The Western Canon

[Anonymous No.21789409]

Is the Qu'ran (and Arabic literature in general) part of the Western Canon?

[Anonymous No.21789412]

No.

[Anonymous No.21789422]

>>21789409
Obviously, three Abrahamic faiths form a single regression line.

[Anonymous No.21789426]

It led to the development of the cannon and also the cross bow actually which was the Medeval equivalent of the Manhatten project. The world would be much more peaceful with less wars if this book never existed.

[Anonymous No.21789434]

>>21789426
Cope harder faggot, Islam will win the end.

[Anonymous No.21789445]

The Quran is just a retard arab repeating semi remembered bible stories

[Anonymous No.21789467]

>>21789409
Yes. It did have an influence on certain western writers

[Anonymous No.21789472]

>>21789445
Here you go, Anon. You deserve it.

[Anonymous No.21789514]

Not for most of the western canon, no. However due to indigenous Muslims in the Russian empire—-Islam has been there as long as Christianity—the Quran exerted a lot of influence on Russian literature. Pushkin (who wrote a whole poem explicitly imitating Quranic style) and many other Russian poets were affected by its imagery and some Islamic ideas founds their way into popular Christian religion. Generally speaking Russian literature has a positive or not very judgmental attitude toward indigenous Islam, even when fighting it (Dostoevsky had strong contempt for Polish Catholic rebels but in Notes from a Dead House, he portrays a jihadist positively as a deeply religious and honest man). Islam in a Turkish context however was seen as foreign and synonymous with Turkey.

[Anonymous No.21789578]

Aquinas constantly references Averroes and Avicenna, so those two at least.

[Anonymous No.21789685]

>>21789514
>Dostoevsky had strong contempt for Polish Catholic rebels but in Notes from a Dead House, he portrays a jihadist positively as a deeply religious and honest man
Thank you for reminding me of that very comfy novel anon, IIRC the Muslim was a young Circassian imprisoned alongside some male family members. Dosto shared some of the Gospel with him, and the Muslim’s brothers confirmed to the youngster that the person of Jesus was a shared object of affection in both traditions. Dead House was the first Dosto novel I read, and the perceptive insights into cruelty, suffering, class division, and the general banality of prison life stuck with me. The little vignettes that make up the book are alternatively amusing as well as bleak: the crafty fat Jew in the sauna, the hard labour in terrible conditions, the various dogs Dosto befriended, and the hospital episode. I’ve read Notes from the Underground, the Gambler, and Crime & Punishment since. The next in the sequence is obviously the Brothers K, but I don’t think I’m ready for another Russian novel just yet.

[Anonymous No.21789699]

>>21789685
If you like comfy, try Dead Souls, by Gogol. Gogol influenced Dostoevsky heavily but it is much lighter than Dosto, very funny

[Anonymous No.21789785]

>>21789699
Thanks for the recommendation fren. I’m currently reading Nostromo by Joseph Conrad. It’s a turbulent tale of bandits, strongmen, and silver miners set in South America. Decidedly not comfy, very high-octane and of course very cynical like most of Conrad. I think Dead Souls will be a nice change of pace. My initial plan was to read Blood Meridian next but that seems to be a different animal entirely.

[Anonymous No.21789904]

>>21789785
Gogol is cozy, definitely a good break from that harsh kino

>There were such titles as: Pig Breeding as a Science. Seeing that these things were not for the pleasant passing of time, he turned to another bookcase. From the frying pan into the fire. They were all books of philosophy. One bore the title: Philosophy in a Scientific Sense. There was a row of six volumes entitled: A Preparatory Introduction to the Theory of Thinking in Their Entirety, Totality, Essence, and Application to the Comprehension of the Organic Principles of the Mutual Divarication of Social Production. Whichever book Chichikov opened, there was on every page a manifestation, a development, an abstract, enclosures, disclosures, and devil knows what was not there. “No, this is all not for me,” Chichikov said, and turned to the third bookcase, which contained everything in the line of the arts. Here he pulled out some huge book with immodest mythological pictures and began studying them. This was to his taste.

[Anonymous No.21790029]

>>21789472
Except that anon is right. Mohammad that that Miriam was the Virgin Mary.

[Anonymous No.21790035]

>>21789434
t. buddha, zoroaster, jesus, mohammed, countless other schizos who died before recorded history begins, etc.

[Anonymous No.21790041]

>>21789409
>Believers are good
>Unbelievers are bad
>Believers are good and there are awards awaiting them
>Unbelievers are bad and there are severe punishments awaiting them
>Pharaoh was bad
>God created man out of dirt
>Iblis refused to prostrate to Adam
>Analogy from nature
>OMG this Quran is so beautiful
>Jews and Christians are wrong
>Oh yeah? You don't believe that I'm a prophet? You think I'm just making this all up? Well I'm not!
>Unbelievers are bad
>God created man out of [insert literally anything, just not the same thing as last time]
>Here is how to split inheritance
>Believers are good
>Unbelievers are bad
>Iblis refused to prostrate to Adam
>Miriam = Virgin Mary
>God created man out of [insert literally anything, just not the same thing as last time]
>Analogy from nature
>Jews and Christians are wrong
>Pharaoh was bad
>Oh yeah? You don't believe that I'm a prophet? You think I'm just making this all up? Well I'm not!
>OMG this Quran is so beautiful
>Analogy from nature
>Unbelievers are bad
>Miriam = Virgin Mary
>Pharaoh was bad
>God created man out of [insert literally anything, just not the same thing as last time]
>Believers are good and there are awards awaiting them
>Unbelievers are bad
>Oh yeah? You don't believe that I'm a prophet? You think I'm just making this all up? Well I'm not!
>Unbelievers are bad and there are severe punishments awaiting them
>Pharaoh was bad
>Iblis refused to prostrate to Adam
>Jews and Christians are wrong
>Analogy from nature
>Believers are good and there are awards awaiting them

[Anonymous No.21790053]

>>21789409
>Is the Qu'ran (and Arabic literature in general) part of the Western Canon?
The Western Canon is a term used to describe a collection of literary works that are considered to be of great cultural and historical importance in the Western world. It includes works from ancient Greece and Rome, as well as later European literature.

The Qur'an, which is the central religious text of Islam, is not typically included in the Western Canon, as it originates from the Arabic-speaking world and is not part of the Western literary tradition. However, there have been arguments for including the Qur'an in a broader understanding of the Western Canon, which seeks to include literary works from diverse cultures and traditions.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in Arabic literature and a greater recognition of its cultural significance, and some scholars have suggested that it should be considered as part of a global literary canon, rather than strictly a part of the Western Canon.

