Here we discuss the history of Islam and its importance in history.
Note that even though this is an Islam thread everyone can join in on the discussion so don't be afraid even if you are not muslim.
>Anyone can join in but pls no shitposting
Are nasheeds historical?
All the ones I seem to find are modern ones that sound enhanced by computers or something
When did Islamic chants come into practice?
I'd heard Mohammed banned music, though I don't know too much about that
out of curiosity, are there any historical accounts of the prophet mohammed outside of islam? or is it like the controversy about the existence of jesus? islam's affect on the history of the world has been undeniable, regardless of whether you support it or not, I just wonder what is fact and what is legend regarding it's origins
>I'd heard Mohammed banned music
He didn't. There are a couple of Hadiths that stated he didn't like music that much and would cover his ears if he passed a Sheppard playing a flute. Nonetheless, he didn't ban or scold the ones playing music. It was also reported that he encouraged people to play music on happy occasions like Eid and weddings. This issue, playing instruments, is a little controversial nonetheless. But everyone agrees that singing and poetry without instruments is OK and, to some extent, encouraged.
As for nasheeds. Lots of the ones you hear today are modern ones. They do take the classical poetry format though.
If your looking for poetry, chants and lyrics, then there's a HUUUGE library of that. Extending from pre-Islamic times to modern times.
mentioned how? christians believe jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the coming messiah. did mohammad fulfill similar prophecies? or are there actual accounts of him in the new testament, also, i was thinking more along the lines of reports from figures disconnected from the religion itself. for example, one compelling argument for the existence of jesus as a historical figure is the accounts of justinius
in theory all of the abrahamic religions worship the same god; the god of abraham as described in the old testament. beyond that a lot of differences are regional, as with all religions. in fact, in general religious practices tend to reflect regional cultures more than any actual dogma.
>singing and poetry without instruments is OK
>poetry, chants, lyrics
Mohammad confirmed for being fond of Hip-Hop?
In the New Testament, Jesus sort of sets up the way the church 'should' be run, although it is vague enough for the schism to have occurred. Wasn't Mohammad more specific with this, or did he do something similar?
Everyone /pol/ is planning on raiding this thread.
keep your eyes glued to the report button.
This thread will learn us about the history of Islam, as many people like myself see more muslims everyday in Europe.
Do you think we're seeing Islam evolve into a modern world religion?
Are Islamic extremists simply unable to let go of the traditional ways?
I understand Islam had importance in uniting and progressing the middle east throughout history, which has had important impact on the entire world, but I always seem to run into a gap no one talks about around 1600-1900 where Islam seems to die, save for Byzantine.
Well, it's hard to deny Muhammad's existence. Of course if your looking for him mentioned in Roman or Chinese records then you won't find him mentioned; the guy didn't live there. But on the other hand, all his companions recorded his existence first hand. And the way Arabic narrations work is that every narrations should be authenticated by checking the list of people narrating, making sure they, the narrators, themselves are known, have good memory and met each other. So its hard to deny the big amount of narrations and Islamic record about him. Also consider that Muhammad had children, and to this day his descendants exist and their family trees are authenticated and recorded as well. Another things are that Muhammad didn't claim to be some sort of son of god with miraculous birth or anything, and the spread of Islam was during his time, not some decades later. So I don't think being skeptical about his existence makes much sense.
the thing with islam is that the book doesn't change or there is no 'pope' equivalent who gives no rules about christianity.
the most progressive islamic countries are non denominational.
As someone who grew up in an islamic country, I recognize it had it's place, but I wish to see it go away. Corrupt leaders very much use it to their advantage so people are blind to the troubles around them
Would anyone else agree that any questions regarding to "why does modern Islam do this ass-backward thing" can be answered with "because the Mongols sacked Baghdad?"
I feel like if it weren't for the Mongols, we'd be living in a Middle-East centric world rather than a Eurocentric world. Unbroken scientific progress, mathematics, medicine...
The Satanic Verses incident literally proves that Muhammed was a big time memer. Why do people in the 21st century believe in him? This is not even mentioning the fact that the Qur'an is full of contradictions in the stories of the Prophets then claims that it is the last Revelation
a lot of things islam banns now are a result of them taking thinsg muhommad did in passing super serious.
even alcohol he wasn't particularly against just he didn't like people getting drunk during prayer time.
the most immediate aspect of islam is integrating prayer into the daily routine of your life, a practicing muslim stops for prayer 5 times every single day so in theory piety is a cornerstone of day to day life.
Because Muhammed only preached that tolerance BS during the Meccan period when he was outnumbered. When he started to gain a real following, he showed his true colors and put down a bunch of hateful garbage that abrogated the good stuff
He was mentally ill and hateful, having grown up without any parental contact.
hahal is not a word
you may have confused it with the word halal but it would have been an improper use of that term because halal means acceptable
I think you meant to say haram which means sinful.
if you absolutely must shitpost atleast try to do it without making yourself look like an idiot next time.
I think it would have. The post-Roman world's progress was basically concentrated in either Asia or Middle East, and Mongols basically went about sacking all the important metropolitan areas.
You could argue that the Mongols incorporated a lot of the intellectuals into their own society (and went on to form a Chinese dynasty of their own), but the collective institutional knowledge isn't something that's easily replaced. Sacking of a place like Baghdad is a huuuuuuge deal.
I don't think its impossible, but I don;t see it happening any time soon just due to the nature of Islam today and all the historical baggage many Muslims can't get rid of.
I'm a Catholic but have you even actually read the Quran?
its very poetic and beautiful, a work of art in itself especially in Arabic.
though Islam itself is just a christian heresy and Quran comes from the Syriac word for Liturgy. beyond that a good 20% of the Quran is actually in Syriac and lifted straight from their gospels.
Islam began as a christian reform/heretical movement in opposition tot he tyranny of the Romans and Byzantium finding haven in the neutral territories of Arabia.
contemporary figures pointed this out themselves and in the middle ages people considered Muhammad a schismatic like Luther rather than a heathen.
St. John of Damascus wrote extensively on the new Arabian heresy
The first few pages are basically
Allah will destroy the filthy non believers, they will be crushed by their ways, praise be to Muhammad all must remember muhammad destroy the immoral pagans
no because that's complete wank
the mongols were a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant, Turk controlled Muslim world which would have just fought itself to obliteration.
following the Mongol invasion there was a massive resurgence in the Islamic world as these conquerors converted, and the Muslim center moved from Baghdad to Turkey Iran and India instead which all flourished.
the real "end" of Islam as a global power came in the 17th-18th centuries with the collapse of the Gunpowder empires and their power.
Islam literally confides the people of the book (Jews and Christians) to a lower status so this makes no sense. Islam is just the creation of a deeply disturbed man in the hellish environment of the 7th century Arabia
desu being a Christian under Islam for a long time was better than being a christian under the slightly different christian Byzantines
in Iberia they were a minority so they had to be lenient, plus all that Jizya monies meant tons of dosh that they didn't want to stop.
>Islam itself is just a christian heresy
Not really. Christ never played a central role in Islamic dogma.
On the other hand, Christianity, it can be argued, was a Jewish heresy.
It could also be argued that Islam was an ecumenical Jewish 'movement' of sorts that sought to restore the 'true faith' of monotheism, seeing as how critical Islam was of the concept of trinity and how closely Islamic theology mirrors Jewish theology.
>Quran comes from the Syriac word for Liturgy
That's a cute theory, but it's discredited by virtually all historians and linguists.
>Christ never played a central role in Islamic dogma.
Christ playing a minor role doesn't make it non-christian
lots of early christian work mentions Christ so little its hard to tell if it is Jewish or not.
the entirety of Islamic theology is basically a continuation of the Arian heretical movement after they were exiled from the Empire
and their invasion really didn't matter much in the long run, the long term results were an overall net-gain as I said since they all converted anyways.
The religion of peace meme was started by George W. Bush.
Nobody had used the phrase "religion of peace" before, certainly not Muslims. They just called the "the one true faith/religion" or something to that effect.
Also, he only went to war with Mecca in self-defense, after they drove out him and his followers after years of persecution, seizing their properties.
Child marriage =/= pedophilia
Yes, it could be argued that the original Christianity isn't Catholicism. But the original Christianity has been altered so much by the Roman church that what we burgers commonly call Christianity (protestant) is derived heavily from Catholicism.
Catholicism was a way of justifying post-Roman church to go to war by incorporating the more violent elements of paganism into the religion. You can't exactly go to war with what's often touted as "religion of peace."
>aside from being a pedo
judge people based on the morality of their era, child marriage was completely acceptable back then
the one that gets to me is that Mohammad severely curtailed the rights of women through islamic law compared to pre-islamic arabian law
Those seafaring civilizations wouldn't exist if middle-ages Arabs and Chinese didn't get steamrolled, though.
If the Mongols didn't exist, I think one civilization that would've brought down the Arabs would've been one of the Chinese dynasties and its client kingdoms.
the rights of women to own property were revoked which I always found rather shocking considering Khadija's wealth from owning a caravan was what allowed him to live the life of a poet in the first place.
There were also many different forms of marriage in pre-islamic arabia including women marrying mutliple men, but that was restricted to only allow men to marry multiple women.
Child marriage (i.e what Muhammad and his society practiced) has been practiced by virtually every society and civilization throughout every time period.
Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, Turks, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and more - they all did it. It was normal then.
It only started to be seen as abnormal in the late 1800s due to the Purity movements in the Anglosphere.
No way. The Qur'an has some sympathy for women. However the inheritance laws, religious customs and denigration of their entire gender is way beyond anything in pagan Arabia. I mean just look at shit like this
It was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that women will form the majority of the people of Hell. It was narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”
(Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3241; Muslim, 2737)
With regard to the reason for this, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked about it and he explained the reason.
It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allah ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 1052)
The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away for I disliked to face him.”
>the rights of women to own property were revoked
But that's wrong. One of the defining characteristics of Sharia law is women can own, inherit, and bequeath property and that their property is separate from their husbands (he has no right to it).
Yeah, that's something that always just amazes me. Khadijah was one of the most famous and respected women in Islam and taught Muhammad everything he knew about being a merchant, but if she were alive in those countries that claim to be the most devout Muslim states, she would be murdered. How do those aforementioned states reconcile that?
look at the old testament god, he is described as a vengeful nearly psychotic entity, the main dfierence between muslims and christians is that the latter have moved on and dont take the crazy parts very seriously
also mohamed was a warlord, so of course his religion will be warlike
this is true, sunni muslims are particularly guilty of it
>As someone who grew up in an islamic country, I recognize it had it's place, but I wish to see it go away. Corrupt leaders very much use it to their advantage so people are blind to the troubles around them
this, its way too easy to abuse since any one cleric can claim whatever he wants and gain followers, not having any central authority like the pope is turning out to be a really bad thing, I think its also what propagates muslim-on-muslim violence, since there is not some power recognised by everyone that can just demand they "cut it out"
Girls were being married off to adult men around the age of 7 in the Americas (both North and South) during the 1800s.
