/lit/ - Literature

What the fuck is wrong with you? Why don't you just go to thereligionofpeace.com or read snippets of obscure Hadith from Wikipedia like most kids yer age?

>>5801216

(don't actually though)

>>5801216
>Islam
>a religion of peace

>>5801224

Kill yourself twice please. Once for guffawing over the characterization of Islam as a religion of peace, and then again for not realizing that the website has an ironic name.

>both in one book
No.

You'll need 5 books and one optional book. If you want a very bolstered solid knowledge.

1. A history book on Muhammad and companions from a Muslim perspective.

2. A history book on number 1 but from an academic perspective.

3. A tasfir book of the quran, you can easily find copies of the quran for free digitally and in many different translations.

4. A book on Islamic history after the immediate companions and prophets. Best bet for this is just an academic book on Middle Eastern history up to modern times.

5. A book on the concept of Sufi.

6 (Optional) A history book on the middle east from 1900's to modern day, or history books on specific countries in the ME.

>>5801224
thereligionofpeace.com is an anti muslim site and is full of retarded interpretations of the religion run almost entirely by butthurt atheists and a few ex muslims (Or people who claim they are) who understand less about their own faith than Mormon understand Christianity.

>>5801234
>>5801227
Whatever the case, Islam is a pretty tyrannical and brutal religion.

>>5801238

It drives me crazy when people decide to 'study' Islam so they can answer the question "is it really violent or what?"

You don't learn other people's ideas/faiths on your terms. Put the question down for a minute and just learn some stuff with an open mind.

>>5801251
I'm not OP, I'm just stating the obvious fact that Islam is violent, oppressive and incompatible with western concepts like women's rights.

>>5801252

Eh not really man. You need to work out some of the broader issues brought up in that post.

Mostly you're making a crucial mistake of conflating western values with human rights.

The "Islam is violent" characterization brings up too many points to hit on, but to summarize I'd say that recent Islamic terrorism is essentially a response to global politics.

For example, Islam's been around (in Israel/Palestine/Levant) since the early 7th century but the first suicide bombing in Israel happened in 1989.

>>5801215

Marshall Hodgson's

>>5801265
How about the militant spread of Islam that took over Arabia, North Africa, the Levant, Persia and Greece?

Nasr - Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization

>>5801271

God-tier history, not exactly short though.

>>5801251
i'm 3/4 of my way through the quran
i did not read it expecting anything particularly objectionable, i am not one of those cunts that gets angry about stonings or whatever in some old book
but actually, i have found the quran to be extremely dangerous
this is because it is incredibly careful to not say anything stupid, it is very repetitive, it honestly could have been cut down to an abridged version 1/10 the length, if that. The whole thing is: "YOU WILL GO TO HELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE MUHAMMAD" all the time, 5 times a sura
and there's nothing interesting, nothing where a stance is taken that could let disbelief seep in. Just: THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, IF YOU SAY HE HAS PARTNERS YOU ARE FUCKED YOU WILL BURN
It's that it's actually reasonable. No predictions are made about the end times being soon. It constantly says people who talk about the punishment not coming soon enough are foolish, it is dangerous because it is airtight, it corrects the obvious mistake of Christianity in asserting the coming apocalypse.
It's that it very obviously demarcates the inside/outside (as an Abrahamic religion) and does it properly
it's dangerous because it is a big nothing, a black hole.

>>5801238
I agree with that but that doesn't mean people should oppose it by being equally retarded and anti-rational. People arguing against Islam while having no idea what they're talking about only reinforces the notion that non-Muslims are merely misinformed and that Muslims are following a god given straight path.

>>5801284
I always imagined if it was true that god was pissed off about how people treated his previous revelations and decided to lay down a very explicit, "Fuck your heresy, take this and sit down and shut up. No more second chances and no more mister nice guy, you fucks don't deserve it after the shit you pulled".

>>5801274

Historically of interest. A religion is nonetheless a living, organic process, multifaceted and colorful. Insisting the present form is like the earliest forms is basically a fundamentalist approach.

If you want to argue that Islam is a system characterized by violence, you have to show that wherever Islam is there is such violence as you have defined.

(We leave aside the rather glaring pragmatic concerns over how exactly pointing this out in a hostile manner is going to solve the problem)

>>5801284

A religion is more than its book, and its book is nothing without a well informed exegesis.

>>5801288
How am I not being rational? By thinking that not treating people as property and allowing women basic rights is favourable?

>>5801289
All you need to do is look at the violent oppression of women, homosexuals, atheists and others in Islamic law.

>>5801298

"Islam is violent. Just look at it."

>>5801295
the quran is pretty fucking clear that it is intended to be the final word
what are you, some dirty kuffar?

see this is the thing, normally you would have a point, but the quran is so direct and so understandable that your assertion in the case of islam specifically seems stupid

>>5801252

The same could easily be said for Christianity too, we just don't have successful theocrats in the West anymore.

>>5801302
How about you look at its written law?
>>5801306
>The same could easily be said for Christianity too
How does that justify Islam, again?

>>5801308
>How about you look at its written law?

Sure, OK. Let me just crack open my Big Book of Officially Codified and Universally Recognized Islamic Law.

>>5801306
No it couldn't. The first religious wars in the name of christianity started 800 years after the religion was established. Now try and compare that to the permanent jihad that has been going on since the days of mahound.

>>5801308

It doesn't justify it, but there are a lot of fucking Muslims in the world, and it's not like they're going to disappear over night. Saying that Islam is "worse" than Christianity is just retarded; at least in Islam there are hard and fast rules about what you do with non-believers - which is actually just fucking tax them more; hence why there are still Zoroastrians, but Christians don't have that in their contradictory book so they're just like "Lol kill them all; let god sort out who's saved", which is why you don't have European Polytheistic religions anymore.

If you're spending you time demonizing faiths you're often missing the bigger political picture.

I'm not defending Islam, I just don't think it's wise to think Islam is somehow worse than Christianity, or any other religion.

>>5801308

Shariah is complicated as fuck dude. It's not a list of rules on "Official Islam . org." There are contending schools of thought (by no means limited to Sunni/Shia schism) that occur in various historical changes and so forth.

For some reason westerners are obsessed with more classical forms of Sharia found among the most fundamentalist of Sharia scholars.

>>5801313
Not that guy, but the polytheistic religions kf the middle east have somehow disappeared, too. Also, the dhimmi status also includes having no right to self-defense when attacked.
And really, when you look at history, christianity isn't exactly peaceful, but Islam is indeed worse.

>>5801302

you can see pictures of beheadings and stuff all over the internet

muslim countries have poor human rights eg Malaysia, Suadi Arabia, Algeria

you can see what they make the women wear

keep that cancer away from me

>>5801312

Lol you dumbass. The conquests weren't for religion's sake. It was to expand empire, taxable subjects, trade routes and so forth. Classic imperialist stuff.

They couched their victories and ambitions in religious terms, but so did every ruler prior to the 20th century.

