Muslims, what's your argument against this? I'm an ex-muslim my self and I've been wondering for a while, Muhammad married his cousin (Zaynab bint Jahsh) and had his daughter married off to his cousin(Fatima to Ali).
If Muhammad was the messenger of god, why would he support something so against biology? Did he not know about the birth defects? I know it was commonly practiced back then, but it is clearly known as unhealthy in the modern times.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
books.google.com
wikiislam.net
answering-christianity.com
answering-islam.org
thoughtcatalog.com
desustorage.org
rationalwiki.org
twitter.com
To be fair, as long as you only do it for one or two generations and you're not siblings it's not that dangerous.
The Prophet (PBUH), as all prophets, was allowed to take exceptions to the law due to need. That is why Mohammed (PBUH) could have so many more than four wives. There is no rule against marrying one's cousin however.
Not a muslim, but it increases the risk of defects, it doesn't guarantee them, even Darwin married his cousin.
Muhammad wasn't a divine figure. He was never meant to be a perfect human. He is a human just like anyone else, he just happens to be the messenger.
Because he was a sex crazed war lord. He did it for the same reason he cuck'ed his son in law by stealing his wife and broke his oath to all his wives not to fuck his slave girls.
>The Prophet (PBUH), as all prophets
Your "prophet" is the "prophet" of Satan. Do not include him with the prophets of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who is the One True God.
Thanks.
Daily reminder that all religions are made up and that muslims are literally subhuman.
Thank you.
Enlighten me as to why Muhammad needed 4 wives.
...
>all religions are made up
This doesn't mean anything.
Mohammed (PBUH) had thirteen wives. Four is the normal limit in Islam, but because Mohammed (PBUH) was a prophet, he could take an exception. The reason he took this exception is because it helped unify the tribes and made Islam blossom into the great and beautiful power it has become today. It greatly facilitated spreading the faith, and that, ultimately, justifies it.
Islam fucking disgusts me and so do you and your pedo prophet.
What does Islam say about dogs?
>The Prophet said, "Angels do not enter a house which has either a dog or a picture in it."
Bukhari vol. IV, no. 539, Narrated by Abu Talha
>Allah's Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.
Bukhari vol. IV, no. 540, Narrated by Abdullah bib Umar
Reminder that Islam is Satan's magnum opus and that dogs can actually feel the presence of evil spirits, stare and bark at them though to us they're invisible.
So those "Angels" are actually demons?
Yes and that's why they hate dogs.
Alright I get it. Don't muslims claim that Muhammad saw an angel or something?
Yes, that spirit demonic spirit whom Muhammad saw for the first time in the Hira Cave (pic related) in 610 AD appeared to him as an angel of light. This biblical passage is very relevant:
>For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
That demon who claimed to be Gabriel also made him want to kill himself since at first he thought (and was correct) that he was possessed.
>against biology
animal inbreeding is not against biology. It may weaken them in the long run, but nothing prevent them to do that.
>that cave
spooky, I'm sure a real angel would never appear to someone in that darkness.
>That demon who claimed to be Gabriel also made him want to kill himself since at first he thought (and was correct) that he was possessed.
wat
Source?
Al-Tabari includes several narrations about Muhammad’s suicide attempts in his massive Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk. In one version, Muhammad tries to kill himself before receiving his first Qur’anic revelation. During his yearly pagan religious retreat, a spirit appeared to him and said, “Muhammad, you are the Messenger of God.” Muhammad then fled to his wife Khadijah and begged her to cover him. After this, Muhammad considered killing himself:
>He (Muhammad) said: I had been thinking of hurling myself down from a mountain crag, but he appeared to me, as I was thinking about this, and said, “Muhammad, I am Gabriel and you are the Messenger of God.” Then he said, “Recite!” I said, “What shall I recite?” He took me and pressed me three times tightly until I was nearly stifled and was utterly exhausted; then he said: “Recite in the name of your Lord who created,” and I recited it. Then I went to Khadijah and said, “I have been in fear for my life.”