China stopped the tradition of child marriage only very recently.
In India, around 47% of girls are/were married off as children. Child marriage is still common in the world's largest democracy.
Those were hadiths made centuries after the Qur'an, and mostly attributed to a guy who was specifically recorded as being called out numerous times by Aysha and Mu'awiyyah for being a misogynist who kept making up quotes and attributing them to Muhammad.
However I will say that the fact that hadiths have any authority whatsoever is a big problem with Islam imo.
During the summer I read the account of Ahmad ibn Fadlan and other Muslim travelers to medieval Russia and it was really interesting.
There were even accounts of an iron wall separating the earth from the giants and accounts of giants using tree trunks as weapons.
>People are actually discussing shit and not shitposting.
Sup guys, muslim here.
Like many other muslims, I no longer believe that adultery should be punished by caning or stoning. Simply put, I dont think hudud is a good idea.
But I still believe in Allah and the prophet.
What should I do?
You do know that Mary is generally believed to have been about 13 when she gave birth to Jesus, yes? And 12 when she was betrothed to Joseph, who, going by apocryphal accounts at least, was old enough to be her grandfather.
>Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713
You can still be a religious person and have faith in god without believing that the Quran is the literal word of god. Focus on leading by example by being a moral and ethical person yourself rather than trying to force your ethics on others.
Personally though I have a difficult time believing in an inherently caring god when I look around and see all the horrors of the world, which makes me feel that organized religion is largely a pointless endeavor.
hudud is not necessary if there isn't an islamic caliphate
Thing about hudud, is there has to be a process about it, like literally you can't just have a band of soldiers placing hudud punishment to people
That's basically what a caliph is, except caliphs had to have political/military power for their claim to be taken seriously.
A caliph without an empire would just be some random imam. Some would listen to him, some wouldn't, and he'd have a pretty hard time convincing anyone that he has any more authority than any other imam.
When did Islam turn to shit?
They were doing Algebra, and reading up on the Classics.
I remember reading somewhere, that due to allegations of apostasy, Islamic universities in the medieval ages weren't that good for being a center of innovative learning.
Which Islamic empire was best Islamic empire?
My vote goes to Abbasid.
>The ideal age of a recruit was between 7 and 10 years of age, although they recruited much younger boys. The devşirme system was locally resented and was resisted, even to the point of disfiguring their sons
That's what you get, Ottomans
Virginia, 1689: Mary Hathaway was only 9 when she was married to William Williams.
England, 17th century: Sir Edward Coke made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal.
In France, until the French Revolution, the marriageable age was 12 years for girls.
Best Muslim ever. Best Muslim empire, too.
The marriage was consummated on the wedding night, as is custom in Western tradition and is expected. Are you trying to be retarded on purpose or is your autism just acting up?
I actually want to read the Koran to better understand Islam and it's artistic and cultural significance. It's like the Bible, everyone should look at it, even if you don't believe it.
That said, pic kinda related.
I agree. One bit of advice, though: avoid the Khan translation. It is seriously bad. Like, the translator keeps adding in these little jibes in parentheses about Jews and Christians and whatnot. It is basically like if the Conservative Bible Project got official backing from an actual government (Saudi Arabia, who funded and pushed the Khan translation to support their regime). Yet it's also one of the more widespread translations, because, again, the Saudis actively support it.
But unlike Jesus, Muhammad is proven to exist. Many letters and tax papers are signed by him personally. He even sent letters to the Byzantine emperor, and he responded. So Muhammad definately existed.
Having recently read the Qur'an, it seems to me as though Sam Harris was spot on in saying that ISIS is a good example of what we would see should a group of people follow the Qur'an wholly and literally.
In comparison to other major religious texts, the Qur'an seems genuinely violent and preaches a way of life that is very archaic. The Old Testament is just as bad if not worse - but a major difference is that it does not glorify a believer's death and martyrdom. Islamic fundamentalists get their justification for killing infidels right from their text. They are looking forward to death.
Would like to hear some thoughts on this. Please help me clear up any misconceptions I may have.
Akbar was based though
Mughals were definately Muslim, if the non-muslims had to pay jizyah, the state was definitely an Islamic(ish) state
Akbar was really liberal though, he abolished jizya for a while, but then probably realized he didn't have the right as a muslim leader to do that, and reinstated it
"Towards the end of his life he ruled, at least temporarily, over northern India (801/1398), Syria (803/1400) and Anatolia (804/1402)—or rather, he plundered and massacred relentlessly throughout these countries. In spite of his bigoted and ostentatious Sunni piety, he was one of the worst enemies to whom Islamic civilization ever fell a victim; moreover he systematically decimated the Christians, with the result that since then the Nestorians and Jacobites of Mesopotamia have been only a shadow of their former selves. In the course of his campaigns he slaughtered countless thousands and built pyramids of their skulls. Innumerable towns were devastated and their inhabitants pillaged. Islamic learning and art suffered damage from which they took long to recover, and in some areas never recovered at all. Timiir's only aesthetic interest was the embellishment of his capital, Samarqand, which was effected by artists and craftsmen gathered from afar; many of his buildings have survived to the present day, through the care of his successors and subsequent restoration."
-Cambridge History of Islam Vol. 1 page 188.
Hilarious joke m8 would giggle again.
If you really did read the Qur'an, you would know exactly why ISIS is not islamic. I mean it is true there are verses in the Qur'an that seems to justify ISIS, but those verses talk about an entirely different scenario (eg when non-Muslims attack Muslims, and drive them out of their houses, take their property, stop them from visiting mosques etc)
>failing to invade europe
>Umayyads conquer the majority of Iberia and for a short time parts of Languedoc.
>Emirate of Sicily that lasted a couple hundred years
>the Hordes subjugating Russia
>centuries long occupation of the Balkans
>failing to invade Europe
Hell, the Pope made plans to flee to France in the face of an imminent Ottoman invasion.
i think what anon is trying to say is that mohamad didn't invent raiding caravans and therefore he didn't really do anything wrong.
like if you owned pokemon cards as a kid, raiding caravans was trendy. mohamad was merely a follower.
>i think what anon is trying to say is that mohamad didn't invent raiding caravans and therefore he didn't really do anything wrong.
To be fair, that rapist/murderer/torturer didn't invent rape/murder/torture, and therefore didn't do anything wrong.
well yeah, like i said. he was just going with the flow, his ideas weren't anything revolutionary or new and as such he clearly wasn't a prophet.
you would think that a prophet would know that 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Not the person you're arguing with, but, pop quiz, I want you to try to name a 7th century army or warleader whose soldiers didn't rape or enslave enemies or conquered civilians, didn't commit any acts that by modern standards would be considered warcrimes, and didn't marry anyone under the age of 18.
Actually, for that matter, I'd like you to try naming any such army or warleader who existed before the 15th Century.
>he wasn't a prophet because his actions don't conform with my 21st century view of morality
Don't read up on the Old Testament or the Hebrew Prophets then, kid. You might get even more upset.
this is a thread about islam, and i don't give a single fuck about god.
>name a 7th century army or warleader
wow you are really grasping at straws here. people still do that shit today. i'm just saying that you would think that a prophet of god would know better, unless god isn't real which would make mohammad a no-good, lying son of a bitch, right?
wasn't gonna. funny thing is that islam came after all that whole christianity shit and i noticed that you specifically mentioned the old testament.
shouldn't islam echo the new testament if mohamad is a prophet? not saying that jesus is real but you pretty much need to believe in one or the other, if one is telling the truth then the other is lying.
What did Islam invent themselves and not adopt from subjucated cultures they may or may not also enslaved?
Why is it that muslims seem to cause trouble wherever they live? Even in Japan where there are about 4000 Turks they had a Clash with Kurds in front of an embassy like two weeks back for example.
Also, "Islam is a violent ideology meant to control all layers of society and if need be direct them for war, disquised as a religion." What can be said against that? Seeing how many battles where fought in name of Islam and its values since it came into existence and how a relatively small population of arabic desert folk carved out a huge empire within a short span of time after Islam came to be would support that no?
They didn't try to conquer "all of Europe" - that was never a goal of any Islamic empire.
But conquering Constantinople and expanding into Eastern Europe and the Balkans was a strategic goal of the Ottomans, yes.
Hardly: Hitler promoted Germans first, not multiculturalism. If Hitler did come back he would end the idea that the west has to bend over and take Muslim dick, though he may encourage Muslim participation in German society.
I have two questions that if anyone could answer I would be grateful
1) How do Muslims reconcile themselves with the Satanic Verses incident? Surely if Mohammed was accidentally communicating with the devil that time, he could have been doing it all the time? Or just making it all up?
2) Why do Muslims treat the Kaaba as if it had some great holy significance? It is a relic from the days in which people in the region were idolaters, circling a giant rock is unnecessary in a true monotheistic religion, surely?
>I want you to try to name a 7th century army or warleader
We're talking about religious figures here, not warlords.
Did Jesus kill his enemies and rape underage sex slaves? Did Buddha kill his enemies and rape underage sex slaves?
Ottomans were a fucking joke in terms of inventions and discoveries. Besides those canons that helped capture Constantinople, what else did they invent in ~500 years? Kebab? Maybe yogurt? Some lame musical instruments? That's really the best they could do?
>1) How do Muslims reconcile themselves with the Satanic Verses incident? Surely if Mohammed was accidentally communicating with the devil that time, he could have been doing it all the time? Or just making it all up?
The historicity of the incident is widely disputed. It was only first mentioned anywhere at all more than a century after Muhammad had died and the Quran had been compiled. For all we know, it never even happened.
>2) Why do Muslims treat the Kaaba as if it had some great holy significance? It is a relic from the days in which people in the region were idolaters, circling a giant rock is unnecessary in a true monotheistic religion, surely?
According to not just Islamic belief but greater pan-Semitic mythology, the Kaaba was built by Abraham as a temple to honor the one true God.
According to Islam, it had been corrupted over time by the pagan Meccans and other Arabs who had begun to house idols in it and used it for the practice of pagan religious practices and idol worship.
>the mongols were a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant, Turk controlled
The mongols predated the 'turk controlled muslim world' though if you're talking Ottoman empire. The muslim world was heavily dominated by the egyptians/persians/arabs during that time period.
Is there any reason that Islam causes the most trouble compared to other religions? Sure, The Bible has violent verses but you don't see as many terrorists or 'crusaders' coming from Christianity.
Is there some how any way to modernize Islam; to take away the violent verses? Or even better, have a Pope like figure to condemn the actions of terrorists?
Al-Baghdadi seems like a pretty chill caliph. Think he's dead though.
>is raise an army and go to war with mecca
Some sources would argue of a self-defensive nature. Conspiring tribes seeking to crush this unruly upstart so he struck first.