So, while the Qur'an and Arabic literature may not be considered part of the traditional Western Canon, they are certainly important works of literature and have had a significant impact on world culture and history.

[Anonymous No.21790058]

Yes. You fucking tard

[Anonymous No.21790107]

>>21789472
Not the anon you're replying to, but I'm looking into Islam. Can you explain why this common argument is flawed? Thanks. May God reward you.

[Anonymous No.21790119]

>>21790107
The Quran goes over Bible stories often in order to correct what (from an Islamic pov) is a fictionalized and mythologized version of a real event. Thus for example satan in Eden is not a talking snake, the flood is not said to cover the whole earth, and so on. It also covers more of a backstory to some characters, Abraham for example is shown in his teenage years in Iraq and what sent him off to become a nomad to begin with

[Anonymous No.21790131]

Anything written by a Muslim can't be Western, so no.

[Anonymous No.21790139]

>>21790119
Another example is Exodus is portrayed differently. There is no slaughter of the firstborn for instance, and Moses is consumed with guilt for killing the Egyptian and begs God to forgive him, making him a far cry from the Old Testament version, in the Quran he is not involved in any genocide either. Mary is mentioned much more in the Quran than in the Bible and is presented as an ascetic hermit who is blessed with a child due her achieving a very high spiritual level, Ibn Hazm even went so far as to regard her as a rare instance of a female prophet.

[Anonymous No.21790343]

>>21789409
Not true "Western" but we're occasionally lumped in with the West in the Old World group, as opposed to New World (duh) or the Orient beyond India.

>>21790107
nta but the Bible has a lot of stuff which doesn't make sense and are later additions or alterations.
Worst offender I can think of off the top of my head is the story of Lot and incest after escaping Sodom and Gomorrah. Why would incest (involving a messenger of God no less) happen after a city just got wiped the fuck out for such crimes and worse?
Islam is supposed to be the "final ver" of the Abrahamic religions because the previous books kept on getting altered hard.

[Anonymous No.21790365]

>>21790343
The incest is basically inserted because Jews wanted to dab on the Moabites

[Anonymous No.21790387]

>>21790365
>another religion ruined
It's the very reason why there are many verses dedicated to denouncing them.
They will get what they have coming for them.

[Anonymous No.21790468]

>>21790343
>Why would incest (involving a messenger of God no less) happen after a city just got wiped the fuck out for such crimes and worse?
What is your counterfactual? That Soddom and Gomorrah got wiped out so everyone learned their lesson and no one did anything bad ever again?

Pretty nonsense criticism.

[Anonymous No.21790483]

>>21790139
> Mary is mentioned much more in the Quran than in the Bible and is presented as an ascetic hermit who is blessed with a child due her achieving a very high spiritual level
She is also mentioned as *checks notes* Miriam?

[Anonymous No.21790500]

>>21790468
Why would a man of God commit incest after witnessing the destruction of a city, knowing that the people there performed all kinds of sex, and was warned specifically because he was the only sane person there?
Why wasn't he smitten right after the deed then?

[Anonymous No.21790511]

God I realized debating is a lot tougher when you're sleepy

[Anonymous No.21790529]

>>21790483
Maryam is the Arabic name. Miriam is the Hebrew form. Mary is English form. Maria is the Italian form. Etc

[Anonymous No.21790694]

>>21789422
No, no they do not, pretty common misconception though. The Mosaic Israelites split into two different things that are mainstream today - Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity did not 'come from' Judaism as some people seem to think. Rabbinic Judaism, what we call simply 'Judaism', was the torah (old testament) combined with the codified oral tradition of those that follow along from the Pharisees that had Jesus murdered. They formed into what they are now in the 4th century, hundreds of years after Jesus died whilst Christianity was becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire.

So Christianity and Judaism share a common ancestor religion, not a single line.

Islam is a strange merger of bits of the Mosiac Israelites religion, Rabbinic Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and the pre-Islamic Arabic religion.

So it is not at all a single regression line.

[Anonymous No.21790764]

>>21790119
No it does not nigger. I have read it. It is a collection of Mohammad's speeches which constantly repeat themselves, also tacking bits on and makes very little sense unless you are familiar with the various Biblical stories he is poorly referencing. It is basically a stream of conciousness of a very clearly charismatic man, what we might reasonably call a cult leader.

The whole Kaaba bit is particularly hilarious as Abraham leaves his family and just peaces out into the desert, walks hundreds of miles away from everything else he is ever identifably near and just walks into Arabia, founds what will come to be Mecca, and then goes back. Only someone with a poor understanding of scripture would make that up. He could neither read nor write himself.

Others at the time insultingly called him 'the Ear' because he regurgitated the stories of other religions poorly that he had heard.

It is impossible to run anything off the Quran alone (wheras the Bible and other religions basically have most of their laws and societal models included in their Holy Book), as it is short and confused, with constant repeats from his speeches where he was preaching to different people and his followers just recorded the same shit over and over. You need tons of Hadiths that are often even crazier and the various Islamic madhabs fight over their legitimacy. They need a massive ulama of jurists to constantly figure it out, and some of them like the literalist Wahabis actually reject trying to rationalise and understand any of it, they of course fight with the rationalists.

The Quran is a muddled mess of flowing conciousness of speechs poorly referencing misunderstood scripture that cannot stand by itself and probably was never even originally intended to be compiled as it is now.

Bonus kek: Mohammad did not understand 'ablution'. The other religions understood it to mean 'spiritual cleansing', he took it literally and that is why Muslims have to wash themselves multiple times a day. No wonder all the other faiths laughed at him.

Bonus bonus kek: the devil farts and whistling draws him - also God and angels hate dogs according to Mohammed.

[Anonymous No.21790778]

>>21790764
I agree with all of this, excepting your gratuitous use of the n word.

[Anonymous No.21790835]

>>21790343
>>21790500
>Worst offender I can think of off the top of my head is the story of Lot and incest after escaping Sodom and Gomorrah. Why would incest (involving a messenger of God no less) happen after a city just got wiped the fuck out for such crimes and worse?

'Why would incest happen?' What does that even mean? It happened because the daughters decided to do that. God didn't tell them to do that, they just decided to because they figured 'hey it continues our father's line right'? God never tells them to do that, nor does he condone it, it is never intended to be a model for behavior or emulated, in fact it goes against religious prohibitions concerning marriage.