Al-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 68
This is according to Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, our earliest detailed biographical record on the life of Muhammad:
>[Muhammad said,] “So I read it, and he departed from me. And I awoke from my sleep, and it was as though these words were written on my heart. (T. Now none of God's creatures was more hateful to me than an (ecstatic) poet or a man possessed: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed—Never shall Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest. So I went forth to do so and then) when I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying, “O Muhammad! thou art the apostle of God and I am Gabriel.”
Ibn Ishaq, p. 106
Itt
Christfags, edge lords aetheists, and literally not one commenter bringing up that the whole marrying his cousin shit is highly contested..... Besides who doesn't love jerry lee Lewis?
Holy shit and muslims still follow this evil cult? I guess they don't actually know much about it
Sadly.
>being this ignorant and condescending
>reading an interpretation of a religion on Veeky Forums and thinking that you know more about it then it's own practitioners
t. devil worshiper
This thread is super subpar by Veeky Forums standards and should be moved to /pol/ Veeky Forums should be able to intelligently talk about this subject but sadly we can't
>interpretation of a religion on Veeky Forums
Muhammad Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and Ibn Ishaq.
I could've posted this on 9gag or funnyjunk and it would still be the truth.
There's nothing wrong with this thread Muhammad.
It's mostly ÆLIAN samefagging.
The fact of the matter is that Satan would be objectively idiotic to have a man create a religion requiring its adherents to behave according to the Abrahamic morality, and today are adhering to the morality far more so than any other Abrahamic religion.
And you are an idiot for believing every word that guy types out to you without question.
>religion requiring its adherents to behave according to the Abrahamic morality
>adhering to the morality far more so than any other Abrahamic religion
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
it clearly does
Good retort, autist.
For example, do you live in the West, where we excuse sodomy and fornication? Where God's word has been perverted so that in churches you'll be hard pressed to find someone who can recite a single verse of the Bible?
If I were Satan, I'd be helping out the Protestant so-called Christians in the West
>Basing all your conclusions on hadiths that didn't even exist untill 300 years after muhammad's death
Impressive,expected no less from a tripfag.
>For example, do you live in the West, where we excuse sodomy and fornication?
Muslims have very little objection to either of those if you're a man.
You can say they're too fervent about being against the Abrahamic idea of evil, but you certainly can't say they have little objection my friend.
Fornication is similarly illegal, so is alcohol etc., all things traditionally oppose to Abrahamic morality.
>believing every word that guy types
Here, you can verify what I wrote here Al-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 68:
books.google.com
I can't find an ebook for Ibn Ishaq, p. 106 but if you do a little search for it online you'll maybe find a pdf or something.
marrying your cousin isn't unhealthy, 1/3 of MODERN marriages are cousin marriages
Checkmate, Muslims.
Please stop making threads like these, not even allows them.
In anycase, prophets are not omniscient, that's the privy of gods. (And the Abrahamic god, for all the claims, seems pretty darn short sighted at times, regardless of flavor.)
>the Hadiths don't matter
I love that meme.
Pic related, are all those other ancient texts unreliable because the oldest copies we have found were written hundreds of years after the original author's death? I'll need a source for the Hadiths being written 300 years after Muhammad's death btw.
refer to what this guy wrote
And further, within that hadith, there is no mention of these non sequiturs you keep using to justify your accusation of calling Muslims devil worshippers.
Refer to my posts here regarding why Satan would be literally pants on head retarded to create such a religion:
Technically everyone is your cousin (literally), so it'd be 100% :^)
Is second or third cousin when people normally start to not care??
You know, i think a half assed protocol like PBUH is as bad as no protocol
They worship Satan senpai.
The hadiths were oral traditions about Mohammad, only written down centuries after he died.