Nothing really wrong with that from any point of view. Do people not have a right to defend themselves?
Depends on who you ask. Many (mostly younger) people foster this ludicrous belief that you should never resolve to kill someone, even in self-defense (example, all of the mental gymnastics revolving around the weekly cop-shoots-rowdy-black-kid events). Self defense, when I was younger, was seen as a cornerstone of personal virtue; it was one thing to stay out of trouble, but admirable to fucking break a mugger's arm and leg when he tried to assault you. Modern day views of self-defense range from NRA-style total support to bleeding heart total opposition, but the view that self-defense should be "tempered" is becoming more popular.
They did have an observatorium, whose head was a guy who was really good at calculating stars. Then some fucking Imam claimed he built all the telescopes to look at angels' private parts from underneath, and the Navy had to blast the place down with fucking cannons.
Muhammad is treated as the universal moral role model for Islam.
However by the standards of the 21st Century today, the actions he took in his mission would be considered unethical, at the very least far from the symbol of purity he is made out to be.
On the other hand, other religious figureheads such as Jesus or Buddha have set examples that the modern man still fails to live up to, there teachings defying the violent, brutal environments in which they were raised.
Entirely cultural, actually. Hell, if I recall correctly, there is nothing that says 'cover your hair and face' for the women in the Q'uran - just your private parts, them being your breasts, torso, upper arms etc.
>To be fair, he did raid caravans (especially ones en route to Mecca) before the whole war with Mecca.
This is to the arab world (at the time and indeed well into the 20th century - read The seven pillars of wisdom by Lawrence of Arabia) as a game of fox hunting is to the English upperclasses.
At least give it context. Every tribe did it, everyone engaged in it, everyone expected it.
IIRC a big part of the end of the Islamic Golden Age was the sacking of Baghdad. Also, later on, the Late Middle Ages to Early Modern period, the Ottomans were on par with Europe, until the discovery of New World trade routes made the Silk Road routes redundant, and gold brought back from the Americas started filling European coffers and allowing them more time to sit and think about shit and advance with all their newly-acquired riches, while the Ottomans, having not been part of the expansion into the Americas, sort of started declining.
During the Islamic Golden Age though, they were fairly secular.
While some went around disfiguring, others were actually quite happy to give their children. It's like the Government coming and telling you that your boy's going to become part of an elite cadre of society, maybe even get to rule huge parts of the Empire, while you're too busy dying of diarrhea in the Balkans.
>What did Islam invent themselves
Do you mean Islam or muslims?
Islam provided a framework and paradigm which allowed some of the greatest empires to exist. It allowed people to unite behind something monolithic rather than stay fragmented. Throughout history the conduct of these people have been shown to be morally upstanding and at other times morally appalling. The stability and prosperity bought by the 'Islamic' expansion bought many developments and muslims were at the forefront of many technological and scientific advances not just 'they copied and translated' - they also very much innovated as well.
>and not adopt from subjucated cultures
But they did. There is a great plurality in Islam throughout history and even today hence why no-one country seems to be the same to another totally. Cultural differences survived and syncretic practices were implemented.
Why is it that muslims seem to cause trouble wherever they live?
Are you talking modern times? These are more the products of post-colonialist, post cold war (even active cold war) elements. It's interesting you cite
> are about 4000 Turks they had a Clash with Kurds
Which is entirely an ethnic and political subject which Islam has nothing to do with.
There's no point engaging with you any further because like an uneducated fool your profound ignorance and ready-made bias and viewpoint is all to apparent.
Ok, but I genuinely dislike Islam, mainly because it has appropriated jewish religion and culture, and it saddens me that I can not, as a jew, go to Israel and pray on the temple mount, the holiest site in judaism, because Muslims conquered it and built a mosque on top of it centuries after it was built by jews
I learned about Islam from this guy on Youtube. His stuff feels objective.
Any of you want to dedicate an hour to watch them and critique them?
When rulers encouraged sciences and translations, giving scientists money and authority, scientific progress was achieved. The current Islamic world on the other hand is stuck in a pile of mess-ups, failed countries, shitty culture, corruption... etc.
Shift in Ideology
Redirection of the silk road
Contrary to popular opinion the religion of a region doesn't have a huge effect on it's success, the religion will always change depending on the situation not the other way around.
>If you really did read the Qur'an, you would know exactly why ISIS is not islamic
I read the article that anon is referring to and it made a very solid point about this line of thinking being counterproductive.
Essentially by treating ISIS as a bunch of yokels instead of literalists it is causing major misfires by Western attempts to neutralize their expansion.
I can't remember where I read this article, though, and it's not really history related
he said that islam provided the framework for some of the greatest empires to exist, this completely dismisses great empires before islamic ones and cites islam as the reason for their success rather than their learning from empires of the past. the british empire was thanks to rome and greece etc and it was a christian empire. the islamic empires were thanks to rome, egypt etc and were islamic.
just because an empire follows a religion does not mean that the religion is responsible for the success of the empire. if that was true then hinduism and buddhism are absolute garbage because most indians can't use toilets and it would provide an objective means to quantify a religions worth, and due to places like america and europe one could objectively say that islam is inferior to christianity. is that what you are saying? are you provided an objective means to compare one religion to another based on how great an empire is?
they weren't great just because they followed islam you fucking takbir monkey.
What annoys me is whenever someone brings up the achievements of the Islamic empires people just say "Oh but they only stole it!". Which is firstly not true but secondly what culture on earth indigenously developed everything they did?
The Romans, one of our greatest empires, took basically all its ideas and concepts from foreigners. It was it's ability to combine, adapt and learn from others that made it great, and the Islamic empires were the same. Their multicultural nature of ruling over many different peoples turned it into a huge melting pop of knowledge and ideas.
Which obviously contradicts the modern view of Islam as a monolithic hivemind, which is obviously not true.
Because it started as a generic "us arabs are god's chosen people, lets take over the world", just like the romans, the greeks, and the mongols thought of themselves.
Then it progressed into "us muslims are a rich, kind and caring people, let us consolidate our wealth and land, and make our cities the envy of foreigners" the same as the romans, greeks and mongols did.
And in the end it deteriorated into infighting, usurpers, segmentation, and collapse, same as the romans, greeks and mongols.
Its not abnormal, just treat it as a culture, as "the greek thing" or the roman "we need to spread civilization" or even the white man's burden of colonialism, and its easier to follow and understand.
Also, I'd say that the battle of of Bassorah/battle of Jamal/battle of the camel at Basra, Iraq in 655 AD was when Islam started to corrupt and things went downhill ideologically. Its when the bad seed was planted.
Still, Islam's golden years were in the future, despite this being the ill omen. In fact by the time Islam had its golden age it had already been corrupted as fuck and everybody was looking for ways to dodge its rules or abuse them for personal gain.
>some people here are irrational enough to dislike a religion and culture because of geopolitics in 2015
Can't say I fit in any of those.
Sufism: not my cup of tee. But it's not Haram.
Favorite Surah: Al-Sajda.
Favorite kefiyyeh: The Yamani ones (pic related) are cool.
Jews or any other human being for the matter: 'al-salam'; they don't great you first with 'al-saam' so there's no meaning in doing so yourself.
No the Arabs only expanded because of Islam.
It went downhill as soon as Muhammad died.
Check out the Ridda wars
>Muhammad manages to convert the shitload of Arab Bedouin tribes
>They only really pay lip service to Islam and continue with most of their cultural practices which Islam abolished
>Surprise surprise the Bedouin revolt, Abu Bakr puts the rebellion down and gains control again
>The situation is unstable, something like 100,000 unsettled Angry tribal arabs who are armed now exist
>"Uhh, shit, guys, lets invade the Romans!"
And that solve that problem, but Islam now because Arabized. I know that sounds retarded, they were all Arabs, but Muhammad tried to worst aspects of Arab culture, which all came straight back from this point when the majority of the Muslim population was now Arab tribespeople who hadn't been the original Muslims or known Muhammad. The hijab and Burqa for example are an Arab cultural tradition which have nothing to do with the original Islam. The majority of Islamic traditions are also Arab, not really Islamic. If it isn't in the Qur'an, it's Arab and not Islamic basically.
I think your post is missing a few words and its really awkward to read.
Anyways, islam was known among the arabs, it just wasnt centralized and established. Muhammad didnt invent the religion, he only set the rules as to which part of it are made up by grandpa and which are actually known throughout the land, similar to Constantine for christianity.
And I still do think that islam had a chance to remain fit and moral until the muslims started killing each other for politics. That was the turning point, it was no longer a force of us against them, it was a force of this guy and his army against that other guy and his army.
Also, what about jihad? I heard it was originally an arab thing where you leave your tribe and go live alone for a while, fasting and hunting, meditating and trying to harden yourself, see how far you can go. How the fuck did it move from battling your inner demons and becoming a better man to drafting peasants to march against Russia during winter through the mountains with cardboard shoes or blowing yourself up in front of the american embassy in order to get 40 virgins?
>created by a pedophile warlord
Why do you call someone who had to fight back people attacking him for his beliefs and united the country peacefully after winning a warlord?
You call him a pedophile referring to some hadiths, how do you deal with contradictions within the hadiths about her age? How do you deal with contradiction with the Qu'ran regarding marriage?
You said that you're a practicing Jew here >>61163 how do you deal with this quote from the Talmud: "It is permitted to marry a 3-year-old girl"
This is not some contradictory report that was not accepted as authentic in the 8th century, it's a very clear law in your jurisprudence and scriptures.
Islam came from Muhammad. Arabia was full of Christians and Jews so it's easy to see how he learned so much. I believe he believed he was divinely inspired.
I meant that from an ideological view the Arabic tribes adopted it so swiftly and without taking much real interest in it was bad, it corrupted the ideology. From a geopolitical view, then yeah the Sunni/Shia split was a big fuck up. I don't know why it even matters today, everyone is dead from that time and their descendants.
Jihad means struggle, I don't think there's any preislamic evidence for it, preislamic sources are rare. All it is today as a motivating factor used by leaders to get people to fight.
This was actually a matter of debate amongst Muslims, from what I know. Now, the Q'uran, chronogically, begins with 'Read'. Gabriel tells Muhammad to read, to which he replies he doesn't know how to do. He was a 40 year old trader at the time - it's kinda weird that he wouldn't know how to read. If we take 'read' as acknowledge, though (some scholars where I live say that it's not literally reading, but being able to 'read the world'), then it's normal that Muhammad wouldn't be able to 'read the world'.
I don't know what you're trying to prove. Islam didn't expand just to get rich.
He wasn't illiterate. It's a modern myth invented by Muslims to make Muhammad seem more special.
The Qur'an only once mentions him in a way that could be conceived as illiterate, but it does not say this. It says that Muhammad is a person "Not of the book". This means Gentile, none Jew, and it's in a section about the previous religions.