>>5801312
>The first religious wars in the name of christianity started 800 years after the religion was established.

The fact that the "jyhad" is put in religious terms when it was about temporal conquest is the same as Constantine's "by this sign I conquer". I.E you can choose to read the Islamic Invasions in purely religious terms, or you can realise that the end of the last Roman-Persian War left both powers incredibly weak, and that it was the best opportunity for the Arabs to take a whole bunch of land.

>>5801320

Funny how all those horrible, vile human rights abuses didn't matter a lick to westerners until roughly 9/11.

Observations aside, "Muslims countries" is a misnomer. Are we talking about countries with Sharia-based jurisprudence? Or countries with religious leaders? Or countries with majority Muslim populations?

>>5801321
>>5801324
So, the crusades, which were a measure for defense of pilgrims, religious sites and not least the east roman empire, are sign of the violent nature of christianity, but 1400 years of constant military expansion say nothing about the violent nature of islam? I'm not saying you're hypocrites, but you fucking are.

>>5801305
>see this is the thing, normally you would have a point, but the quran is so direct and so understandable that your assertion in the case of islam specifically seems stupid

Right. That's why Islam has never produced divergent sects or offshoots or anything like that. Everyone just sort of sits around and nods in agreement.

>>5801330
>Are we talking about countries with Sharia-based jurisprudence? Or countries with religious leaders? Or countries with majority Muslim populations?
Any of those don't fare too well. Professional muslims being terrible people works equally well as an administrative structere and as a grassroots movement.

>>5801344

>Right. That's why Islam has never produced divergent sects or offshoots or anything like that. Everyone just sort of sits around and nods in agreement.

This better be ironic.

>>5801332

I'm the first post you're replying to but not the second. I don't care for characterizing religions in massive strokes. Mostly, I don't understand how going around antagonizing people and attacking them for their mostly innocuous beliefs is going to address the supposed issue.

>>5801332
>So, the crusades, which were a measure for defense of pilgrims, religious sites and not least the east roman empire

You haven't studied the Crusades at all. They were about power and imperialism; the were about very important trade routes too.

If you look at Behemond's refusal to give up Antioch (which was on an important trade route, while Jerusalem wasn't) you'll see what I'm talking about.

Were there "true believers" fighting in the Islamic Jyhad? Yes of course, but there were also "true believers" fighting for Christ in World War II, but I doubt you'd be willing to call World War II a religious war.

Hell, I doubt you'd be willing to call the Italian Wars of the early 16th century religious wars even though the fucking Popes were supporting and fighting in them.

Also, I'm not saying "Christianity = Bad; Islam = Good". They both shitty, though the Koran is more internally consistent than the Bible.

>>5801344
>muh alevites
They're nice. Which is why they've been persecuted umphteen times. Which is why they don't count.
Or if you're talking about the sunni/shia divide as proof that islam is not one onolithic block of violence...have you taken a recent look at the middle east? Your sects are at total war with each other right now.

>>5801344
i admit that i am relatively unlearned on this subject but it is my impression that offshoots of islam are not based on doctrinal grounds, but rather on grounds of personality (one leader being preferred over another)

i would be interested in hearing arguments against that

>>5801330

come on would you be happy living in a country with a majority muslim population? They're all nasty places. These people are stuck in the middle ages.

>>5801332

>Noble Crusaders had to conquer the Levant because self-defense. W-what "Fourth Crusade"?

>Dirty mudslimes have literally been fighting the SAME WAR SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME OH MY GOD WHY ARE THEY SO VIOLENT.

Catholic Internet Defense Mission pls go.

>>5801313
Christianity hasn't been relevant in over 300 years in northern Europe. When was the last time Christians killed people for worshipping different religions here?

>>5801357

Can you seriously not see your own blatant racism at work here?

>>5801312
The Battle of the Milvian Bridge was in 312. Christians started destroying pagan temples not long after that.

>>5801361
How is that racist? Would you rather live in a theocratic shithole or a secular democracy? Is it racist to not want to live in squalor like the Algerians or Afghans?

>>5801350
Criticism of religion is sort of the thing that lifted us out of misery in the west (yeah I know, it's also a side effect of some beneficial economic phenomena), so it's a tradition of almost religious value to me. What are you gonna do, antagonize me over that.

Also, to be clear, I'm criticizing the religion as such, not the individual that was raised within it.

>>5801353
I actually did study the crusades, so go fuck yourself.
My point was that Islam is from its beginning inseperably tied to a political community, the umma, which happens to have started out as a conquering horde. Internal consistence isn't really helpful if it internally consistent leads to a permanent war with the non-believing world, the dar al-harb.

>>5801361

It's not racism it's an affection for order, liberalism, peace, women's rights, alcohol, food at any time of the day, ages of consent, animal rights, the right to be an atheist, freedom of the press, Western civilization, politeness, etc, etc.

I mean they don't even treat dogs well, and I like dogs.

>>5801365

To simultaenously make the point and answer your question:

As a person who grew up in a secular democracy (theocratic shithole), learned ideas about the world in a secular democracy (theocratic shithole), and currently inhabits a secular democracy, I think I would prefer living in a secular democracy (theocratic shithole) to living in a theocratic shithole (secular democracy).

>>5801371

>A culture is different from mine so I'm going to hate on it

also plz read Albert Hourani, "Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age"

>>5801370
>Criticism of religion is sort of the thing that lifted us out of misery in the west

Did you get your history from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, bro?

Literally nobody takes this conception (Dark Ages and mean Christianity, followed by Enlightenment and brave secular scholarship) of history seriously.

>>5801373
How is a secular democracy with human rights and individual freedom even comparable to the oppression of Islamic theocracies?

>>5801378

You missed the point completely. People tend to like the societies/cultures they grow up in.

>>5801374
>>5801373
>all cultures are equal and deserving of equal respect
How about, no?
If we do not believe our own standards are correct, and things that offend them are wrong, we might as well drop all pretense of civilization. Nothing racist about having a moral perspective.

>>5801374
>looking at something from your own point of view instead of one you consider abhorrent
Why indeed.

>>5801377
Not saying that christianity was mean and bad, as pointed out before, it is preferable to islam in almost all its variations. Still, it had to be kicked out of the seat of power for good to give us the scientific advances and liberties we enjoy today.

>>5801378
That's not even true of all Islamic countries. Iran isn't nearly as shitty to live in as people make it out to be, even with it's heavily theocratic government. They have college level education (government funded for public schools where you test into your major, and with tons of options from sciences to liberal arts for those who go to private university), a world renown film culture and surprisingly active literary culture. Women are gaining more rights as the years go by and there is a growing population of younger people who both believe in their religion and hold progressive views. You're making assumptions about places you will never visit first-hand, working off of the western perception of these places. That's where you went wrong.

>>5801379
I'd rather have the freedom to choose my lifestyle. Secular democracies do not preclude Muslims from living there, they just can't force their dogma on everyone else.