Do you likewise think it would reliable to ask your great great grandchildren or your friends' great great grandchildren about how you were as a person, and what your teachings were? Whereas things like the Bible were firsthand accounts and the Quran memorized by many individuals, the hadiths were simply stories passed down--ones that may have been corrupted, or added in for political gain/justification.
Your argument is pathetic, see The "god" of the Qu'ran is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, i.e. God. Scripture makes it obvious.
Besides, Al-Tabari was born in the 9th century and Ibn Ishaq in the 8th.
The Hadiths matter to ever Muslim except Quranists.
Except hadiths were passed down orally for hundreds of years while those things were stored and passed down in books so it's not even a comparison,the hadiths being 300 years is because that was when they were first properly compiled by the bukhari before that no one wrote them down or stored them they were nothing but words of the tongue and rumors (keep in mind hundreds of thousands of them exist aswell) and the fact that the bukhari compilation itself not only contain repeated hadiths which outright contradict eachother but it also contains hadiths that completely contradict the quran,Not to mention the quran itself mentions multiple times that you should not use external things for religious laws further strengthens the uselessness of hadiths (2:2 ,6:114 and 31:6),id argue the rest of your points but i opened your image here But after reading your first arguement in there where you actually use the crescent moon and the image of baphomet,both of which didn't even exist until ofcourse,hundreds of years after islam's birth shows just how much of a tinfoil theorist you are and just how much effort you actually put into your laughably awful claims which you propably copy pasted from wikiislam.
>Scripture makes it obvious.
How?
>For when God made a promise to Abraham, since He had no one greater by whom to swear, He swore by Himself.
Hebrews 6:13
Pic related, we see that "Allah" does not swear by himself. Instead, "Allah" implies that the stars, the moon, the 'brilliance' of the sun, and a man-made city are greater than "Allah" - the very things he is supposed to have created. He even swears by such menial things as fruits which is not surprising since "Allah" is Satan and in the Holy Bible Satan is described as:
>"the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4)
>"the ruler of this world" (Jn 12:31)
>"the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2)
>"the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 Jn 5:19)
The Quran mentions the Abrahamic prophets by name several times in the Quran. There is a chapter called the family of Imran where it praises Christ and his mother, saying the latter is the "best of women." Rather odd for Satan's book.
And Mohammad was born in the 6th century. It doesn't change the fact that the period after he died was heavily politicized and more likely than not the authenticity of the hadiths suffered because of it.
Also you failed to address my other points.
Islam is almost as stupid as christianity. And that means something.
>Rather odd for Satan's book.
You think Satan makes his deceitful works obvious? Silly Abd Al-Makir.
See >Mohammad was born in the 6th century
See
this
An argument about the linguistics of these books is baseless--the phrase "to swear" may have wildly different meanings in the original Aramaic/Arabic.
Further, if you can catch that error, why would Satan, an eternal being, not be able to? Perhaps you think Satan really is stupid?
Don't confuse burger christianity with Christianity.
>You think Satan makes his deceitful works obvious? Silly Abd Al-Makir.
Then address this post: >f you can catch that error, why would Satan, an eternal being, not be able to?
And I wasn't the original poster of the 300 yr number, however 2 centuries is still a time and does not invalidate the original point.
Helel Ben-Shahar (הילל בן שחר in Hebrew) meaning "Helel" (bright) "Ben" (son of) "Shahar" (dawn). Helel, the morning star, was a Babylonian / Canaanite god who was the son of another Babylonian / Canaanite god Shahar, god of the dawn.
The Islamic symbol is the "Hilal" (crescent moon) over the "Sahar" light (dawn).
>How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
Isaiah 14:12
I could go on and on. Your religion is demonic. Wake up.
>2 centuries is still a time and does not invalidate the original point
Address
You are aware that those hadith compilations you're using actually include repetitions which outright contradict eachother right? are you aware that this means that the compiler is actually unsure of the validity of his sources and that it is merely his guesses of what he ASSUMES is a valid hadith right?,stop trying to use hadiths as facts because the compilers theirselves are unsure whether or not the hadiths they write are 100% correct and which of them is more valid than the other.