This lines meaning has been twisted to apparently mean illiterate when it makes no sense from an Arabic view point or just a logical one in the sentence.
Modern Islam is extremely corrupted, Muslims borderline worship Muhammad, The Hajj is basically a Pagan ritual (kissing a stone sacred to Arabic polytheism wtf) their Imams are infallible beacons of knowledge, and they immediately denounce anyone as not Muslim if they disagree with them. They spend more time fighting each other than anyone else.
Why are there so many sunnis? How can being the murderers of Muhammeds family be considered acceptable? If it was christian they would of been put to the torch for their sins against the lord.
What English translation of the Qur'an is the most accurate?
Are you trying to say that they limited themselves to translating stuff? That would be factually wrong, I'm sorry.
>Islam didn't expand just to get rich
didn't expand to get money, it expanded to get followers.
islam for muslims is like profit for american corporations. it is because muslims are so fanatically devout that the comparison works. muslims view themselves as superior to non-muslims. don't deny it. islam is like the white supremacists of religion.
>The Egyptians were leaders.
In what? The only things Egypt ever led was stacking stones high, harvesting grain and getting conquered every time somebody decided to put "emperor" in front of his name.
>[6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.
Depends what you mean by accurate. Some try to convey the poeticness of the Qur'an but it just ends up difficult to read.
Then theres ones now, which try to translate it the most accurately, but also in modern English. This is probably the best, hours or work have been poured into every verse.
They always say that. It's just secret racists being unable to accept other cultures success. Their view is clearly influenced by modern politics which is a disrespect to history.
>The Hajj is basically a Pagan ritual (kissing a stone sacred to Arabic polytheism wtf)
That was done right from the beginning of Islam. There even used to be a pagan statue next to it.
>they immediately denounce anyone as not Muslim if they disagree with them
Yeah, isn't accusing a self-professed muslim of not being muslim discouraged in the quran?
>didn't expand to get money, it expanded to get followers.
Haha no. It has plenty of followers, all of Arabia. When they conquered those foreign lands they discouraged conversion, they wanted to be a ruling elite.
Islam expanded simply because it had to expand. It was a newly united people and land, which had never been untied before, was restless. If it had not expanded there would have been fracture very quickly.
It seems to be the natural course of any consolidated nation to suddenly expand.
Geopolitics and specifically the dead condensed plant matter under their countries is the only thing keeping the region from being as casually dismissed as Africa as a whole. No one cares about the endless wars in Africa, but when civil wars break out in a region that exports oil you better believe it's a human tragedy that we need to fix as moral upstanding Westerners.
>it expanded to get followers.
>Haha no. It has plenty of followers
>they wanted to be a ruling elite.
are you retarded or something? they didn't expand to get people to follow islam, they expanded to get people to follow muslims, because islam teaches muslims that they are superior to non muslims.
what are you fucking on about, acting like the islamic slave trade was this fucking noble endeavor. you people are sick in the fucking head.
Because Sunnis prevailed and were more powerful through the ages. They managed to have a more dynamic, pragmatic interpretation of Islam, instead of dwelling on the past, they decided deal with the Khilafah as a matter of Fiqh (jurisprudence) instead of dealing with it as a theological issue. And just moved on with their lives.
As for the Shi'ites: The Zaydis went full Mu'tazilate in their theology, and they didn't quite get along with neither the popular Sunnis nor other Shi'its. The Qaramitah decided to raid Meccah and steal the Black Stone, so, yeah, not cool. As for other Imamayyah, such as the Twelvers, they were always having trouble deciding who's the next Imam, that is, if they didn't decide that he just disappeared and will come some unknown time later; this notion made them less dynamic and more of a cult waiting salvation through prophecies. Of course the Khomeini came later with Wilayat Al-Faqih and tried overcoming this problem.
Yes it is discouraged.
>[3:105] Do not be like those who became divided and disputed, despite the clear proofs that were given to them. For these have incurred a terrible retribution.
>[6:159] Those who divide themselves into sects do not belong with you. Their judgment rests with GOD, then He will inform them of everything they had done.
[30:32] Do not fall in idol worship, like those who divide their religion into sects; each party rejoicing with what they have.
Killing Muslims is even worse.
This is blatant proof that ISIS are not Muslims
>[4:92] No believer shall kill another believer, unless it is an accident. If one kills a believer by accident, he shall atone by freeing a believing slave, and paying a compensation to the victim's family, unless they forfeit such a compensation as a charity. If the victim belonged to people who are at war with you, though he was a believer, you shall atone by freeing a believing slave. If he belonged to people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, you shall pay the compensation in addition to freeing a believing slave. If you cannot find a slave to free, you shall atone by fasting two consecutive months, in order to be redeemed by GOD. GOD is Knower, Most Wise.
>[4:93] Anyone who kills a believer on purpose, his retribution is Hell, wherein he abides forever, GOD is angry with him, and condemns him, and has prepared for him a terrible retribution.
>they didn't expand to get people to follow islam, they expanded to get people to follow muslims
But that's... literally exactly what the person you're responding to said?
>what are you fucking on about, acting like the islamic slave trade was this fucking noble endeavor. you people are sick in the fucking head.
Where was this posted? Is your saltiness causing you to imagine things?
Islam is open to interpretation to degrees.
The Qur'an is full of metaphors and analogies. It even explicitly says "Some of this is straight forward commands, some of this is for you guys to figure out"
>[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.
>They always say that. It's just secret racists being unable to accept other cultures success
This is not tumblr or /pol/ and the arguments should be from fact and not your emotions. If everyone is equal then everyone gets the same treatment, including their civilizations.
That anon's >>61687
pic description (that he seems to think is a counter to my post) defines the Islamic golden age as a period of time where they "blended" Arab, Persian, Egyptian and European traditions which then resulted in their golden age. That's a pretty creative way of saying that they took a good thing and ran with it.
But you're quoting a religious book while trying to hold a debate about real world politics so this is a fool's errand either way.
I don't know Anon, you seem to be very upset, you're talking about natural resources as if they didn't kickstarter every single country. The fact that a desert civilization is still relevant to this day is pretty impressive.
As for "moral upstanding Westerners" it's a good joke:
>But you're quoting a religious book while trying to hold a debate about real world politics so this is a fool's errand either way.
Sorry what better way is there to support the concepts of Islam other than the core source material itself? I'm not Muslim, I'm just well learned in the Qur'an.
It doesn't exist. The Qur'an doesn't mention homosexuality.
>That was done right from the beginning of Islam
New religions don't gains steam by completely shitting on what it came from. You take the parts from the earlier religion and adapt it to your new stuff so people see it as a new form of their old religion.
>Mohammad setting the black stone into place in the Kaaba
The gay thing probably comes from a Hadith. Don't know if it's authentic or not, or even if it was ever applied seriously (before ISIS).
At least in Hanafi jurisprudence, if I recall correctly, homosexual intercourse is not treated as Zina (adultery) and is punished by Ta`zir (a punishment chosen by the ruler) instead of Hadd (a punishment determined by revelation), and the Ta`zir in this case should not reach capital punishment.
>and in which of those does the whole throwing gays off rooftops thing fall?
ISIS is just wants attention. I mean, the quran says nothing about driving a tank over a POW, and yet these people do it. Same with throwing fags off roofs.
The simple fact that suicide is one of the biggest sins, yet these terrorists constantly engage in suicide bombings, should tell you a lot about these "islamic" terrorists and their knowledge of islam.
t. a muslim
The point of Islam was to defeat polytheism and thinks like that. The other point of Islam was to restore the original Monotheism of Abraham, the original Judaism i guess, before corruption.
It's meant to be the literal word of God. But God says some of his words are open for interpretation. What you hear is often wrong. Imams don't want people reading the Qur'an, they want the knowledge for themselves so that they can be hypocrites and also control people. Why do you think they make everyone read the Qur'an in Arabic despite most Muslims not actually being able to speak Arabic? It's just like the Church in the middle ages not wanting people to read, they don't want the knowledge getting out or their bullshit ways will be exposed. The vast majority of Muslims have not read the Qur'an, and they pay much more attention to the ridiculous hadiths.
Yea it's probably cultural. Jesus never said to kill no faggots either but that didn't stop Christians.
>the quran says nothing about driving a tank over a POW,
umm i pretty sure that is racist. you can't dictate to muslims how they should interpret the bits of the qoorun and you aren't allowed to question the faith of fellow muslims according to the kuron. disgusting.
It's not compatible. Muslims believe in Jesus, but to claim he is the son of God or God himself is against the core tenant of Islamic Monotheism.
>[4:171] O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messengers. You shall not say, "Trinity." You shall refrain from this for your own good. GOD is only one god. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. GOD suffices as Lord and Master.
>[9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.
>[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.
Modern islam is ass-backward because the richest muslim nation is saudi arabia, and the saudis are wahabis.
Wahabism is the strain that promotes radicalism and violent insurrection against non-muslim and kafir muslims.
Saudi's fund extremism all over the world.
This itself all has history, but modern extremism is pretty much all bank rolled y the saudis.
You can't deal with a text if you're not allowed to interpret it. Islamic text, when it comes to interpretation, can be divided into two categories Qat`i (clear and not open for interpretation) and Thanni (with a bit of ambiguity and open to interpretation). And Thanni is the majority of the text, and that's why you get lots of interpretations, lots of schools of thought and interpretation.
A popular Hadith regarding this issue states that if one done his best to interpret the text and made the wrong interpretation then he gets the reward of his effort, if he gets it right then he gets double the reward.
>The point of Islam was...
I don't really think any religion starts with lofty goals like that. Religions naturally evolve over time but the same basic concepts persist in the various regions, like the crescent moon in that part of the world.
They are Islamic and you need to deal with it. There can be no reformation while your people continue to plug your ears and chant "no true Muslim".
I want to start a religion that sends street sign captchas to hell
Islam isn't that open, i wouldn't say most of the Qur'an is Thanni. There's something like 70 sects of Islam if you count them all.
Compare than to the 30,000 sects of Christianity or the 1000s of Jewish sects.
Islam had a pretty clear goal from the start. It was invented by a singular man with a goal in mind. To restore monotheism.
The crescent moon isn't an Islamic symbol it comes from Christians in the 14th century i believe. Muslims just liked it because the moon is important to the Islamic calendar.
>There can be no reformation
we aren't christian. we don't have a pope, or even a church as an institution. we don't have the problems that warrant a christian style reformation.
As Bernard Lewis said, you can't use a christian medicine made for a christian problem and apply it to Muslims.
Question the faith != question the actions, we have a framework to judge people for their actions within Islam and the Qu'ran.
Nice troll tho
Doesn't mean it's true, Aisha was a political figure and many slander against her exists. We have contradictory reports about her age so it's a non-issue anyways.
>The crescent moon isn't an Islamic symbol it comes from Christians in the 14th century i believe.