>>5801381

(I am the second post you replied to, but not the first)

In a very precise sense, all cultures are equal of respect. What is this precise sense? Well, we must allow members of that culture the opportunity to explain the way they see this or that practice. It is a serious mistake to assess the culture strictly on our terms. In the same sense, it is a mistake to try and only assess it solely from within.

To understand a culture, one must mediate between his own culture and the one being studied. This is not the same as asking him to dispense with his culture or to impose his on another's.

It's a simple principle of communication for the encounter with the other.

>>5801374

If I can't enjoy the things I listed in another culture, than that culture sucks

I don't believe that all cultures are equal or valuable, if that makes me a "racist" so be it. Like would you be a juggalo? juggalos are a culture. Would you want to hang out with juggalos or date one? Huh? Didn't think so.

>>5801391
They were much better off under the Shah, they haven't yet recovered from fundamentalist Islam.

>>5801391
It's still pretty shitty to live in for anyone who's able to compare from experience, and not a single sane person would argue that religion is helping progress happen there.

>>5801395
Some parts of Islamic culture, misogyny and homophobia in particular, are just not compatible with modern western European culture.

>>5801391
>Iran
Yeah Iran would be a nice country. If it wasn't for the influence of Islam.

>>5801316

Sharia just means law.

The whole notion of "sharia law" is a modern concept, not to mention redundant.

>>5801396
if your dislike is just based on it seeming stupid and barbaric to you, and anyone arguing otherwise is deemed unreliable what's the point of even engaging?
i honestly don't even understand why you would write anything... i guess you're just bored and it's better than masturbating again?

>>5801399

Islam is not inherently homophobic or misogynistic.

>>5801397

Yeah, because the Shah's enforcement arm in the form of SAVAK were such nice people, right?

>>5801387

>Still, it had to be kicked out of the seat of power for good to give us the scientific advances and liberties we enjoy today.

Look, this is joke history. For example, what do all the following people have in common?:

>Gregor Mendel
>Isaac Newton
>Copernicus
>Galileo
>Descartes
>Leibniz
>Lemaitre

>>5801407
Executing women, homosexuals, and atheists is pretty barbaric if you ask me.

I'm neutral on this topic, but these threads shouldn't exist. Someone asks about Islam, and the thread dissolves into assholes pushing their own political beliefs about places they've never been and situations they cant even begin to imagine experiencing with an innumerable amount of influencing factors in order to put themselves above others and reinforce their own worldview. It's basically insanity to even participate here.

>>5801412

Implying that's something inherent in Islam is pretty stupid if you ask me.

It's entirely possible for someone to be a devout Muslim and to support the rights of women, gays, tradespeople etc.

>>5801397
If only they still had the Shah, who was put in place by a military coup orchestrated by British and later supported by American interests in order to serve the West, while torturing about as many political dissidents as happened under Fundamentalist rule.

>>5801407

Why are you defending Islam on 4chan? No one's forcing you to reply either.

>>5801391
>>5801374
>>5801395
>women get condemned by court of law for getting raped
>you're not being open to our culture, man!

>>5801412
man you're not even reading shit people post and you're derailing what was once an interesting conversation

>>5801408
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/womens_rights.html

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/026-homosexuality.htm

>inb4 those aren't good sources
These contain direct quotations from the Koran.

>>5801395
Yeah ok, but my opposition to stoning women and hanging gays and threatening jews with annihilation isn't open for negotiation. A culture that allows for that is inherently inferior to one that doesn't.

Goddamn, why don't the people shooting their mouths off about how "barbaric" Islam is in this thread actually bother to study Islamic intellectual history? It's a hell of a lot more complicated than "hurr durr savages", and most of the negative image of Islam comes from ultraconservative Islamic movements such as wahhabism and salafism that try to reconstruct an idealized image of the past to suit their agendas - not Islam itself.

You do realize it was islamic thought following the traditions of the greeks that paved the way to the Europeam renaissance and even secularism to Europe?

The Fall of Baghdad to the Mongols was the decisive end to their golden age and brought about the greatest intellectual transfers from the east to the west.

The destruction of the House of Wisdom and the abandoment of the concept of Ijtihaf was the final nail of the coffin.

>>5801418
i'm not
not in the least
i'm defending people that actually bothered to reply to my criticisms with something useful
then they stopped and started attacking your inane bullshit and it depresses me

>>5801411
They are christian. But many of them had to struggle against christian institutions. It's not the belief that's harmful, but institutions with political power.

>>5801421

The Bible also says if a woman is raped she must marry her rapist. Are you saying that Christians are also inherently woman bashers?

>>5801421
Were the authors knowledgeable of the thousands of years of Scholarship analyzing and interpreting nearly every single phrase and section of the Qur'an? Of course analysis ignorant of historical and even current Islamic Scholarship and Theory written from a western perspective will derive that. That doesn't make their view the be-all-end-all interpretation.

>>5801424
>You do realize it was islamic thought following the traditions of the greeks that paved the way to the Europeam renaissance and even secularism to Europe?
Not this myth again. The Muslims had no more than what the Christian Europeans had.

>>5801424
Yes, shit had its uses. Now it's an increasingly obscene hindrance. What of it?

I think Islam is trying to sell itself to a modern, western audience and in doing so is trying to paint itself as something in-line with all of the values held by said audience.
70-100 years ago when trying to curry favor with western powers there was more bragging about military tradition, and Turkish/Arab greatness in order to appeal to the senses of the nationalistic and militaristic cultures of the west at the time

everything everyone says about anything ever is just shit, who cares
All that matters is that the Arabian Nights give me a pretty nice orientalist boner

>>5801428
Yes, Christians have generally been misogynistic.

>>5801434
Just to warn you, you're about to steer your argument into a place where it rests on a utilitarian/ends focused view of religion as 'having a use' or being a stepping stone to 'progress.' If you continue with this, shits going to get shaky very quickly.

>>5801356
>i admit that i am relatively unlearned on this subject but it is my impression that offshoots of islam are not based on doctrinal grounds, but rather on grounds of personality (one leader being preferred over another)

That's a sorely mistaken impression. There's no such thing as a religion as huge as Islam without enormous doctrinal divisions. Some splits may have been occasioned in the first place by political disagreements, but those splits have led to—and been reinforced by—theological, eschatological, liturgical, philosophical, and other differences.

>i would be interested in hearing arguments against that

Literally any relevant book or even a wiki article.

>>5801357
>come on would you be happy living in a country with a majority muslim population? They're all nasty places. These people are stuck in the middle ages.

I've lived in two and you don't know what you're talking about.

>>5801446
>I've lived in two and you don't know what you're talking about.
Probably because you're a man

>>5801433

>myth

Why don't you study the Abbasid caliphate and the Mutazilites.

>>5801453
I'm not saying they didn't study Greek texts, they conquered Greece for god's sake, but to say that is what influenced the Renaissance is an utter lie.