That's a non sequitur. Seeing as you've ran out of actual arguments and now have descended into conspiracy theories, all the while failing to address virtually any of my arguments, I'll call this finished then. Peace
>conspiracy theories
nice buzzword bro
>Moving the goalpost
>Wikiislam
Lovely,what's next going to link me to huffingtonpost?
I'm done here though if that's all you can do then on the filter list you go.
>Lovely
What's lovely is that they're actually quoting your "holy" book!
>on the filter list you go
pic related
This is why no one takes you seriously,when you lose an arguement you throw another 100 equally bad theories and then claim you won because nobody is gonna bother since all you do is link wikiislam anyway,and you even keep using the theories that were proven wrong every time in every thread going back to point 0 which is ironic considering the image you're posting,Oh well should have known better than to waste my time with a tripfag.
Let's see, the first "contradiction" is:
>>Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
>>God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
>>Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
Hmmm...
>Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
2 Samuel 24:1
>>I Chronicles 2 1:1
This passage does not exist.
Here's the website which the pathetic one that you linked copied:
answering-islam.org
>you lose an arguement
>bad theories
>theories that were proven wrong
Not really.
>all you do is link wikiislam
I've linked that great wiki once and I've quoted from the Holy Bible, the Qu'ran and works from muslim historians.
>psychotic extremist christfag shitposting in every single religious thread possible to alienate everyone from christianity
why do you do it? Do you hate God that much?
>"Listen to me, ye people. Those of you who worshipped Muhammad know that he is dead like any other mortal. But those of you who worship the God of Muhammad know that He is alive and would live for ever." -Umar al farooq
Muhammad was a man and therefore not impervious to human flaw. But besides that he had to operate within the confines of the time period in which he lived. How was the community supposed to endure without forming alliances? Old alliances where formed by marriages, courageousness marriage was common for the area and time.
I think the problem is that you think the prophet is supposed to be infallible but he is not, he did what was acceptable for the time, so what's your problem?
thoughtcatalog.com
The same half-assed dodging reality you're doing can be used by the Muslims with the link you provided
Quit being such a retard and delete your trip you annoying, thread derailing faggot
Now let's see the second "contradiction", out of curiosity. If it's another lie (obviously) I'll put it in the garbage.
>>In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
>>Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
>>One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
Yes, there's a difference indeed.
>And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: in Israel there were 800,000 valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500,000.
2 Samuel 24:9
>And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword, and in Judah 470,000 who drew the sword.
1 Chronicles 21:5
But what the dishonest muslim who wrote that article didn't mention is the next verse:
>But he did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, for the king's command was abhorrent to Joab.
1 Chronicles 21:6
I literally just answered questions ITT and I'm now defending Scripture which is breathed out by God Himself (2Tim 3:16-17). Go back to /r/christianity.
>half-assed dodging reality
t. biblically illiterate
>thread derailing
I've literally just been answering questions ITT. Are you muslim or a Christianity-hating Islam-loving atheist nu-male?
For by grace are ye saved through faith…not of works. —Ephesians 2:8,9
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. —James 2:24
I've been wondering myself though as to why the subjugation of women is so integral to Islam.
I know #notallmuslims and such, but even among muslims in the civilized world, it is still an undeniable trend. Even among other major religions, there are populations of them that manage to not force women into second-class citizen status.
>I've literally just been answering questions ITT
this, I posted
I know this is bait but:
desustorage.org
If you call yourself Christian and are actually trying to turn this thread into a Catholic vs Protestant argument while we've got muslims here claiming that their "god" is ours (while atheist nu-males defend them), read Romans 14:13.
>The Islamic symbol is the "Hilal" (crescent moon)
As a turk i LOVE this meme
define subjugation of women
define second-class citizen
You gotta assume that they, as people, when enabled to, can make their own decisions.