It's not a christian symbol. The crescent and moon is an old Roman Pagan symbol, that was the flag of Constantinople.
Fun fact: the sultans of the Ottoman Empire saw themselves as the continuers of the Roman Empire, with Mehmed the conquerer titling himself "Kayser-i Rum"
i came up with ghost loli (but i didn't draw any pictures other than the first one)
personally i think ghost loli should just have a history talk show where she turns into the old man and anons can make oc from that, because ghosts are fluid. i wanted her to change into planes and pocket watches and shit rather than just be a ghost loli.
people just want the old man though.
>The crescent moon isn't an Islamic symbol it comes from Christians in the 14th century i believe
It goes back to polytheism when there were gods associated with various phenomenon.
Just like Yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon Allah had his place somewhere around there with the Babylonians or maybe the Canaanites as well. I can't say I'm well versed in Islam's take on the change to mono from poly
But it makes the whole new light to the invasion of Europe stage of the ottoman empire.
If you read some of the works on the period, you'll find that Ottomans saw Christian Rome as a corruption of the old great Roman Empire. Indeed, after accepting christianity under Theodosius, the whole thing collapsed.
There's even a sura in the Quran predicting victory to romans. Of course, what meant Roman changed over time.
Here's a flag of Constantinople.
Well, it's not THAT open, but still, when it comes to Fiqh (what to to do and what not to) interpretation then there's a good space. Sure, you can't come to an explicit text and ignore it or give it an interpretation that doesn't follow logic and Arabic, nor come up with something without a proof. But otherwise, you're free to interpret as long as you're sincere, have knowledge and do your best.
Even stuff like Salah and Azan have minor within different schools.
Caliphs don't have an religious authority. They are just leaders of secular affairs for the Muslim umma. Theology is still, in a non authoritative manner (as in, there is no absolute authority vested to them) to the ulama (Islamic scholars; the Caliph could be one of them himself), until or the pope who has religious authority.
>Islam is open to interpretation to degrees
I want to show my hair in public without repercussion, dress like a normal western girl which means showing my skin when I want to, eat pork, use alcohol to make delicious cakes and other delicious food, read every kind of literature from books to comic to everything in between all genres including adult and erotic and/or pornographic ones, watch every kind of animation and pictures moving and not, listen to every kind of music of my choosing, same discourse applies to videogames and all other arts and media, mingle for everyday work and activities with both men and women in public spaces as I already do, and all the other basic civility which is granted to me by my culture, which is what makes it worth keeping. Can you interpret islam to be open undiscriminately to all that? If you can't, you're not worth my time.
>Can you interpret islam to be open undiscriminately to all that?
There are countless denominations in islam who do that. In fact, the alevis and alawites are allowed to drink eat pork and anything of the kind you just described, all through the process of interpretation.
Sorry no, the Cresent moon symbol doesn't have origins in pre islamic polytheism. And please don't do that pathetic moon god argument.
>Before Islam, the crescent was the symbol of Sassanids, In the 12th century the crescent and star were adopted by the Turks and since then the crescent has been a frequent symbol used by powerful Muslim empires such as the Ottomans and the Mughals. I
The Preislamic Allah isn't the same concept as Islamic Allah. Islamic Allah was taken straight from Judaism and Christianity, not from the polytheism. allah just means God, literally.
A little off-topic: I honestly think that
influenceable people like you are better out of Islam. If you value that lifestyle (with its upsides and downsides) better commit to it rather than be a hypocrite.
>The Preislamic Allah isn't the same concept as Islamic Allah
Debatable, while not as retarded as the moon god thing the pre-Islamic (and pre-cosmology) Allah is just a creator God:
The whole point is that we're following the same God as the first sentient men except men corrupted religion with lesser Gods and stuff like that.
The Abrahamic God is older than Judaism.
>And please don't do that pathetic moon god argument.
Why is it pathetic?
>Islamic Allah was taken straight from Judaism and Christianity, not from the polytheism
Let's say that you are absolutely correct on this- where did that God come from? I already pointed out that Yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon. If they kept some old traditions like the meteorite worship then why would they ditch everything else?
>all through the process of interpretation.
Reminds me of Jews that can "interpret" anything from anything, trying to outsmart their god. Just drop the religion if you disagree with it so much.
Then again, apostasy is fatal to former Muslims so I guess it makes sense.
Being open to Interpretation still has degrees, you can't extract any meaning from it.
However the majority of what you stated being probitted comes from the Hadith, and not the Qur'an. Many muslims reject the hadith, some entirely, I'm agree with them as it has no basis in the Qur'an nor any logical reason to follow them. So that's our first big interpretation.
>I want to show my hair in public without repercussion, dress like a normal western girl which means showing my skin when I want to
>Nothing wrong with that, the Qur'an says only to dress modestly, never mentions covering the hair. You have to dress modestly to the society that you're in. The Qur'an emphasizes modesty in all aspects.
>eat pork, use alcohol
You can't do these two.
>to make delicious cakes and other delicious food, read every kind of literature from books to comic to everything in between all genres including adult and erotic and/or pornographic ones
Theres nothing wrong with any of this. The Qur'an never mentions porn or masturbation
>watch every kind of animation and pictures moving and not, listen to every kind of music of my choosing, same discourse applies to videogames and all other arts and media, mingle for everyday work and activities with both men and women in public spaces as I already do, and all the other basic civility which is granted to me by my culture, which is what makes it worth keeping.
Sure, all of that is fine and acceptable by the Qur'an.
The hadith may have problems with it, but they were written by men, 200 years after the Qur'an. Here is what the Qur'an says on inventing Religious laws outside of it. cont
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.
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.
>I want to show my hair in public without repercussion.
That's pretty normal nowadays.
>dress like a normal western girl which means showing my skin when I want to.
See above. I'd argue that it's still not Halal, but you shouldn't get punished for it.
The text forbidding pork is explicit and clear, so no interpretation here.
>use alcohol to make delicious cakes and other delicious food.
This is actually an open issue for interpretation. Drinking alcohol is Haram, of course, but using it to produce something that's not intoxicating is a matter of jurisprudence. Though, I think most agree that a Muslims shouldn't use Alcohol in anyway since it's "Najas".
>read every kind of literature from books to comic to everything in between all genres including adult and erotic and/or pornographic ones, watch every kind of animation and pictures moving and not
I'd argue that this is 100% Halal. Islam makes a clear distinguish between fiction and reality. And makes it clear that narrating Haram is not Haram. Having sexual arousal also is not Haram, what matters is how you satisfy your arousal. So read whatever the hell you want, be it erotica (as long as you don't do Zina) or a blaspheme book for the matter.
>listen to every kind of music of my choosing same discourse applies to videogames and all other arts and media.
See above. Except that Music has a difference of opinion whether it's Halal in itself or not. (Still an issue of interpretation)
>mingle for everyday work and activities with both men and women in public spaces as I already do
Segregation, its limits and where and when its applied is also a matter of jurisprudence and interpretation. I'd argue that this issue in particular is hugely affected by tradition, not Islamic text.
Allah was the chief God of Pre islamic Arabia, but that doesn't mean that Allah turned into Islamic Allah. The Islamic Allah shares much more in common with the God of Christianity and Judaism and it's clear that he was taken from that.
The real reason the chief pre islamic God was called Allah, literally "The God" is because in most cultures the chief God tends to just have the name "The God"
It's a pathetic argument that Christian extremists come up with to discredit Islam. It has absolutely no basis and is wrong in the most basic ways. for one, the pre islamic allah was not even the moon God.
>Let's say that you are absolutely correct on this- where did that God come from? I already pointed out that Yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon. If they kept some old traditions like the meteorite worship then why would they ditch everything else?
It obviously developed from the Canaanite pantheon, it's pretty obvious from the early bible and archaeology. I'm not a Muslim. They probably kept the black stone above other things because it was a famous part of Muhammads story, when he figured out how to put it back in the kaaba, before islam, without disrespecting any tribe. It's not part of previous polytheism, it's part of modern islams corruption and subtle worship of Muhammad.
>You can't do these two
Well nope then I reject islam entirely. Pork is too delicious and alcohol is too useful to give up. Also most of your religious authorities force the hadiths so deal with them first.
I value that lifestyle because it's mine. I'm not a muslim and I know better than to be forced to act like one by the likes of arrogant muslims.
Too bad Erdogan wants to islamize them.
>Then again, apostasy is fatal to former Muslims so I guess it makes sense.
That's another thing I don't like about islam. Forcing de facto conversions, if only in appearance because muslim nations force people to behave like a muslim even when they are not, and then kill people if they want to go back to their ways. You should rule that out if you want people to respect you.
>I value that lifestyle because it's mine. I'm not a muslim and I know better than to be forced to act like one by the likes of arrogant muslims.
And you can't see that I would value mine too? You come to a thread about Islam to act like a jerk? Having a bad day or something?
I don't like your culture that much but I wouldn't dehumanize you or go to a thread about your culture to talk about its downsides and bark at everyone.
>It's a pathetic argument that Christian extremists come up with to discredit Islam
Is it? I just figured it made sense since the crescent moon was so prominent.
>I'm not a Muslim
> it's part of modern islams corruption
If you're not a Muslim then why do you idealize it so much and take offense at Christians "discrediting" Islam?
It doesn't have grand goals, it's a simply product of people in a certain region at a certain time. Religions don't get "corrupted" any more than King Arthur does.
Anyway, I was referring the stone worship as an example that it wasn't something created by Islam but something they integrated into it because that's just how religions work.
In their interpretation of Islam, ISIS members are the only true Muslims, so if anyone is not "with them" sort of declares himself as not a Muslim. Therefore - in their eyes - verses you cited aren't relevant to the people they kill
There are many versions of "pre-Islamic" Allah, with different cosmology and such. I'm just pointing out the fact that we have continuity with a same creator God and a later made-up cosmology.
Also we're talking about the first civilizations with alphabets, if anything other cultures were inspired by Mesopotamian tradition.
>The text forbidding pork is explicit and clear, so no interpretation here.
Where did this come from anyway?
The Jews and Christians were told not to eat shellfish because before refrigeration and government standards involving them it could result in serious health issues.
Them being delusional and irrational doesn't remove the fact that they're wrong on theological ground.
The truth is that if they could use Christianity/Atheism/[INSERT X IDEOLOGY HERE] to get power they would, people only talk about religion on this topic because of their agenda.
>That's pretty normal nowadays.
If it were normal you wouldn't have imams bitching against hair-showing western culture. Catholic priests do not do that.
>I'd argue that it's still not Halal, but you shouldn't get punished for it
Just legally assaulted on the street, if not outright raped no thanks. I want you to respect me for being a non-muslim dressed in non-muslim clothing, which means no shit like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqJISHvonn4. You must understand and accept you are in the wrong for assaulting the girl while the girl is not doing anything bad and you are the one who should be punished for the assault.
>The text forbidding pork is explicit and clear, so no interpretation here.
