the qur'an have you read it if so what did you take from it

File: 2.59 MB, 2592x1944, Quran_cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:07:22 2015 No.5994176 [Reply] [Original]

the qur'an have you read it if so what did you take from it

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:08:42 2015 No.5994184 I'm actually taking a seminar class on the topic this term.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:17:24 2015 No.5994228 >>5994176 1 yes 2 nothing of value

Sheikh Machboos Al-Kuwaiti Tue Jan 13 19:23:58 2015 No.5994258 [DELETED]

>>5994176
One of the greatest works of literature. It is gorgeous and the fact that it was composed by an illiterate man makes it more amazing.
I know people on 4chan hate Islam and anything associated with it but the best way to appreciate the literary merit of the Quran I think is by listening to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WvHMNuhH3Y

t.Arab

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:27:26 2015 No.5994280 No I'm sure the Bible has more literary and cultural value and is the true holy book

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:35:25 2015 No.5994332 >>5994176 Stop samefagging your thread OP.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:39:41 2015 No.5994359 islam is just "i'm god, there is not god but me, now do what i say" the bible has jesus dying on the cross, jesus performing miracles, jesus doing all sorts of cool shit, it's awesome, islam is so dull in comparison

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:47:02 2015 No.5994399 >>5994332 im not samefagging your imbecile

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:48:31 2015 No.5994416 File: 34 KB, 639x509, Sahih al-Bukhari 5.58.234-236.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5994359

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:49:00 2015 No.5994422

>>5994280
only because France, England and Russia have greater literary traditions. If Islam wasn't such a fucking (and I mean this in the least pol-fag way possible) Arab religion I'm sure countries like Turkey and Iran would have produced works that make Islam just as culturally significant.

Alas Islam ended up destroying more (Indian and Persian) culture than it created

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:49:32 2015 No.5994429 >>5994359 i got that from the video that guy just posted

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:50:45 2015 No.5994443 >>5994359 actual writing is better in the Koran tho

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 19:56:16 2015 No.5994487

>>5994359
>>5994429

Same guy, check out this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJC6m7k9YEU

>>5994422
Just because you are ignorant of Persian and Turkish cultural achievements doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. By the 17th century, the greatest Islamic empires were Turkish, Persian and Indian, and each was unique and had a lot of cultural output. Persian and Turkish culture are extremely rich and different. They might not seem like that to an outsider, but I can't tell the difference between the many European cultures but I am sure differences exist, otherwise they wouldn't have fought each other so much.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 20:11:05 2015 No.5994603 >>5994422 Have you studied Islamic history at all? Be honest.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 20:32:08 2015 No.5994774

1. Yes.
2. It's basically just a sequel to the bible. It retells old and new testament stories in interesting ways. I like the take on Jesus in it. Basically Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, taught, and was crucified, unlike Christianity, he wasn't God in human form and he didn't rise again in three days. He just appeared to be dead to the Jews around him and then a rich man took him down and sheltered him for a while and then he was in hiding and later died of natural causes.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 20:45:26 2015 No.5994884

>>5994603
on a superficial level, I'm not an expert.

I don't wanna go full neckbeard but perception is often more important than reality, ask Persians living in Urban areas and Indians they feel like their culture was Islamicized.

You can say that most Indians are prejudiced and just hate Muslims, and you're right, but I honestly think the Persians have a point. The literary tradition in Greater Persia has not been helped by the advent of Islam.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 20:47:22 2015 No.5994905 >>5994487 But ask secular Persians, Turks and Indians they geniunely believe that Islam did more harm than good to their cultures. I'm not some pol-fag, but you have to admit that Islam has an element of Arab supremacy in there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 20:51:08 2015 No.5994927 so in conclusion the qur'an has no spiritual value? i just want to get an understanding for why this religion is so violent and the first place i thought i go to is the book that started it all

>>	deleted Tue Jan 13 20:57:32 2015 No.5994975 The Islam faith destroyed Persian culture, they're is a reason why the only religion out lawed in Iran is Zoroastrianism

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:02:55 2015 No.5995014

>>5994884
>The literary tradition in Greater Persia has not been helped by the advent of Islam.

I don't see how this is true at all. Point me to a pre-Islamic work that's as good, as important, and as "Persian" as the Shahnameh.

>>5994905
>But ask secular Persians, Turks and Indians they geniunely believe that Islam did more harm than good to their cultures.

These perceptions reflect their political beliefs more than their actual historical awareness. Are we really going to pretend that pre-Islamic Turks produced anything of value at all? Islam disrupted some intellectual and cultural traditions in Iran and India when it first arrived, but it was hardly the only such disruption and both areas bounced back with new vigor under Islamic influence.

>but you have to admit that Islam has an element of Arab supremacy in there.

Apart from the privileging of the Arabic language, which I think has been a good thing, I don't think this has been very true at all. Not since the very early days under the Umayyads.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:06:03 2015 No.5995044 >>5994774 Muslims and Religion scholars tell me that Adam is far more important in the Qur'an than in the Bible

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:07:01 2015 No.5995053

>>5994975
>The Islam faith destroyed Persian culture, they're is a reason why the only religion out lawed in Iran is Zoroastrianism

The fuck? Zoroastrianism is explicitly recognized as a legitimate religion. Maybe you're thinking of Baha'iyyah, which isn't the same thing at all.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:07:39 2015 No.5995057

>>5994905
I believe that religions are mostly a expression of localized morals and value systems. So where they were designed determines what superiority they believe in, I think Christianity has a bit of Socrates and Plato mixed with Judaism and Jesus' original spin on all of that. Islamics are actually pretty correct when they see Christianity as a threat to their supremacy because they sure don't care about Arabs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:09:21 2015 No.5995072 >>5995044 Adam is considered a prophet whereas in Christianity I think his entire image is that of a failed experiment who ruined it for everybody.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:14:28 2015 No.5995108

>>5995044

Maybe. Adam appears in some important episodes that aren't part of Biblical lore. God commands the angels to bow in reverence to him, which is cited (especially by Sufis) as proof of the identity between the divine and the human. Satan's refusal to bow on this occasion is the reason he's cast out of heaven.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:10:21 2015 No.5995451

>>5995014
>I don't see how this is true at all. Point me to a pre-Islamic work that's as good, as important, and as "Persian" as the Shahnameh.

I'm no expert, I'm just parroting what I've heard from people more educated than me, a lot of pre-Islamic Persian literature was lost after conquest however.

>These perceptions reflect their political beliefs more than their actual historical awareness. Are we really going to pretend that pre-Islamic Turks produced anything of value at all? Islam disrupted some intellectual and cultural traditions in Iran and India when it first arrived, but it was hardly the only such disruption and both areas bounced back with new vigor under Islamic influence.

Fair point on the Turks, but you absolutely cannot make that argument for the Persians and Indians. Pre-Islamic India was outpacing Europe in Math and Astronomy, Pre-Islamic Persia was doing the same in Medicine and Maths.

>Apart from the privileging of the Arabic language, which I think has been a good thing, I don't think this has been very true at all. Not since the very early days under the Umayyads.

Bullshit. How is privileging Arab over Persian and Hindustani a good thing?

And its more than just language, theres a reason why every uneducated Indian and Pakistani Muslim claims to have Arab descent.

The center of power in Islam is (and has been since the fall of the Ottomans) the Arab world, the spread of Islamic culture is the spread of Arab culture. How can this be a good thing for India and Greater Persia.

Indians and Persiand don't do Purdah, they don't put their women in burqas. Arab culture still has a strong influence on Islam

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:20:15 2015 No.5995507

>>5994905
>Islam has an element of Arab supremacy in there.

You could argue it's the other way around. Since there was little barrier to become Muslim (basically all you have to do is declare you believe in Allah with Muhammad as a prophet), the Muslim regions once predominantly under Arab control ended up being dominated, depending on the era, by Central Asia horseriders or Persian emperors.

>>5994927
>asking 4chan for an assessment of spiritual value

next time you'll go to /a or /r9k for wether you should date a girl that's underage /lit can give good advice for a few things, and spirituality is absolutely not one of them. Just look up the oriental literature courses of any big uni like standford.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:21:35 2015 No.5995513

>>5994176
I hope it is good. I was so ashamed of masterbating one day that I "converted"
to Islam via live chat on this islamic site, and they sent me a translation of the qur'an and other literature all the way from Saudi Arabia.
Am I on some watch list now?

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:46:28 2015 No.5995594

>>5995451
> outpacing Europe in Math and Astronomy, Pre-Islamic Persia was doing the same in Medicine and Maths.

lol

There was almost none of any of those things in either Persia or India. In fact there was almost none of those things period before Western Europe invented science and all of higher mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:49:19 2015 No.5995604 >>5995513 >Am I on some watch list now? Very, very, likely tbh. There is no way forums like that aren't monitored.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:50:22 2015 No.5995606

>>5995451
>I'm no expert, I'm just parroting what I've heard from people more educated than me, a lot of pre-Islamic Persian literature was lost after conquest however.

Whatever may have been lost, it is nearly universally acknowledged that Persian literature and culture experienced one of its greatest florescences after the Islamic conquests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language#Classic_Persian

>but you absolutely cannot make that argument for the Persians and Indians.

I didn't. :-/

>Pre-Islamic India was outpacing Europe in Math and Astronomy, Pre-Islamic Persia was doing the same in Medicine and Maths.

This didn't change much under Islamic rule. Persian thinkers in particular received the eager patronage of 'Abbasid caliphs and later rulers.

>Bullshit. How is privileging Arab over Persian and Hindustani a good thing?

Arabic becoming a widely used intellectual lingua franca was a good thing. It allowed for the unprecedented diffusion and synthesis of ideas across a huge part of the civilized world.

In any case, it never really eclipsed Persian, which itself became the lingua franca of pretty much the entire Muslim world east of Iran. Hindustani hadn't completely taken shape before there was a Muslim presence in India. Besides, when the Mughals ruled there, Persian (and later Urdu, i.e. Hindustani) was the language of the ruling class—not Arabic. None of the major Muslim dynasties in India was ever Arabic-speaking.

> the spread of Islamic culture is the spread of Arab culture.

What do you know about pre-Islamic Arab culture? It was ultimately not much more influential in the formation of Islamic civilization than the Hellenic and Iranian cultures that had been dominant in the Fertile Crescent. By the time the Buyids took effective political control from the 'Abbasids (10th century), Arabs weren't even politically dominant in the Middle East. Turks and especially Persians have been at least as powerful and influential over the course of Islamic history.

Cultural influence flows in more than one direction. The Arabs were changed just as much as the Persians or the Indians or the Hindus by their encounters with other cultures, perhaps more.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:52:00 2015 No.5995611 >>5995604 I ordered a bunch of books on Islam and the Quran for a college class for my Religious Studies degree. No doubt every student taking that class ended up in a super secret government watch list.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:53:40 2015 No.5995618 >>5995606 >Indians or the Hindus *Indians or the Turks

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:55:39 2015 No.5995625 >>5995611 Buying college books on amazon? Probably not. Going to a conversion chatroom run by Saudi Arabians and asking them to send you materials from Saudi Arabia? Definitely.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:59:54 2015 No.5995643

>>5995594
nice b8

Number system - Indians

Fractions - Indians

Exponential Series - Indians

If you wanna call dicking around with Trianges higher mathematics, go for it, but you can't imply that the Eastern math systems were demonstrably more intuitive.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 23:06:55 2015 No.5995666

>>5995643
>Number system - Indians

Again no, just numerals.

>Fractions - Indians

No, many cultures independently developed fractional representations.

>Exponential Series - Indians

No. There is no evidence the so-called "Kerala school" was ever even known outside Kerala, and even then they only did a few pseudo-exponential series without even writing proofs, letting alone developing any kind of theory. The fact is that real mathematics starts with the Greeks and has basically been a European pursuit ever since.

In any case, even if one accepted the things you listed as true, they are completely trivial compared to even what the Greeks did (like, you know, inventing formal proofs and thus rigorous mathematics), let alone compared to Western Europe LITERALLY inventing all of higher mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 23:10:29 2015 No.5995678 >>5995643 Nice fedora, where can I get one like that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 23:10:31 2015 No.5995679 >>5995611 >I ordered a bunch of books on Islam and the Quran for a college class i hope you like guantanamo bay

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 23:16:49 2015 No.5995713

>>5995666
No one can compete with Western Europe after the fall from rome, I just think the Greeks get jerked off here without any thought.

Geometry that isn't informed by Algebra (which the Indians were closer to inventing than the Greeks see: Jain Maths) isn't as impressive as people here make it out to be.

Obviously axioms and formal logic legitimized mathematics as a study no one is arguing against, but most of the work after this was done by Western Europe and not the Greeks.

You can't give Greeks complete credit for all of Western European Mathematics just because they invented formal logic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 23:58:21 2015 No.5995927 >>5995513 Anything published or sponsored by Saudi Arabia is going to be shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 00:04:07 2015 No.5995950 >>5995927 why?

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 00:26:29 2015 No.5996029

>>5995950

Because they follow a dumb, puritanical revivalist movement from the 18th century. All of their literature reflects its principles, which are:

1. No fun allowed.
2. Our Islam is better than your Islam and you're going to hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 00:41:35 2015 No.5996070

>>5994422
>only because France, England and Russia have greater literary traditions.

That may be true for literary fiction, but the Islamic world, as horribly vague as that sounds, has a highly celebrated poetic tradition. I'm sure it could go toe-to-toe with that of any of the aforementioned nations.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 00:45:01 2015 No.5996078

>>5995713
>Geometry that isn't informed by Algebra

What do you think Descartes did when he wasn't doing philosophy?

The Greeks were the first people to do pure mathematics, the greek tradition was kept alive by the Romans and western europe inherited their respect for the greeks.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:46:16 2015 No.5997745
File: 131 KB, 480x455, 1419701150844.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5994359
Why don't you go read some more science fiction then pleb?

Muhammad was just a messenger and a role model, he said this himself. And he's not even the only valid role model, Islam does not have a "Jesus" it has a large group of Companions. The Quran is not the only Muslim religious text, and it's in fact one of the shortest. Most verses in the Quran also assume you understand what they are referring to in actual history, unlike the Bible which is more of a full fantasy history itself the Quran is more of a reference and interpretation of real history. If you want, "Wow that's badass" look into the lives of the first four sunni caliphs, these people went from children who were some of the first people to adopt the religion before they had more than 20 followers to grown men leading the entire Islamic army against other large empires in the course of 30-50 years. The cool thing about Islam is that it largely rejects mythos in turn for actual historicity, which can make it boring but at the same time makes it very unique.

Personally I find Christianity boring because a lot of it is rather bullshit. Jesus supposedly healed the sick and rose from the dead, which is just fanciful stories. Meanwhile Khalid actually conquered in battle, Omar actually led the government very well, and Abu Bakr actually codified and saved the Quran.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:55:48 2015 No.5997770 >>5994176 - kill all atheists, ex-muslims, and gays - follow a lot of weird rules - lying for the promotion of that religion is ok

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:58:34 2015 No.5997774

>>5994416
>I was only 9 years old
>I loved Allah so much, I had all the merchandise and movies
>I pray to Allah every night before bed, thanking him for the life I've been given
>"Allah is love" I say; "Allah is life"
>My dad hears me and calls me a faggot
>I know he was just jealous of my devotion for Allah
>I called him a cunt
>He slaps me and sends me to go to sleep
>I'm crying now, and my face hurts
>I lay in bed and it's really cold
>Suddenly, a warmth is moving towards me
>It's Muhammed
>I am so happy
He whispers into my ear "This is my caliphate."
>He grabs me with his powerful muslim hands and puts me down onto my hands and knees
>I'm ready
>I spread my ass-cheeks for Muhammed
>He penetrates my butt-hole
>It hurts so much but I do it for Allah
>I can feel my butt tearing as my eyes start to water
>I push against his force
>I want to please Allah
>He roars in a mighty roar as he fills my butt with his love
>My dad walks in
>Muhammed looks him straight in the eyes and says "It's Allah akbar now."
>Muhammed leaves through my window
>Allah is love. Allah is life.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:06:45 2015 No.5997796

>>5997770
This is all logical from a religious perspective. All non-religious should be subjugated by the enlightened group. This same theory exists in many different political theories, that a higher cultural class should control the lower masses. From a religious perspective the higher class is the pious group, who rule over the peasant masses of the nonspiritual.

Rules are what god intends for man. If he tells you to jump off a bridge you jump off the tallest bridge on the planet. The rules are mostly arbitary according to gods will, and not self sustaining outside a religious perspective. Following these rules from a religious perspective is not foolish, in the grand scheme of time God is going to allow you to live you're only going to have a very small amount of time on Earth. And since Earth is a test you should follow the rules so you can meet God's criteria and remain alive and with him, because you love him as a merciful creator who has offered you eternal paradise for obeying something so easy.