You seem to be making a common error that is assuming: 'everything in the Bible is morally good' or 'Christians emulate the Bible (as in everything in it)', or 'everything that happens in the Bible God endorses', which isn't true and no Christian has ever maintained that.

Most of the Bible is not religious laws, most of it is not a simple model for righeous conduct, most of it is not direct commands or advice. Most of the Bible is simply historical narrative, which you would know if you read it, which I have, tons of it early on is just 'the person gave birth to this person' over and over. The Bible pertains to be a historical record, not just a collection of moral stories and imperatives. Plenty of the characters are downright shitty people that are supposed to be examples of 'don't do this'.

The chosen people in the Old Testament, the Israelites, constantly disobey God over and over and do bad things, for which they get punished, over and over. Even the good characters often do bad things, which are acknowledged as bad, like King David getting a husband killed so he could have his wife or Job trying to ignore God over and over. It isn't simple, and the 'good guys' do bad things.

There are things which God permits or commands which are questionable to modern sensibilities certainly: like slavery or genocide of those who oppose him etc.... but not everything in the Bible is a direct instruction manual and not everything that is recorded in it claims to be moral or virtious. The Old Testament is, by percentage, first and foremost, a history book, regardless of whether you believe it's accuracy or not.

>>21790778
Fair enough kek.

[Anonymous No.21790877]

>>21790053
thanks gpt

[Anonymous No.21792068]

>>21789904
Very nice

[Anonymous No.21792111]

>>21789422
Judaism and Islam are false doctrines, so not quite.

[Anonymous No.21792184]

>>21789409
Qu'ran is scripture

[Anonymous No.21792298]

>>21792184
Strange response anon. Scripture just means either 'the Bible' (as in the Christian Bible so the old and New Testament) or 'sacred writings', in which case the Bhagavad Gita for example is also scripture. However that Hindu text, along with the scripture of other religions outside the west, are not 'Western Canon'.

You have essentially just stated a random unrelated fact, 'the Quran is a holy book', yeah anon we know, that doesn't make it Western, epecially seeing the foundational text in western culture is just the Bible, not the Quran which is a middle-eastern text, just like the Hindu scripture which is Indian.

Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.21793025]

>>21789409
No. Even the Tanakh wasn't until it became part of Christianity. Arabia is in Asia

[Anonymous No.21793147]

>>21789409
No, but it is part of my toilet paper.

[Anonymous No.21793168]

>>21789685
I don't understand the hypocrisy of Orthodox Christians having a hard-on for Muslims, who raped and pillaged their nations and destroyed their language and culture for centuries but then shit all over Catholics who actually fought off the Ottoman hordes at the Naval Battle of Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna. How one cannot see the hypocrisy is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.21793299]

>>21793168
They don't really, or at least they didn't used to, but nowadays people make all kinds of 'friendships' kind of enemy of my enemy thing. Plenty of people nowadays don't really take religion too seriously, so they just 'chum up'.

Orthodox Chrisitians in the Balkans certainly don't like them and want to start up the genocide again.

The Doskevsky thing is more of a 'noble savage' concept. Like how in the US native Americans were represented as horrible murderous inferiors when they were a threat, but once they were clearly on their way out and the US military was just rounding them up they became romanticised as some kind of lost noble way of life, though uncivilised. Tacitus did this with the Germanic barbarians, using them as an example of more simple honour which he believed Rome had lost, though earlier they were seen as barbarian scum.

People are hypocrites in general anon, and plenty of people can be racist or religionist(whatever) against a group in general but have a friendship with a certain individual that is 'one of the good ones'. Lovecraft hated Jews but married a Jewish woman for example.

People can also hate more strongly heretics of their own religion than heathens, like the Sunnis and Shias in the middle east who, despite to our eyes being both Muslim, spend Waaaay more time killing each other than Christians. Problems within your own group are seen as being more threatening. Others are more obviously separate, but traitors in your midst could take you out from behind. ISIS also killed way more Muslims than Christians.

The British Empire made an alliance with the Ottomans as they were falling apart, no longer a threat, and Britain feared a Russian takeover of the area. Catholic rulers during the Reconquista made alliances with Muslims and tribute relationships against other Catholics.

The world is not simple anon and is full of hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.21793303]

>>21793168
Also remember that the Circassian Muslims were ethnically cleansed by the imperial Russian orthodox military and government, and slaughtered or expelled. One individual chumming up in a prison does not negate that.

[Anonymous No.21793309]

>>21793168
There were Muslims in the territory of the Russian Empire before the Ottomans got there, many pagans accepted Islam in the Middle Ages. Historically many of these Muslims served in the Russian military in fending off Poles and Napoleon, and so there was an especially tender feeling for them among those seeking to defend against “westernism”, which the Muslims were also against. Many Russians saw westernism and liberalism as the fault of Catholicism and almost an extension of it. As for the Ottomans, Russians hated them but distinguished between them and indigenous Muslims

[Anonymous No.21793528]

>>21790764
So much retardation in a single post, lmao.
1)Biblical references are not required to understand the Quran. The use/incorporation of Biblical references in interpreting the Quran/hadith are known as Israʼiliyyat. They're not considered highly suspicious are rejected by most authoritative scholars.

2)Your story you told about Abraham is false to a spastic degree. First, in Islamic theology it's attested that Adam was the one who built the original Kaaba. Some undetermined time later it was Abraham that was tasked with rebuilding.
Second, the narrative is that Abraham was commanded by God to take Hagar Ishmael and into the desert and leave them there, as a test, and for Abraham to RETURN to his settlement, not to abandon it everything he'd ever known and live in the desert as you falsely stated.
It was while in the desert that Hagar's (and Abraham's) patience and trust in God was rewarded when God made water spring from it. Due to this water sprining, passing caravans then began to settle and stay in the region and build what would later be known as the city of Mecca/Arabia.
Not sure what's "hilarious" about this narrative since it's almost identical to the Biblical one. And any differences have zero logical faults in them. Fag.

3)The "the ear" comment is literally from the Quran itself. That's the only source the mentions this pejorative being used against the Prophet. So how exactly is this a "gotcha" when it was WILLINGLY offered up by the primary source you're trying to critique? hahahah.
Your understanding the phrase is also laughable retarded and is exactly why English "versions" of the Quran are useless. The phrase "the ear" is an Arabic idiom used to mean someone that easily trusts others. The ACTUAL context of why the Prophet was called this by his enemies is directly derived from an incident with a group known as the Hypocrites. Essentially they were fake Muslims that pretended to Muslims but as soon as they were alone by themselves or in the company of the Arab pagan etc.. they'd chat shit about he Muslims. The incident in question is one where one of them was afraid that their shit talking to reach the Prophet and they'd be exposed. So another one replied to him not to worry because, as he put, The Prophet was "the ear" and would listen and be easily swayed if they simply told him question that it was all a lie and they'd never chatted shit about him.
It has ZERO to do with regurgitated the stories of other religions.