Islam is worth rejecting then. Salami with bread and other pork dishes are a most delicious meal I want to eat.
>I think most agree that a Muslims shouldn't use Alcohol in anyway
>Islam makes a clear distinguish between fiction and reality
Your fellow muslims contradict you since muslim nations such as SA prohibit by religious law human drawings and other pictures of art. Also I read erotica because I want help to masturbate, so your point is moot. Your fellow muslims define erotica as blaspheme so once again your words are useless.
>Except that Music has a difference of opinion whether it's Halal in itself or not
A muslim family over here wanted to ban music teaching from the school because it was unislamic but the school opposed it because music is a beauty worth much more than disgusting opinions of banning it. They had to leave instead. Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, The Beatles, Nobuo Uematsu, folk music etc. etc., all are worth much more than a culture/religion that wants to ban such beautiful things.
Makes no difference when it's muslims that bitch about it though. Make them change their mind and see it as nothing wrong and evil (since it's not) and we can talk.
Does islam not respect individual freedom and rights? That's the only explanation why Saudis want to flog to death a non-muslim who was keeping wine in his own home for his own personal consumption.
Not him but lmao you're a delusional and paranoid /pol/tard, that video you're posting of "french" "youth" attacking that girl while having equally slutty girls with them is destroying your argument. Everything brown is Muslim, how about you judge their actions? They're thugs first, I bet you they know more rap songs than Qu'ran verses.
You should be happy with your alcohol, pork and porn yet here you are being irrationally angry and shitposting on the internet. Reevaluate your life and stop being so insecure, something is wrong with you.
Again, looking the other way and saying "no true Muslim" is not the proper response to this shit. They are living what they read in the book and you can't just say "but atheism" and expect to be treated as a modern human being
Non-sequitur, defining yourself as Muslim and being wrong on theological ground are two different things.
What's a modern human being? Countries become "modern" because of money not morals, look at China.
I think I found my new board, Allah be praised.
>equally slutty girls
Who look brown too actually. But those are not the ones being wronged here.
>Everything brown is Muslim, how about you judge their actions?
They think they're in the right because they're muslims and she's not. That's what needs to be addressed: they need to be taught they are in the wrong, one way or another. It would be much more productive than making up lies on 4chan.
Also; the non-muslim is not slutty and her clothing is not a permission to touch her.
"Modern" as in accepting that a religion is not perfect and that Islam has many issues to iron out.
As long as people continue to simply dismiss any issue as "not my problem" or "fake Muslims!" it will continue to have a very mixed reception.
No one accuses the child-molesting bishops of being fake Catholics or Hasidic Jews as extremist non-Jews, but rather undesirable components of their group. Honestly, no one would care that much if Muslims stayed in Muslim countries but as long as they travel to West they need to adapt into Western ways of self-reflection.
>If it were normal you wouldn't have imams bitching against hair-showing western culture.
Well, preachers gonna preach. That's what they do. But how much do people take them seriously is another thing.
>Just legally assaulted on the street, if not outright raped no thanks.
Well, Islam explicitly forbid assaulting, and rape is often considering as the worst crime you can ever do. Even radical Islamist don't accept that; if they decided to implement a certain dress code for woman, only a judge can carry out a punishment. As for most Muslims, seeing woman without headscarf is pretty normal.
>Islam is worth rejecting then.
Well, I'm not arguing that you should be a Muslim. But if a Muslim doesn't want to eat it then he should be allowed to not eat it. I'd also Also in an Islamic community/state there is nothing wrong if non-Muslims want to eat pork and drink alcohol.
>Your fellow muslims contradict you
The whole argument was about how these stuff are open to interpretation. And well, SA is never a good source of what Islam is or how it works. And I'd argue that my fellow Muslims are straight-out wrong in this issue. If they ever opened a book of Islamic jurisprudence or even read the Qur'an, then they'd understand the clear differentiation between fiction and reality. Heck. the Qur'an states the blasphemes of past people, so now is it haram to read the Qur'an because it mentions what Haram things people do? Stories are no different: reading "X drank and had the wildest night with big blossomed chicks" is not Haram, what's Haram is practicing what you read.
Ibn-Hazm, Shawkani, Ibn-Abbas, Ibn-Umar and many other had an interpretation that it's Halal or at most Makruh. (it's a matter of interpretation)
Anyway, I'm not arguing that you should become a Muslim. Also it's worthy to note that many Muslims misunderstand and misapply Islam. They're wrong, plain and simple.
They're wrong on theological ground you set for them, not the one they use to justify stuff they're doing. So from their point of view, you are the delusional and irrational one. And since it's the subjective interpretations of Islam we're talking about, nobody's interpretation is "right" in any measurable way.
As for second part of your post, im more inclined to believe that the fact that they couldn't use christianity or atheism would rather support statement that their interpretation of islam is what allows them to do what they do . Meaning that we dont have any christian or atheist versions of self proclaimed countries that would do what they are doing in modern times.
Also I wouldn't say that people only talk about religion on the topic of ISIS because of any agenda. Even back when rebellion against Assad started, part of the motive was already rebels being part of other sect of Islam than he is. And in time, with conquering more lands, it became the center of their own rethoric. So I don't really get the point you were going with anyones agenda being behind talking about religion in connection with ISIS. They stared it, they use it, so anyone who disagrees has to do it on common ground.
You missed the point, why are you calling them Muslims while they're thugs? You're part of the problem, people in the video are racist thugs and as I said probably know more about rap music than the Qu'ran.
If you want change you shouldn't alienate Muslims, why are you shitposting on 4chan?
That's a very subjective definition of modern and I disagree with it, I don't have to agree with your opinion.
You complain about Islam despite the fact that ISIS are wrong on theological ground? That's not very logical.
I'm not accusing them of being non-Muslims, I never said that but you keep spouting logical fallacies, my point is that they're FACTUALLY not following the Qu'ran, that's it.
I would agree with your last sentence if respect was mutual, since people don't want to respect my culture and my religion why would I respect yours?
>They're wrong on theological ground you set for them, not the one they use to justify stuff they're doing. So from their point of view, you are the delusional and irrational one. And since it's the subjective interpretations of Islam we're talking about, nobody's interpretation is "right" in any measurable way.
Do you want to defend ISIS on theological ground? Not everything is interpretation, Islam has very clear rules especially when it comes to warfare.
I repeat: do you want to defend ISIS on theological ground?
>Meaning that we dont have any christian or atheist versions of self proclaimed countries that would do what they are doing in modern times.
In modern times, that's cute. Too bad the whole point of ISIS is going back in time and we all know history. Sorry but if Christianity was the lowest common denominator it would be used.
>So I don't really get the point you were going with anyones agenda being behind talking about religion in connection with ISIS. They stared it, they use it, so anyone who disagrees has to do it on common ground.
What? People have been trying to turn this in Muslims vs the rest of the world and completly disregard the answer to ISIS from Islamic countries since the beginning. I'm not just talking about Atheists having a circlejerk over ISIS. Do you deny this?
>You complain about Islam despite the fact that ISIS are wrong on theological ground?
But they're not. Their interpretation is as valid as any other, perhaps even more so because they are doing what Mohammad did and trying to establish a caliphate which has been a pretty big part of Islam.
>I would agree with your last sentence if respect was mutual, since people don't want to respect my culture and my religion why would I respect yours?
Previous generations called it assimilation and it was a pretty big deal.
Despite all the answers where you blame people other than muslims, you actually have to admit, we done goofed by just losing interest in science
We started believing radicals when they said shit like "Science is haram, maths is kufr and the work of shaitaan, if Allah was not displeased with those scientists, he would not have given them such a humiliating defeat in Baghdad and Spain etc etc"
>But they're not. Their interpretation is as valid as any other, perhaps even more so because they are doing what Mohammad did and trying to establish a caliphate which has been a pretty big part of Islam.
Yes they very are, let me give you an example:
The punishment for adultery in the Qu'ran is 100 lashes, how you lash people is up to interpretation (even tho we have a somewhat unreliable context with the hadiths, etc) but if you say that the punishment for adultery is breaking their legs you're wrong on theological ground.
You cannot hide behind the idea that we have interpretations while the Qu'ran is very clear on transgression and warfare.
>Previous generations called it assimilation and it was a pretty big deal.
Why would I respect your stuff when you don't respect mine? Mutual respect is also a pretty big deal you silly terrorist apologist.
I said they're wrong. Not kill them or even stop them.
Like, there are very very few Muslims who believe the world is flat, should I say they're right? Hell no, they're wrong. Same thing with people who say fiction is like reality. Wrong. Plain and simple.
Even withing texts open to interpretation: there is a right interpretation and wrong ones, and it's OK to be wrong (within certain boundaries). As I said before:
>A popular Hadith regarding this issue states that if one done his best to interpret the text and made the wrong interpretation then he gets the reward of his effort, if he gets it right then he gets double the reward.
Another popular saying attributed to some Imam: My interpretation is right and has the possibility of being wrong, and the others' interpretation is wrong and has the possibility of being right.
People should stop trying to bend the world to so everyone can be "right". That's not what's being moderate and progressive is about. We instead should acknowledge what's wrong and what's right, and tolerate what's tolerable. And within moral systems. We should not tailor whatever system that justifies all our actions, instead we should realize that morality is something one strives to achieve but not always succeeds in doing so. We should accept that people can be wrong. We can be wrong. But we try to improve and strive for being better.
shit I can actually see why Muslims would have thought science was haram, after seeing all those scientists getting massacred by Mongols, and seeing Muslims in spain getting rounded up, slain and kicked out
>But how much do people take them seriously is another thing.
Which is a problem that needs addressing with muslims since muslims do not have a secular culture like westerners.
>Well, Islam explicitly forbid assaulting, and rape is often considering as the worst crime you can ever do. Even radical Islamist don't accept that
But ISIS members are the most pure of muslims who do everything as Allah commands it and they rape Yazidi girls because they're not muslims, as raping and assaulting a non-muslim is OK. What gives?
>if they decided to implement a certain dress code for woman, only a judge can carry out a punishment
Muslim dress codes are retarded and hateful for western women though and the punishments inhuman and absurd. The closest that I've seen being come to accept is muslim women dressed in western winter clothes + headscarf on, but even then headscarf is not gaining grounds since we like to show at least our neck and hair and muslims don't.
>As for most Muslims, seeing woman without headscarf is pretty normal
If it were fresh off the boat muslim youths wouldn't immediately presume she is looking for their sexual advances.
It is "normal" for those who live in the west but they seem to hate it.
>But if a Muslim doesn't want to eat it then he should be allowed to not eat it
>Also in an Islamic community/state there is nothing wrong if non-Muslims want to eat pork and drink alcohol.
Then why does SA flog non-muslims to death for drinking his own wine in his own home saying they're applying the word of allah?