Lying for religion is fine from a religious perspective because it could save humans who otherwise wouldn't listen because they were determined to rebel because of preconceived notions. Though lying can also be wrong because it can spread false ideas of religion, so it's use is heavily regulated with things like Taqiyya and is treated as a very serious act.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:11:43 2015 No.5997813 >>5997796 >This is all logical from a religious perspective. And this is what makes this shit ("religions") so dangerous

kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Jan 14 11:12:03 2015 No.5997815

>>5997745
>Jesus supposedly healed the sick and rose from the dead, which is just fanciful stories.

muhammad supposedly traveled to the throne of allah on the back of some buraq animal with a power of teleportation to any point in its view, which is just a fanciful story

also

>Islam does not have a "Jesus"
islam does have jesus

so, it's about you
>Why don't you go read some more science fiction then pleb?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:14:56 2015 No.5997827 >>5997770 None of those things are even in the Qur'an except for "weird rules" I guess.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Jan 14 11:15:49 2015 No.5997833 also jesus in islamic tradition heals people too, by the power of his breath and walks on the water too and the bible, the old testament, has historic accounts similar to those in koran

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:16:42 2015 No.5997836 >Qur'an thread >People bring up Aisha, Buraq, and a bunch of stuff that isn't in the Qur'an at all Every time Officially haram

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:18:14 2015 No.5997842

>>5997813

>>5997815
Islam's fanciful stories are not that signifigant at all, you should read the Quran again and notice how almost all of them are simply mentioned once. Like the fall of man in the garden of Eden is referred to as a slip up and only takes up like half a page. They have little influence.

Yes it has a Jesus, but I'm referring to the comparison of jesus to Muhammad and the fact they act as different people with different methods. From the muslim story adding on to the already established faiths, starting at the time of Muhammad there are no more Jesus's or miracle workers, the emphasis is moved on from stories relying on myths to stories relying on history.

>>5997833
That is all understood, the point is the new religion moves on from the old religions methods of inspiration from miracle walks on water to actual success and inspiration from example by living men bound by the same rules as everyone else.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Jan 14 11:25:41 2015 No.5997875 >>5997842 >Islam's fanciful stories are not that signifigant at all if you want to dismiss muhammad as a prophet of god stripping miracles of jesus does the same, makes him into an ordinary charismatic figure who created a religion

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:29:54 2015 No.5997886 >>5997875 This taking theism seriously meme has to end.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:29:58 2015 No.5997889

>>5997745

>Islam does not have a "Jesus"

Nigger what?
"There is only one God (Allah), and Muhammed is his last and final prophet"

Besides that, they also have the actual Jesus of Nazareth. He's Islam's second prophet.

A more devoted muslim would chop your head off for your blasphemy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:32:27 2015 No.5997895 >>5997827 justification of killing: quran/9/5[3],abudawud/40/1[4],abudawud/40/112[1],and more -lying: Taqiyya (don't have the quote at hand)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:33:09 2015 No.5997899 >>5995014 >>5995507 >>5995606 >>5996070 >>5997827 >>5997842 >bunch of white american contrarians who still haven't got over being bullied by other white americans defend islam with their cursory knowledge of middle east history loving every laugh

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:35:41 2015 No.5997907 >Muhammad was just a messenger and a role model, he said this himself. So that's why his followers just killed 16 people for drawing a picture of him. Name some other "companions" that have this effect.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:42:46 2015 No.5997935

>>5997875
>dismiss as prophet

Your view of prophet is biased. Muhammad is a messenger because god chose him, not because he is divinely blessed or anything like this. Gabriel many times had to go up and prevent Muhammad from killing himself. From the Muslim perspective Muhammad is a man, a human being, just an exceptional one. They do not exalt "His holiness" or anything else but his human attributes, of which other people can possess. Muhammad also did not give himself as the only role model, many companions are considered near equal to Muhammad for similar reasons.

>>5997899
>defend islam

I am sick of this shit. Dealing away with false ideas does not mean you support the views of the group that is being biasely discussed. Get your tribalistic hivemind perception of truth out of here please.

>>5997907
Are they justified by their religion for that?

If you want to see other historically significant Muslims, look at any scholar or Caliph or great Islamic poet. These people inspired entire armies and led empires. More 21st century bullshit bias when discussing a religion, this board is really fucking low right now on the intelligence scale.

kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Jan 14 11:43:27 2015 No.5997939

>>5997886
mew? it has nothing to do with theism. regardless what you think of them, miracles in the scriptures of the both religions support the divine nature of their founders, they are like papers signifying credentials. i agree that the new testament relies on them more, they are the main means there to make people accept the proposed teaching, koran is more aggressive, here it mostly uses a history of islam conquests instead, still it mentions some miracles to prove that those conquests were what the god wanted, it's not unique, the old testament does basically the same where jews conquer people because their god is the true god and they follow his teaching and they suffer when they forget his teachings

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Jan 14 11:45:20 2015 No.5997953 >>5997935 >Muhammad is a messenger because god chose him, not because he is divinely blessed the difference eludes of me >From the Muslim perspective Muhammad is a man, a human being, just an exceptional one. i didn't deny it

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:46:01 2015 No.5997955

>>5997895

>quran/9/5

Immediately preceding it: "Except those of the idolators with whom you've struck a covenant. If they have not failed you or supported anyone against you, then fulfill their covenant until the end of their term. God loves the righteous indeed."

>abudawud/40/1[4]

Abu Dawud's Sunan is not the Qur'an.

>Taqiyya

"In Shi'a Islam, taqiyya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution... This practice was emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion.[3] Taqiyya was developed to protect Shi'ites who were usually in minority and under pressure, and Shi'a Muslims as the persecuted minority have taken recourse to dissimulation from the time of the mihna (persecution) under Al-Ma'mun in the 9th century."

Also not in the Qur'an.

>(don't have the quote at hand)

kek of course you don't.

Why do you try to talk about things you don't know about?

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:46:06 2015 No.5997956
File: 68 KB, 433x650, 6575763636536.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5997935

>I am sick of this shit. Dealing away with false ideas does not mean you support the views of the group that is being biasely discussed. Get your tribalistic hivemind perception of truth out of here please.

holy fuck dude

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:47:00 2015 No.5997961

>>5997935

> 21st century bullshit bias

No lets pretend we're all retarded medieval goatfuckers who believe the holy man in the sky is real. Lets see how that leads to fruitful discussion.

Oh wait, that would mean just shutting the fuck up and following a "great" Caliph while he kills thousands of people for believing the wrong man in the sky.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Jan 14 11:47:16 2015 No.5997963 i should admit that the phrase 'divine nature of their founders' is bad. i should have said 'the divine nature of their teachings'

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:50:51 2015 No.5997977

>>5997956
You just asserted I was a member of a group you don't like because I said something non-negative about the group. This is borg tier thinking, please understand.

>>5997961
I'm not pretending anything, I'm just discussing the religion and how Muslims view it. Instead of just shitting on the religion and ignoring how the people who actually encompass the religion practice it. There are thousands of incidents of human beings following things wrongly every day, what possible use could discussing this bring about? That's for /pol/ we are discussing a religion not modern day events. Not a single thing past 1000 AD was discussed until you added the France shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:51:14 2015 No.5997980 >>5997899 >cursory knowledge of middle east history But I've studied it extensively and have lived over there. >Bunch of dumbfucks hemorrhage buttangst over people they've never met and a religion they don't know anything about What's the point?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:53:23 2015 No.5997990 File: 49 KB, 512x512, photo[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5997961 >holy man in the sky wow man

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:55:14 2015 No.5997998 >>5997980 >people they've never met Dude, this isn't 1950. Muslims live in the west too these days.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:56:12 2015 No.5998002 Quran is literally bible fanfiction with Mohammed as some self inserted Mary Sue character.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:57:36 2015 No.5998005 >>5997998 You're right. Did Habib the gas station clerk try to impose Shar'iah on you today?

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:57:53 2015 No.5998006

>>5997990

>Le fedora meme proves the holy man in the sky is real

You think religious fanaticism is justified because religion is more than just a belief in a 'holy man in the sky'?
Do we need to speak with reverence of this 'holy man' for you to be able to keep up your illusion?
Why do you actively try to replicate the mental state of an illiterate peasant in the middle ages?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:59:22 2015 No.5998011 >>5998006 I haven't spoken in defense of religious fanaticism and I'm not sure what the rest of your post is getting at. I'm not the person you replied to, if that makes a difference.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:01:27 2015 No.5998026

>>5998005

That's borderline racist bro. I don't know how things work in (I'm assuming) America, but where I live gas stations are mostly manned by white folks, and muslims are normal people part of everyday life.

I did have to look at several women who are forced to cover their faces as they go out to do groceries. I did see one Shariah sticker yes, but then again I also saw an anti-islam sticker.

You can't claim that im just an ignorant white middle class NEET who has no relation to Islam at all. Its part of my everyday life and as such I am absolutely entitled to have an opinion on it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:03:01 2015 No.5998031 >>5998026 >That's borderline racist stopped reading there

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:03:14 2015 No.5998033 >>5997935 muhammad was exceptional enough that muslims want to emulate him... not surprisingly a lot of them have devolved into 'muhammad can't do no wrong' and fucking a 9 yr old is ok

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:06:41 2015 No.5998049

>>5998031

Why? Its a perfectly correct way to apply the word 'racism' in its current devolved state.
You assume the only muslims who live in my country have a shitty job and I only see them as they do service jobs for me?

In my country you'd be accused of racism for that, without a doubt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:08:18 2015 No.5998056 File: 105 KB, 600x400, 54654624652456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5998049

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:11:10 2015 No.5998071

>>5998026
>and muslims are normal people part of everyday life.

So what's the issue?

>I did have to look at several women who are forced to cover their faces as they go out to do groceries.

Never talked to many niqabis for fairly obvious reasons, but at least some of them tell me that they cover their face by choice. Still, it would be silly to deny that oppression of women is a problem in lots of Muslim societies. Women in many countries have been making significant strides, though, and I don't believe that the issue is purely religious in the first place.

>I am absolutely entitled to have an opinion on it.

Sure. Just as I'm entitled to disagree.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:17:30 2015 No.5998095 >>5998049 >In my country you'd be accused of racism for that, This means absolutely nothing. You get accused of racism for saying ''This guy on the road today was an absolute hazard! Must've been a Japanese guy..''

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:27:23 2015 No.5998144

>>5998095

My point exactly?
That's why the word applies here even though it technically doesn't.

>>5998071
I'm only disproving the claim that I've never met muslims. Just because something is normal doesn't mean it is (or I find it) desirable.

>>5998056

>Le funny hat meme didnt work! Maybe another image macro will prove im right!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:35:08 2015 No.5998181 >>5998144 >That's why the word applies here even though it technically doesn't. I wasn't really following the thread. If you weren't using it sincerely, then disregard my post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 18:18:31 2015 No.6000005 >don't know Arabic >tfw when you will never read the Qu'ran

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 22:46:07 2015 No.6001523

>>5994359
I think Islam, for the most part, is more wide ranged and accepting of Christianity than vice versa (excluding modern extremists, of course)

The Koran is such an interesting text that really lights up with any study of arabic, and I think you're really ignorant to say Islam reduces to just that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 22:47:14 2015 No.6001531 >>5994884 >superficial level >I've googled it a few times and glanced and some stuff pick two

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:23:46 2015 No.6001700 Yes, in Arabic Seems like a perfectly constructed ideology with the ultimate goal of spiritually, intellectually and polticially conquering all of humanity

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:34:03 2015 No.6001746 >>5997745 >muhammad >role model killing people and raping 9 year ols is not ok

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:41:38 2015 No.6001791 >>6000005 There are translations. My Muslim Iraqi friend offered to give me one

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:41:47 2015 No.6001792 >>6001523 I haven't look at the thread but it's probably a safe bet that this is the only decent post in the thread, or at least one of the few. >tfw no mod

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:47:14 2015 No.6001822 >>5994176 >>5997254

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:42:51 2015 No.6002583 >>5998049 It's not racism because being Muslim is not a racial trait As a matter of fact, you are the racist when you used white people as a different example because in your mind Muslims can't be white.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:00:05 2015 No.6002648

>>6001523
>more wide ranged
Christianity has 6 main branches reaching all over the world with denoms in each one, with protestantism having over 20,000 denominations. Islam has branches, but not like that

>accepting of Christianity

Of course it is. It's basically just a retelling of the bible OT and NT. Muslims are told to be neutral on stories that feature in the bible but not in the Qur'an because they believe, even though it's distorted, the bible was at one point the word of God. Christians believe Muhammad was a heretic who made up some extra shit later.

This is no different to how Baha'i are accepting of Islam, but Muslims think they are apostates.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:02:22 2015 No.6002659 >>6002648 Christianity only has 3 main branches. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. All the specific churches fall as denominations under one of the three.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:13:29 2015 No.6002694

>>6002659
Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Oriental Orthodoxy (if you think this is the same as Eastern Orthodoxy, you know nothing about Christianity)
Assyrian Church of the East
Anglicanism
Protestantism

Protestantism is only united in its approach to the bible, though, because they believe in sola scriptura, they differ wildly in views. You can't compare a snakehandler to a high church lutheran.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:14:13 2015 No.6002697 >>5995611 I find it amazing that in 2015 most Americans don't realize that they are not living in a free county by any stretch of the imagination. I guess folks really love their illusions.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:23:52 2015 No.6002737

>>6002648

He has a point. Islam stretches from Senegal to the Philippines to Kazakhstan to the Swahili coast pretty much without interruption. It radiated outward continuously and has historically probably been the religion with the most diverse followers. Christianity caught up relatively recently.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:31:05 2015 No.6002762

>>6002737

You realize that you're still just talking about one mass of conquered land. And most of those conquered lands were Christian, either by virtue of being the edges of the Byzantine Empire or by direct founding by Apostles. Egypt, Ethiopia, all through Russia and what are now former soviet countries, and then West Europe, what is now Turkey. Christianity is pretty much an Arab religion. It should be where Islam is most powerful. It only took root in Europe because it was forced out. But the Arab Christians are still there and they are older than any Islamic civilization. I don't see how a largely homogenous Islamic mass constitutes varied religion though.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:52:27 2015 No.6002863

>>6002762
>You realize that you're still just talking about one mass of conquered land.

The early conquests pushed its boundaries to the Atlantic in the west and to the edge of India in the east, but most of the people in this zone converted rather gradually. After about 750 it spread more often through commerce, ruler conversions, and missionary work. Anatolia/Balkans and India were the only major regions taken over by foreign Muslim forces after this, and most Indians and Balkanites never converted.

>And most of those conquered lands were Christian

Not even close.

> I don't see how a largely homogenous Islamic mass constitutes varied religion though.

If you really think that we're describing a 'largely homogenous Islamic mass,' I don't expect you to understand.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:00:03 2015 No.6002892

>>6002863
>Not even close.

On second thought I wouldn't phrase it this strongly. The conquered Mediterranean areas were largely Christian, yes. But with a few exceptions like Ethiopia, Christianity was pretty much a Mediterranean religion at the time of the Islamic conquests.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:04:13 2015 No.6002905
File: 49 KB, 804x543, christian-world-when-islam-began.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6002863
>The early conquests pushed its boundaries to the Atlantic in the west and to the edge of India in the east, but most of the people in this zone converted rather gradually. After about 750 it spread more often through commerce, ruler conversions, and missionary work. Anatolia/Balkans and India were the only major regions taken over by foreign Muslim forces after this, and most Indians and Balkanites never converted.

There are Syriac churches in India that existed before Islam was even a thing. Christianity was in Africa and the Middle East.

Pic related isn't even a comprehensive map and it shows a wide spread already before Islam began.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:08:48 2015 No.6002924

>>6002905

Islam may cover a great area and have ventured deeper into Africa and further east, but there were great limits to where it went. You can talk about differences between Senegal Muslims and Mali Muslims, but they are still black. Long before that, Christianity, in separate forms (this is most important because Ethiopia was never conquered. Ethiopia was introduced by an Apostle and has its own bible with 81 books and its own ancient customs that grew on their own), existed among blacks, among Arabs, among Armenians, and then into western europe, to the anglos, to greeks, a wide range of people of varying colors whose churches were birthed in peace and on their own.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:31:57 2015 No.6003007
File: 8 KB, 550x450, map23_rome.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6002905

What's your point?

>>6002924

Likewise, what's your point? Mine is that for most of the time during which Christianity and Islam have coexisted, Islam has probably been the more diverse faith. Compare the extent of each religion by the 15th-16th century and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm going to bed. If this thread's still around in the morning, I'll be back.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:33:22 2015 No.6003010 >>6003007 >Islam has probably been the more diverse faith. The plebness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:35:05 2015 No.6003014 >>6003010 Explain yourself so I can sleep soundly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:38:13 2015 No.6003022 >>6003014 The amount of different variations of christianity is spans the entire globe both in races, skin color but also in religious doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:47:38 2015 No.6003040 >>6003022 Please read my post again. Goodnight.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 15:54:36 2015 No.6005033 File: 1.74 MB, 2056x967, REG Quran.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The Quran is probably the oldest book that tells people to kill themselves. http://quran.com/22/15

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 15:59:18 2015 No.6005053 >>6005033 This is literally >not believing Allah supports muhammad in this life and thereafter Kill yourself infidel

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 16:01:03 2015 No.6005061 >>6005053 I guess /lit/goers have a lot more in common with Muslims than they thought

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 16:03:58 2015 No.6005073 >>6005033 for some reason I find that hilarious

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 16:10:45 2015 No.6005096 >>5995713 Chinese culture and development was ahead of europe fir literally millenia until som hundreds of years ago

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 16:45:40 2015 No.6005256 File: 67 KB, 495x367, top lel beaver.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5997774 kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 17:16:45 2015 No.6005368 >>6005033 >tells people to kill themselves what? there is nothing about killing yourself in your quote it has a law chapter, the bible has its too, see leviticus

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 17:35:27 2015 No.6005490

>>6005368
>>6005368
The links at the end 22:15

Whoever should think that Allah will not support [Prophet Muhammad] in this world and the Hereafter - let him extend a rope to the ceiling, then cut off [his breath], and let him see: will his effort remove that which enrages [him]?