>>5801446
why the fuck do people do this "my argument is so obvious that you should google to find out why" bullshit
of course when groups are divided they will come up with different shit over time
i want to know if groups split based on differing interpretations of the quran, in the same way christians went apeshit over the trinity or what the holy ghost was
my idea was that the quran is so straight-forward that this seems pretty much impossible and i wished for an enlightening example of why i am retarded not: "glugl eit ritard"
goddamn

>>5801450

How was it an utter lie. Did Europe suddenly have a profound interest in the greeks and self create a spontaneous cultural and intellectual "revival".

It was the muslims that reintroduced them and advanced their work, it was their schools and universities the European bourgeois sent their children.

Unless you're one of those guys who claim all islamic innovations were plagiarized by various scientists across various countries by some greek/chinese/indian books no one else had apparently.

>>5801463
>Did Europe suddenly have a profound interest in the greeks and self create a spontaneous cultural and intellectual "revival"
Yep, you're on of those 'dark age' believers. The Greeks were always studied, you idiot.

>>5801450

The important thing to realize here is that you're talking out of your ass.

>>5801454
>I'm not saying they didn't study Greek texts, they conquered Greece for god's sake

Translations and studies of Greek texts under Arab caliphs began some 600 years before the conquest of Greece by Turks. These two things are unrelated.

>but to say that is what influenced the Renaissance is an utter lie.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-influence/

"The Arabic-Latin translation movements in the Middle Ages, which paralleled that from Greek into Latin, led to the transformation of almost all philosophical disciplines in the medieval Latin world. The impact of Arabic philosophers such as al-Fārābī, Avicenna and Averroes on Western philosophy was particularly strong in natural philosophy, psychology and metaphysics, but also extended to logic and ethics."

>>5801459

For an uneducated and entitled cunt you sure seem to have abnormal sense of self righteousness.

Look into the ancient history of Iraq. I'm not going to spoonfeed you.

>>5801463
>it was their schools and universities the European bourgeois sent their children.
What a load of shit. By the time the european bourgeoisie had become dominant as a class, there was nothing left of the islamic golden age. Did you read this shit on tumblr?

>>5801474
I'm agreeing with this guy, if you spent 2 minutes looking up the differences between sects of Islam you would realize that the Qur'an is very far from straight-forward, even if it's much more consistent than a text like the Bible. There wouldn't be as much scholarship and theology as their is in Islam if it were so.

>>5801469
The greeks were all over the mediterranean. Most of thelands the arabs co quered, were either persian, or greek, or at least hellenized. I don't think there's any achievement of the islamic world that can't be traced back to these intellectual spoils of war.

>>5801463
constantinople was the center of the christian world and the largest city in the world

the church there used greek

when constantinople was sacked by the ottomans the greek scholars fled to the west

"coincidentally" just as soon as this happened latin speaking people in the west rediscovered the greek texts and the renaissance started

>>5801483

>intellectual spoils of war

>>5801474
eat shit
for real
why has discussion come to this
do you do this in real life?
"so, anon, this doesn't make sense to me, do you have an idea that can put this in perspective?"
"1835, MILAN. OVERLAND VIA KARAKORUM. LATER WITTGENSTEIN PAGE 182. GET THE BOOK, YOU'LL SEE THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SUCKED TEN COCKS BEFORE OPENING YOUR FAT LIPS"

you deserve our secular democracy-loving friend, you beg to be engaged in such a way. fuck you.

>>5801469
>Avicenna and Averoes
>both decried as heretics and and atheists by the likes of al-Ghazali
You're not really advancing your point when your prime example are people who had to struggle against their own religious community.

>>5801478
i fucking have
why doesn't somebody just give one example, it would take a lot less fucking time than this bullshit

>>5801486

So a bunch of greeks intellectuals fled the Anatolia and transformed into Italian polymaths?

>>5801488
>conquer land
>it's full of books by more cultured people
>entire golden age consists of reading those books
>look, we're part of civilized humanity

>>5801499

>Muslims have ideas?
>they stole it

>>5801499

Where are these said books? Who were the intellectuals that ideas and work was stolen?

Nigga please.

>>5801501
They even stole the god they worship.

>>5801501
They actually did. The only thing they produced on their own is Islam. And when some people started finding out that the greeks might have written things that contradict islam, the stopped reading them, so they could islam some more with their islam while they islam.

>>5801459

I don't see how you can get so upset when you haven't put any effort into finding the answer yourself. It isn't an argument that I'm making; it's a statement of historical fact that you can easily confirm on your own.

Yes, the Christological and other disagreements in early Christianity had Islamic parallels. Early Muslims divided over the issue of free will, the question of works vs. faith, the nature of God and the significance of His names/attributes, the nature of the Qur'an itself, and plenty of more obscure questions. Any text will produce divergent interpretations when its audience is sufficiently large and diverse. The disagreements stem as much from people's predispositions and environments as they do from the actual text.

>>5801495

The Mutazilis and the Asharis in the Abbasid Caliphate in ancient iraq you plebian cocksucker, now fuck off.

>>5801497
i was just pretending ;^)

>>5801510

HOW IS THIS NOT RACISM?

>>5801528
>criticise the actions of a group (except for white Christians)
Das racist!! Even though Muslims aren't a race.

>>5801528
Islam is not a race, that's how. You fucking retard.

>>5801528

Islam is not a race, I think bigotry is the word you're looking for.

Anyway it's mainly delusional /pol/tards I don't think they're /lit/ regulars.

>>5801534
It's just criticism, not bigotry.

>>5801534
I'm pretty regular, and hate /pol/ even more than I hate Islam, but I still fucking hate that warmongering, anti-intellectual, backwards homophobic misogynistic antisemitic mess of a religion.

>>5801531
>>5801532
>>5801534
>Islam is not a race
s/he wasn't talking about islam, s/he was talking about a race:
>The only thing they produced on their own is Islam

>>5801511
thank you
i will read about this and make another thread if i have questions
my anger was rooted in annoyance at my question being responded to with a non-answer (as it answered a different question and somewhat badly)
i can see how the free will question would have caused some problems, that does seem to be less airtight in the quran than other less philosophical concerns (constant talk about how some people are just hard headed and god does this on purpose, etc compared with the threats of the fire)
works vs. faith is also shaky... anyway, this is really helpful, thanks again
>>5801512
this is less helpful. you must spend dinner parties reading your phone until somebody says something particularly "ignorant". seriously, learn to be a fucking human being.

>>5801538

Yeah because hating the denizens of a generalizing, delusional, and somewhat ignorant shithole is great so long as you remain like them yourself.

>>5801531
>>5801532
>>5801534

You fucking faggots. He said,

>The only thing they produced on their own is Islam

Now if they only thing THEY produced is Islam, must it not be the case that THEY exist independently (prior to) Islam?

Is it not THEY we're criticizing then?