>SA is never a good source of what Islam is or how it works
The Mecca is there, you can't get more muslim than that. I think your efforts are commendable, but they'd be better spent among irl muslim neighbourhoods than here.
>But ISIS members are the most pure of muslims who do everything as Allah commands it
literally just dropped it their
You can try all you want justifying ISIS with Islam, but you won't succeed. That being said, Muslims aren't completely blame-free for ISIS, and it is foolish to think ISIS are un-islamic, they just apply it the wrong way
>why are you calling them Muslims while they're thugs?
>implying thugs can't be muslims
>since people don't want to respect my culture and my religion why would I respect yours?
>to respect my culture and religion you must FACTUALLY follow it even though it destroys nearly every freedom you have
A religion and culture that de facto forces you to destroy yourself and your culture is not worth respecting.
>The punishment for adultery in the Qu'ran is 100 lashes
>I said they're wrong. Not kill them or even stop them.
True, but I was referring to a particular way of thinking, but this line of yours shows that it wasn't what you meant.
>We should accept that people can be wrong. We can be wrong. But we try to improve and strive for being better.
People and countries just don't fare too well when they get into arguments about which interpretation of their holy book is the correct one. I think Muslims are more to be killed after being judged as a false Muslim by other Muslims than by being killed by a Christian or Jew for any reason at all
>implying thugs can't be muslims
Where I said that? My point is that you're complaining about their thuggish behavior and not their Islamic behavior, did you read the words on the picture I posted?
You're very irrational.
>A religion and culture that de facto forces you to destroy yourself and your culture is not worth respecting.
Do you have reading comprehension issues? Just because we don't drink alcohol and eat pork doesn't mean we destroy ourselves. You don't do heroin and eat dogs I guess your culture is not worth respecting, what a stupid logic.
Say that to all the dead people from drunken domestic abuse or crime of passion thanks to adultery. (o:
I got banned because of an IP error.
This will be my last post as im going to eat and go out
>Also most of your religious authorities force the hadiths so deal with them first.
Qur'an alone is the future of Islam and the only way it can survive. Sunni Islam is not only logically and theologically stupid but completely at odds with modern life.
>Is it? I just figured it made sense since the crescent moon was so prominent.
People think that but it originates from the Ottomans.
>If you're not a Muslim then why do you idealize it so much and take offense at Christians "discrediting" Islam?
Because it's not a logical valid criticism it's a stupid baseless attempt to discredit. I've studied a lot of religions, but the idea that Allah is a moon God (Also how can your God be a moon god in secret if you dont believe hes a moon god) is some Christian fundamentalist hogwash meme that gets spread around the anti Islam sphere.
Their interpretation doesn't have any support, the arguments against them are throughout the Qur'an.
But you can't ignore that Arabia was at the time full of Christians and Jews. It wasn't a land of pure polytheism. With Muhammads extensive knowledge of the Bible i think it's fair to say he was speaking of that God.
Goodbye, good thread with intelligent posting, thanks.
Well it's undeniable that ISIS has been using Islam as a justification for commiting various atrocities for quite some time now. If they didn't have even one thing in quran to support them, they simply wouldn't use it. And if they have something in quran to support them, they might be right about theology just as you might be right. Unless you already attained some higher wisdom, you can't really deny that. Another thing, if Islam had a one clear set of rules of warfare, they wouldn't be able to do what they are doing.
Well they use the internet, most of them have seen life in western world, they are aware of technological development in recent history, why would I compare them to history of any other faiths? If anything, it would be more of an indicator that muslims are less smart than other peoples, if knowing what they know about world they still decide to go the way ISIS went. It just isn't very bright of them.
What people? In my country general opinion in media is that ISIS is ruining muslim world and we have to suffer for it due to increasing levels of immingrants from that region. And you have to remember part of the answer of the muslims to ISIS is people coming from all over the world to join them.
>Their interpretation doesn't have any support
Support from who? Allah? They're not getting hit by lightning bolts.
It is supported by the Muslims that leave various countries around the world to uphold what they feel is the accurate interpretation of their religion. It is supported by the historic actions of Muslims to form and expand a caliphate
>It is supported by the historic actions of Muslims to form and expand a caliphate
I'm pretty sure the rashidun caliphate a would snark at what isil are doing. If you disagree, how come? ISIL clearly is breaking many explicit rules as well as not so explicitly stated rules.
I am sure Allah literally told them to rape non believers and blow up ancient ruins. There is a reason why the pyramids are blown up, because Muslims had to do it
Infact Palmyra was actually destroyed a long time ago. Since Muslims conquered Syria 1340 years ago, it wouldn't make sense for them to wait this long and then blow Palmyra up, ofcourse they did it back then, because Allah told them to right?
Answer my questions please, do you want to defend them on theological ground? You do know that ISIS relies more on the hadiths than the Qu'ran, worse they rely on commentary of the hadiths over the Qu'ran.
With all those layers of abstraction you get something that is wrong theological ground.
You think that Muslims joining ISIS are xXx IsLAm PrO xXx? Please, people joining ISIS are facebook retards manipulated by propaganda. Just like your blind hatred for Islam is making you defend terrorists despite them being wrong on theological ground.
ISIS has access to 1.6 billions of people, free marketing from television and people with their own agenda, people joining them are an extreme minority and they join them because of propaganda. Did you interact with ISIS apologists? They basically say that every single ISIS video is a zionist plot.
I think I already gave you an example about how hiding behind "it's just interpretations" is flawed. Even more so since they rely mainly on hadiths over the Qu'ran, sorry but you cannot defend ISIS on theological ground.
stop telling other muslims that they need to interpret the will of allah the way you say. fucking hell you people are arrogant. religion is up to the individual to interpret, you cannot tell another muslim that they have the wrong idea, you don't need to be supportive but you can't just condemn their actions or interpretations. that's horribly racist, check your privilege.
>Which is a problem that needs addressing with muslims since muslims do not have a secular culture like westerners.
The problem though, is "secularism' and "liberalism" is often misunderstood within Islamic communities, due to shitty anti-Muslim dictators who basically banned and oppressed Muslims, or edgy adolescent activists who distinct themselves from their communities and basically turn into an isolated new-atheist style circle jerk, instead of actually providing a comprehensive framework or a plan.
Nope. ISIS are a bunch of fanatics who never tried to learn a bit of Islamic knowledge. Sure, they claim they are the only Islamic guys, but well, they're wrong. It's will known that Islam forbids sex outside marriage, it also places huge emphases on protecting ones' honor. So rape is basically the worst you can do. EVER.
>Muslim dress codes are retarded and hateful for western women
I can understand where are you coming from. I do advocate that people have the freedom to chose what she wear, including adhering to the dress code. Or not. Something which many people seem to miss: some women wear hijab because they want to. It's always someone forcing it.
>It is "normal" for those who live in the west but they seem to hate it.
I visited multiple Islamic countries, and its definitely normal there as well. Anyway, even if Muslims believe in their dress code, it's not Islamic to force on none Muslims.
>why does SA flog non-muslims to death for drinking his own wine
I'm skeptical about the capital punishment part. But anyway. If it's true it's because they're retarded.
>The Mecca is there, you can't get more muslim than that.
Well, mecca was there during the Quraish non-Islamic period. That doesn't make it more Islamic.
>My point is that you're complaining about their thuggish behavior and not their Islamic behavior
And the point you don't get is that their thuggish behaviour is enabled by their islamic behaviour, since islam says it's ok to assault and disrespect non-muslims who do non-muslim stuff such as dress they way the want to dress. That's also the theological basis for ISIS soldiers raping Yazidi girls in the name of Allah, since islam allows doing all that to kuffars or non-believers.
>Just because we don't drink alcohol and eat pork doesn't mean we destroy ourselves
I was talking about me and my fellow westerners, not you though. You want to be respected by factually following your culture and religion on the grounds of "it offends my god if you don't", even though doing that means destroying a lot of good aspects of our culture and lives, and that's why you're not worth respecting. You're free to abstain from whatever you want but you're not free to demand others abstain from it too, especially if it's good for those who want it. Bless the Romans who rather than go full retard and ban good things like muslims did, decided to teach themselves and others virtuous moderation as "In medio stat virtus", Virtue stands in the middle, and you can enjoy a glass of wine and a ham sandwich and show your hair but still be cute and decent and consume any fictional media knowing it's only fiction and still live a happy, healthy life.
>Say that to all the dead people from drunken domestic abuse or crime of passion thanks to adultery
If the man loses control of himself (since it's men who get violent here, 99% of the time) that is his fault for not understanding what was wrong that lead to his partner's adultery and is in no way excuse to exact violence on the partner or anybody. If your partner cheats on you, you either try to remedy the situation in a civil way or you cut contacts with them, but you do not hurt them for your own failures.
>since islam says it's ok to assault
What verse gives Muslims a blanket permission for this alleged action?
>and disrespect non-muslims who do non-muslim stuff such as dress they way the want to dress.
What verse say it is okay to disrespect such people? You can have a rather low opinion on someone or their actions, but that is not disrespecting them.
>And the point you don't get is that their thuggish behaviour is enabled by their islamic behaviour, since islam says it's ok to assault and disrespect non-muslims who do non-muslim stuff such as dress they way the want to dress. That's also the theological basis for ISIS soldiers raping Yazidi girls in the name of Allah, since islam allows doing all that to kuffars or non-believers.
You're retarded, anti-white racist existed in banlieue before ISIS was a thing. ISIS is wrong on theological ground and I literally gave you a Qu'ran quote proving you wrong.
If your life is so great, why are you shitposting lies on a chinese cartoons forum? :^)
>I was talking about me and my fellow westerners, not you though. You want to be respected by factually following your culture and religion on the grounds of "it offends my god if you don't", even though doing that means destroying a lot of good aspects of our culture and lives, and that's why you're not worth respecting. You're free to abstain from whatever you want but you're not free to demand others abstain from it too, especially if it's good for those who want it.
Ok you're mentally ill, I never said that I should force my culture on yours, I talk about mutual respect. You're too dumb to understand my posts.
>If the man loses control of himself (since it's men who get violent here, 99% of the time) that is his fault for not understanding what was wrong that lead to his partner's adultery and is in no way excuse to exact violence on the partner or anybody. If your partner cheats on you, you either try to remedy the situation in a civil way or you cut contacts with them, but you do not hurt them for your own failures.
Non-sequitur, I don't care about what you think of it, it'll keep happening in the west. It's okay tho every culture has upsides and downsides, only mentally ill people like you can't see that.
I don't think you're happy. (o:
>What verse gives Muslims a blanket permission for this alleged action?
again, please stop dismissing the way other muslims may interpret the gorun. there is no right or wrong when it comes to interpreting religion, it is all subjective depending on whether or not you believe in it.
please, we are human beings. respect everyone and their decisions and interpretations and check your privilege.
My little mistake can't be this tryhard.