The bible has similar Matthew 18:6

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Of course that sounds more like execution than suicide.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 17:48:57 2015 No.6005550 >>5994359 Completely wrong. The first word from the Qur'an that came to humanity was "Read".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 17:55:51 2015 No.6005584 >>6005033 Reading the Arabic alone it's really profoundly unclear what's going on in this passage.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 18:00:27 2015 No.6005614

>>6005033
>pic
Why is this bad? I assume you're referring to the 1 male two females part? If so then you should also realize that the the male in the family or marriage has to provide and pay expenses while the female doesn't have responsibility.
>link
this doesn't mean to kill yourself

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 18:14:13 2015 No.6005680

>>6005584
I have to admit that I don't understand it entirely but I feel like I get the idea of it.

First of all I had no idea "سبب" means rope and the [his breath] seems really out of place to me and I'm sure that the the word "ceiling" isn't mentioned but rather the word "sky" which is really obvious and an unacceptable error which makes me question the whole translation here.

I have a tafseer book in Arabic that is bound to have the answer but it's late now so I might post it later.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 18:31:54 2015 No.6005756

>>6005680

I don't know if I've ever seen سبب used to mean 'rope', but that's apparently one of its meanings. Lane says that it suggests a rope used for ascending or descending something.

I think the translation is just based on the interpretation favored by most of the prominent exegetes. Lane summarizes it and an alternative in his definition:

>Let him attach a rope to the roof, or ceiling, of his dwelling; then let him die strangled : i.e. let him die of rage

or

>Let him stretch a rope to the lowest heaven; then let him traverse the intervening space until he reach the highest part thereof.

Isn't Arabic fun?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 18:35:02 2015 No.6005777 >>6005680 >>6005756 But 'ceiling' is a possible meaning of سماء, it just signifies the canopy or highest part of something.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 18:39:39 2015 No.6005797

>>6005680
http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=199 This page suggests other interpretations. Either climb up to heaven and challenge god directly or do a magic trick, suspending yourself in the sky, and see if that sorts things out. Both seem pretty forced to me. If suicide is a taboo then it becomes difficult to express in a lucid way which might account for the elliptical nature of the passage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 18:42:00 2015 No.6005807 >>6005777 Nope. the use of sky seems to be intentioned here and going with ceiling which is fairly a stretch either way is really questionable. At least to me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 18:45:24 2015 No.6005824 >>6005797 I honestly think the problem is in the translation and I'll have to read the tafseer in arabic to be sure. I'm sure it's nothing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 19:13:43 2015 No.6005931 >>6005824 The major tafaseer tend to support the 'hang yourself' translation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 19:21:30 2015 No.6005970 >>6005931 That simply can't be true.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 21:31:26 2015 No.6006523 >>6005970 http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=49&ID=1200 I dunno, seems that way. As always, though, there is a dissenting view.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 21:38:53 2015 No.6006555

i have read bits and pieces of the quran, bible and other religious texts and while i can see some value in the mythology and the, umm, "lessons" they provide the writing itself is always shit. then again, it's been written and edited but dozens, if not hundreds of people and translated to hell and back.

but i really don't see how people can read that stuff and feel it's holy or enlightened. the pages of family trees in the bible were super cringeworthy. and the way god is clearly meant to be a "person-y" being in the beginning of the OT and is then more and more described as this "un-person-y", divine being just doesn't add up. honestly just by merit of it's /lit/ value, noone would publish this shit if it didn't come with a built-in fanbase

i know i'm tipping hard here but come on christfags

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 22:53:56 2015 No.6006928 >>6006555 All those problem you mentioned don't exist in the qur'an. Read [Maurice_Bucaille]_The_Bible,_The_Quran_and_Scienc(BookZa.org) For more on this subject

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 16 08:51:20 2015 No.6008841 File: 37 KB, 600x372, Ali-Ibn-Abi-Talib-Calligraphy-600x372.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6006523 >sunni tafsir of the quran I checked tafsir al mizan and it doesn't even mention suicide or a rope.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 16 18:06:14 2015 No.6010884 >>5994774 Thats not true. It says he ascended to the heavens instead of dying on the cross.

Anonymous Fri Jan 16 19:44:19 2015 No.6011353

>>6008841

>It isn't from my sect so I'ma just ignore it

K bro

>I checked tafsir al mizan and it doesn't even mention suicide or a rope.

By At-Tabataba'i?

والمعنى: من كان يظن من المشركين أن لن ينصر الله تعالى نبيه (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) في الدنيا برفع الذكر وبسط الدين وفي الآخرة بالمغفرة والرحمة له وللمؤمنين به ثم غاظه ما يشاهده اليوم من نصر الله له فليمدد بحبل إلى السماء - كأن يربط طرف الحبل على جذع عال ونحوه - ثم ليختنق به فلينظر هل يذهبن كيده وحيلته هذا ما يغيظ أي غيظة.

http://www.hodaalquran.com/rbook.php?id=3392&mn=1

Isn't that the tafsir you're talking about?

Anonymous Fri Jan 16 20:19:49 2015 No.6011460

>>5994422
>If Islam wasn't such a fucking (and I mean this in the least pol-fag way possible) Arab religion

It's literally a racist religion. You have to take an Arabic name and one of the things you have to do in your lifetime is a pilgrimage to the Gamecube.

>(and I mean this in the least pol-fag way possible)
You PC pussy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 16 20:26:43 2015 No.6011476 >>6011460 >You have to take an Arabic name Source? Also, how are either of those things racist?

Anonymous Fri Jan 16 21:07:22 2015 No.6011600

>>6011460
>You have to take an Arabic name

But that's not true at all.

>and one of the things you have to do in your lifetime is a pilgrimage to the Gamecube.

"And due to God from the people is the pilgrimage to the House [of Abraham]—for those who are able to find a way there."

"...for those who are able to find a way there."

Try harder next time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 16 21:22:50 2015 No.6011639 File: 51 KB, 356x368, 1410214763528.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's shit and it promotes a culture of radicalism to enforce itself over others

>>	None !EghQxOgVPg Fri Jan 16 21:36:13 2015 No.6011687 >>6011639 Its just a book dude

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 16 21:39:36 2015 No.6011700 >>6011639 no it dont

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Fri Jan 16 21:42:57 2015 No.6011713 >>6011687 It is just a book, but it's taken as "holy" script, and "divinely inspired" so animoo-kid was just venting about that aspect of it

Anonymous Fri Jan 16 21:52:54 2015 No.6011747

>>6011687
>>6011700
It's just a book, but it's considered holy and at face value.
It promotes itself to be used in some sort of radical crusade to get itself as the only truth. I am not saying it enforces violence, but it does not abide or tolerates another opinion of the same level

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 00:49:10 2015 No.6012278 Lots of stuff about how you'll go to hell if you don't believe in the rantings of an illiterate businessman and part-time warlord from 7th century Saudi Arabia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 12:54:49 2015 No.6014232 >>6012278 >7th century Saudi Arabia. >7th century >Saudi

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Sat Jan 17 13:02:57 2015 No.6014273 >>6014232 People call it Turkey all the time, even when referring to the time when it was Anatolia But yeah, 7th century...

Anonymous Sat Jan 17 13:12:10 2015 No.6014309

>>6014273
>People call it Turkey all the time, even when referring to the time when it was Anatolia

Those people are stupid. Anyway, calling Arabia at the time 'Saudi Arabia' is like calling Anatolia at the time 'Ottoman Anatolia.' My autism won't stand for it.

>But yeah, 7th century...

Over 1,000 years before Arabia was Saudi

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Sat Jan 17 13:48:02 2015 No.6014420 >>6014309 >My autism won't stand for it. Hahah. Okay okay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 17:07:32 2015 No.6015219 http://quran.com/2/26 What does this example mean?

Anonymous Sat Jan 17 17:48:11 2015 No.6015387

>>6015219

The Qur'an uses a lot of metaphors. Some people apparently took issue with this, arguing that a real divine revelation wouldn't deign to compare things to rainstorms and spider webs and so on. This passage affirms that there's nothing debased about using comparisons to explain things, even comparisons to something as lowly as a mosquito/gnat (ba'uthah.)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 17:49:59 2015 No.6015390 >>6015387 *ba'udah.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 17:54:10 2015 No.6015407 >>6005614 I think the meaning is: the quran is boring

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 18:03:28 2015 No.6015438 I have it installed on my phone and I take bits and pieces of it every now and then. I think it's good. There's nothing more or less spiritually about the Bible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 18:04:58 2015 No.6015442 >>5995513 Yes nigger, the US government watches all 1 billion people interested in Islam

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 18:44:20 2015 No.6015581 File: 58 KB, 600x400, 3a020bd3485034b535b4eae840680892.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6000005 >not reading the arab machiavelli how it is supposed to be read

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 18:47:27 2015 No.6015599 Mostly stuff about killing infidels, apostates, faggots, your children etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 21:26:11 2015 No.6016413 >>6015599 But literally none of that stuff is in there except for killing infidels

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 10:26:17 2015 No.6018568

>>6016413
>Islam = Peace (biggest piece of propaganda since UK)

However, Ask your Imam what is the penalty for Apostates ? They will all tell you death. Death to deserters ? Doesn't this indicate an authoritative dictatorship ? When are Islamic going to get out of the middle ages like most of Christianity especially the Catholics ? Islam needs modernization and better yet a proper leader, there are to many ignorant and intolerable Muslims who we believe some person who says "No the Qur'an means blow up in name of allah etc.." The people are very arrogant, and a lot of christian-arabs say they are like the plague, they come one by one and slowly theirs a community who is ready to take claim stating that majority wins or we were here first. It's unfortunate but most Muslims I've met are highly irrational when it comes to there precious religion. I know a lot of Muslim people quick to claim they're about peace, but the moment you say your opinion on islam, or example see that they're being mocked by a shock-jock bait article go up in a roar ready to kill any infidels.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 14:19:20 2015 No.6019497 >>6018568 I thought we were talking about a book.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 14:29:56 2015 No.6019535
File: 24 KB, 229x377, 1414175349988.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6015599
I am not going to talk about the other ones but killing your children is explicitly forbidden. After all it was one of the mayor Jahiliyya sins the Arabs committed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 14:31:22 2015 No.6019540 File: 68 KB, 267x400, 623484_stock-photo-smiling-old-man-having-coffee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6018568 fuck

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 14:50:41 2015 No.6019618

If you were an islamtolerant liberal when you started you won't be when you finish. It is pure violent dogmatic garbage. And you will not be deceived by "moderate Muslims" trying to fish some small sembelence of liberalism out of that caucophony of barbaric tribalism.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 15:46:48 2015 No.6019797

>>6019618
>And you will not be deceived by "moderate Muslims" trying to fish some small sembelence of liberalism out of that caucophony of barbaric tribalism.

I know brother. These mudslimes need to realize that reading a translation of their scripture once makes me an unassailable authority on their religion.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:03:02 2015 No.6019836

The Qur'an is a great and interesting book, it gives a great insight into the real Muhammad and the situation of Arabia in the 7th century. It's a pretty concise book and delivers a clear message when read as a whole. You can tell it was made over one lifetime rather than how the bible is put together from parts thousands of years separate.

I find that if Muslims followed the Qur'an and the Qur'an only they and their religion would be amazing. There are a growing number of Muslims who do this. The majority of the bad things if not all about Islam come from the Sunnah and Hadith, which were written centuries after the Qur'an. Islam was also wrecked by becoming totally cultural Bedouin once Muhammad died. Muhammads Muslims were city folk, and it was a liberal religion with new traditions and values to Arabia. But once he died and it spread to all the other Arabs, such as the bedouin, their ways completely overtook Muhammads islam and it became a Bedouin Arabian religion which is still is to this day, rather than the pure monotheism and nothing else it was supposed to be.

But theologically, if you look at just the Qur'an and ignore all the rest of the cultural baggage Islam has picked up, it's an extremely sound religion. It knows what it's about, it knows what it preaches and it doesn't contradict itself on that. Please don't post some supposed contradictions, this is /lit/, everyone knows that a single sentence alone can take a completely different meaning to within a chapter.

There is a reason there is less than 100 sects of Islam but some 30,000 sects of Christianity.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:06:29 2015 No.6019853

>>6019618
that's funny, after finishing the Qur'an i realized it wasn't about violence at all. Sure, it talks a hell of a lot about war, but if this book is meant to be divine guidance for all humanity, and if humans clearly like to kill each other, than I'd wager a book to guide humans will include a lot about war. But when read, the message is clear, only retaliate against those who attack you.

Seriously, whenever people post violent verses, if they just read on a few more, there is always one saying, but don't attack people who don't attack you. Even the famous Verse of the Sword says so a few verses later.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:12:10 2015 No.6019879 >>5997895 This Taqiyya meme is bullshit dude, it simply doesn't exist. All the quran says is you can lie if it gets you out of being killed for being muslim.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:13:15 2015 No.6019886 >>6005680 i can talk arabic and "سبب" means cause it s not in anyway related to rope

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:14:53 2015 No.6019894

>>6002648
>This is no different to how Baha'i are accepting of Islam, but Muslims think they are apostates.
Yes but to be fair the Bible says more prophets will come, the Qur'an does not. So Christians have more reason to accept Islam than muslims do for baha'i

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:20:20 2015 No.6019907 >>6019886 traditionally speaking "سبب" can most definitely mean rope, or door, or road. It is a word with many meanings.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:24:56 2015 No.6019916 >>6019907 only in a metaphorical way

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:28:49 2015 No.6019928

>>6005680
Tafseer of the quran is always such bullshit.

The quran states over and over that its clear and easy, so why these muslims feel the need to add their own official interpretations i don't know, they're basically disagreeing with the word of God.

But then they do that as soon as they follow a hadith too.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:34:24 2015 No.6019945

>>6005490
Literal word for word translation

>Whoever thinks that not Allah will help him in the world and the Hereafter, then let him extend a rope to the sky, then let him cut off, then let him see whether will remove his plan what enrages.

It seems to be saying, if you think God won't help you, climb into the sky, and jump down, as in to kill yourself, and then you can see if that solves your problems or not.

It's basically saying suicide isn't the answer, god is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:36:01 2015 No.6019955 >>6019928 >But then they do that as soon as they follow a hadith too. Quranist please.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:38:56 2015 No.6019967 >>6019955 It's true isn't it. It says time and time again that you don't need anything other than the Qur'an. Also, the same logic which muslims apply to the bible applies straight to the hadith.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:42:54 2015 No.6019983 >>6019967 >It says time and time again that you don't need anything other than the Qur'an. It does say this quite frequently, to the unbelievers, when it is referring to itself as a proof of god. Not when it is talking about law.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:47:28 2015 No.6019997 I love how all the /pol/tards talk about religion with little to no clue what so ever

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:50:18 2015 No.6020013

>>6019983
>It does say this quite frequently, to the unbelievers, when it is referring to itself as a proof of god. Not when it is talking about law.
It is always when it is talking about the law.

>Nothing has been left from the Qur’an, it explains everything and no other source is needed to explain it or understand it, or to give extra guidance.

6:114 - "Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed" Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.

16:89 - And on the day when We will raise up in every people a witness against them from among themselves, and bring you as a witness against these-- and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit.

12:111 - There was certainly in their stories a lesson for those of understanding. Never was the Qur'an a narration invented, but a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of all things and guidance and mercy for a people who believe.

41:3 - A Book, in which the verses are explained in detail; A Quran in Arabic, for (those) people who understand;

10:37 - And this Qur’an is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the Book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds.

39:23 - God has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent, and points out both ways (to Heaven and Hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for God’s message. Such is God’s guidance; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. As for those sent astray by God nothing can guide them.

7:52 - We have given them a scripture that is fully detailed, with knowledge, guidance, and mercy for the people who believe.

>The Qur’an was made easy, we don’t need scholars or Hadith to explain it to us.

54:17 - And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

2:159 - Surely those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed after We made it clear in the Book for men, these it is whom Allah shall curse, and those who curse shall curse them too.

75:16-19 Do not move your tongue with it to make haste. It is for Us to gather and relate it. So when We relate it, you shall follow its revelation. Then it is for Us to explain it.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:52:06 2015 No.6020023

>>6019916

http://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8/

>>6019928
>The quran states over and over that its clear and easy

And for its original audience, it was. But later generations haven't had the benefit of experiencing the circumstances of its revelation directly. In order for some parts of it to be clear, we have to consider the significance of what it's saying in the context of what was happening to the early Muslim community at the time. This means that we have to be able to reconstruct that early history to some extent in order to grasp the book's significance more completely.

That's why disciplines like hadith compilation and tafsir arose in the first place. The experiences of the original community were slipping out of living memory and into history.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:52:06 2015 No.6020024 >>6019928 The Qran states that portions of it are imcomprehensible to men.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:52:58 2015 No.6020026

>>6020013
>>6020013
>God condemns the Hadith by name, and tells us the only book needed is the Qur'an.
>Note, the actual Arabic word used here is Hadith.

45:6 - These are Gods revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?

7:185 - Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in?

31:6 - Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.

77:50 - Which Hadith, other than this, do they uphold?

>Muhammad was forbidden from creating laws and guidance. He was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an. The Hadith and Sunnah are the supposed laws and guidance of Muhammad, which is forbidden by the Qur’an.

69:44-48 - Had he uttered any other teachings. We would indeed have seized him by his right hand. And would have cut off his main vein. None of you could have helped him. This is a reminder for the righteous.

10:15 - And when Our clear revelations were recited to them, those who do not wish to meet Us said: "Bring a Qur'an other than this, or change it!" Say: "It is not for me to change it of my own accord, I merely follow what is inspired to me. I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of a great Day!"