[Anonymous No.21793538]

No, because the West is Indo-European

[Anonymous No.21793539]

>>21790764
4)Your understanding of other religions also seems to be equally retarded. Judaism relies on texts outside the Torah/Old Testament. Have you never heard of the Talmud and Zohar. The Talmud, the major source of Jewish law, it literal rabbi's making laws.
Then in Christianity you have a laughably large portion of it's beliefs and laws and it's own CANON literally made up and determined by random clergymen.
Islam doesn't have epistemology whereby "ulema" have the degree of infallibility that Judaism and Christianity ascribe to their rabbi's and bishops. Evidence needs to come directly from the Quran or the Prophet via hadith. Therefor it ascribes in infallibility to God and his Prophet.

5)Most of the so called "crazy" hadiths that retards continually post are unanimously regarded as either false or weak by hadith scholars since the dawn of the science. The issue is that spackers don't understand hadith science, see some shit and post it thinking Muslims believe it in when literal no Muslim does.

6)You've shown you don't understand numerous subjects during this post and we can now add Islamic creed to that. The "Wahabi" movement has absolutely nothing to do with hadiths. You lack of knowledge on this subject has reached peak cringe here.

7)Another example of you not understanding other religions. Judaism has practices of ablution meaning and literal washing and not a "spiritual cleansing". Actually if anything in Judaism the term ablution is used 1st and foremost to mean a literal washing. I take it back, this here actually might be peak cringe. Fag

8)The devil in Islam is not conceptualised the same way as it is in Christianity. Whilst Christianity views the devil as a fallen angle, in Islam he's simply a being from another from of creation similar to humans called the jinn. Jinn can eat, marry, urinate and pass wind. So what exactly is the issue with description of him passing wind? The "god" portrayed in the Bible farts and the Bible goes to lengths to literally describe this fart hahahahahaha, I'd say that infinitely work "kek" worthy you troon.

9)Literally no authentic Islamic text states whistling draws the devil. Retard.

10)Literally no authentic Islamic text states God "hates" dogs. Retard. There's actually actually two extremely famous (and authentic) hadith that states firstly a prostitute had all her sins forgiven and entered into heaven for giving a thirsty dog water and that a man who did the same was also given the same reward.

11)It's never stated that Angles "hate" dogs, just that they don't enter into houses that contain dogs.

[Anonymous No.21793561]

[Anonymous No.21793604]

>>21789409
Aristotle's writings were preserved by arabs wasn't they?

[Anonymous No.21793631]

>>21793561
among the litany of unfathomable retardation in that picture, anon outs himself as a spastic literally 2 points in. It's Seerah or Sira, not "sirat". The sirat is from Islamic eschatology, it's the bridge over hell that's used to cross to heaven. This is really, really, REALLY basic. Someone giving "lessons" on Islam so know this instantly, and it's definitely not a typo since he wrote sirat multiple times across multiple different posts. This is why you shouldn't take random trannies on this site as authoritative voices on literally anything.

[Anonymous No.21793653]

>>21793528
Wrong.
1.Yes it is
2.It is stupid because the narrative never existed in any other source before and Mohammad just straight made it up and it looks ridiculous when you put it on a map as it happens massively far away from where Abraham was for his entire life in all the other sources. Mecca was just another Pagan rock site that Mohammad made something up for to connect it.
3.Yeah, he was a fool. The fact that it is noted in his book that people mocked him does not in any way detract from that.

I can tell you are just a Muslim spouting off but so much of his stuff is just ripped from other religions. That thingy that he rode through the sky to Jerusalem on (which no one saw him do at the time and all of his followers said 'yeah we didn't see it but Mohammed is always right' is just a rip of Zoroastrian and Babylonian mythology for example.

No comment on the Ablutions thing kek, or the whistling, or the devil farting, or the dogs.

I have respect for many religions, I even can have respect for Muslims, but the religion as a whole is laughable, and is very clearly just formed from a cult leader that made things up to get stuff. Unlike Jesus or the various Buddhas for example that told people to give things away, not to them and were of peace, Mohammad in his later life was a warlord that went around murdering people.

I mean come on bro, I know you won't admit it but: 'oh I get more wives than everyone else, God says it is ok', 'oh I had to marry the divorcee of my adopted son in law to show you all that one is ok, unlike marrying most other divorcees of relatives, God couldn't have just told me to tell you, I had to do it'. 'oh the prophet was open mouth kissing that boy to 'share water'. 'Oh God told me to tell you that you should leave after eating because the prophet is shy (me) and I wouldn't have told you but God wants that'.

Mohammad did the exact things that cult leaders do: making up arbitrary rules and exceptions to give themselves extra things.

>>21793539
Nigger I have also read through Al-Bukhari and the retardation in there is hardcore too. Oh the sun sets in a pool of water. I have heard the diversion of 'oh only the crazy non-accepted hadiths have shit in them' but no, that isn't true.
I mention the Wahabi movement beacause they consider themselves to be fundementalist revivalists that adhere strongly to the anti-rational school were the Quran and the hadiths are not to be rationally interpreted.
Ah there is the farting. No the devil is supposed to love whistling and makes people fart.
The whistling thing is a genuine debate sourced from pagan worship whistling, I was literally told off by Muslim I knew once for whistling because she said it brought the devil.
I was being jokey with the dog comment, but yes, Mohammad clearly had a grudge against dogs telling people to kill them and the fact you are just accepting that 'angels won't come into your house because of dogs' as just fine is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.21793659]

>>21793631
I’m a Muslim (not the guy who posted the pic, I’m white a convert). The letter at the end of seerah is ة which is h if there is a pause or a conclusion of a sentence but pronounced t if a word follows right after, so it can be spelled both ways

[Anonymous No.21793684]

>>21793528
>>21793653
I know I am not going to get through to you because you are a Muslim defending his faith, but Islam has some truly batshit things about in it that most western Muslims try to tone down or ignore out of embarassment like the pedophillia, random stuff about whistling, mouth sucking boys, the sun setting in a muddy pool etc... but they are very much there.