In the west, it's easier to because we don't put a premium on family over personal well being. In the mid-east though, family is king. I would argue that nothing in Islam is more discriminative towards woman than its importance in traditional family structure. It's a strict adherence to traditional family roles that leaves so little room for personal exploration and individuality.
Without it, they are much freer to make decisions as to how to live their life. Or even whether or not they feel traditional roles are actually discriminatory or limiting. Some won't. That's fine. To the traditionalists I know I've just baited out: To each their own.
It's not a meme and it was originally the symbol of Hubal, the moon god worshipped by pagans at the Ka'aba.
The crescent and star symbols were also widely used throughout the muslim world prior to the Ottoman empire and as evidence we have Islamic coins from as early as the 7th century, Egyptian and Syrian jewellery from the 11th century, Persian armor of the 10th-12th century, and paintings and drawings depicting Islamic mosques from areas, which then were not covered by the Ottoman Empire and from the times before the fall of Constantinople.
>personal exploration and individuality
You mean being a degenerate, don't you? Don't sugarcoat it, filthy swine.
I won't, with love, an individualist.
I guess I just don't understand how restricting women from riding bikes, covering every inch of their body, restricting them from learning or any of that other bullshit is important to traditional family values.
Oh wait, you're actually the same desperate muslim/atheist who thinks he's posting biblical "contradictions"? That's not a contradication at all.
See: USA & Western Europe
But even Christians who pretend that they're the fucking champion of family values have a strong independent womxn every now and then.
>inb4 "heathenistic liberal website dont know shit, Bible is always true because circular logic, save yourself from Hell pls"
Nice meme. The only people using the crescent as a symbol are Turks, some former ottoman vilayets and ottomanboos like pakistan. Did you know using symbols to represent Islam is against the very idea of it? Mohamed and the first chaliphs used blank flags.
Alternatively:
>inb4 that post gets ignored because fuck standing up for your point
and possibly
>inb4 responding to this post saying "well can't argue with heathens lol"
Well I suppose I should elaborate that I feel these restrictions are protected by strict adherence to family values, rather than propagated by them.
If riding that bike anyways is perceived in any way to be a challenge to a rigid family structure, adherents to the structure might be motivated to treat this action as a threat to the whole of the structure.
You see this shit constantly. Cunts pull it all the time. One small criticism, or one trivial act of insubordination, is enough to make people jump the shark and assume it's an attack on the whole. Just dip into literally any theology thread here. Break down at literally any political debate. When it comes to ideology. The part very much=the whole. Any attack on any one part is an attack on the whole. This is how mob mentality gets out of hand. This is how tribalistic politics begin blood feuds that last centuries. This is the doctrine of deterrence works.
Because consanguinity is a pride of backwards people, which generally include every muslim.
I don't see any errors, as for Pi, 1 Kings 7:23-26 refers to dimensions measured in "cubits" and "handbreadths".
The cubit was the length from the elbow to the tip of the outstretched fingers. It is commonly "standardized" today as being about eighteen inches (or about forty-six centimeters).
A handsbreadth is the "hand" used to measure horses. It is the width of the palm of the person doing the measuring, and is "standardized" as being four inches.
The Calculations:
outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches
To find the "Jewish" or "Bible" value for pi, we need to have the inner radius.
Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be:
90 - 4 = 86 inches
Let's do the calculations:
inner radius: 86 inches
inner circumference: 540 inches
The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:
540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)
Solving, we get pi = 540/172 = 135/43 = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.
Hmmm...isn't "3.14" the approximation we all use for pi?
Wrong. As I said, we have Islamic coins from as early as the 7th century, Egyptian and Syrian jewellery from the 11th century, Persian armor of the 10th-12th century, and paintings and drawings depicting Islamic mosques from areas, which then were not covered by the Ottoman Empire and from the times before the fall of Constantinople.
fucking rekt
Tripfags that constantly troll threads just get so predictable after a while.