72:21 - "Say O Muhammad, "I possess no power to harm you, or benefit you through guiding you."

55:1-2 - The Almighty. He has taught the Qur’an.

66:1 - O you prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, just to please your wives? God is Forgiver, Merciful.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:53:59 2015 No.6020030

>>6020026
>Following religious laws not ordered by God is to transgress God's word, only God is allowed to decree Islamic law. Muhammad and religious scholars are forbidden from giving Law, they are forbidden from prohibiting or allowing anything themselves.

16:105 - The only ones who fabricate false doctrines are those who do not believe in God's revelations; they are the real liars.

3:94 - Those who fabricate false prohibitions after this, and attribute them to God, are truly wicked.

5:87 - O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by God, and do not aggress; God dislikes the aggressors.

6:119 - Why should you not eat from that upon which God's name has been mentioned? He has detailed for you what is prohibited for you, unless you are forced. Indeed, many people mislead others with their personal opinions, without knowledge. Your Lord is fully aware of the transgressors.

6:140 - Losers indeed are those who killed their children foolishly, due to their lack of knowledge, and prohibited what God has provided for them, and followed innovations attributed to God. They have gone astray; they are not guided.

7:32 - Say, "Who prohibited the nice things God has created for His creatures, and the good provisions?" Say, "Such provisions are to be enjoyed in this life by those who believe. Moreover, the good provisions will be exclusively theirs on the Day of Resurrection." We thus explain the revelations for people who know.

5:103 - God did not prohibit livestock that begets certain combinations of males and females, nor livestock liberated by an oath, nor the one that begets two males in a row, nor the bull that fathers ten. It is the disbelievers who invented such lies about God. Most of them do not understand.

6:144 - Regarding the two kinds of camels, and the two kinds of cattle, say, "Is it the two males that He prohibited, or the two females, or the contents of the wombs of the two females? Were you witnesses when God decreed such prohibitions for you? Who is more evil than those who invent such lies and attribute them to God? They thus mislead the people without knowledge. God does not guide such evil people."

16:116 - You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: "This is lawful, and this is unlawful," to fabricate lies and attribute them to God. Surely, those who fabricate lies and attribute them to God will never succeed.

>The Qur'an makes a prophecy that people will fabricate lies about the Prophet in order to deceive people. The Hadith and Sunnah fulfill this prophecy.

6:112 - We have permitted the enemies of every prophet—human and jinn devils—to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 16:55:24 2015 No.6020037

>>6020023
>And for its original audience, it was. But later generations haven't had the benefit of experiencing the circumstances of its revelation directly. In order for some parts of it to be clear, we have to consider the significance of what it's saying in the context of what was happening to the early Muslim community at the time. This means that we have to be able to reconstruct that early history to some extent in order to grasp the book's significance more completely.
If the qur'an is designed for all of humanity for all the future after muhammad, it would have included all this explanation if it was necessary. It would have at least instructed it to be recorded. It stats several times that it is complete. To believe otherwise is to say God is lying.

It's also very obvious that the hadith are totally unreliable.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 18:15:16 2015 No.6020298

>>6020026
>God condemns the Hadith by name, and tells us the only book needed is the Qur'an.

You're conflating the general meaning of a word with a specific use that arose centuries after the Qur'an was revealed. The fact that prophetic reports are commonly called 'hadith' has no Qur'anic significance.

Ash-Shafi'i, who famously argued for the authority of these reports in matters of fiqh, used the term 'hikma' (i.e., [prophetic] wisdom.) The picture changes quite a bit if we take this information into account.

'Al-kitab' and 'al-hikma' are juxtaposed throughout the Qur'an:

Al-Baqara 129:
رَبَّنَا وَابْعَثْ فِيهِمْ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِكَ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ ۚ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ

[Our Lord, raise up a messenger from among them who recites your verses to them—who teaches them the the Book and the Wisdom and purifies them. It is You who is the Mighty, the Wise.]

See also 2:151, 2:231, 3:48, 3:79-81, 3:164, 4:54, 4:113, 5:110, 45:16, 62:2.

We're also told that Muhammad, in addition to being a bearer of revelation, is an exemplar:

ِAl-Ahzab 21:
لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا

[There is for you an excellent example in the messenger of God—for whoever has hope in God and the Last Day, and who remembers God often.]

The Arabic word is أُسْوَةٌ .

Lane gives the following definitions: "An example; an exemplar; a pattern; an object of imitation; a person by whom one takes example."

>69:44-48 - Had he uttered any other teachings.

This is a misleading translation. The original is

وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ

[And had he fabricated some sayings against Us...]

'Alayna—'against/upon us'—makes it clear that the transgression would be the -false attribution- of sayings -to God-. This is especially clear when you remember that the verses immediately preceding this talk about how the Qur'an has come from the Lord. The meaning here is that Muhammad hasn't falsely attributed anything to God by inserting it into the Qur'an.

I'm not going to go through everything you've cut and pasted to refute you point-by-point. This should be enough to give you an idea of why the 'Qur'anist' reasoning is flawed.

If you want to continue this discussion, please do so using your OWN specific arguments instead of trying to overwhelm people with pilfered walls of text.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 18:23:20 2015 No.6020322

>>6020037
>f the qur'an is designed for all of humanity for all the future after muhammad, it would have included all this explanation if it was necessary.

Why? It tells us that it was delivered through Muhammad as an Arabic recitation. If we're expected to know Arabic to understand it, why shouldn't we also be expected to know the historical circumstances surrounding its revelation? If the former doesn't affect its universality, why should the latter?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 18:23:36 2015 No.6020324 I am thankful muslims are vague-minded & not jewish and the defense of their religion is lightweight compared to marxists

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 05:44:54 2015 No.6022545 >>6020324 What do you mean by vague-minded? Muslims on lit are going to be reasonable, your average street muslim will get all offended and some even will try to kill you.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 05:54:31 2015 No.6022568

>>6020322
>why shouldn't we also be expected to know the historical circumstances surrounding its revelation?
Because it clearly states that nothing else is needed but the Qur'an within the quran. You keep making arguments which disagree with the Qur'an it's self which is my point. No one can call themselves muslim if they claim the Qur'an is wrong.

>>6020298
>You're conflating the general meaning of a word with a specific use that arose centuries after the Qur'an was revealed. The fact that prophetic reports are commonly called 'hadith' has no Qur'anic significance.
I am yes, the arabic word for stories is Hadith, the Qur'an repeatedly says, do not follow other hadith than this one (the Qur'an). centuries later we have real islamic stories also called hadith. So they're called stories, the Qur'an says, don't follow other stories, how could it be any more clear?

>We're also told that Muhammad, in addition to being a bearer of revelation, is an exemplar:
It is true that the Qur'an calls muhammad an example, but this is at most a reference to the people following him at the time, who needed leadership. It's clear that after he is gone, due to so many extremely clear verses, that you should just follow the Qur'an.

>I'm not going to go through everything you've cut and pasted to refute you point-by-point. This should be enough to give you an idea of why the 'Qur'anist' reasoning is flawed.
Even if some can be interpreted differently, they all cannot, and the message is clear, just follow the Qur'an.

The wall of text is a blog post i wrote years ago. I think i laid it out pretty clearly, an argument, supported by verses from the Qur'an. I think any muslim who sees this and continues to believe in the hadith is in hard denial.
There is so much evidence against the hadith.
1. The Qur'an massively and undeniably opposes it, and this should be enough evidence for any muslim if they believe the quran to be the word of God.
2. The Hadith are ridiculously unreliable, written centuries after Muhammad died, transmitted orally until that time, extremely contradictory, absolutely massive in volume. It's a game of chinese whispers over 200 years which is now religion canon.
3. Many hadith are downright insane, entirely insulting to islam and muhammad, and are the cause of the majority of mockery and criticism that Islam gets today.

There's simply no reason to follow them, and it's also impossible given the volume. If God wanted you to have more laws than the Qur'an, he would have written more. He definitely wouldn't have wanted a man to collect hearsay centuries later for muslims to follow more than the quran itself.

Open your eyes man. I know its hard and goes against everything you've been taught but just think about it.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 13:09:47 2015 No.6023721

It is time for my favorite hadith

Enjoinment Of Brushing One's Teeth
الحَثُّ عَلَى السِّواكِ
Imam al-Sadiq (AS) was once asked, 'Do you consider all of these people as being real human beings [true to their nature]?' to which he replied, 'Exclude from them the one who does not brush his teeth, …'
الإمامُ الصّادقُ (عَلَيهِ الّسَلامُ) ـ لَمّا سُئلَ: أتَرى هذا الخَلقَ كُلَّهُ مِنَ الناسِ ؟ ـ: فقالَ: ألْقِ مِنهُمُ التارِكَ للسِّواكِ .
Bihar Al-Anwar, P. 128, No. 11

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 13:11:42 2015 No.6023730 >>6023721 DEATH TO THOSE WHO INSULT FLOSSING

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 13:33:16 2015 No.6023832
File: 215 KB, 640x1439, 1412933995592.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6020013
>6:114
>7:52
Do not at all invalidate the Sunnah of the prophet. Fully detailed does not mean simple to understand or completely independent.
16:89
The word clearly is not mentioned in Arabic. Sounds like there is room for some extra explanation.
>12:111
Again, detailed is not actually written in Arabic.
>41:3
>10:37
>39:23
Do not forbid the usage of hadith at all
>54:17
It is easy to understand, If you use the hadith
>2:159
>75:16-19
Are completely irrelevant to your point.
>45:6
>77:50
Only argue against jahiliyya hadith, they do not at all argue against the hadith of the prophet, after all, those to are part of the revelation.
>7:185
Here hadith just refers to any saying, reminding us that the only certainty in this life is our death
>69:44-48
>16:116
exactly because he is forbidden from creating his own law do we now that his sunnah are correct, and a revelation from god
>10:15
>muhammed was not allowed to change the quran thus the hadith are invalid
>72:21
this only means that everything is in the hand of god.
>55:1-2
Do you just post random verses?
>66:1
Talks about something else entirely.
>16:105
Are you equating the prophet with those who do not believe in gods revelation
>3:94
The sunnah of the prophet already existed during his life time, they were part of the revalation, it just wasn’t codified
>5:87
Things the prophet forbade are not made lawful to us, so we are allowed to forbid them.
>6:119
>7:32
>6:144
>6:140
Completely irrelevant to the hadith of the prophet, they just talk about that some people have forbidden things god made lawful and done things god has made unlawful
>6:112
Thank god we have something called hadith science to figure out which hadith are trustworthy and which are lies

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 13:44:19 2015 No.6023878 File: 290 KB, 531x471, Halal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6023721 Proper mouth hygiene.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 15:12:55 2015 No.6024231

>>6023832
>6:114
>7:52
>Do not at all invalidate the Sunnah of the prophet. Fully detailed does not mean simple to understand or completely independent.
If the Qur'an is fully detailed, why do you need the Sunnah of the prophet to explain it. That's how it invalidates it.
>16:89
>The word clearly is not mentioned in Arabic. Sounds like there is room for some extra explanation.
Every translation puts it as "Explaining all things", which again invalidates the need of extra books of guidance.
>12:111
>Again, detailed is not actually written in Arabic.
It is according to almost all translators. http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/12/111/default.htm and the arabic word means detailed explanation http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=fSl#%2812:111:17%29
>41:3
>10:37
>39:23
>Do not forbid the usage of hadith at all
No not directly, the point is that the Qur'an is repeatedly calling itself clear and fully detailed, while the hadith are there to explain the Qur'an, so the hadith as a concept is a contradiction to Gods word.
>54:17
>It is easy to understand, If you use the hadith
The hadith aren't easy, theres so many of them, they completely outnumber verses of the quran, theres continual debate 1400 years over which are reliably or not, so if what God means is that the quran is easy to understand aslong as you have a huge volume of chinese whispers, then you're right. But somehow i dont think thats true.
>2:159
>75:16-19
>Are completely irrelevant to your point.
Just more on how it's already explained so hadith are unnesscary. The Qur'an says "It is for US to explain" ie the angels, not Burkhari and the rest of the hadith compilers
>45:6
>77:50
>Only argue against jahiliyya hadith, they do not at all argue against the hadith of the prophet, after all, those to are part of the revelation.
In which stories other than the Qur'an do they uphold? Well, they uphold the hadith stories, which these verses clearly condemn.
>7:185
>Here hadith just refers to any saying, reminding us that the only certainty in this life is our death
Yeah, which story of God other than the Qur'an? The hadith fit into that catagory as well as any other religious text.
>69:44-48
>16:116
>exactly because he is forbidden from creating his own law do we now that his sunnah are correct, and a revelation from god
He was forbidden from creating his own law, the hadith are absolutely full of laws supposedly attributed to muhammad which is a direct contradiction to the qur'an here. The Sunnah is not a revelation from God.
>10:15
>muhammed was not allowed to change the quran thus the hadith are invalid
He wasn't allowed to change the qur'an, which would extend to not making up hundreds of petty laws which often contradict the quran.
>72:21
>this only means that everything is in the hand of god.
No, it means, Muhammad says he cannot guide you, so only God can guide you. So the sunnah being an entire guide by muhammad is thus invalid.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 15:13:56 2015 No.6024234

>>6024231
>55:1-2
>Do you just post random verses?
Okay that one shouldn't be in there.
>66:1
>Talks about something else entirely.
It doesn't. This is an important verse to support Qur'an alone. Muhammad literally gets told off by God for banning something. The hadith are completely full of things being banned, why do you think islam has such a reputation of things being forbidden, some sunnis even think masturbating is forbidden. Here the Qur'an condemns muhammad for forbidding things which God has not forbidden, which invalids the entirely of the things the hadith forbids.
>16:105
>Are you equating the prophet with those who do not believe in gods revelation
Muhammad had a wobble and revealed some made up verses, the quran quickly punished him, this shows he is not infallible.
>3:94
>The sunnah of the prophet already existed during his life time, they were part of the revalation, it just wasn’t codified
If they were part of the revelation they would be in the quran, but they are not. The Qur'an is the revelation, so what you're saying is that muhammad made up his own part of Gods word and didnt have it put into the quran, which is pretty much against everything the quran has said so far.
>5:87
>Things the prophet forbade are not made lawful to us, so we are allowed to forbid them.
According to what, because the quran repeatedly states that only the quran itself can forbid things, not muhammad or anyone else.
>6:119
>7:32
>6:144
>6:140
>Completely irrelevant to the hadith of the prophet, they just talk about that some people have forbidden things god made lawful and done things god has made unlawful
Completely related to the hadith. "they just talk about that some people have forbidden things god made lawful", that is what the hadith does time and time again, it forbids things which don't even get a mention in the Qur'an.
>6:112
>Thank god we have something called hadith science to figure out which hadith are trustworthy and which are lies
Yes, hadith "science", the "science" of figuring out which orally passed down tale of how the prophet liked to clean his teeth is correct and which one is false. Based on whether the people who passed down the tale were of good character or not, because its entirely possibly to know their personalities over a thousand years later, and its entirely impossible that they may have been lying. Or just the fact that over time all things get distorted and twisted when its orally transmitted, just like chinese whispers, making the hadith possibly the most unreliable set of history ever written. And that doesn't even get into how the quran is clearly opposed to such things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 15:17:45 2015 No.6024256 Who would've thought one of the most succesfull threads on /lit/ would be about the Qur'an.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 15:35:45 2015 No.6024319 >>5997889 Not him, but he meant a 'Jesus' as in a human we worship to the extent we call him God

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 16:34:36 2015 No.6024519

>>5994422

please keep your embarrassing opinions to yourself
one might actually argue that they were greatly outdoing us in cultural achievements until genghis khan came by and pillaged and raped them back to the stone age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 18:19:33 2015 No.6024984 >>6023721 I'm guessing you have no idea what Hadith really means.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 18:31:29 2015 No.6025044 >>6024256 I just bought a copy after asking my Religious Studies professor about the best translation to use for academic papers in his class. I settled on the translation by Tarif Khalidi.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 21:01:03 2015 No.6025755

>>5996078
we were talking about Ancient Greece, why the fuck do non Greek accomplishments get brought up when we're speaking about Ancient Greece?

Don't give me the "they were continuing the Greek tradition" because the Egyptians and Indians/Chinese (by way of the Arabs) contributed greatly to that foundation of knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 21:09:53 2015 No.6025778 >>6024519 Yes but the great literary traditions we talk about are generally confined to more modern times. Does anyone count anything pre-Chaucer when comparing literary traditions?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 21:21:04 2015 No.6025794 Protip that if you haven't read the Qur'an in the original Arabic you are considered to have only read an interpretation and not the actual word of God You're welcome

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 21:24:23 2015 No.6025801 >>6025794 brotip: every translation is an interpretation of a text

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 02:50:44 2015 No.6026978 >>5994176 How different is Allah compared to Yahweh? I know the Chrisitans have a radically different concept of the God of Abraham compared to the Jews and Muslims but Ive never seen someone contrast Allah and Yahweh

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 02:59:11 2015 No.6027004 >>6026978 Allah is merely a 'warner' in the Qu'ran, and boy does he warn. That's all he does is warn. The entire book is filled with pages of his unbelievably repetitive warning.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 03:07:23 2015 No.6027025 >>6027004 What about metaphysically?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 06:07:05 2015 No.6027333 >>5994176 I read it. It's basically a rulebook on how to be a good subject and fearless soldier, with a veneer of rehashed Judaism/Christianity for that religious punch.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 11:14:51 2015 No.6027380

>>6026978
>>6027025
Allah is omnipotent omnipresent, without a form or image (to us atleast). Which is why it's so offensive to draw God, especially as a man, because no one knows the image of God or even if it is possible, it is beyond human understanding. It also leads to degradation of God when you start drawing him as a beardy man in the sky.