Perhaps the easiest thing to disagree with is Mohammad himself and his conduct which is repulsive. People will often try to misdirect by pointing to his early years when he was peaceful, but his later years were atrocious and filled with the actions of a warlord cult leader, and I forgot the name of the rule/doctrine, but his later teachings are considered in Islamic jurisprudence to override the earlier ones.

People will then often try to misdirect by pointing to Christians doing bad things, and child marriage or something, but that is irrelevant when discussing the conduct of the prophet, who is to be perfect, and to be emulated by all Muslims. I am not criticising Muslims, who are imperfect people like all others, but rather the prophet himself whose conduct was monstrous.

The conduct of Jesus for example still holds up today, and no one can find fault with what he did and preached, but Mohammad is just terrible. Excuses can be valid for normal people who lived long ago and did as was done, but not for the founder of a religion whose conduct is supposed to be perfect for all time and inform the actions of all followers.

I don't hate Muslims and Islam, I have known ones who are good, and Muslims can indeed be virtuous, and can be respected, but Mohammad as a person, his conduct and teachings, alongside the mess of the theology is something that is well deserving of criticism.

[Anonymous No.21793919]

>>21793653
1)It's not, Ibn Kathir, who wrote arguably the most popular Quran tafsir in Islamic history, makes of point of omitting any and all Biblical references. The tafsir in purely based of the Quran and hadith. And it reached popularity for that exact reason.
2)Are you a retard? The narrative is literally identical between the Bible and Islam with the only difference being that in the Bible Hagar and Ishmael are exiled to the Desert of Paran by themselves and in the Islamic narrative Abraham accompanies/escorts them and then returns. If anything the Islamic one far more coherent in that a women and young child would need the aid of a man to escort them to a location rather than do the journey by themselves. Numerous Biblical scholars have estimated that the Desert of Paran is located in Arabia.
3)Nice trying trying to skim over the part where you were outed as retard that tried to superimpose a false interpretation of a verse. Nah, take your L faggot.

And I can tell you're a retard that's done ~1 hour of Googling and consuming of Christian polemical shite and think your an expert on Islam and instead you're now extremely frustrated and embarrassed that you're having you non-existent "knowledge" challenged and exposed.

Brining up the Arda Wiraz Namag (yeah that's what it's called retard) just further cements your lazy and limited knowledge of Islam through faggy Christian polemical sites. It's been addressed by Muslims countless times. The final redaction of the Arda Wiraz Namag dates to potentially ~ 300 years AFTER Islam. Bring up the alexander legend stuff next you faggot...

Also hilarious that you claim that the Quran borrows from Babylonian mythology and the like when the Bible has been imploding for the past 200 years due to claims it ripped off Babylonian mythology. The Bible contains numerous retarded stories that the Quran never mentions, like the spastic Tower of Babel shite, that ripped straight from Babylonian mythology.

>No comment on the Ablutions thing kek, or the whistling, or the devil farting, or the dogs
Learn to read faggot. I assblated you on every point.

> things up to get stuff
To get what? He came from THE ruling tribe of the Quraysh and was married to an extremely influence women. Prior to Islam he had considerable wealth and power. Due to preaching Islam he underwent 12 years of persecution and boycotting before being run out of his home town of 50 years. When died virtually had no wealth because he gave it all away and lived in a tiny room. Your wife point later on is also retarded and further proof of your lack of knowledge on the subject. In pre-Islamic Arabia a man could have an unlimited amount of wives. If he was a lustful man why would he abolish that and self impose and limit on himself? So, so retard. Points like these always out fags as the ones not interested in a serious academic discussion and instead just spout easily debunked polemic shit.

[Anonymous No.21793924]

>>21793653
>Unlike Jesus or the various Buddhas for example that told people to give things away, not to them and were of peace, Mohammad in his later life was a warlord that went around murdering people.
Again if you were actually knowledge about Islam that the same sources you're no doubt using to call him a "warlord" also attest to his extremely ascetic nature. Or are you just arbitrary what you choose to believe from the exact same sources based on your preconceived fag agenda? Also in relation to the military elements of his life, it's unequivocal comparable to Moses, so where's cries of "warlord" there? exactly, moron.

You characterisation of the marriage to again couched within the same retarded polemical lens you've been perpetuating through this post. Be a dismissive spacker all you want, but don't expect me or anyone else you take you seriously in terms of your knowledge of Islam when you can't be fathom or articulate the anthropological elements at play.

>Nigger I have also read through Al-Bukhari and the retardation in there is hardcore too. Oh the sun sets in a pool of water.
Oh really, you read Al-Bukhari and saw the hadith about the sun setting a pool of water. Woah, impressive. Because you see that isn't in Al-Bukhari nor is it even in hadith, it's an ayah (verse) in the Quran in Surat al Khaf. HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Again you just keep outing yourself as a moron that's just learnt about all this shite from Christian polemists and you're just regurgitating it like a smooth brain. I could do a bingo card for all the tired shite you're doing to trudge up next from Acts 17 Apologetics, Answering-Islam or whatever other midwit content you've been consuming. And just to reply to this point, the ayah is not saying the sun LITERALLY sets into a pool of water, it's saying that from the view point of Dhul-Qarnayn it appeared to him like that from his vantage point. If you know anything about Islam that you'll who Ibn Kathir is, he's Ibn Taymiyyahs disciple, arguable the biggest literalist in Islamic history and even he interprets the verse like this

>meaning, he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea, but it never leaves its path in the fourth orbit, in which it is fixed.

[Anonymous No.21793934]

>>21793653
>I mention the Wahabi movement beacause they consider themselves to be fundementalist revivalists that adhere strongly to the anti-rational school were the Quran and the hadiths are not to be rationally interpreted.
That's not what the Wahabi movement is you fucking retard. HAHAHAHAHA. Islam had it's literal vs rationalist struggle way back in the ~9th century with the Mutazila and Imam Ahmed, the Ashʿarī etc.... but again you don't know any of this because it requires actual knowledge of Islam. The Wahabi movement happened in the 18th centaury, a full 900 years later. Once again the movement had literally absolutely nothing to do with hadith, it was about certain acts of worship and whether they were shirk (polytheism, hearsay) and the nature and practice of takfir (ex-communication). Stop embarrassing yourself.

>No the devil is supposed to love whistling and makes people fart.
Post the source for this rather and saying a random girl told you something and you took as object fact.

