
>why should Muslims care about what kafir think of them?
Idk bro, do you want to be respected or bombed into oblivion?
>Genuinely ask yourself that question when you know that no Western nation will hold hegemony over its territories for longer than a few more decades..
Genuinely shoot yourself if you believe muh immigration will doom the west like any poltard. It's literally nothing but a minor inconvenience (and nice slave labour). We get really mad about it because a tenth of the criminality and violence you guys are used to is intolerable for us, not because it's making us so weak the fucking islamic world will become a threat.
At most the Western world will lose to China, but that's another issue.

>>17141864
>>17141895
I heard you once.

>>17141897
>Idk bro, do you want to be respected or bombed into oblivion?
That never stopped Americans from meddling in other countries and you know it - the seethe is becoming quite blatant here.

>>17141897
>That's assuming the stereotypes are wrong. Here, it's not wrong. It's true ; most muslims truly are from an incestual background, and it truly has affected their culture and probably genetic makeup.
Most? Prove it.

>Genuinely shoot yourself if you believe muh immigration will doom the west like any poltard.
Picrel. You seem to think of Muslims as mindless cattle that can be easily controlled, but a stark reminder is that you lost all your colonies in a whim after the two world wars. A bitter truth for the west is that the nations you tried to colonize still remember this.

>>17141918
>the nations you tried to colonize still remember this
They saved you from inbreeding.

>>17141929
How? Do you mean the rapes? That would make you a disgusting human being even to your own superior western standards (TM) that you use to sneak in other countries.

>>17141918
>That never stopped Americans from meddling in other countries and you know it - the seethe is becoming quite blatant here.
If you build a worthwhile country nobody *can* bomb you, at least not easily. That's how things work. I'm not wanking at the idea of bombing civilians, Anon, I'm just telling you how the world works. Better your society, be more humble and you may pull off a South Korea. If that necessitates aligning with the West for a while ; well that's exactly what you should do, unless you're a masochistic retard.
>Most? Prove it.
Most Muslims are from the MENA, that's where there are the highest number of incestual marriage for the longest time. So most muslims come from a genetic and cultural stock that's been inbreeding for centuries.
>Picrel. You seem to think of Muslims as mindless cattle that can be easily controlled, but a stark reminder is that you lost all your colonies in a whim after the two world wars. A bitter truth for the west is that the nations you tried to colonize still remember this.
lel no European nation committed militarily to the colonies, when they did they won. There were 2 million Algerians when the French came ; we built that country ; we won the war of Algier and De Gaulle chose to abandon the country because he didn't want to have to manage 40 million Arabs. And the real reason the west decolonized overall was because of the USSR, American pressure, and self-inflicted empathy towards your people's right to self-determination, everyone knows it. You should be thankful for all those factors rather than brag about something you could've never achieved yourselves.
Terrorism and Islamic agitation is useful btw. It's statistically marginal but year by year it makes westerners more nationalistic again. So it's not very smart to be such a rebellious population, Arabs/North African would do like the Turks in Germany and try to build pressure networks if they were smarter.

>>17142000
*Arabs/North African should do like the

>>17142009
wait no would works actually
my ESL brain is failing me, time to go to sleep
Good night muslim Anon, I don't actually hate you I'm just one of those people who's insulting by default online.

>>17141954
No, I do not mean rapes. Rapes are legalized only in Islam.

>>17142000
>>17142000
>Most Muslims are from the MENA, that's where there are the highest number of incestual marriage for the longest time. So most muslims come from a genetic and cultural stock that's been inbreeding for centuries.
That's fallacious as inbreeding does not equate repeated inbreeding.
You Westerners have had your shot at galvanizing against le evil Islam. For now, your time is over as you did not come together and bickered over other inane things. Muslims will vote in blocks and the retarded Muslim meme is dying out as you can tell by more and more of them enrolling in uni, occupying seats in the parliament, getting influence culturally, etc..

>>17142037
I repeat it one last time and close the tab to enter a deep slumber (not adressing the rest of your post aside from stating you're delusional) ; it does past a certain point, just think for a second ; if half of all marriages are within family, there's inevitably a lot of of repeated inbreeding over time. No one denies this. Everyone will tell mating patterns have selection effects in animals, for example.

>>17142037
As usual the kafirs have no direct answer to the Qur'an so they resort to attacking culture to try and ridicule muslems.
Tale as old as time.

- Why do you marry your cousin?
- As usual the kafirs have no direct answer to the Qur'an so they resort to attacking culture to try and ridicule muslems.

>>17142113
Go sleep, I'll be praying for your mental health.

>>17141663
It's a myth, constant conflicts would ensure people married into different tribes. You can see even today DNA maps show Arabs to have the highest diversity

>>17142121
As usual the Muslims have no direct answer to the science so they resort to attacking culture to try and ridicule Westerners.

>>17142091

>>17142134

>>17142134
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Arabs

'It indicates that Arab countries have among the highest rates of genetic disorders in the world.'

>>17142151
Genetic disorders can occur from many things.
Did u know that cystic fibrosis is very commin in the netherlands? and this is a country with historically low "inbreeding"..

>>17142171
You're dumb. Go sleep.

>>17142186
my point is merely that the existance of some genuine rationale explanation in no way means that there can be other explanations (just as valid) like bottleneck..

>>17142191
So try to explain it, dumb moslem bwoy.

>>17142200
>other explanations (just as valid) like bottleneck..

>>17142031
They are not.

>>17142151
Genetic diversity between clans and villages is intended to allow adaptation to diseases. For example sickle cell allows resistance to Malaria.
Within a village people might be more alike, but overall the nation is more heterogenous.