>>5801545
And by they, I meant muslims. Who else?
I was referring to the simple fact that the civilization built by Islam never went beyond reaffirming islam. If you consider that racist, maybe you're just insecure, because you based your identity on a sense of belonging to a religious community which you want to shield from criticism?

>>5801546

>fuck you guys these is my wrong positions and statements
>im right till you prove me wrong
>what do you mean, i have to do my own research, you're just bullshitting because I'm right (obviously)
>oh shit, I was actually wrong
>Man these guys should be human beings and speak to me better despite the fact am an gargantuan cunt

I'm not sure if your lack of self awareness is something amusing or to be pitied.

>>5801554
No, this doesn't require any group designation prior to islam, as it was merely meant to affirm that islamic civilization produces only islam and more islam filled with islam.
Obviously, the origins are with the arabs, which hadn't reached any sgnificant stage of civilization at all prior to mahound, but I won't hold this against them. Maybe they could have done something worthwhile with their time though, like become hellenized? The thing everybody else was doing? Just imagine what a nice peaceful world we'd live in now had that happened.

>>5801483
>The greeks were all over the mediterranean. Most of thelands the arabs co quered, were either persian, or greek, or at least hellenized.

And then most of those Hellenized peoples became Muslims (or at least participants in 'Muslim' intellectual endeavors.) Hellenic thought is ancestral to Islamic civilization. The criticism of Hellenic-influenced Islamic achievements as "borrowed" proceeds from a complete misapprehension of the civilization being criticized. This is Hodgson 101 shit.

>>5801494
>Avicenna and Averoes
>both decried as heretics and and atheists by the likes of al-Ghazali

Averroes was born after Al-Ghazali died. If you're going to be a wiki scholar, can you at least Google this stuff and spare yourself a bit of embarrassment?

Plenty of Muslim thinkers played it fast and loose with accusations of heresy. Criticism notwithstanding, Ibn Sina remained hugely influential in the Muslim world long after he and Al-Ghazali both died.

And, for what it's worth, Al-Ghazali's syntheses of peripatetic thought were also influential in the Latin West.

>>5801561
i didn't say i was right
i just said very obviously "i don't know about this, can somebody give me an example of why my general sense would be incorrect"
this is not about being "right" or "winning" a conversation you fucking worthless sperging tard

>>5801573
>hellenic thought is ancestral to islamic civilization
Oh well, that makes them extremely comparable to the west, which happens to have the exact same ancestry. Now, take a look at the western world, and then at the muslim world. Which, would you say, is making more of their hellenic heritage?

>>5801581
>Oh well, that makes them extremely comparable to the west, which happens to have the exact same ancestry. Now, take a look at the western world, and then at the muslim world. Which, would you say, is making more of their hellenic heritage?

The divergence really only began around 300 years ago. It doesn't have much to do with relative levels of Hellenism.

>>5801586
>the divergence began 300 years ago
Make that 500. Also note that the Ottoman Empire was in a frenzy of conquest while culturally stagnating, even before that, while the occident went through the medieval rennaissance.

>>5801594
>Medieval Rennaissance
>Ottoman Empire
>somehow taking place at the same time

You can't fucking bullshit away 200 or more years if you're going to make an argument based on the reception of antique culture, because the cycle of positive reception of antique culture isn't much larger than 200 years.
~800, Karolingian Rennaissance
~1100, Twelfth Rennaissance
~1300, Italian Rennaissance

>>5801284

Repetition is very important in quran.

Every letter in the quran has different dimensions of meaning that you can access when reach different stations (maqaams in arabic).

There are some surats that simply starts with a letter that form meaningless words even in arabic, even the sound of the letter is very important, if sufism we repeat a word to access a dimension, the same way hindus repeat mantras, you repeat it till you become it.

You can read about the abjad table and the science of letters (Ilm al huroof) in arabic to gain more insight, althought most of it has not been translated from arabic & some is kept secret between the Master & the student.

The quran is an object, thus it's meaning depends on the state of the reader.

You will only find it violent if there is violence in you, in a sense it is doing you a service and reflecting things you need to clear about yourself.

a jihadist reading the quran will get a very different meaning than a sufi master like rumi will get.

What are some nice reads on how the Crusades were glorious and justified?

>>5801619
Any object can allow infinite interpretations if you obsess over it enough. Why is it especially important with the quran in particular?

>>5801659
>inb4 cuz' it''s vague enough

>>5801659

Nothing.

Information is free if you pluck it yourself from the tree, in a sense you can sit in a cave and get all info you need to come to the exact state as a sufi master or a Buddha.

Most people can't because their egos are limiting too information to get in, so they need frameworks and gurus.

Quran & Islam simply provide a framework that you can follow. You can delegate the task of coming with practices on your own to already established & tested practices that have worked & continue to work.

ITT: Classic anti-intellectual popular appeal as perfected on the modern American right.

Islam? I don't need some dull professor to try and read off tomes about apologetics. I see it like it is. I tell it like it is. And you know how it is? The Muslims are evil. Plane and simple.

Now you may not know the first think about Islam, but all you need to know is that it's barbaric and violent, and it motivates terrorism against the free and democratic nations of Israel and America.

>>5801619
people in general are quite violent, so that the message is largely contentless (as you might say, however, in appearance, or on the first level) is dangerous

thank you for the insight though, it is interesting that it can be used in mantra-like ways, i did not consider it previously and it makes a lot of sense to me

>>5801723
you're not as clever as you think you are
there's one guy in this thread like that, and he's only a quarter of the way there
take your shit to facebook

>>5801842

>you're not as clever as you think you are

No shit. Nobody on this board is. Guess who that includes!

So yeah, how about all those books on Islamic history?

>>5801723
>I see it like it is. I tell it like it is. And you know how it is?

Why are Americans obsessed with catchphrases?

lit?pol?

>>5801918
It's the stupidest catchphrase too. Basically used by assholes to make them seem like they're the arbiters of everything and justify being an asshole to people.

>>5801723

>Implying conservatism is anti-intellectual

Conservatism is also not inherently racist or culturally discriminatory. It is mostly, on a social level, about valuing modesty and tradition, and on a policy level, about economic policies that benefit small business owners.

>>5801933
Sounds like an asshole's been telling you asshole truths you don't care to hear, like an asshole or something.

>>5801988
Grow up

>>5801723

>>5801967
thats funny because if you look at politics in any muslim country you will find the conservatives are the dumb religious fuckers. Same with dumb religious fuckers in any other country. So, what i'm trying to say is: maybe, if i understood you right, the attacks you are defending are targeting your own view. That would be funny.

>>5801967
>Conservatism is also not inherently racist or culturally discriminatory
That's basically the definition of conservative, mate.
>It is mostly, on a social level, about valuing modesty and tradition, and on a policy level, about economic policies that benefit small business owners.
>Americans believe this

Relax guys. It appears that most of you really have no idea of what you're talking about. The truth of Islam relies with its' scholars. Youtube 'Abdul Hakim Murad' - a good example of an actual English speaking scholar.