Allah is very much just described as nature in the Qur'an. The natural force of the universe behind all things.

This isn't a common translation, but the website has a great search feature so i use it.

[6:95] GOD is the One who causes the grains and the seeds to crack and germinate. He produces the living from the dead, and the dead from the living. Such is GOD; how could you deviate!

[31:16] "O my son, know that even something as tiny as a mustard seed, deep inside a rock, be it in the heavens or the earth, GOD will bring it. GOD is Sublime, Cognizant.

[35:13] He merges the night into the day, and merges the day into the night. He has committed the sun and the moon to run for a predetermined period of time. Such is GOD your Lord; to Him belongs all kingship. Any idols you set up beside Him do not possess as much as a seed's shell.

[2:164] In the creation of the heavens and the earth, the alternation of night and day, the ships that roam the ocean for the benefit of the people, the water that GOD sends down from the sky to revive dead land and to spread in it all kinds of creatures, the manipulation of the winds, and the clouds that are placed between the sky and the earth, there are sufficient proofs for people who understand.

[6:99] He is the One who sends down from the sky water, whereby we produce all kinds of plants. We produce from the green material multitudes of complex grains, palm trees with hanging clusters, and gardens of grapes, olives and pomegranate; fruits that are similar, yet dissimilar. Note their fruits as they grow and ripen. These are signs for people who believe.

[36:36] Glory be to the One who created all kinds of plants from the earth, as well as themselves, and other creations that they do not even know.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 11:55:35 2015 No.6027521 >>6027380 So he's a rip-off of the Jewish and Christian God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 12:24:47 2015 No.6027625 >>6027521 What do you mean "rip off". It's literally the same God, that's what it keeps on saying. It's not meant to be a new religion, it's meant to restore original Judaism but for everyone.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 12:26:12 2015 No.6027634 >>6027625 Except it doesn't do anything new, other than make Muhammad the prophet. Jesus at least had a completely new message to preach. Islam is just Judaism 2.0: desert boogaloo.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 12:28:59 2015 No.6027647 >>6027625 >It's not meant to be a new religion Yes it is, because it considers Arabic the language of God, which we don't find anywhere in the Torah or the New Testament It's also the imperial narrative of the Arabian empire, but I digress

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:21:01 2015 No.6027820

>>6027634
>Except it doesn't do anything new, other than make Muhammad the prophet.
The goal of Islam in Muhammads eyes was to restore the original monotheism of Abraham.

>[2:135] They said, "You have to be Jewish or Christian, to be guided." Say, "We follow the religion of Abraham, he never was an idol worshiper."
>[3:95] Say, "GOD has proclaimed the truth: You shall follow Abraham's religion. He never was an idolator."
>[6:161] Say, "My Lord has guided me in a straight path—the perfect religion of Abraham. He never was an idol worshiper."

What you need to know for these ones is that "Muslim" in Arabic means submitter, someone who submits, which is where the name comes from.
>[2:136] Say, "We believe in GOD, and in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent down to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and all the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them. To Him alone we are submitters ."
>[3:67] Abraham was neither Jewish, nor Christian; he was a submitter. He never was an idol worshiper.

>>6027647
>Yes it is, because it considers Arabic the language of God, which we don't find anywhere in the Torah or the New Testament
[41:44] If we made it a non-Arabic Quran they would have said, "Why did it come down in that language?" Whether it is Arabic or non-Arabic, say, "For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, they will be deaf and blind to it, as if they are being addressed from faraway."
>It's also the imperial narrative of the Arabian empire, but I digress
It is, but that came after Muhammad and Islam, not before. It's important to know that after Muhammad died Islam mostly fell into the hands of newly converted tribal arabs who imposed their culture all over it. Islam today is an arabic religion, when it was meant to simply be monotheism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:22:10 2015 No.6027825 >>6027820 Just face it, Islam is Judaism rehashed to give some local Arab warlord more credibility.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:42:32 2015 No.6027899 >>6027825 Did you disregard my entire post and repeat what you said before? Your post is wrong anyway, Muhammad didn't start preaching until his 50s, and didn't go to war for 10 years after that.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:49:02 2015 No.6027924

>>6026978
If you asked a Christian or Jew about gravity, they would probably say that during creation Yahweh decreed that matter would attract matter and set the strength of the force. He might intervene here and there, moving a few asteroids out of the way if humans pray correctly, but for the most part the universe is an extremely precise watch operating independently but exactly as planned.
If you asked a Muslim about gravity, they would likely say that during a given nanosecond Allah individually moves every single particle in the entire universe, in a way that makes it seem like an external gravitational force exists. Anything that seems like a property of the universe is actually just the will of Allah at a given moment. It's why you get reports of modern Muslim guerillas not bothering to aim. If the bullets are meant to hit, Allah will guide then to their target, and if they are not meant to hit then aiming wouldn't change that. Allah is simultaneously the watchmaker, the battery and the watch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:49:19 2015 No.6027927 >>6027899 Your post didn't add anything. And I didn't know there was an age limit on being a warlord lmao.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:52:00 2015 No.6027941 >>6027927 >Your post didn't add anything. It explained how Islams goal was to restore the original religion of Judaism, which you have ignored. Get off this board, you can't debate.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:55:28 2015 No.6027964

>>6027924
>Anything that seems like a property of the universe is actually just the will of Allah at a given moment.
This part is true, it's as if Allah is literally the force of nature and physics.
>It's why you get reports of modern Muslim guerillas not bothering to aim. If the bullets are meant to hit, Allah will guide then to their target, and if they are not meant to hit then aiming wouldn't change that. Allah is simultaneously the watchmaker, the battery and the watch.
Well that part isn't true, they certainly don't believe that due to it being part of their theology. They're just idiots who think that thing, common in all undeveloped places, such as African Christians fighting naked because it makes magic which stops bullets.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:57:52 2015 No.6027976
File: 147 KB, 463x399, coin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6027820
>It is, but that came after Muhammad and Islam, not before.

Is that why, when the Arabs conquered Jerusalem, they never mentioned anyone named Muhammed?

Also, pic very related. It's the first coin mentioning Muhammed, 60 years after his death

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:58:01 2015 No.6027977 >>6027941 >It explained how Islams goal was to restore the original religion of Judaism, which you have ignored. This adds nothing. >Get off this board, you can't debate. Says the guy who implied that Muhammad was "too old" to be a warlord.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:02:58 2015 No.6028000

>>6027976
The message of not worshiping prophets was fresh in their minds.
But there is plenty of evidence external and internal that Muhammad existed.
>>6027977
It adds everything because it answers your question, you're just repeating yourself again now.
>Says the guy who implied that Muhammad was "too old" to be a warlord.
No, the point was that if Muhammad used Islam to be a warlord, he wouldn't have wait 10 years of preaching, and he wouldn't have gone through all that time being persecuted and not retaliating. It took him 10 years before he resorted to any violence against his enemies.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:09:31 2015 No.6028032

>>6028000
>It adds everything because it answers your question
No it doesn't.

Islam is a rehash of Judaism, it doesn't add anything of substance.
Just a bunch of petty rules.

>the point was that if Muhammad used Islam to be a warlord, he wouldn't have wait 10 years of preaching
It's usually a good idea to indoctrinate people before you start using them as soldiers.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:10:00 2015 No.6028033
File: 240 KB, 420x366, coin2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6028000

Right, because oral traditions are known for their extreme accuracy

Also, why did they suddenly change their minds? This coin is from 652, but doesn't mention anyone named Muhammed. It doesn't even mention any god, like some of the later ones do, it merely says 'valid', whereas the later ones between 652 and 682 only say "In the name of God". Why the change of heart?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:10:51 2015 No.6028034 >>6028032 You just keep repeating statements over and over which i've already replied to. We're done here buddy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:13:18 2015 No.6028046 >>6028033 >Also, why did they suddenly change their minds? The passage of time. The first rulers would have thought it would be against Islam to stick Muhammad and God all over the coins, the later ones relaxed about it.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:14:34 2015 No.6028055

>>6028032
>Islam is a rehash of Judaism, it doesn't add anything of substance.
I think the point he's making is that Islam isn't intended to add anything of substance, it's intended to remove extraneous heresies. Sort of how the Protestant reformation rejected Catholic tradition in an attempt to return to a "pure" Christianity, Islam rejects Christian/Jewish tradition in an attempt to return to a "pure" Abrahamic monotheism.

I have my own opinions on that, but I'm pretty sure this is where the miscommunication is happening.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:14:42 2015 No.6028056

>>6028033
After the Muslims defeated the armies of Byzantine and Sassanian empires, there came the need to administer the conquered territories. The early Muslim from Arabia did not have a sophisticated system like that of the two defeated empires. So, the best recourse for them was to maintain the existing administrative systems just like other conquerers before and after them did. However, the early Muslims inherited two different administrative systems from the conquered two empires. Hence they had to maintain two parallel administrative systems one in the east and another in the west, which differed in their languages, culture, monetary systems and controls. The Muslims maintained these parallel systems for over 50 years until the reforms of the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik. Before the reforms of ʿAbd al-Malik, the Muslims used the existing monetary systems of their Sassanian and the Byzantine predecessors.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:17:18 2015 No.6028068 [DELETED]

>>6022568
>Because it clearly states that nothing else is needed but the Qur'an within the quran.

No, it doesn't. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say "Muslims shall rely on absolutely nothing but the text of the Qur'an"—not in any of the ayat you posted, not anywhere else. That's an interpretation that you've brought out of the text on your own.

And it isn't possible to find a ready-made answer for every possible contingency in the Qur'an. That's why fiqh developed in the first place: people kept finding themselves in situations for which the Qur'an offered no immediately obvious solution. In such a situation, broadly speaking, there are two other things you can rely on: independent reasoning and the example of the early Muslim community. Why not make use of both?

>You keep making arguments which disagree with the Qur'an it's self which is my point. No one can call themselves muslim if they claim the Qur'an is wrong.

This is some Wahhabi-tier poo flinging, dude. "How can you disagree with MY interpretation bro? It's all just so obvious! Anyone who disagrees is a big stupid kafir!"

Nobody in this exchange is claiming that the Qur'an is wrong. I'm claiming that your interpretation is wrong.

>I am yes, the arabic word for stories is Hadith, the Qur'an repeatedly says, do not follow other hadith than this one (the Qur'an).

'Hadith' can refer to any sort of report or discussion shared between people. The Qur'an specifically forbids relying on fabricated, false, and baseless hearsay that contradicts its teachings. Some of the later hadith literature falls into this category; much of it does not.

You are implying that the mere existence of fabricated hadith reports invalidates the entire enterprise, which is ludicrous. Hadith scholars have always been aware of this, and there is no shortage of traditional and modern scholarly methods we can use to distinguish between what's legitimate and what isn't. If we ignore the tradition entirely, we ignore a great deal of information that can be reliably traced to the early Muslim community.
"I TRULY understand what it's sa bro. It's just so obvious bro. You disagree with my reading? You some kind of dirty kafir bro?"

Get out of here with this Wahhabi-tier nonsense.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:20:11 2015 No.6028073

>>6027924
>If you asked a Muslim about gravity, they would likely say that during a given nanosecond Allah individually moves every single particle in the entire universe, in a way that makes it seem like an external gravitational force exists. Anything that seems like a property of the universe is actually just the will of Allah at a given moment. It's why you get reports of modern Muslim guerillas not bothering to aim. If the bullets are meant to hit, Allah will guide then to their target, and if they are not meant to hit then aiming wouldn't change that. Allah is simultaneously the watchmaker, the battery and the watch.

>All Muslims are 'Ashari-occasionalist mutakallimeen

This is just stupid.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:22:54 2015 No.6028083

>>6022568
>Because it clearly states that nothing else is needed but the Qur'an within the quran.

No, it doesn't. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say "Muslims shall rely on absolutely nothing but the text of the Qur'an"—not in any of the ayat you posted, not anywhere else. That's an interpretation that you've brought out of the text on your own.

And it isn't possible to find a ready-made answer for every possible contingency in the Qur'an. That's why fiqh developed in the first place: people kept finding themselves in situations for which the Qur'an offered no immediately obvious solution. In such a situation, broadly speaking, there are two other things you can rely on: independent reasoning and the example of the early Muslim community. Why not make use of both?

>You keep making arguments which disagree with the Qur'an it's self which is my point. No one can call themselves muslim if they claim the Qur'an is wrong.

This is some Wahhabi-tier poo flinging, dude. "How can you disagree with MY interpretation bro? It's all just so obvious! Anyone who disagrees is a big stupid kafir!"

Nobody in this exchange is claiming that the Qur'an is wrong. I'm claiming that your interpretation is wrong.

>I am yes, the arabic word for stories is Hadith, the Qur'an repeatedly says, do not follow other hadith than this one (the Qur'an).

'Hadith' can refer to any sort of report or discussion shared between people. The Qur'an specifically forbids relying on fabricated, false, and baseless hearsay that contradicts its teachings. Some of the later hadith literature falls into this category; much of it does not.

You are implying that the mere existence of fabricated hadith reports invalidates the entire enterprise, which is ludicrous. Hadith scholars have always been aware of this, and there is no shortage of traditional and modern scholarly methods we can use to distinguish between what's legitimate and what isn't. If we ignore the tradition entirely, we ignore a great deal of information that can be reliably traced to the early Muslim community.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 17:24:25 2015 No.6028751

>>6028083
>No, it doesn't. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say "Muslims shall rely on absolutely nothing but the text of the Qur'an"—not in any of the ayat you posted, not anywhere else. That's an interpretation that you've brought out of the text on your own.
Well it does, it literally says it clear as day. It isn't even an interpretation, it's one of the most clear things in the entire Qur'an. Especially when you take it all together.

>And it isn't possible to find a ready-made answer for every possible contingency in the Qur'an. That's why fiqh developed in the first place: people kept finding themselves in situations for which the Qur'an offered no immediately obvious solution. In such a situation, broadly speaking, there are two other things you can rely on: independent reasoning and the example of the early Muslim community. Why not make use of both?
Indeed it isn't possible to find an answer to everything in the Qur'an. But as the Qur'an says, Islam is meant to be an easy religion, it shouldn't dominate every aspect of your life, you can figure things out in life without the Qur'an, it doesn't have to answer everything, it merely guides on religious aspects and some other aspects. If it isn't covered in the Qur'an, figure it out for yourself. But don't go banning things in the name of religion. If Imams want blowjobs to be banned, ban them for a logical reason, don't ban them because God says so, because he certainly doesn't.

>This is some Wahhabi-tier poo flinging, dude. "How can you disagree with MY interpretation bro? It's all just so obvious! Anyone who disagrees is a big stupid kafir!"
Yeah, maybe it does sound like wahhabi shit. But the difference is, they get pissed off at anything, and particularly if you're against hadith. I'm simplying saying that if you're arguing directly against the Qur'an while being a muslim then you're arguing with God.
>Nobody in this exchange is claiming that the Qur'an is wrong. I'm claiming that your interpretation is wrong.
I just don't see how this interpretation can be wrong when it makes so much logical sense. Or rather, the hadith lack so much logical sense. I also believe that as the quran says it is easy to understand, to claim that you can get any interpretation seems to contradict that. Unless the verse saying it is easy is also open to interpretation, but now you basically get to a point where the quran could literally mean or support anything whatsoever, and i dont think it is that way, i think it was designed to be generally clear in what it means. It isn't the bible and this isn't christianity where everything is interpretation.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 17:25:51 2015 No.6028761

>>6028751

>The Qur'an specifically forbids relying on fabricated, false, and baseless hearsay that contradicts its teachings. Some of the later hadith literature falls into this category; much of it does not.
I believe the entirety of the hadith does due to the very nature of its creation and recording.

>You are implying that the mere existence of fabricated hadith reports invalidates the entire enterprise, which is ludicrous. Hadith scholars have always been aware of this, and there is no shortage of traditional and modern scholarly methods we can use to distinguish between what's legitimate and what isn't. If we ignore the tradition entirely, we ignore a great deal of information that can be reliably traced to the early Muslim community.
I simply don't think it's possible that any of the hadith can be reliable. The term "hadith science" is a joke, as the methods used are the most unscientific possible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 17:44:14 2015 No.6028850 >>5994176 >the qur'an have you read it if so what did you take from it 1) Yes. 2a) Julian Jaynes was right and 2b) there were still bicameral humans "prophesying" in the Arabian peninsula as late as the seventh century CE.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:23:28 2015 No.6029304 >>6027380 Thank you for responding. Would it be fair to say that of the abramahic faiths only the God of the Christians is different?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:35:41 2015 No.6029365

>>6029304
>Would it be fair to say that of the abramahic faiths only the God of the Christians is different?
Yes. Massively. Christianity believes in Trinity, the splitting of God into three, and God being a human, plus God having a son.
Islam is hugely opposed to this.

The fundamentals of Islamic theology are
1. God is one and only one
2. God is beyond our understanding, definitely not a human being or any other idol
3. God does not have children, it's polytheism when Gods start having kids
4. Do not ever worship idols, images, or humans

The types of Christianity which were more popular in the early days, where Jesus was just a prophet, God is still one, is still compatible with Islam.

Islam believes that in time most people revert to idol worship, and this is very true and very noticeable. Christianity got corrupted easily and now they all worship Jesus, a human being and they actually call him God. In the OT we see that Moses' followers started worshipping a Cow as soon as he went away for a while and stopped preaching to them of God.