No it doesn't
"If any of you who do not have the means to marry free women who are believing, you may marry believing girls from whom your right hands possess. Allah knows best about your faith; you are all same in that respect. Marry them with the approval of their families and give them their gifts (dowries) correctly and courteously as married women, not in fornication or taking them as lovers. When they are married, if they commit adultery they should receive half the punishment of (ordinary) chaste women. This is for those of you who are afraid of falling into sin. But being patient is better for you. Allah is Ever-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 4:25)
It's pretty clear.
>You can't do these two
Pork is indeed prohibited, but that was due to sanitary reasons at the time. Sticking to that rule today in a First world country would not make any sense.
Concerning alcohol, didn't the Qur'an say that intoxication was prohibited, whatever the drug (and some versions of the Qur'an don't even list alcohol in those intoxicants, which is logical as it would have been a luxury resource in Arabia at the time)? By that logic shouldn't using alcohol for cooking or even moderate drinking be allowed, especially considering other verses of the Qur'an state that the faithful will find wine in heaven or some such.
Qur'an is not some abstract text that was revealed at once. It is, like any other text, a live one with its context being as much as important. If you got a verse, how would you understand it? Will you just go and give it whatever meaning you want? Of course, not. If you want to understand it you'll have to understand what the writer meant with it, his language and his practice. That's why seeing how Muhammad practiced Islam is important if you want to understand what "Islam" is and what Muhammad (read Allah, if you're a Muslim) meant with it.
Also, theologically, the reason why Qur'an is accepted is the same reason why Hadith and Sunnah is: it is because both are revelation. Revelation is the only source of sovereignty, and both Quran (revelation that's worded directly from god) and Sunnah (revelation that's meaning from Allah, expressed by the prophet) are both sources of legislation.
Of course there are rules on where and how to deal with these texts and their relationship with each other, when Sunnah is authentic, when it's not, and when and how one my incite it, along many other Usul-Fiqh studies.
Anyway, this only matters if you want to adhere to a "true" Islam. Personally, I think these issues matter less, since well, the current issue is a more political ones, rather than an ideological ones.
Not that guy, but even if that were true (which I doubt), it still doesn't support your alleged claim that you can rape any non-believer (since this would actually being saying only slaves are fine). So, you still have not given any relevant evidence to show that what ISIL is doing with rape is allowed.
what if i told you that i am allah's new prophet? i am way better than muhammad ever was. you better listen to me, baka.
You gave no quote while I pointed out to you the theological ground is the same because guess what your islam shit has been festering shit like that for ages. But I'm sure you're just pretending to be retarded.
>I never said that I should force my culture on yours
>if you don't FACTUALLY do what I say you're disrespecting me
>Non-sequitur, I don't care about what you think of it
So you justify brutally killing a woman because she sought better and wanted to be with a partner she's happy to be with, as is her right to? Once again, muslims prove themselves disgusting. Ad hominems fallacies won't get you anywhere here.
>it'll keep happening in the west
Unfortunately, but it can be reduced and the violent subhuman can be justly condemned. Whereas killing and/or torturing the man or woman who cheated, causing no actual harm to anyone, is just plain wrong and horrible. You get your pride hurt if your wife cheats on you, and if you're wise you learn a lesson from it; she gets her body damaged, likely crippled for life, if she survives at all and doesn't lose her life entirely. The two losses here are not even comparable as the woman risks losing immensely much more than you did, and you're still hateful about it. Punishment should not exceed guilt, which in this case is not that much. No woman should be with someone despicable like you who'd want his wife hurt like that.
You can't be a new prophet of God. He would never allow worst girl Kirino to be one. Now, if it was Kuroneko, that's a different story. Dresses conservatively, a best girl, kawaii, completely halal.
Your post reminded me of this story, there was a guy named Musaylimah who claimed prophethood he sent a letter to Muhammad about it:
""From Musaylimah, Messenger of God, to Muhammad, Messenger of God. Salutations to you. I have been given a share with you in this matter. Half the earth belongs to us and half to the Quraish. But the Quraish are people who transgress.""
Muhammad, however, replied back:
"From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Musaylimah, the arch-liar. Peace be upon him who follows (God's) guidance. Now then, surely the earth belongs to God, who bequeaths it to whom He will amongst his servants. The ultimate issue is to the God-fearing."
Aren't hadiths the part of muslim tradition? If so, in a sense, believing only in quran and disregarding them could be considered as implication of not being a "true muslim" - in a way which it's not following the whole development of Islam over last ~1400 years. As for theology, I'm defending the possibility that their understanding may be more close to the idea than yours is. So even though you believe that their way of worship is wrong, you are the one who denounces bits of Islamic tradition. Which in a sense may be considered straying from whatever the truth may be. I think I already made myself clear on that. And I'd you to answer the points I made in my previous posts, since you mostly pick a thing or two, respond to them more or less and leave other stuff untouched.
Who can be said to be whatever you mean by "islam pro"? As far as i know, muslims have their own disagreements over theology and anyone of them can be as true as another. I understand that it would be hard to find somebody well versed in theology amongst ISIS members, but you've got to remember they identify as muslims, they stick to their understanding of muslim laws and they would very much like anybody considered non-muslim to either join them or be punished. So anything in the line of "hehe guys, they're not really muslims, disregard them" is quite unacceptable. If somebody wishes me ill fate and self-identifies as muslim, its other - the alleged "true" muslims job to either denounce them once and for all or get used to being mistaken for them.
There are no ISIS apologists where I live, everybody agrees that they are bad. And still, no matter the reason, people joining them pose a real threat to other people. And yet there's no real, comprehensive outrage to be seen from any "true" muslims around the world. It all ends with they're not muslim.
Its also quite rude of you to say I've got blind hatred for Islam. Believe me, if I did, I wouldn't have tried to converse with you.
>You gave no quote while I pointed out to you the theological ground is the same because guess what your islam shit has been festering shit like that for ages. But I'm sure you're just pretending to be retarded.
I don't need to give quote about people bombing Mosques and killing innocent people not following Islam, research your subject.
>if you don't FACTUALLY do what I say you're disrespecting me
All I asked for is mutual respect idiot, I could go and meme on the downsides of your culture but I don't care unlike you I'm not insecure.
>So you justify brutally killing a woman because she sought better and wanted to be with a partner she's happy to be with, as is her right to? Once again, muslims prove themselves disgusting. Ad hominems fallacies won't get you anywhere here.
You're the one using logical fallacies, never said that the punishment for adultery is death you quoted me saying "Disgusting" when I said that punishment for adultery is 100 lashes. Are you okay? Also we have a thing called divorce instead of adultery, it's great you should look it up.
>Unfortunately, but it can be reduced and the violent subhuman can be justly condemned. Whereas killing and/or torturing the man or woman who cheated, causing no actual harm to anyone, is just plain wrong and horrible.
Why do you think that it's always women punished? In KSA men are the first victims of the religion police.
You're not worth my time desu, stay delusional and unhappy in your shitty crumbling society.
But according to Islamic jurisprudence, you aren't support to instigate wars,
and you aren't suppose to take any slaves when other solutions for dealing with defeated enemies are available. So you can't go to war for slaves (assuming you even can have sex with them at all, them willing or not).
Now, that is what the theology says, but what historically occurred after the death of the prophet does not always match this.
Rape is transgression and adultery, both are punished in the Qu'ran. Why are you obsessed? Why do you shitpost in a thread about Islam?
Should I go post lies on other threads because I'm not part of their religion/culture?
I know right, I mean rape is literally at minimum, adultery, and that is at it's minimum. Practically, rape is classified as banditry, if done in peace time, and transgression in warfare, if done during war times, and both have stiff punishments
>but what historically occurred after the death of the prophet does not always match this.
What about what the man himself did? He was not a pacifist by any means and Islam did not spread through flowers and poetry slams
Hadith were canonized in the 11th century, Islam existed without hadiths for centuries, not even gonna talk about early hadith criticism.
How can you think you can defend ISIS on theological ground when you don't know very basic stuff? Not even that but the people coming from that tradition absolutely shit on ISIS on theological ground: http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/
As I already said: stop relying on non-sequitur, identifying yourself as Muslim and following the teachings of Islam are two different things, let me give you another example:
If I identify as Muslim and I eat pork, it doesn't mean that Islam condone eating pork. You're implying that Muslims are not denouncing them? Hello? Why people like you always deny factual data.
I already explained to you the process of people joining ISIS, it's because of their propaganda and denial of reality. Be my guest and go interact with those people you'll see that they deny everything as "zionist plot" and "fake".
I'm sorry but you shouldn't try to defend ISIS on theological ground without any Islamic knowledge, you shouldn't also use logical fallacies after I correct you the first time, if it's not blind hatred then why?
Also: don't expect Muslims to clean up decades of shitty US foreign policy, you reap what you sow it's useless to complain about causality.
And if you cannot see that alienating Muslims (just read this thread) doesn't help then I don't know what to say.
>What about what the man himself did?
I'm pretty sure the Muslim view is that Muhammad himself followed the same Islamic guidelines for war as everyone else. So no unprovoked attacks for instance were committed they'd say. Like, they can say some of the early caravan raids were because their stuff in Mecca was taken from them and even was being sold to traders without their consent. Some of the expansions would also be said to have been a result of an enemy domino effect. Muhammad gets Mecca, other tribe goes "screw you. How am I suppose to do my pagan worship pilgrimage" or "screw you, I lost a good trading partner" and attacks to restore the status quo. They fail and the Muslims get their territory, then other tribes are like "look at this upstart. Better cull him before he becomes a problem" and attack, get defeated and land taken, and so on and so forth.
Muhammad was attacked before controlling Mecca iirc, you cannot excuse the behavior of pre-Islamic tribes he started as a peaceful preacher, lost everything and was attacked over and over.
The fact that early Muslims won outnumbered against powerful tribes is pretty impressive desu.
Yeah, totally peaceful, the levant and north africa just suddenly became Muslim
The hadith contradictions is just Muslim denial.
And about the marriage contradiction in the quran, can you clarify further?
>Muhammad was attacked before controlling Mecca
That is true. I was not trying to be comprehensive. I was just to give examples of things that are commonly cited as unwarranted "agressive" actions by Muhammad and how Muslims do not agree with such claims.
Actually, the thing that separates Islam from Catholicism is that Islam is literally a way of life for society. The church borrowed from the Roman law. So Islam can survive without a central figure because it's also a way of organizing society
>mfw it's literally impossible to have a decent and respectful thread about Islam even on this board
>Why do you shitpost in a thread about Islam?
It's some that happens in 4chan in general. Some retards took the fedora meme seriously and now they become what they hate: religious fundamentalists.
I was born in one of the most christian countries in the world and I'm an atheist, and I have good friends that are muslims and I really admire some of the values of their religion.
Honestly, you should just report the shitposting. This board has some heavy moderation, and that's good. I've seen people bitching all over 4chan because they get banned for posting their pol shit.