Islam is indeed about peace and violence - those are 2 concepts to which we all belong.

Do serious research instead of being a bunch of bickering plebs

>"anyone know any good books on Genghis Khan?"
>WHY WOULD YOU READ THAT, DON'T YOU KNOW HE WAS ALL ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE?

To actually answer OP's question, I liked Islam for the Western Mind.

It focuses on Muhammad's teachings in Medina and Mecca, as well as goes over the basic tenants of Islam.

>>5801494
>>Avicenna and Averoes
>>both decried as heretics and and atheists by the likes of al-Ghazali
is this honky actually serious?

>>5802094

>That's basically the definition of conservative, mate.

>There are people who actually believe this

Read Tim Winters' (Abdul hakim murad) translations of Al Ghazali. Excellent work.

You can also get the gist of Islams' basic ideas through pre-revelations Muhammad. His personality, characteristics, manners, relationships, etc

Islam is fascinating and an answer to todays' issues if one actually takes time to study it - deeper than the Dawkins/Atheist superficial view.

>>5801510
>They actually did. The only thing they produced on their own is Islam.
Your understanding of Islamic scholarship isn't even shallow. You make it seem like the only thing Muslims did was translate, when the Europeans themselves admit they used both Arabic translations, commentaries, and arguments concerning Greek thought (as well as Persian, Arabic, etc.). What the fuck do you think Aquinas and every Western writer meant when they called ibn Rushd "the Commentator"?

Jesus Christ, /lit/, when are we going to be free of these idiots shitting in our board?

>>5801723
>Plane and simple.

I don't know if this was a typo or high-level subtlety.

>>5802141
It's gotten so bad on 4chan that it's become impossible to tell what is and isn't ironic.

>>5801289
Not who you're replying to but while I won't say Islam is a violent religion I would argue that because of its early actions and the violence inherent in its early conquests that it cannot be characterised as a religion of peace. It's followers may be peaceful but that is not necessarily because of Islam.

>>5801353
Your interpretation of the crusades is out of date and born of enlightenment, antireligious thought. History shows us that there was a prevailing notion of piety and faith among European nobility and, at least for the first crusade, many people acted out of religious motivated reasons because they earnestly believed in their religion. To assign to them such modern understanding of religion is to shove views of the future into a past frame of reference. Your interpretation is inherently flawed as a result.

>>5802129

>Islam is fascinating and an answer to todays' issues if one actually takes time to study it - deeper than the Dawkins/Atheist superficial view.

I'm personally of the opinion that there really is no need for a philosophical "answer" to today's problems, but I respect your view in spite of heartily disagreeing with it.

>all these /pol/lice appealing to the state of contemporary Middle-East and reactionary Islamist puritanism as the example of "Islam" and not the effects of their own imperialist ambitions
>I saws it on teebee! bushy n blare wouldn lay to me!

>>5801454
There were certain texts which got passed on to Western Europe because of the Muslim world. Not all the important ones but enough that their influence can't be discounted.

>>5802173
>>5802173

In a sense it is beyond a philosophical answer. As Ludwig entertained; all philosophical problems are linguistic ones. -- Hence why Muhammad was an illiterate.

Anyways, much of the so called 'intellectuals' have far succumbed into a divisive view that philosophy should be put on a certain level while religion should be viewed as this simplistic concept.

Anyways, I'm not sure what's your level of knowledge on Islam, but I'd still refer you to Tim winter

>>5802083

That was my first post in this thread that you replied to - it seems you have me confused with someone else. I'm personally a secular liberal, and I do have my own opinions (such as not being happy with conservatives in my country welcoming blatant science denial with open arms) - however, I was summarizing how people of a conservative leaning tend to see/explain their views. I am interested enough in intellectual history that I make a point of trying my best not to pass culturally biased value judgments. I have also read books about politics and religion in the Middle East somewhat extensively, since that is an academic interest of mine. Simply using words like "dumb religious fuckers" to apply to groups of people you dislike shows that you are not familiar with the complexities involved in why people are drawn to movements with a heavily religious basis.

>>5801608
>the rinascimento only occurred in the 14th Century
O I am laffin

>>5801643
Thomas madden is one of the most well known members of the revisionist interpretation of the crusades. But any catholic historian is likely to promote them.

>>5802202

>knowledge on Islam

Have read Tayob's Islam: A Short Introduction, Karen Armstrong's Islam: A Short History, N.J. Dawood's translation of the Qur'an, A book on Shi'a Islamic Revival/Reform movements, and two or three undergraduate classes on Middle East history. Haven't read Tim Winter but his wikipedia bio is interesting.

>>5801643

God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Rodney Stark is a nice bit of Christian apologetics. I personally found his arguments somewhat shaky.

>>5801251
>Put the question down for a minute and just learn some stuff with an open mind.
No matter how much I open my mind, Muhammad still says you should beat your wife if she gets out of line.

>>5802227
We live in a multicultural society free of hate :^)

>muh "peaceful vs. violent" meme

Anyone arguing on this line needs to be banned, it's just plebs stating at great length absolutely nothing.

>>5801643
Fucking kill yourself and stop forcing this dumb /pol/ meme you cancerous fuck.

>>5801643
You should just read historical facts.

The crusades only began half a century after constant conquest of and threats to Christian lands in the levant, north Africa, Asia Minor, Spain, France, ...

>>5802227
why shouldn't we hit women? serious question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0d1zTAFKA

>>5802242
Same reason you shouldn't hit anyone except in self defense.

>>5802239
What? People can't point out which religion is inherently more violent?

Why not?

>>5802241
>the euros cared so much about the well-being of the people they thought were heretics, which is why those same euros didn't destroy entire villages of middle-eastern Christians

>>5802247
so we should just suffer abuse?

>>5802256
Your point?

>>5802258
What?

>>5802227
Go ahead and quote it.

>>5802256
>the band of thugs lead by Peter the hermit are the same pap ally sanctioned crusaders
No.

>>5802264
You don't believe me?

>>5802274
Not that guy, but I don't have to believe any claim until someone backs it up.

So no, I don't believe you. Back yourself up and quote it.

>>5802263
someone verbally abusing or belittling you for example

>>5802280
Why don't you google it?

>>5802282
Sticks and stones.

>>5802280
Koran (4:34) Specifically the yu safali translation

>>5802290
All translations actually.

>>5802293
I only have that one on hand right now.

>>5802247

Well, you shouldn't hit women even in self-defense.

>>5802296
That's wrong.

>>5802263
>Your point?
There was no solidarity between Christians in Europe and Christians in the Middle-East. If anything it was the opposite. No Pope gave two fucks about Christians or "Christian lands". Urban II conceived of the Crusades only as means to stop the kingdoms in Europe from fighting each other, unite them under papal hegemony (increasing the strength of the Church) towards a foreign enemy, and seizing the lands and authority of the weakened Eastern Church. It's brilliant but not exactly standing on the moral high horse.