>Mohammad clearly had a grudge against dogs telling people to kill them
The dogs that were being killed were rabid wild dogs that had rabies and were attacking people. As I stated, there's two authentic hadiths of the highest level narrated directly from the Prophet where he says giving a dog water got people into heaven. The fact you wilfully ignored this point because it obliterates your retarded point shows you're disingenuous

>>21793684
Lmao, nah faggot. Fuck off with your attempt at a soft approach after you realised I'm actually knowledgeable about this shit and absolutely tore you a new one. I'm dismantled you from a purely academic perspective. Next time come correct you tranny or you'll get embarrassed again.

[Anonymous No.21793949]

>>21793684
>I am not criticising Muslims, who are imperfect people like all others, but rather the prophet himself whose conduct was monstrous.
These two are one and the same, and are as equally bad to a Muslim. If you don't hate a Muslim then don't hate the prophet, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.21793975]

>>21793659
I'm Arab, the faggot you're defending that's insulting your Prophet used the word EXCLUSIVELY in a singular form. It was never used in a mudaf ilaihi form, ie "biography of the Prophet", so it would never ever be pronounced with a t, always with a h. Furthermore, with the way sentence are structed in English it would always be the person, in this case the Prophet, that would proceed object/entity, in this case the biography. So it would always been written with a h EVEN if the word wasn't used in a singular form, since no one in English would say "the biography of the Prophet" they'd say "the Prophet's biography".

Don't interject on topic you're woefully ignorant in, especially ones where you try (and fail) to defend some that's insulting the Prophet you supposedly believe in. Itfuuuu.

[Anonymous No.21794044]

>>21793975
I’m not defending him lol. I have actually gone through and rebutted these pics point by point. I was simply making an observation to you in case you were not familiar with that letter. As for pronouncing ة as t, that is unrelated to singular versus plural. It only has to do with whether it concludes a clause or sentence, or does not. We would say for example seeraw an-Nabi, but at the end of the sentence or a clause it is said seerah. And none of this has to do with me defending the kaffir and schizo ramblings

[Anonymous No.21794048]

>>21794044
Seerat* an-Nabi. Sorry, rain got on my phone. And this is the rule for the letter in general. Zakah versus zakat for example

[Anonymous No.21794060]

>>21793631
If you're going to make this much of a fuss over the spelling of a word, then I'm going to assume the picture made some pretty good points.
And if we have to translate a language that was developed by imitating the barking of dogs into a human, we'll spell the "words" however we please.

[Anonymous No.21794068]

>>21793919
>>21793924
>>21793934
>>21793949
bruh, you just wrote all that shit and yet in none of it do you address the conduct of Mohammad around little children, making up laws to give himself extra wives etc... and that he murders hundreds, if not thousands of people.

You are exceedingly tilted here and every time you write 'HAHAHAHA' I can see you sweating real hard and slamming at the keyboard like a 15 year old that just read 'The God Delusion', is mad his mother made him go to Sunday school.

There is no way I am going through and going to go through 4 massive posts where you sound like angry child screaming. I am sure Islam has given you some meaning or something in your life, but it is a complete mess compared to most other religions and there is not a single mainstream religion still in existence that has such an atrocious pedophillic mass murderer as their 'perfect person'.


I do have to personally thank you for this comment though:

>Next time come correct you tranny or you'll get embarrassed again.

lol, lmao even.

[Anonymous No.21794090]

>>21793949
Ok......sure, I guess that all the Muslims I have known and know I have to hate and be cruel and unkind to them now.

>If you don't hate a Muslim then don't hate the prophet
That is just not how things work. Muslims are not Mohammad, though they might try to emulate him. The point I was making is that Mohammad was a terrible person individually who is supposedly perfect and sinless, who cannot in any way be excused by 'he was a product of the time' like other historical figures can be. Even Christian Saints aren't maintained to be neccesarily completely perfect by Christians, only Christ himself, who is God. Christ's conduct still very much holds up, whereas Mohammad's would be completely reasonable if we were to consider him as a normal person within his historical context, but he is supposed to be perfect. He is not.

I don't even have to ask if you hold Mohammad to be perfect, because it is a cornerstone of Islam, and he was simply: terrible. Even at the time some people would have been horrified by him, because he was a Arab magnate that, again, was a mass-murderer who led a bunch of rapey nomads around killing and enslaving people.

[Anonymous No.21794099]

>>21793924
>You characterisation of the marriage to again couched within the same retarded polemical lens you've been perpetuating through this post. Be a dismissive spacker all you want, but don't expect me or anyone else you take you seriously in terms of your knowledge of Islam when you can't be fathom or articulate the anthropological elements at play.
Yes, we're going to intellectualize a man having marrying and having sex with a little girl by appealing to anthropology.
I'm not an anthropologist, so I don't have to adhere to a sense of moral relativism that makes good anthropological work possible, and someone who is part of a religion that seems this man as the ideal human being and role model for all who lived without sin, I have trouble thinking you really can either.
I really mean this, but "intellectual" Muslims going all the way back to the middle ages relay are the most craven and despicable people on the planet.

[Anonymous No.21794106]

>>21794090
>That is just not how things work.
Except it does, and I just told you that it does.

[Anonymous No.21794107]

>>21793919
>In pre-Islamic Arabia a man could have an unlimited amount of wives.
kek
>If he was a lustful man why would he abolish that and self impose and limit on himself?
oh wow he was noble. he ONLY had TWELVE WIVES, instead of four. sure, he also fucked extra concubines but you know he is just a man right?

your defense here is: he exercised tremendous self-control by having only 12 wives to bang (plus a few extras) while others in his group were only allowed 4?

he literally had more than one wife for each day of the week.

[Anonymous No.21794115]

>>21794106
Bless you anon.

[Anonymous No.21794120]

>>21794106
It really doesn't. We don't have to adhere by your rules, and the fact that the way we fell makes you and yours feel a certain way doesn't change the way we feel.

[Anonymous No.21794133]

>>21794120
First sentence says it doesn't work that way. Second sentence implies acceptance that it does work that way, but that you don't care whether or not you're being hurtful.

[Anonymous No.21794144]

>>21794133
A willingness to be hurtful towards someone doesn't mean you hate them.

[Anonymous No.21794156]

>>21794133
Muslim-anon, he is saying that it is blantly ridiculous that in order to not hate Muslims you have to like Mohammad. I have had plenty of friends that follow different religions or political ideologies in which there has been mutual affection.

Your rule of 'if you don't hate Muslims, don't hate Mohammad, simple as' is silly. You are in essence instructing people that have problems with the conduct of Mohammad to hate Muslims; if people accept your rule here you are forcing tons of people to be intolerant towards Muslims and decline to show them kindness.