Even the Muslims commit this sin but on less of scale because Islam denounces it so much. Muslims copy Muhammad, they have resorted to a miniature form of worship of Muhammad. They hold him in higher regard than other prophets despite all prophets being equal, (they will deny this), which is obvious due to the fact that they grow beards just like he did, they act as he did, they wear what he did, they even try to sleep like he did. They include Muhammads name in their prayers, when if all prophets are equal, why not include all prophets, or none? A lot of them also believe Muhammad will intercede with God on their behalf, which is directly denounced in the Qur'an.

So even Muslims are not immune to idol worship, and i can guarantee you, if Islam did not so heavily denounce the worship of Idols, within a few centuries of it's foundation, there would be Muhammad as the son of God, little statues of him everywhere, and people praying directly to him. This is the real cause of the Charlie Hebo shootings. To allow drawings of Muhammad would be to undermine the entire faith and lead to its eventual downfall. Not that i condone the shootings at all, non muslims are free to draw what they like although obviously offensive drawings are going to piss off some psychopaths so i wouldnt recommend it.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:45:30 2015 No.6029408

>>6029365
If that is the case does that mean that like the Jews Muslims believe in a coming messiah? Is there a judgment day or other endpoint in Islam?

Also what is the Islamic view on the nature of mankind? Im only familiar with the Christian one and that seems to be an extremely pessimistic one

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 19:58:06 2015 No.6029450

>>6029408
>If that is the case does that mean that like the Jews Muslims believe in a coming messiah?
Jews still do. Muslims don't, Muhammad was that Messiah. Jew's don't even accept Christ while Muslims do.
>Is there a judgment day or other endpoint in Islam?
Yes, there is a day when God will end the universe, it will be terrifying, all souls will be judged and then go to either heaven or hell. When you die you aren't immediately judged, you're dead until the day of Judgement. That's all the Qur'an says. The hadith go into much more specific details but it isn't necessary to accept those.

[56:1] When the inevitable comes to pass.
[56:2] Nothing can stop it from happening.
[56:3] It will lower some, and raise others.
[56:4] The earth will be shaken up.
[56:5] The mountains will be wiped out.
[56:6] As if they never existed.
[56:7] You will be stratified into three kinds.
[56:8] Those who deserved bliss will be in bliss.
[56:9] Those who deserved misery will be in misery.
[56:10] Then there is the elite of the elite.
[56:11] They are those who will be closest (to God).
[56:12] In the gardens of bliss.

>Also what is the Islamic view on the nature of mankind? Im only familiar with the Christian one and that seems to be an extremely pessimistic one
Humans aren't inherently evil like in Christianity, they can do either good or bad and it's entirely within their own power to do so. But it doesn't mean humans aren't flawed, just not born with original sin. Humans have a natural tendency for idol worship as i said before, which is said in the Qur'an a lot, so it's up to them to fight against their instincts and remain pure to God.

[4:28] GOD wishes to lighten your burden, for the human being is created weak.
[4:29] O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly, only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you.
[4:30] Anyone who commits these transgressions, maliciously and deliberately, we will condemn him to Hell. This is easy for GOD to do.
[4:31] If you refrain from committing the gross sins that are prohibited for you, we will remit your sins, and admit you an honorable admittance.

Men are women are also naturally different.

[4:32] You shall not covet the qualities bestowed upon each other by GOD; the men enjoy certain qualities, and the women enjoy certain qualities. You may implore GOD to shower you with His grace. GOD is fully aware of all things.

Humans are also ungrateful little shits.
[10:12] When adversity touches the human being, he implores us while lying down, or sitting, or standing up. But as soon as we relieve his adversity, he goes on as if he never implored us to relieve any hardship! The works of the transgressors are thus adorned in their eyes.

Humans are impatient.
[17:11] The human being often prays for something that may hurt him, thinking that he is praying for something good. The human being is impatient.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:05:15 2015 No.6029489

>>6029408
>coming messiah
Nope.

>judgment day
Yes.

>nature of mankind
Cant really comment on this one, because my knowledge on this topic is too shallow, but there is no "Original sin" in Islam, so everybody is born sin-free.

>>6029365
You would be suprised how many muslims would agree with you, especially the interceding thing.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:08:36 2015 No.6029507

>>6029450
When Muslims talk about Idol worship are they just refering to people praying to or "through" images/statues or is it anytime people prioritize or give respect that should only be given to god?

For instance people who devote their life to accumulating money or power

Also what is Islam like when it comes to dealing with authority and specifically government?

Christians have the famous Romans 13 -

>1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3

Does Islam have an equivalent?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:17:17 2015 No.6029538

>>6029507
>When Muslims talk about Idol worship are they just refering to people praying to or "through" images/statues or is it anytime people prioritize or give respect that should only be given to god?
Not him, but a muslim should only ever worship god. You are not allowed to pray to anything other, because then you would accredit him/her/it godlike powers, which is forbidden.
You can always respect people, that's no problem.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:19:47 2015 No.6029545

>>6029507
>When Muslims talk about Idol worship are they just refering to people praying to or "through" images/statues or is it anytime people prioritize or give respect that should only be given to god?
It's the first part, literal idolatry. It's important to Islam because the pre-islamic arabian religions were obsessed with Idols. The kaaba had hundreds of little figures which people would make offerings to, and pray to. To Muhammad this was absolutely pathetic, and the Qur'an challenges these idols to protect themselves many times, but they can't, proving them to be just statues, not Gods.

If you made a statue of God, and worship it, you're still worshipping a statue, no matter how you try to justify that it represents God. That's idol worship to Islam.

Worshiping a human is considered the same.
[9:31] They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords instead of GOD. Others deified the Messiah, son of Mary. They were all commanded to worship only one god. There is no god except He. Be He glorified, high above having any partners.

>Does Islam have an equivalent?
Not exactly. The Qur'an often talks about various leaders and authorities, but it doesn't really condemn or support them, just the individuals depending on their actions. Such as

[9:34] O you who believe, many religious leaders and preachers take the people's money illicitly, and repel from the path of GOD. Those who hoard the gold and silver, and do not spend them in the cause of GOD, promise them a painful retribution.

The Qur'an does say that rulers and governments should follow the laws of the Qur'an, however it also accepts that people have different cultures, which Islam can fit into.

[5:48] Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them. You shall rule among them in accordance with GOD's revelations, and do not follow their wishes if they differ from the truth that came to you. For each of you, we have decreed laws and different rites. Had GOD willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He thus puts you to the test through the revelations He has given each of you. You shall compete in righteousness. To GOD is your final destiny—all of you—then He will inform you of everything you had disputed.

But don't follow rulers who force you to not be Muslim, which i guess would differ to Romans 13.

[5:49] You shall rule among them in accordance with GOD's revelations to you. Do not follow their wishes, and beware lest they divert you from some of GOD's revelations to you. If they turn away, then know that GOD wills to punish them for some of their sins. Indeed, many people are wicked.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:39:54 2015 No.6029631

>>6029545
Interesting are you a Muslim yourself or do you have a understanding of how this part about obeying authorities has played out irl?

Is the hatred of polytheism got more to do with a dislike of the pagan Arabs or the idea of it in general? Did Islam incorporate any aspects of the pagan religion like the Catholics in Europe did?

Are the rituals associated with the hajj and kaaba not a from of idolatry?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:50:37 2015 No.6029673

>>6029631
>Interesting are you a Muslim yourself or do you have a understanding of how this part about obeying authorities has played out irl?
I am a Muslim who believes in Qur'an alone. I know so much about the Qur'an because it's the only religious authority a Muslim needs. And it's a short and simple book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism#Examples
I guess all the Muslim rebellions in the world is good evidence, when they feel their belief is threatened they rebel. Personally i think they wouldnt have to rebel if they didn't follow such twisted forms of islam which are so incompatible with modern life.

>Is the hatred of polytheism got more to do with a dislike of the pagan Arabs or the idea of it in general? Did Islam incorporate any aspects of the pagan religion like the Catholics in Europe did?
The idea of it in general, a lot of it comes from the old testament too. Sunni Islam, the main sect, incorporated a hell of a lot of Arabian culture. Circumcision, hijabs, stoning, sexism, etc. This is because Islam was spread primarily by the bedouin Arabs after Muhammads death, who had the strongest arab culture, and only halfheartedly converted. You can imagine the city muslims like Muhammad to have been a lot more liberal.

>Are the rituals associated with the hajj and kaaba not a from of idolatry?
I think they border on it and it's unnecessary. The Kaaba is important because it's the first Mosque and was made by Abraham. The black stone is just a finishing piece to make it look cool, but that muslims kiss it and point at it is almost like idolising it, especially when you consider it was worshiped before Islam.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:45:22 2015 No.6029868 >>6029450 no Muslims very much believe Christ was the messiah

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 23:58:05 2015 No.6030460 >>5994422 IIRC many great works have been lost to time, tragedy, and fundamentalism

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 02:53:45 2015 No.6031197

>>6028034
>You just keep repeating statements over and over which i've already replied to.
Because those statements were true the first time I said them, and nothing you said changed that.

>I think the point he's making is that Islam isn't intended to add anything of substance
Then he should simply be agreeing with me.

Judaism was a radical shift towards monotheism.
Christianity built on that, but was a radical shift towards non-violence, forgiveness, peace.
Islam takes a lot of Judaism, a little of Christianity, as well as some local folklore, and doesn't add or change anything of substance.

This is simply what I said all along.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 03:42:08 2015 No.6031351

>>6028055
>I think the point he's making is that Islam isn't intended to add anything of substance
Then he should simply be agreeing with me.

Judaism was a radical shift towards monotheism.
Christianity built on that, but was a radical shift towards non-violence, forgiveness, peace.
Islam takes a lot of Judaism, a little of Christianity, as well as some local folklore, and doesn't add or change anything of substance.

This is simply what I said all along.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 03:47:02 2015 No.6031365

>>6029365
>God being a human, plus God having a son
That's not what "Christians" believe, that's what Arian Christians believe.

Catholics and protestants believe in a single God.
The trinity is simply three manifestations of God, but they are all still one and the same God.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:01:19 2015 No.6031577 Reading the Quran alone is useless. The bulk of what makes Islam is in the hadith.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:08:24 2015 No.6031601

>>6029365
You really don't know anything about christianity do you?
>the splitting of God into three
No, it's a single God with 3 persons
>3. God does not have children, it's polytheism when Gods start having kids
God doesn't have children in the sense you are trying to prescribe. Jesus is the Son of God, but he is also God himself because it is a single being.
>4. Do not ever worship idols, images, or humans
We agree on that one.
>The types of Christianity which were more popular in the early days, where Jesus was just a prophet
That isn't Christianity at all

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:47:37 2015 No.6031667

>>6031365
>>6031601
>Catholics and protestants believe in a single God.
>The trinity is simply three manifestations of God, but they are all still one and the same God.
It's impossible to claim to believe in a single God and to claim god is 3 at the same time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:53:34 2015 No.6031681 >>6031667 >It's impossible to claim to believe in a single God and to claim god is 3 at the same time. Why?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:57:17 2015 No.6031694

>>6031681
Because if God is split into three partners then God is not one undivided God.

Christians will always protest that they still believe in Monotheism but simply don't, not anymore than Hindus try to claim they do because all their Gods are aspects of the same one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 05:59:24 2015 No.6031697 >>6031694 >three partners They're not three partners, they're they same God.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:00:24 2015 No.6031699 >>6031697 It's a division of God into three.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:00:55 2015 No.6031701 >>6031699 No it isn't. They're one and the same.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:02:10 2015 No.6031704 >>6031701 Then why is it Jesus, Ghost and God, if it is all God? Why do you say God is three aspects and worship the separately?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:03:40 2015 No.6031707 >>6031704 >Then why is it Jesus, Ghost and God, if it is all God? Because they are all God. >worship them separately? There is but one God.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:03:53 2015 No.6031710 >>6031704 Why is does your mind contain eros, id and ego if it is just one mind? It cannot be one because clearly there are three.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:04:33 2015 No.6031711

>>6031704

Three in Person, One in Nature.

Not the person you're talking to but also an unrelated question I've wondered about for a while: if Muslims believe that God is indivisible, does that mean that it is impossible for God to be divided? In other words, it is impossible for God to choose to divide himself?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:06:13 2015 No.6031717

>>6031704
>worship the separately

This is incorrect, Scripture indicates that the Son, the Father, and the Spirit are all perfect reflections of the character of the other, therefore to worship one is to worship them all. People who loved Jesus loved his Father without realizing it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:06:37 2015 No.6031718 >>6031704 >Jesus, Ghost and God Wrong. It's Jesus, Ghost, and The Father. All three are God. You keep trying to argue when clearly you know nothing about this subject.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:20:21 2015 No.6031746 >>6031707 >>6031710 >>6031711 >>6031717 >>6031718 Just Christian denial. You cannot claim to be monotheists and then claim that God is divided into 3 parts who are all God. That just is not monotheism. That is no different to Hinduism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:23:20 2015 No.6031752 >>6031746 >claim that God is divided into 3 parts who are all God He isn't divided into 3 parts, each "part" is itself God. You didn't even know the names of the trinity, stop embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:26:06 2015 No.6031758

>>6031752
>He isn't divided into 3 parts, each "part" is itself God.
Haha, sorry, if God is "Parts" how is that not by definition, dividing God?

>You didn't even know the names of the trinity, stop embarrassing yourself.
You're just feeling threatened.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:26:56 2015 No.6031760 >>6031746 It's theology and argumentation you uneducated muslim fuck

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:27:24 2015 No.6031761 >>6031758 >if God is "Parts" how is that not by definition, dividing God? God isn't "parts", that was the point. >You're just feeling threatened. Your ignorance only threatens your butthurt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:28:21 2015 No.6031765 >>6031761 God isn't parts but each part is God? Wat >>6031760 Now you're getting angry. It's polytheism under a weak argument of "but it's all God!".

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:36:24 2015 No.6031777

>>6031765
Not a christian, but imagine it as a human body, where you are you, but your arm is also you, as well as your leg, cutting you leg off doesnt change the fact that it is indeed your leg. The difference with god is that because he is almighty, he doesnt have a main body and can control his 'arms' and 'legs' separately.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:36:55 2015 No.6031779 >>6031765 I'm not angry, I'm sad because another Muslim is as dumb as the stereotype assumes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:38:01 2015 No.6031782 >>6031765 >God isn't parts but each part is God? I only used the word "part" to use your words. God doesn't consist of parts, each person of the trinity is himself God.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:38:47 2015 No.6031785

>>6031777
I can accept that but it doesn't seem that that is what Christianity is. In Islam God has hundreds of aspects, but these aren't separate. In Christianity the three divisions are clearly separate. It just seems that the "But it's all God" is tacked on at the end with little though and contradicts the rest.
>>6031779
I'm not the one whose entire post is nothing but an insult.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:40:00 2015 No.6031787 >>6031785 Because after good arguments you continue to be stupidly and refuse to understand a simple argument.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:41:12 2015 No.6031789

>>6031782
But why does he need to remain in the trinity?
I could accept, God creates Jesus, God directly controls Jesus, then Jesus dies, and God releases control of the man Jesus.
But why does God continue to be Jesus even after he has died and gone back to Heaven. It doesn't make sense that the almighty creator who has existed for eterninity would now in the last 2000 years decide he wants to become a third human being, and a 3rd ghost. It's almost like Voldemort and splitting his soul into horcruxes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:42:45 2015 No.6031793 >>6031787 This "Good argument" is simply stating that the three are God over and over.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:42:58 2015 No.6031795 >>6031789 God is Jesus. How can he stop being himself?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:44:02 2015 No.6031797 >>6031795 But God was not Jesus until God created Jesus, God was not Jesus at the beginning of time. He made Jesus and became Jesus so he can undo it again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:44:24 2015 No.6031798 >>6031793 It's clearly something else, but by all means continue to follow the teachings of a child fucker.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:45:02 2015 No.6031799 >>6031797 >God created Jesus God created himself? lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:45:22 2015 No.6031800 >>6031798 lol, pathetic

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:45:36 2015 No.6031801 >>6031795 But God has been there for eternity, and Jesus clearly hasnt. The same way he started "being himself" (when Jesus was born), he could stop "being himself".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:46:54 2015 No.6031803 >>6031801 >God has been there for eternity, and Jesus clearly hasnt Says who?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:47:19 2015 No.6031805

>>6031746

I would also considered Hinduism to be monotheistic in a sense. Again, Three in Person, One in Nature. It's not really polytheism, is it? The Bible does not describe three literal separate gods. It describes three distinctions of the same entity, but nonetheless united. It's still monotheism, just rendered in a form that's more abstract and difficult to grasp.

Do you not possess one mind? And yet it's made up of individual pieces which work together in perfect unison. Are you not one person, made up of billions upon billions of pieces? And yet they are all united to produce the whole. Scripture describes a union between Father, Son, and Spirit in a way that is much more complete than the union between your separate parts. Jesus said that whoever saw him saw the Father, and in giving his followers his Spirit means that he is always with them.

This isn't about winning or losing some meaningless internet argument. Seriously think on these questions because you simply aren't understanding Christianity.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:49:35 2015 No.6031813

>>6031801
Imagine Bob.

Bob works as a delivery driver, is married to Jill, and has three kids.

So Bob is a delivery driver, a husband, and a father, all at once.

There's a difference between Bob the driver, Bob the husband, and Bob the father, but he's still one and the same person.

Driver, husband, father is WHAT he is.
Bob is WHO he is.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:49:54 2015 No.6031815

>>6031805
I think it becomes polytheism when you have a statue of Jesus which you pray directly to. Or even if it's not polytheism it's still idol worship, pray to Jesus-God, not to a statue representation.