>>5802299
>There was no solidarity between Christians in Europe and Christians in the Middle-East.
Says the anonymous poster on 4chan.

And the world believed him.

Not.

>>5802289
>make claim
>can you show me the proof?
>"WHY DON'T YOU FIND IT YOURSELF"

No.

>>5802296
If a woman punches a man, there is nothing wrong with him hitting her back.

>>5802299
>seizing the lands and authority of the weakened Eastern Church
That's why he denied taking control of Antioch when Bohemond offered it to him, right?

>conceived of the Crusades only as means to stop the kingdoms in Europe from fighting each other
They were hardly the first method (holy days/holidays) and that was hardly their prime goal. But even if that were true, how is that a bad thing considering the reports that Christian pilgrims were being attacked?

>unite them under papal hegemony (increasing the strength of the Church) towards a foreign enemy
Papal state had very little secular power, this was before the time of the Borgia. They played a very diplomatic game. There was no militry strength of the church to increase.

>>5802299
There was plenty of solidarity, Western catholic christians visited the Byzantines all the time.

The count of Flanders visited the court of Alexios I prior to the crusades, and he's one of the people Alexios wrote to for support.

>>5802308
I'm under no obligation to spoonfeed you easily verifiable facts.

If you don't want to believe me, go ahead and don't look it up.
Doesn't change the facts one bit.

>>5802315
He's confusing the Crusaders for the people colloquially called the People's Crusade. They were the ones that attacked Jews in the Rhineland, that fucked around in the Balkans, etc before being obliterated in their first conflict with the muslims in Anatolia. The actual Crusaders were the followers of Bohemond, Godfrey, Raymond, etc who swore oaths to Alexios and were blessed by the pope before they even set foot in Constantinople.

>>5802323
Okay, just don't make claims you don't cite sources for anymore.

>>5802333
I did cite the source: the Quran.

>>5802331
>He's confusing the Crusaders for the people colloquially called the People's Crusade.

He's not confusing anything, he's placing all crusaders in a false light.

>>5802290

Yusuf Ali
>Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Commentary from the Yusuf Ali translation (since this is the one you picked):
>In case of family jars four steps are mentioned, to be taken in that order: (1) perhaps verbal advice or admonition may be sufficient; (2) if not, sex relations may be suspended; (3) if this is not sufficient, some slight physical correction may be administered: but Imam Shafi`i considers this inadvisable, though permissible, and all authorities are unanimous in deprecating any sort of cruelty, even of the nagging kind.
>Temper, nagging, sarcasm, speaking at each other in other people's presence, reverting to past faults which should be forgiven and forgotten,--all this is forbidden. And the reason given is characteristic of Islam. You must live all your life as in the presence of Allah, Who is high above us, but Who watches over us. How petty and contemptible will out little squabbles appear in His presence!

>>5802341
Did you have a point?

>>5802338
The People's Crusade did do some fucked up shit, but they weren't Crusaders. Unfortunately people confuse the two and you wind up with fedoras like the person we're talking to.

>>5802348
Confirmed for BTFO since it doesn't say what you say it says.

>>5802353
It says you should beat your wife/wives if they get arrogant enough.

Like I said.

>>5802341
>you can beat your wife, just make sure you do it lightly and try not to, but it's definitely permissible
How progressive.

>>5802353
It says you can beat your wife. The commentary doesn't deny this, it just tries to caution against relying entirely on it. But it entirely supports the claim " Muhammad still says you should beat your wife if she gets out of line."

>>5802334
Proper citations cite the chapter and page number as well.

Didn't do too well in english, did you?

>>5802313
>That's why he denied taking control of Antioch when Bohemond offered it to him, right?
>Doesn't understand soft power

>But even if that were true, how is that a bad thing considering the reports that Christian pilgrims were being attacked?
You're missing the point that there was no political alliance or relation here between the Western and Eastern church, the Crusade was opportunistic. At any rate, Urban doesn't seem to care about poor pilgrimages.
"Let therefore hatred depart from among you [various European kingdoms], let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves ... God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the Kingdom of Heaven."
>Papal state had very little secular power
>There was no militry strength of the church to increase.
Exactly his point.

>>5802375
This isn't a peer-reviewed paper I wrote, it was a post on the internet.

The Quran says you can beat your wife.

Don't believe it if you don't want to.

>>5802356
>>5802357
>(And last) beat them (lightly)
>some slight physical correction may be administered

"When the above Quran verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that the beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Daud, Nasai and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this beating, if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g. Ash-Shafii) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferable be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem." (Muhammad Asad, "The Message of the Quran", Dar al-Andalus, Gilbralter, 1980, footnote in his translation of the Koran)

>>5802379
>The pope was after power, but a very abstract form of it!
>implying that these goalposts weren't moved

>You're missing the point that there was no political alliance or relation here between the Western and Eastern church, the Crusade was opportunistic. At any rate, Urban doesn't seem to care about poor pilgrimages.
The Great Schism JUST happened in 1054. Relations were still there and Alexios preceded his call to help by improving relations with the pope in 1090 until his cry for help. What you said is entirely wrong.

Here are some other quotes of Urban about the First Crusade
>I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it

>O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago.

>Exactly his point.
He did not try to lead the march himself as his predecessor did. Urban explicitly said to them that their fellow Christians were beset by suffering and they needed to help them. Your sins will be forgiven if you go on this armed pilgrimage. Go help them. But no you focus on the parts that support your narrative, conveniently ignoring the parts that explicitly support what I said.

>>5802375
These idiots are all like this, the think everyone else is as unread and uncritical as they are so they double-back when you actually challenge them to defend their views, especially when the evidence is brought against them.

>>5802399
Yes, that's what I said: the Quran says you can beat your wife.

>>5802399
>Beating your wife in Islam status
>Permissible
That's really all we've been asked to prove and we did so. The measure to which it is approved is a concession of defeat to the original claim "Muhammad still says you should beat your wife if she gets out of line." and entirely separate line of discussion.

>>5802424
kek, can one man truly be this BTFO?

>>5802431
The Quran doesn't say you can beat your wife?

>>5802424
>>5802430
>The Mozlems say you can tap your wife with a handkerchief, call the UN and every human rights organization to condemn this atrocity!

>>5802441
>Beat your wife (t. Koran)

>>5802441
>with a handkerchief
No, the Quran just says you can beat your wife.

>>5802227
>>5802274
>>5802289
>>5802290
>>5802348
>>5802356
>>5802357
>>5802393
>>5802424
>>5802430
>>5802437
>>5802455
>>5802458

This is pathetic, kid. You made a claim, you couldn't give evidence, you were proven wrong, and your response is just ebin maymees. Are you even fooling yourself?

>>5802485
>you couldn't give evidence
Sure we could, it's right there in the Quran.

>>5802485
>You couldn't give evidence
>Beat your wife (t. Mohammad)

>>5802308
>If a woman punches a man, there is nothing wrong with him hitting her back.