[Anonymous No.21794189]

>>21794090
"Christ's" conduct still holds up because we live in a matriarchal society. Christian cuckoldry is still considered morally superior even by atheistards. There's no room for Muhammad or Achilles in the modern world.

[Anonymous No.21794195]

>>21794156
>he is saying that it is blantly ridiculous that in order to not hate Muslims you have to like Mohammad
That's not exactly what I'm saying. Think of it this way. You have a friend who has a favorite singer. You don't like the singer, for reasons, but you won't diss that singer in front of your friend. Unless you stop being friends for some reason, and you want to hurt your friend, you will diss that singer. It's similar but the dial is turn up to eleven, given that religion is involved.
>if people accept your rule here you are forcing tons of people to be intolerant towards Muslims and decline to show them kindness.
See above. If you were already planning on being unkind then you won't be stopped. But if you want to show respect don't diss someone people revere, at least not to their face, because we all know you will complain about your friend and his horrible taste in singers, to someone else.

[Anonymous No.21794232]

>>21794144
Sure, that's true, as we say intent counts.

[Anonymous No.21794239]

>>21794195
I just don't talk about religion with religious people beyond wishing them happy holidays. I keep my opinions on their faith to myself, and thi goes for people of all religions.

[Anonymous No.21794252]

>>21794195
You are not my friend. Sure I might not bring it up to them in the same way you don't bring up a woman's dead child, but doesn't mean I cannot in principle dislike Mohammad.

If you meant to say 'if you like/are friends with Muslims then don't insult Mohammad to their face' then that is obvious advice, then that is fine, but that is not what you said in your post >>21793949

>If you don't hate a Muslim then don't hate the prophet, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.21794275]

>>21794252
I am not saying that you can't in principle do it, you have the free will to do so, I am saying that it's offensive to do so and I have the free will to rip out your spinal cord if you do so in front of me. Am I making myself clear now?

[Anonymous No.21794297]

>>21794275
>I have the free will to rip out your spinal cord if you do so in front of me.
If you're physically capable of that, I'd be more impressed than anything else. But it's also a good reminder that the main appeal of this religion is how easy it is for people to use it to justify violent impulses. No matter how much they try to intellectualize it, it always comes back to this.

[Anonymous No.21794332]

>>21794275
That is not what you said originally, but ok at least there is clarification.
>I have the free will to rip out your spinal cord if you do so in front of me
ok edgelord kek.

[Anonymous No.21794335]

>>21793631
Address the actual content of the post beyond some misspelling and I will consider converting to Islam.

[Anonymous No.21794364]

>>21794335
by the way, for anyone interested in the darker aspects of Islam,

https://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-about-islam/sex-with-slaves-whats-the-deal/
>sex with slaves: what's the deal
>A female slave was under the right hand of her master and he was allowed to sleep only with whoever was under his ownership. This was considered like an indirect or special wedlock.


https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20802/intercourse-with-a-slave-woman-is-not-regarded-as-zina-adultery
>Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery)
>They captured some female prisoners and wanted to be intimate with them without them becoming pregnant. They asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about ‘azl and he said, “There is no point in doing that, for Allaah has decreed who should be created until the Day of Resurrection.”

For the Muslims in this thread, what is your perspective on sex slavery?

[Anonymous No.21794429]

>>21794335
>and I will consider converting to Islam.
Really dangling that schwarma in front of him anon

[Anonymous No.21794434]

>>21794429
I am being entirely serious.

[Anonymous No.21794498]

>>21794434
White convert here: I will take the time (a very long time) to address every point إن شاء الله if you will read the Quran after I do (Arberry translation)

[Anonymous No.21794516]

>>21794498
they used to be sexier, and the old ones basically look like greeks rather than the middle-easterny Arab looking ones on the right.

[Anonymous No.21794523]

>>21794516
hold on I regret using the word 'sexy', I just looked at the picture quickly. Pretty is a better word.

[Anonymous No.21794534]

>>21794498
>a very long time
I apologize for originally demanding the whole post to be answered, such a thing is simply ridiculous to expect. Are you asking me to read the entirety of the Quran? I believe that that is something I should eventually do regardless of my perspective on Islam, however that may also take a very long time. If your cherished book is relatively short, however, I will give it a try. (Thank you for including your preferred translation.)


>https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Rape_of_Slaves,_Prisoners,_and_Wives
>As such, the rape of slaves and wives is not considered unlawful in Islamic law. Almost to emphasise the point, the rape of the slaves of other men is treated as property damage, not as zina bil jabr deserving a hadd punishment.

[Anonymous No.21794542]

>>21794534
I forgot to mention that I would be perfectly satisfied if you were to only answer aspects of the post which you believe to be the most egregious examples of inaccuracy, sorry.

[Anonymous No.21794545]

>>21794534
Not who you are replying to: I have read it anon, it really not very long at all. Totally do-able without having to devote months or something like you would with the Bible.

[Anonymous No.21794556]

>>21794545
Thanks. I'm reading multiple books on the moment but I can easily read the rest of the Lord of the Rings later. Is there anything else that you think I should go over?

[Anonymous No.21794566]

>>21794556
I am slighly confused by your comment. Are you just looking for general book recomendations?

[Anonymous No.21794572]

>>21794566
Anything. By the way I just cheaply bought the translation off of amazon.

[Anonymous No.21794605]

>>21794534
The Quran is about as long as the New Testament. The Arbery translation might look thick but that is because it incorporates line breaks reflecting pauses and has a lot of introductory material.

In regard to concubinage--something recognized in the Bible--in Islam a concubine must be a public relationship.It is similar to marriage in that the children of such a union are consider legitimate and equal heirs and the concubine herself can no longer be sold. She also becomes an heir and when her master dies she is considered a free woman. We actually have testimony from a concubine of the prophet, Safiya. Now, she was a Jewish woman, her husband and father used to beat her a lot, however her whole tribe was wiped out and she became enslaved and taken as a concubine. By her own testimony she hated the prophet for decimating her people, but, he explained to her, he really didn't have an option because her husband and father betrayed him. Gradually she found him so considerate and gentler than her own family, and at that point she seriously considered Islam. She eventually did convert and married him.

Now is of course the question, is it ethical to take a woman captive as a wife or a concubine during times of war? First of all, rape in war is profuse no matter how progressive an army is. Islam however keeps soldiers from engaging in gang bangs and so on of women by saying no man can touch a captive woman until her master has been determined which is after the fighting. If the woman wishes, she can ask for a contract that frees her from captivity (all slaves are to be given this if they want it according to the Quran). Safiya herself requested this, that is how she met the prophet: she was another's slave and she opted to have a contract of freedom instead where a certain about of labor would be done above and beyond; she asked the prophet be a witness to the contract and he ended up buying her contract.