I understand how trinity works, i just disagree that the God of Abraham would ever do such a thing and i disagree that it can be considered pure monotheism. I disagree that God would ever need to divide himself into Jesus and the Ghost.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 06:55:20 2015 No.6031826 >>6031815 >a statue of Jesus which you pray directly to But Jesus is God.

>>	Yogurt Wed Jan 21 07:01:53 2015 No.6031836 >>5994422 did you know: Islam single handedly saved classic greek literature.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:02:11 2015 No.6031837 >>6031797 God was always the father, son and the holy spirit >>6031813 >muh polytheism and muh idols

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:02:54 2015 No.6031838 >>6031837 You quoted the wrong post in your second quote.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:03:55 2015 No.6031840 >>6031836 >Islam single handedly saved classic greek literature. How?

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:05:32 2015 No.6031847

>>6031815

I agree that praying to a statue of Jesus is improper, mainly because it takes the focus off of God as we should understand and worship Him. God is more than a statue and more than a representation. God is more than an image in general. I wouldn't say that it constitutes polytheism though, just a failure to understand what worship really is.

>d i disagree that it can be considered pure monotheism. I disagree that God would ever need to divide himself into Jesus and the Ghost.

If you think that the Father, Son and Spirit represent a real "division" in anyway that really matters then you do not really understand the Trinity on an acceptable level. Not trying to be rude but to be honest. I think here the thing is that you have to let go of some preconceived beliefs/ideas about it to contemplate it freely which is unlikely to happen.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:06:32 2015 No.6031848 >>6031813 This is actually a solid explanation partly because of it's simplicity. I like it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:07:14 2015 No.6031850 >>6031815 >I disagree that God would ever need to divide himself God doesn't divide himself though.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:12:16 2015 No.6031858

>>6031826
But a statue isn't God or Jesus.
>>6031847
God isn't an image, we have no idea what God looks like, all the Christian paintings of a bearded man in the clouds are completely false.

I think that a father and a son are an unnecessary division which makes no sense in the concept of God.

God is the creator of the entire universe correct? And we are almost certain that sentient alien life will exist countless times. So God is their God too. Then why would God split himself into a human, if we are just another of his creations. That holds us to be the most favoured and important creation of God out of all the universe. Shouldn't there be a Jesus for the aliens too?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:18:20 2015 No.6031864 >>6031858 >But a statue isn't God or Jesus. God made himself flesh in Jesus, he made an image of himself so to speak. He also made man in his image. God himself is pretty big on imagery.

>>	Yogurt Wed Jan 21 07:20:05 2015 No.6031867 >>6031840 All Homer's works and many classic philosophers' works were banned and burned in middle ages as satanic paganistic scripts. The early islam philosophers saved those works by translating them in arabic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:21:28 2015 No.6031868 >>6031867 Islam did/does the same thing.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:22:32 2015 No.6031869

>>6031858

>we have no idea what God looks like

Jesus is what God looks like. Another way to answer that question is that God doesn't really look like anything. His physical appearance neither matters nor is it probable to actually exist beyond the human form of Christ, in my informed opinion. People used to paint the Father as a man because a man is the most intelligent being we know of. Same reason why the Greeks portrayed their gods as men.

>I think that a father and a son are an unnecessary division which makes no sense in the concept of God.

Again, I must remind you that there is no division. That is what you're failing to understand. Again, not trying to be rude but honest.

>And we are almost certain that sentient alien life will exist countless times.

Who knows? No matter how "sure" we are, I don't feel the need to discuss that unless it actually occurs.

>That holds us to be the most favoured and important creation of God out of all the universe.

Did reading Scripture not give you this impression already? Before you claim that this is human arrogance at work, remember that Scripture describes man as having value precisely because God values him and for no other reason. The value of man is dependent on God.

The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, Jesus is God choosing to exist as a man. God chooses to represent Himself in this way, in my informed opinion, to best serve man's salvation. Think about it. Jesus revealed the character and love of the Father to a people who had turned their back on Him in their hearts. Not only that, but the relationship between the Son and the Father perfectly mirrors the relationship that the Father desires with human beings.

The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all different roles, or Persons, of the same God. The critical thing to see is that they are not divided. They exist as one being revealed to humans in three different ways for man's benefit.

>>	Yogurt Wed Jan 21 07:24:19 2015 No.6031870 >>6031868 after the 18 century. for more than 1000 years, Islam was more progressive than Christianisn.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:24:34 2015 No.6031871

>>6031813
>So Bob is a delivery driver, a husband, and a father, all at once.
>There's a difference between Bob the driver, Bob the husband, and Bob the father, but he's still one and the same person.

So when Bob the driver is crucified or stuck in traffic, he shakes a fist at the sky crying, "Why have you forsaken me, Bob the husband," seemingly under the impression that there is more than a linguistic distinction between them both.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:28:14 2015 No.6031876 >>6031871 Maybe if Bob is Jesus Christ trying to illustrate the nature of the Passion to humanity, then yes.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:28:21 2015 No.6031877

>>6031858
>I think that a father and a son are an unnecessary division which makes no sense in the concept of God.
The great muslim theologian has solved what the entire middle ages theology hasn't rejoyce!
>God is the creator of the entire universe correct? And we are almost certain that sentient alien life will exist countless times. So God is their God too. Then why would God split himself into a human, if we are just another of his creations. That holds us to be the most favoured and important creation of God out of all the universe. Shouldn't there be a Jesus for the aliens too?
This is absolute nonsense. We have no idea if there is life at all and if there is how advanced it is.
And he didn't split himself as we have time and time again said.
And yes, we are the most favoured and important creation of God since we were made in His image.
>>6031867
I've read different sources that say that there was no systematic burning in the middle ages, it was mostly due to fires and general barbarisation.
Didn't Muslims burn the library of Alexandria?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:29:41 2015 No.6031880 >>6031877 >>6031870 >>6031867 Not trying to be rude, but why does it matter what Muslims or Christians did or didn't do one time? What matters is the inherent merit of their messages respectively.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:29:49 2015 No.6031881

>>6031870
>for more than 1000 years
The Islamic golden age didn't last 1000 years, more like 500.

Also, the European "dark ages" weren't actually as dark as many people think.

Also, the Islamic golden age wasn't actually as productive as many people think.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:32:07 2015 No.6031884

>>6031869
>I must remind you that there is no division.

Try thinking of it like this: God is an immense consciousness. Try to visualize a big cloud. When he created Christ, he took a tiny handful of this cloud and placed it within Christ - all that could fit in a human. Ordinary mortals have their own souls, but Christ's subjective experience/Qualia/soul was a piece of God's. This created a unique entity, distinct from God and able to function independently of God. It possessed free will. The division between Christ and God is crucial, otherwise you end up with God playing with a finger puppet.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:33:52 2015 No.6031889

>>6031881
Well they were dark. In a sense that there was little written word and society was overwhelminly influanced by barbarian culture.
Francs and Langobards were pretty much illiterate savage tribes that took centuries of church influance and other factors to civilise.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:35:17 2015 No.6031890 >>6031889 >In a sense that there was little written word Dude, monasteries all over Europe were writing like mad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:37:32 2015 No.6031895 >>6031890 I know, but that is still farely little. And almost ALL of the written word comes from them, the earliest codifications of tribal law appear around 700. ac

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:39:21 2015 No.6031899 >>6031895 >that is still farely little Not really. Copying and writing in general were one of the main activities of monasteries, which were found in great numbers all over Europe all throughout the "dark ages".

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:42:25 2015 No.6031905

>>6031884

That's an interesting idea to contemplate, but your claim is problematic on a few counts.

>all that could fit in a human

All of God can "fit" in a human. Otherwise His Spirit could not reside within human beings.

>unique entity, distinct from God and able to function independently of God

Again an issue here. Remember that when Jesus was on Earth he was being humbled and had given up his "position" in a sense. The idea of separate wills is problematic. Jesus had free will but his will was to do the Father's will by his very nature, because he is God.

Also, Christ being a "tiny handful" of God is the most problematic. The fullness of God is revealed in Jesus - fullness is an important word here. To suggest that Jesus is less of God than the Father destroys Christianity. To even suggest that God is quantifiable and separatable in a classical sense destroys Christianity.

>otherwise you end up with God playing with a finger puppet.

Not if the Father and Jesus are the same being. The problem is that you're going the exact opposite way of the Muslim guy here - instead of stubbornly trying to understand God as only one Person in your specific understanding of that concept, you are stubbornly trying to understand God as only three distinct and individual Persons in your specific understanding of that concept. Ironically you both have half of the concept. You should meet up and share. (joke)

Seriously though your response did provoke thought so thank you but I see some inherent issues. With your reasoning in hand the understanding that Jesus is God becomes meaningless.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:43:43 2015 No.6031906

>>6031889
>Francs and Langobards were pretty much illiterate savage tribes that took centuries of church influance and other factors to civilise.

Lol, Clovis was 10 years old already when the Western Roman Empire collapsed.
I wouldn't exactly call him an illiterate savage.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:45:25 2015 No.6031910

>>6031864
>>6031869
Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous that to Christians God is literally a human in the sky?

In Islam God is just a force, a consciousness of the universe. It's very arrogant to claim God is a human being, and i think that has been added to the Bible later on.

>>6031877
Of course Aliens exist. If God created this much diversity and life on earth do you think he would really leave the massive universe barren of life? There are millions of sentient species out there, God guides them like he guides us. To say God looks like us is to insult all the rest of his creation.

Muslims didn't destroy the Library of Alexandria, it's a complete myth. The Library was gone before Muslims even got there. There is some Islamic source saying they did destroy, but all evidence contradicts this, so historians think they were trying to take credit for destroying non islamic work when they didn't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 07:48:01 2015 No.6031913 >>6031910 >Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous that to Christians God is literally a human in the sky? Dude, God made man in his image.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:01:04 2015 No.6031961

>>6031910
>Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous that to Christians God is literally a human in the sky?

If you honestly think that this is what Christians believe, then you understand much less of Christianity than I originally thought. Have you read Scripture?

>In Islam God is just a force, a consciousness of the universe.

Think about what you just said, because it makes no sense and is actually ironically more ridiculous than what you're arguing against. God is just a force? No friend, God is so much more than simply a force. A force does not have conscious thought or character. God is the consciousness of the universe? No, God is not simply all of creation sharing a consciousness, or the representative consciousness of His creation. The mind of God does not reside in and depend on His creation, that is illogical.

You're tossing out these cliched general statements about God but I don't think you've stopped to really think about them in depth. You're also grasping, trying to describe God in this grand, vast mystical way to emphasize your respect and reverence for Him. You don't need to. I can tell you what God is and the answer is much simpler and much more deserving of your awe and respect than some vague force or consciousness: God is a Person.

>It's very arrogant to claim God is a human being

God is not a human being, but He chooses to exist as a human being through Christ Jesus.

Also, arrogant? If you read Scripture with a humble heart you would not take that view. Again, humanity is valuable because God has chosen to bestow value on it.

Does Genesis not say that God created man in His own image? Do you not understand the significance of that statement? Is it arrogance to say that God loves and understands us fully, and wishes the best for us, and that we are precious to Him? The Bible is largely about the failures of humanity. I find it difficult to see the arrogance.

Also, it doesn't matter whether or not the claim seems arrogant, what matters is if the claim is correct. That is what no one who uses this argument for anything seems to understand. It is arrogant to say that humans are the most intelligent physical life forms on the planet. It is also true.

How arrogant something does or does not seem in your eyes doesn't matter and has no relevance to a logical discussion, in short.

>Of course Aliens exist. If God created this much diversity and life on earth do you think he would really leave the massive universe barren of life?

I don't presume to know what God's plan for the universe was or is in that regard. However, there are some inherent problems with your statement.

1. You have zero evidence.
2. Even if alien life-forms do exist, what matters is if they are sentient.
3. Even if alien life-forms do exist and are sentient, that still is not a silver bullet.
4. "Alien" life-forms do exist and are sentient. They're called angels. No, they do not occupy the same place as humans.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:06:50 2015 No.6031980

>>6031910
>To say God looks like us is to insult all the rest of his creation.

It is not that God looks like us. It is that we look like God. Think on that. We did not create God in our image, He is the one who created us in His and we are precious to Him for that very reason.

Now I don't think you understood what I meant when I said this:
>Another way to answer that question is that God doesn't really look like anything. His physical appearance neither matters nor is it probable to actually exist beyond the human form of Christ, in my informed opinion.

We look like God in a spiritual sense, no matter our physical appearance.

I'm not going to generalize to all Muslims and feign stupidity for the sake of a sweeping comment, but I do have to say that you individually have a tendency to take things entirely too literally. Every statement I've said you've misunderstood not because of a failure of intellect but because of two reasons: you're relying on the ideas and arguments of others without understanding them and you take everything in the most literal sense you can. Christianity requires more abstract thinking than you have provided thus far. Again, not a rude comment but simply an observation. The entire argument on arrogance has been repeated for too many times for such a poor argument.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:07:00 2015 No.6031981

>>6031813
Now imagine Bob has been living forever, after literally an infinite amount of time he somehow decides that he wants to be a delivery man too, he does his job good up until the company gets closed down; why would Bob bother staying a "delivery man" when there is clearly no need for it.

>>6031803
Well the fact that he came out of a motherfucking vagina. Let's just imply that he had indeed lived before he was born (?), why didnt Jesus/God bother with prophets at all, when he had a human form of himself at hand at any time ?

Oh and also the fact, that there is virtually no mention of Jesus, before Jesus was born.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:08:55 2015 No.6031987 >>6031981 Those are some pretty stupid things you wrote there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:15:40 2015 No.6032004 >>6031981 I'm not even going to respond to this serioulsy, the logic here is trash and based on what I've seen of your intelligence so far I know you can do better.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:16:00 2015 No.6032007

>>6031987
Probably, as my knowledge of Christianity is very limited, I just want to understand how the Christian theologist explain two things

1) If Jesus was indeed a recreation of God himself by himself (implying that he was created at some point and was not always there), is there any explanation why he didnt do similar before ? I mean the religion was there before, but just send out with 'normal' prophets.

2) If Jesus has been there forever, why did God even bother to make normal human prophets ? Why not just fly down and just do it by himself ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:17:01 2015 No.6032011 >>6032007 >If Jesus was indeed a recreation of God himself by himself He wasn't. >If Jesus has been there forever, why did God even bother to make normal human prophets ? This is on the same level as "why doesn't God fix everything ever?"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:17:23 2015 No.6032012 >>6031987 >>6032004 Oh and I should've said that I'm not that muslim guy, dont think bad of him just because of my ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:18:14 2015 No.6032015 >>6032012 Don't worry, he's not much better.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:21:17 2015 No.6032019

>>6031961
>If you honestly think that this is what Christians believe, then you understand much less of Christianity than I originally thought. Have you read Scripture?
It is how you continually portray God.

>Think about what you just said, because it makes no sense and is actually ironically more ridiculous than what you're arguing against. God is just a force? No friend, God is so much more than simply a force. A force does not have conscious thought or character. God is the consciousness of the universe? No, God is not simply all of creation sharing a consciousness, or the representative consciousness of His creation. The mind of God does not reside in and depend on His creation, that is illogical.
This is where the Theology differs. God is not simply a person in Islam, God is everything.

>Does Genesis not say that God created man in His own image? Do you not understand the significance of that statement? Is it arrogance to say that God loves and understands us fully, and wishes the best for us, and that we are precious to Him? The Bible is largely about the failures of humanity. I find it difficult to see the arrogance.
The arrogance is in the fact that Christianity claims to know everything about God, down to the way he looks.

>1. You have zero evidence.
>2. Even if alien life-forms do exist, what matters is if they are sentient.
>3. Even if alien life-forms do exist and are sentient, that still is not a silver bullet.
>4. "Alien" life-forms do exist and are sentient. They're called angels. No, they do not occupy the same place as humans.
I prefer to go with Science and assume that Aliens do exist. In which case, again, it would be silly to think that God is centered on us when so much more is out there. Humans are not the center of Gods universe.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:24:05 2015 No.6032024

>>6031980
>I'm not going to generalize to all Muslims and feign stupidity for the sake of a sweeping comment, but I do have to say that you individually have a tendency to take things entirely too literally. Every statement I've said you've misunderstood not because of a failure of intellect but because of two reasons: you're relying on the ideas and arguments of others without understanding them and you take everything in the most literal sense you can. Christianity requires more abstract thinking than you have provided thus far. Again, not a rude comment but simply an observation. The entire argument on arrogance has been repeated for too many times for such a poor argument.
If religion is easy to comprehend then we should take it fairly literally. When it's difficult with many interpretations you end up confused and misunderstanding, how can you follow Gods will if you can't even understand what he is talking about. God uses many allegories and metaphors, but these are to help our understanding, now to create varying answers.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:37:52 2015 No.6032047

>>6032007

This will be my last set of posts before I go to class. If this thread is still up when I get back (around 6) then I'll keep participating. If not then thank you to everyone for the conversation.

>>6032007
> If Jesus was indeed a recreation of God himself by himself (implying that he was created at some point and was not always there), is there any explanation why he didnt do similar before ? I mean the religion was there before, but just send out with 'normal' prophets.

The Bible states that all of creation was brought into existence through Christ. Jesus was around long before his birth. To understand this you need to understand that existence is not just physical.

As to why Jesus did not appear earlier? My informed opinion is that the time wasn't right. Christ's ministry appeared amidst a shift in human thought. I don't think that's a coincidence. In any case, the full answer is beyond my scope and there are things as human beings that we simply don't understand. I can make informed hypotheses like the one above, but do I fully know why Christ was born at this exact moment rather than that one? No.