Oh yes there is

>>5802485

There is no point arguing with people who cite low-brow apologetic websites like religionofpeace.com. These people are incapable of reasonable discussion, and I have reason to believe that some even have monetary incentives to do everything possible to prevent such a discussion.

This is evidenced by the responses in threads such as these. One can discuss any subject, any religious belief and any historical figure without problem, but it's only when you mention Islam that the thread becomes filled with hundreds of posts consisting entirely of petty polemic bickering.

>>5802550
>the Koran is a low brow apologetic website
Dude just concede the point. I will gladly go further with you on the level of force you can use in beating your wife, but the only way we can get to that point is if you accept that the Koran finds it permissible to beat your wife.

>>5802485
Symptoms of e/pol/a include the intentional manufacturing of lies, forgetting they made them, and then shitpost them all over 4chan even when proven wrong.

>>5802550
>people who cite low-brow apologetic websites like religionofpeace.com
I'm not quoting any website, I'm quoting the Quran which says you can beat your wife when she gets out of line.

>>5802567
>Quoting the Koran is manufacturing of lies

>>5802567
>manufacturing of lies
The quran doesn't say you can beat your wife?

>This dumb argument

The Qur'an says that husbands can 'beat' or 'discipline' (ضرب) rebellious wives; this is stated pretty straightforwardly. Just like the Bible incontrovertibly says that parents can honor-kill their rebellious sons by having them publicly stoned.

How these passages have been interpreted into law and actually carried out is another matter entirely.

>>5802586
>Just like the Bible incontrovertibly says that parents can honor-kill their rebellious sons by having them publicly stoned.
The old testament, yes.

Christianity is about Jesus, and he didn't take too kindly to stonings.

>>5802586
That's an improper comparison though. The verse from the Bible is law of the Old Covenant and no longer binding in the New Covenant sealed with Jesus' death on the cross.

>>5802586
>The Qur'an says that husbands can 'beat' or 'discipline' (ضرب) rebellious wives

And yes, without further clarification something like 'strike' would be the obvious meaning of the word here.

>>5802550
It's actually kind of interesting just to see how he shut down so quickly. Of course he couldn't provide a quote and faked it by telling the one anon to "google it", but once someone actually quotes the thing you can see he chooses to become functionally illiterate, and then he just repeats the same thing over and over. I'm sure there's some psychological term for this but it's flabbergasting.

>>5802602
>Of course he couldn't provide a quot
I didn't provide a quote, but I stated the source.

Another anon provided a direct quote though.

So you still don't believe the quran says you can beat your wife?

>>5802565

first of all, I'm not him.

Secondly, that site (as you know very well) cites verses that are either out of context or only partially displayed.

For example, that website quotes this verse in the following manner (its the first quote on their verses of violence page);

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing..."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

It very conveniently left out the beginning of the verse which says:

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing"

http://quran.com/2/190-193

>Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you
>do not transgress

as you can see, it completely (and obviously intentionally) changes the meaning of the verse. It, as you very well know, is not a legitimate source.

>>5802593
>>5802595

>Instant butthurt

All I said is that the Bible incontrovertibly states this. It does.

To repeat myself,

>How these passages have been interpreted into law and actually carried out is another matter entirely.

>>5802615
>All I said is that the Bible incontrovertibly states this. It does.
Sure, the Old Testament.

>>5802599
>btw I'm an arabic scholar :^)

>>5802614
>that site (as you know very well) cites verses that are either out of context or only partially displayed.
I never quoted that website though, I quoted the Quran.

>it completely (and obviously intentionally) changes the meaning of the verse
Not really.

>>5802619
>tfw there's a snow-day somewhere in America

>>5802620
You don't have to be to realize that virtually everyone including Muhammad has confirmed that he was talking about hitting women.

>>5802626
It's an important distinction, Jesus directly contradicts the OT in many key ways, including the stoning from your example.

The OT is there for reference, christianity is based on Jesus, so the NT.

>>5802619
>Sure, the Old Testament.

...which is part of the Bible.

>HOW THESE PASSAGES HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED INTO LAW AND ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT IS ANOTHER MATTER ENTIRELY.

Please let's move on. This isn't about Christianity.

>>5802640
>This isn't about Christianity.
Well you said "the bible", which of course implies christianity.

Jesus himself famously frowned upon stonings, so it's important to make the distinction.

>>5802625

what do you mean, not really?

Removing "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you" from the beginning of that quote completely changes the meaning of the verse, twisting a defensive directive into an offensive directive.

>>5802620

I've studied Arabic and Islam for years. It is not an indictment of the religion to acknowledge that there is a passage in the Qur'an which, according to a pretty obvious and common reading, says that wives can be hit.

btw i'm a Muslim @:^)>>>

>>5802658
>what do you mean, not really?
It still says what it says.

"Don't transgress" can mean a lot of things.

So can "those who fight you" by the way.

By Muhammad's logic, innocent trader caravans were fair game because he needed money since he left his shit in Mecca.

>>5802669
>innocent trader caravans

Different poster. Why does this lame sort of faux-outrage always have to surface when Islam is being discussed? There was nothing controversial about the Muslims disrupting the commerce of people who had preyed upon their own finances when they were a persecuted minority in Mecca. That wouldn't even be controversial today.

>>5802696
>There was nothing controversial about the Muslims attacking innocent traders

Ok lol.

>>5802706

Oh, so you're trolling. That explains it.

So ironic. So cool. So clever.

>>5802706
>THE POOR TRADERS

Do you cry over them often?

>>5802719
>>5802744
>attacking innocents is OK

And Muslims wonder why others think Islam is a violent religion.

>>5802753

haha lets go listen to meme rap together sometime, we can laugh at the inferior plebs by doing what they do ironically

>>5802129
What answers does Islam offer that every other religion hasn't already offered? How can it solve today's problems, and if it indeed can as you claim, why haven't muslim dominate countries led the way to solve the myriad of issues that we currently face?

>>5802764
what?

>>5801234
Can anyone give more specific examples of books on these topics? I'd also like to know f anyone knows of some books about Christianity in the same vein.

>>5802787
>1. Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, by Martin Lings
No god but God, by Reza Aslan
>2. Muhammad at Mecca and Muhammad at Medina, by Montgomery Watt
>3. http://www.almizan.org/
http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/Index.htm
Any good copy of a Qur'an should have commentary and notes.
>4. The Venture of Islam, parts 1-3, by Marshall Hodgson
>5. The Garden of Truth, by Hossein Nasr
Alone with the Alone, by Henry Corbin
>6. Would like recs for this one.

Lol, janitor deleted two perfectly apt posts.

>>5802696
>>5802719
>>5802744
>attacking innocent people is OK
Regards, Islam.

>>5803441
Why is the janitor a Moslem apologist? Deleting most posts critical of Islam.

>>5803498
Oh and now this thread is autosaging because the janitor can't handle critical thought.