Back to women captives however, when women are taken captive, whether or not they. can become concubines is up to the leader or ruler, who chooses either that (in which case the soldiers who want them must for them from their share), or he can choose to ransom or use them for a prisoner exchange, which is often preferred.

[Anonymous No.21794639]

>>21794605
Your entire post simply informs me that your religion condones slavery and sex slavery. It fills me with disgust. With every slave woman who may have had their lives improved by their being enslaved by Muhammad (their lives would have been further improved were they not slaves,) I believe there may have been hundreds and hundreds of thousands of slaves whose lives were not improved.

Also, with the understanding (which of course may be incorrect, I am not sure,) that pedophilia and the marrying of children is also permissible, is child sex slavery condoned within Islam?

>is it ethical to take a woman captive as a wife or a concubine during times of war?
No it is not, nor is it at any other time.

[Anonymous No.21794646]

>>21794639
Don't tell your society is any better with many women have to sell themselves on only fans to pay for their education. The different between Islamic concubinage and liberal concubinage is that the former makes a woman legally family and it has a level of the dignity, the latter turns her into public property and strips her of any dignity

[Anonymous No.21794654]

>>21794646
>Don't tell your society is any better

I am very capable of looking down on multiple societies, anon. There are many things to be repulsed by in the world to be sure.

[Anonymous No.21794669]

>>21794654
It’s easy to but the reality is liberalism and abolitionism don’t eliminate concubines, they just make them public

[Anonymous No.21794672]

>>21794605
>rape in war is profuse no matter how progressive an army is.
Perhaps in your neck of the woods boy, but in the gentlemanly wars between Christian western European powers 1700-1900 we had standards
>>21794646
Literal whataboutism. Being a whore is bad, being forced into sexual slavery is also bad. Both bad, both condemn.

[Anonymous No.21794679]

>>21794672
I don’t for a minute believe Napoleon’s soldiers were not having sex, consensually or not, with women in the lands they went to

[Anonymous No.21794680]

>>21794669
Would you personally find it acceptable to own a sex slave yourself?

[Anonymous No.21794681]

>>21794672
>>21794679
I think I must point out as well that Aquinas and Augustine both advocated the legalization of prostitution since they considered it a necessary evil>>21794679

[Anonymous No.21794685]

>>21794680
I don’t want a sex slave, no. I in fact would prefer not to have a woman anywhere near me. But I don’t watch porn either.

[Anonymous No.21794687]

>>21794646
>women have to sell themselves on only fans to pay for their education
Literally not true at all. The women are doing this because they are whores that want a certain standard of life and onlyfans is easy (not that most of them make jack shit). No one in the west is becoming a prostitute because they are so poor they have to, they are doing it because they choose to. And of course, if you can't afford something, you can't afford something.

>I was 'forced' to become a drug dealer to children to finance my vinyl collection.


Education to 18 is completely free, and most western countries have student loans too if you want further education (not that you NEED it). In many European countries the government will literally just eat the cost if you don't earn over a certain threshold.

[Anonymous No.21794694]

>>21794687
Student loans often require qualifications and can be very high interest. Defined women do only fans to pay for education and just about every society either has had prostitution (includes porn) or concubines

[Anonymous No.21794697]

>>21794685
gae

[Anonymous No.21794700]

>>21794697
I’m sexually attracted to women I just don’t like them.

[Anonymous No.21794706]

>>21794694
Not in this country nigga. You are probably talking about the US. And again, this is literally irrelevant to the point the guy made about sex slavery being wrong.

HAS HAD is key here anon, and the point is the Islam ENDORSES sexual slavery, not that it happened in the Islamic world in the past.

[Anonymous No.21794707]

>>21794685
I was asking if you would find it acceptable, not if you actually wanted one at this time. If you did want one, would you purchase one if you had the opportunity? If a close family member wanted to buy one, would you object?

[Anonymous No.21794714]

>>21794706
And without concubines you get prostitutes and porn

>>21794707
I have no family. If I wanted a woman I would get married to a woman of interesting and vivid personality, not buy a woman.

[Anonymous No.21794723]

>>21794700
based? cringe? hmmm
>>21794707
lol wut?
>If you wanted a shit ton of meth would you buy meth?
>If you wanted to drink antifreeze would you?
bruh what are these questions?

>If a close family member wanted to buy one, would you object?
Yeah I would have an issue with my family literally engaing in sexual slavery.

The fact that you even asked that last question shows you or your religion has some serious problems anon.

[Anonymous No.21794724]

>>21794714
>I have no family
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, but my hypothetical question still stands.

>not buy a woman
Would you find it morally acceptable to buy one if you DID want one?

[Anonymous No.21794734]

>>21794723
I was asking the questions in order to understand the perspective of a Muslim. I was trying to find out if he thought sex slavery was okay, and therefore find out what kind of people (some) Muslims are. I was not endorsing slavery or something.

[Anonymous No.21794741]

>>21794724
There is nothing unethical buying a woman who is enslaved in a halal way and is guaranteed her rights in Shari’ah and can be publicly understood as a slave and can request a contract for freedom. Simply handing a wad of cash for a woman for your basement is not permissible.

[Anonymous No.21794753]

>>21794741
>sex slavery okay is when we're doing it
>being a literal slave is preferable to being a prostitute

This is stupid. I'm leaving this thread now. I'll still be reading the translation of the Quran I was recommended, though.

[MHK !BxpsZPnOyQ No.21794876]

>>21794741
You are an extremely intelligent individual

[Anonymous No.21794909]

>>21794741

[Anonymous No.21795082]

>>21794646
A society which allows women to choose to do such work is better than a society that forces them. I'm sure you would argue that economic circumstances may push women in that direction, and even if that isn't good it is still better (which is what this conversation was about) than a society that gives them no choice at all. The ability for it to be done in a dignified manner at all comes from it being a choice and society being able to protect them from harm for making that choice. To say anything else is to have a meaningless concept of "dignity."
There is the other case as to what happens when someone forces women into this position. That is bad, but we as a society would strive to find and punish those that did this and to compensate women for their suffering. A good example of this would be Muslim sex slaver Andrew Tate, who is currently under arrest for just that. What's interesting is that so many online Muslim figures have come to that man's defense, and they seem to support it because his actions are closer to a system they support and because tribalism trumps all other moral responsibility in this religion.

[Anonymous No.21796166]

>>21795082
He probably likes that guy anon.