>If Jesus has been there forever, why did God even bother to make normal human prophets ? Why not just fly down and just do it by himself ?

Again, I believe that for many reasons the timing wasn't right, although God did "fly down and do it himself" (although "fly down" isn't a good choice of words here) multiple times. Also, God loves to work through his people. It brings human beings closer together and reminds them that they need each other to function properly as God's people, for one. It is important to God that we love and care for each other.

I think a good question here is why is it so important that God physically appeared? He "appeared" and "appears" in countless other ways all the time both to individuals and collectives. God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts. You think it's odd because you are a human with an incredibly limited scope. God is after all, Spirit.

>>6032012

Don't think poorly of yourself, everyone of us is ignorant to some degree. You seem intelligent and you're actively seeking out knowledge and answers and I commend you for that. I also admire your ability to humble yourself before people who disagree with you, that's a noble quality that I wish I had more of.

>>6032012

Muslim guy is plenty intelligent, he's just set in his ways of thought like all of us are in some respect. He's unwilling to change his longstanding beliefs, that's human nature and I can't point the finger at him for that without also making myself guilty.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:45:03 2015 No.6032057

>>6032019
>It is how you continually portray God.
You have a better way of painting him? I mean it isn't the only way we protray him anyway.
>I prefer to go with Science and assume that Aliens do exist. In which case, again, it would be silly to think that God is centered on us when so much more is out there. Humans are not the center of Gods universe.
Yeah.... science.
No m8, that isn't science, that is science fiction. Aliens haven't been proven and there was no evidence whatsoever to assume intellegent life exists outside of "the universe is big, a lot of things are possible"

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:52:56 2015 No.6032068

>>6032019
>It is how you continually portray God.

Think on this more because it is inherently untrue and I feel like you know this but are feigning stupidity in order to maintain it as an argumentative point. Of course God is not "literally a human in the sky". Please point to where I indicated that.

>This is where the Theology differs. God is not simply a person in Islam, God is everything.

Now I know that this isn't true at all. What you're suggesting is pantheism. Again, you're making broad, cliched general statements about God without really understanding them. You need to logically think about what you're about to say before you say it because you aren't seeing the implications of your comments before you post them and they're destroying your entire argument.

Things like "God is a force". "God is the consciousness of the universe." "God is everything." sure sound cool, but what do they actually MEAN? You need to ask yourself this question.

>The arrogance is in the fact that Christianity claims to know everything about God, down to the way he looks.

Again, this is untrue. Here are the logical flaws in what you just said (I know this number thing is getting old but it's an effective way to get you to see the point quickly because I don't think normal type is getting it across):

1. Christianity never claims to know "everything" about God, quite the opposite actually. This statement is untrue.
2. You've again missed the point because you take everything super literally. "We look like God." refers to SPIRITUALITY. Later on, God chose to take on the image of a man to reach out to mankind out of His own love and power.
3. God the Father does not look like anything, in my informed opinion. God the Spirit obviously does not look like anything. God the Son looks like a human being because He chose to take on that role, not because God is a human being. You're being too literal and not understanding this.
4. We don't even know what Jesus specifically looked like, the Bible makes very few statements.
5. By claiming that it's arrogant to make claims about God you are literally calling every single religion and anyone that ever talked about God arrogant, including yourself. Again, think about the implications of what you say before you say it, because you are shooting yourself in the foot.
6. Even if it is arrogant, how arrogant something may or may not be has NO relation to how true it is. I remind you that it is arrogant to suggest that humans are the dominant species on the planet. It is also TRUE.

>I prefer to go with Science and assume that Aliens do exist.

Do you actually understand the science beyond such a statement, or are you just repeating something Hawking said once? Do you understand what proof means? I return you to the points that you yourself quoted. Read over them because you literally repeated your exact claim when I already answered it. You need to either refute my points or qualify your claim. You have done neither.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 08:57:26 2015 No.6032074

>>6032057
>You have a better way of painting him? I mean it isn't the only way we protray him anyway.
Simply do not portray him.

>No m8, that isn't science, that is science fiction. Aliens haven't been proven and there was no evidence whatsoever to assume intellegent life exists outside of "the universe is big, a lot of things are possible"
It's a high enough chance to take it as fact.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:02:57 2015 No.6032089

>>6032068
>
Think on this more because it is inherently untrue and I feel like you know this but are feigning stupidity in order to maintain it as an argumentative point. Of course God is not "literally a human in the sky". Please point to where I indicated that.
Then why do Christians continually draw this?

>Now I know that this isn't true at all. What you're suggesting is pantheism. Again, you're making broad, cliched general statements about God without really understanding them. You need to logically think about what you're about to say before you say it because you aren't seeing the implications of your comments before you post them and they're destroying your entire argument.
I'm telling you the concept of God in Islam, i know what they mean, it's explained in the Qur'an. Here is an example >>6027380

1. Christianity never claims to know "everything" about God, quite the opposite actually. This statement is untrue.
2. You've again missed the point because you take everything super literally. "We look like God." refers to SPIRITUALITY. Later on, God chose to take on the image of a man to reach out to mankind out of His own love and power.
3. God the Father does not look like anything, in my informed opinion. God the Spirit obviously does not look like anything. God the Son looks like a human being because He chose to take on that role, not because God is a human being. You're being too literal and not understanding this.
4. We don't even know what Jesus specifically looked like, the Bible makes very few statements.
5. By claiming that it's arrogant to make claims about God you are literally calling every single religion and anyone that ever talked about God arrogant, including yourself. Again, think about the implications of what you say before you say it, because you are shooting yourself in the foot.
6. Even if it is arrogant, how arrogant something may or may not be has NO relation to how true it is. I remind you that it is arrogant to suggest that humans are the dominant species on the planet. It is also TRUE.
Maybe you are correct on all of this, but then there is obviously a disagreement between the scripture and the actions of Christians.

>Do you actually understand the science beyond such a statement, or are you just repeating something Hawking said once? Do you understand what proof means? I return you to the points that you yourself quoted. Read over them because you literally repeated your exact claim when I already answered it. You need to either refute my points or qualify your claim. You have done neither.
You really like to ask these rhetorical questions. I know what it means, i understand the science behind it, and i choose to accept it because it makes sense in Islamic theology. I don't believe God would simply create one set of sentient people in the physical universe. I've now explained why i believe it.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:07:54 2015 No.6032096

>>6032019
>Humans are not the center of Gods universe.

On what authority do you make such a statement and what logic do you have to back it up? I'm not suggesting that humans are the center of God's universe. I'm suggesting that humans are precious to Him. Again, you are offering no logic.

As a question, if it's arrogant to suggest that God took on the form of a human, then why is it arrogant? How is it not arrogant to suggest that He didn't? Both make claims about God. Why is it arrogant to suggest that humans matter to God? Do you understand that saying that God loves us reflects well on God's character, not ours?

On a note unrelated to logical discourse, I get the feeling that you think that God loving and being passionate about humanity is a sign of arrogance on humanity's part and weakness on God's. You are mistaken. God loves us because He is great, not because we are. Love is not weakness but strength.

>If religion is easy to comprehend then we should take it fairly literally.

Religion is not easy to comprehend, neither is Scripture. Faith and your relationship with God is easy to comprehend.

>then we should take it fairly literally. When it's difficult with many interpretations you end up confused and misunderstanding

You don't understand what the word "literal" means. Literal does not mean one, solid interpretation as opposed to many. Literal means that you understand things without any kind of abstract thought.

>with many interpretations you end up confused and misunderstanding

Wrong. Taking things literally is what actually makes you confused. Example:

Speaker: "I'm giving such a good speech right now, I'm on fire!"

Literal Thinker: "Wait, did you just say you're on fire? I don't see you burning. I don't think you're actually on fire. I also don't see how that's related to how good your speech is. I'm confused...."

Thinker Capable of Abstract Thought: "Oh, I get it, he's using the phrase 'I'm on fire' in an abstract sense to mean that he's doing really well at something."

Thinking in an abstract sense doesn't create varying answers. It allows you to understand things. Most of the time in Scripture there is 1 definitive answer through logical analysis.

>God uses many allegories and metaphors

Which, if you take literally, you would be completely unable to understand, as shown above.

Again, think about what you say before you say it. You're doing more damage to your own argument than I am.

Go back and read what I said with an open mind. Understand that when I say that God created us in His image, what I mean is not that we LITERALLY look like God in a physical sense, instead what that means is that we SPIRITUALLY resemble God.

As a closing statement I don't think you're unintelligent but your logic is very weak and you need to brush up on how to conduct yourself in a logical conversation. You seem bright but you need to know that a discussion is not a contest; sometimes you can learn from your opponent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:09:19 2015 No.6032099 >>6032089 I need to go to class, if you're back on later tonight and this thread is up I'll respond. Thanks for the conversation.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:23:11 2015 No.6032126

>>6032096
You firstly have to understand that everything I'm saying is coming from an Islamic view based on the Qur'an. From a Christian view what I'm saying is probably all wrong.

>As a question, if it's arrogant to suggest that God took on the form of a human, then why is it arrogant? How is it not arrogant to suggest that He didn't? Both make claims about God. Why is it arrogant to suggest that humans matter to God? Do you understand that saying that God loves us reflects well on God's character, not ours?
It is arrogant to suggest the image of God because the Qur'an tells us that God is simply beyond our understanding and comprehension. It isn't arrogant to say God loves us and cares for us, but it is to say we are his entire focus and devotion, as the Qur'an states that God does so much and that we are a small part of the vast universe.

>Religion is not easy to comprehend, neither is Scripture. Faith and your relationship with God is easy to comprehend.
Religion from God should be easy to understand in general to follow and understand.

[54:17] We made the Quran easy to learn. Does any of you wish to learn?
[54:22] We made the Quran easy to learn. Does any of you wish to learn?
[54:32] We made the Quran easy to learn. Does any of you wish to learn?
[54:40] We made the Quran easy to learn. Does any of you wish to learn?

But also, with parts which are there to make you think and ponder, things you can't always understand, such as

[24:35] GOD is the light of the heavens and the earth. The allegory of His light is that of a concave mirror behind a lamp that is placed inside a glass container. The glass container is like a bright, pearl-like star. The fuel thereof is supplied from a blessed oil-producing tree, that is neither eastern, nor western. Its oil is almost self-radiating; needs no fire to ignite it. Light upon light. GOD guides to His light whomever He wills. GOD thus cites the parables for the people. GOD is fully aware of all things.

>You don't understand what the word "literal" means. Literal does not mean one, solid interpretation as opposed to many. Literal means that you understand things without any kind of abstract thought.
Then we take much of the Qur'an without abstract thought, because much of it is easy.

>Wrong. Taking things literally is what actually makes you confused. Example:
Well at least within the Qur'an it tends to state when it is using an allergory or metaphor. I'm on fire is a metaphor for doing well. The Qur'an says it is easy, it doesn't say don't use common sense.

>Which, if you take literally, you would be completely unable to understand, as shown above.
But the direct point of an allegory or metaphor is that you don't take it literally, it's a way of explaning a different concept by using one that works the same but is simpler to understand.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:23:31 2015 No.6032127 >>6031877 >Didn't Muslims burn the library of Alexandria? That was Ceasar >>6031779 What did you expect of a Quranist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:28:27 2015 No.6032137 >>6032127 >What did you expect of a Quranist? Quranism is much more logical and smart than Sunni Islam. At least it doesn't put its faith in 250 years of chinese whispers.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:31:48 2015 No.6032144

>>6032096
>>6032126
Here is the perfect verse to tell you what i mean about it being clear, and also metaphorical.

>[3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses -which constitute the essence of the scripture-as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this -all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

>>6032127
>What did you expect of a Quranist?
All my arguments come from the Qur'an, something which makes Sunnis sick to their stomachs. They cannot stand having to rely on the word of God alone. They get defensive and insulting and call you a kafir if you mention how you only follow Gods word, not mans.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:48:43 2015 No.6032199

>>6032144
The sunnah of the prophet is part of the revelation and not an invention like you
seem to claim.
The prophet(saw) gets called an example
http://quran.com/33/21
We are told to obey the prophet(Saw)
http://quran.com/3/32
http://quran.com/3/132
And the prophet Muhammed(saw) did not make things up
http://quran.com/53/2-4

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 09:57:05 2015 No.6032223

>>6032199
The sunnah is entirely unreliable
The Quran claims no other books are needed
The Qur'an claims nothing else is needed to explain it
The Qur'an claims other religious books cannot prohibit things like the sunnah does
The Qur'an claims books will come in the future fabricating lies about Muhammad
The Qur'an says that people will always deviate from Gods word and set up other things beside it.
The Qur'an says that it has completed and perfected Islam itself.

The Qur'an saying to follow the messenger simple means to follow the messages.

The message is simply and clear, you only need the Qur'an.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:11:26 2015 No.6032268 File: 224 KB, 804x790, Thomsen_Orkhon_table_1893.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >not reading thousand-pages long turkic epics step it up

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:12:45 2015 No.6032272

>>6032223
>The Qur'an saying to follow the messenger simple means to follow the messages.
Of course following the messenger means following the message. That's because the sunnah is part of the message.

>The Quran claims no other books are needed
no it doesn't
>The Qur'an claims nothing else is needed to explain it
No it doesn't
>The Qur'an claims other religious books cannot prohibit things like the sunnah does
Every single hadith does this?
>The Qur'an claims books will come in the future fabricating lies about Muhammad
They did come, but they aren't the sunnah
>The Qur'an says that people will always deviate from Gods word and set up other things beside it.
People did do this, but it doesn't refer to the sunnah
>The Qur'an says that it has completed and perfected Islam itself.
The Quran says that the religion has been perfected, not that it has been perfected by the quran.

>The sunnah is entirely unreliable
-A person that understands nothing behind hadith science.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:51:48 2015 No.6032342

>>6032272

>The Quran claims no other books are needed
no it doesn't

>The Qur'an claims nothing else is needed to explain it
>No it doesn't
6:114 - "Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed" Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.
41:3 - A Book, in which the verses are explained in detail; A Quran in Arabic, for (those) people who understand;

>The Qur'an claims other religious books cannot prohibit things like the sunnah does
>Every single hadith does this?
No of course not all do, but many prohibt so many things not even mentioned by the Qur'an. This is not allowed per verses
3:94 - Those who fabricate false prohibitions after this, and attribute them to God, are truly wicked.
5:87 - O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by God, and do not aggress; God dislikes the aggressors.
16:116 - You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: "This is lawful, and this is unlawful," to fabricate lies and attribute them to God. Surely, those who fabricate lies and attribute them to God will never succeed.

>The Qur'an claims books will come in the future fabricating lies about Muhammad
>They did come, but they aren't the sunnah
Of course they are the Sunnah, because the Sunnah is absolutley full of lies about Muhammad, such as being a cross dressing pedophile. The Sunnah is full of tales of Muhammad doing things the Qur'an condemns. How can a Muslim accept such things?

>The Qur'an says that people will always deviate from Gods word and set up other things beside it.
>People did do this, but it doesn't refer to the sunnah
Again, as before, it does. Islam is very stern on not setting up Gods beside Gods, such as claiming a prophet to be Gods son or that God has parents etc. Most Muslims manage to abide by this, but their nature still takes over and they cannot resist putting up partners next to go, so instead of going all the way, they do the next best thing. They claim Gods Qur'an is incomplete, and put the words of man on the same level next to it, and claim it is nessecary for religion, all of which is untrue. People can't accept what God has given them and ask for more.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 10:52:50 2015 No.6032345

>>6032272
>>6032342

>The Qur'an says that it has completed and perfected Islam itself.
>The Quran says that the religion has been perfected, not that it has been perfected by the quran.
The Sunnah did not appear for over two centuries, so how could the Qur'an say the religion has been perfected when the Sunnah which you claim perfects it still did not exist for another two centuries? You will say it was just written down after two centuries, but always existed. Well no, the Sunnah is so massive that without it being written there is simply no way for any Muslim to follow it all and learn it all, so no Muslim could follow the Sunnah for two centuries, so according to you, Islam was incomplete until the Sunnah formed, which contradicts the Qur'an.

>The sunnah is entirely unreliable
>A person that understands nothing behind hadith science.
Hadith Science is easy to understand.

Until the time of writing the hadith they were orally transmitted, down the generations, for some 200 years, to 400 years for others. The compilers of the hadith, such as Al-Bukhari, interviewed the people with these oral traditions, he chose to accept the ones if he believed the person was of good character, and if their descendants were. Somehow he knew if people over the last 200 years were of Good character to not manipulate, make up or just simple mistake a tradition of the prophet. Then let us not forget how all traditions which are orally passed down are changed, we see this with all oral traditions. The passage of time corrupts legends if they're not written down. While it is possible to come to some consensus by comparing traditions said by multiple peoples, there is just no way it can ever be reliable enough to actually use as religious law, even without regarding how the Qur'an entirely condemns it.

Remember, the Qur'an knows about Sunnis, who don't accept the Qur'an fully, who need extra writings to have religion.
[15:91] They accept the Quran only partially.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 12:49:25 2015 No.6032571 >>6032074 No, it really isn't. the chance means nothing since we havent moved from earth and we know almost nothing.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 14:32:47 2015 No.6032904

>>6032571
In the past decade alone we're finding hundreds of planets in habitable zones. We know how easy it is for life to exist, so it's only logical to assume its everywhere. Regardless if we're talking about religion then God will have simply made life on other planets.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature