Tell me about the Satanic Verses

>How could Islam be much influenced by Christianity when Mahound got even the rock bottom basics of Christian theology so totally wrong in an obvious factual error?

How can you use modern christianity when talking about events 1500 years ago? There were indeed such cults.

Does anyone else think Al-`Uzzá is really cute?

>More like aryan christianity, or other weird movement Sergius belonged to:

Isn't that story a blatant fabrication? This trope is ubiquitous.

When in the past 1500 years was Mary generally affirmed to be a person of the Trinity?

Muhammed was an illiterate nestorian preacher who got a bit carried away. The Quran itself was written decades after his death

>generally

We still can't talk about christianity generally, as there are multiple very popular cults that disagree on things.
And back in the day you certainly couldn't, since there were hundreds of such popular cults based on geographical and cultural borders.

Have you read the descriptions of what was left in his house when he died he was poor as hell since he ran soup kitchens out of his house. If you think that's historically suspect then you have even more reason to disbelieve the Satanic verses story which is from one source and only one account that is generally discounted.

you know that it's impossible for a rich - noble family merchant to be illiterate, right?

Yes user, you're not alone on this.

>Aren't they the 'smoking gun' that Muhammad was making things up on the fly?

You mean apart from the fact that he was a merchant warlord who claimed the Archangel Gabriel came to him and dictated the entire Koran to him in Classical Arabic?

His tribe was Jewish. At least the high ranking people were

His father-in-law was a nestorian

Islam is much closer to Judaism than it is to Christianity

They don't think Jesus is in hell tho

I wanna fuck her pussy

Source that Muhammad was poor? By all accounts he was a rich merchant warlord with many livestock, wives, slaves and private armies. Being illiterate didn't necessarily mean being poor back then.

>ran soup kitchens

That doesn't mean he was poor. In fact, he was a warlord who swam in pussy, so he was most likely pretty well-off by Arab standards.

>Hubalist Arabia
>not a million times more awesome than Islamic Arabia

youtube.com/watch?v=LhUnsqWqGOA

The quran used to say that allah took all the good women for himself, and left the rest to fend for themselves with the remainder.

The entire quran is nothing but satanic verses; allah is satan.

Probably saw a depiction of mother and child and dove, and did not know that the dove was supposed to be the Holy Spirit.

Allah is alpha af

It's fascinating how sophisticated was the pre-Islamic Arabian civilization. Yet it gets continuously disregarded because modern-day Arabs see everything pre-Islamic as evil. Even today the Saudis bulldoze whatever remnants of old civilization get unearthed.

Yup. Leader of the rebellion against God Himself.

That rebellion lasted one half of one heartbeat before it was destroyed.

I'll stick with the guy who walked out of his grave, as he said he would.

He looks more like an enormous attention whore.

Kek
They go hand in hand

the arabic script was still in its infancy and Muhammad married into a rich family him being a bastard and all
see how he said his mother can not be forgiven by ALLAHU

Trinitarianism isn't a modern idea. The concept has been the core theological concept of Christianity since Christ's ministry, as clearly evident in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The Church Fathers elaborated on the concept in extrabiblical writings starting in AD 110, and heresies against the increasingly developed doctrine of the Trinity started to become grounds for formal excommunications from the Church in AD 269.

Heretics aren't Christians. Collyridianism in no way represents orthodox Christian theology like the Koran states it does.

Christianity came to baptize pagan cultures. Islam came to burn them.

The Christian Roman Empire was indeed known for its religious tolerance.

As were other Christian powers of the middle ages like Charlemagne's Empire and Catholic Spain.

Let's not even mention the whole crusades thing.

Islam was instituted in an effort to consolidate the disparate peoples and cultural traditions of the Middle East under one unified religious structure that integrated key aspects of everything it was assimilating.

It's the exact same concept as Catholicism and it's marriage of Christianity and European paganism. Many say that Muhammad learned how to create this kind of matrix of thought from Catholic theologians.

You may insist that your denomination is correct but it doesn't change the fact that Christianity was quite diverse in its beginnings.

There was back then, and still remains today, a lot of wacky syncretism going on where it spread.

Always love bumping into people on a higher level than I am. Thanks for posting.

If you go to the Middle East you'll find that they don't know ANYTHING about the OT prophets aside from "oh yeah Mohammed said he's cool"

What in particular is different from Muhammad's teachings.

They know Ibrahim and Ishmail.

...

>Aren't they the 'smoking gun' that Muhammad was making things up on the fly?
Well that, and the very situationally-convenient verses about taking multiple women as wives, rape of prisoners wives, and rape of little girls.
Mohamed is a ancient arabian Joseph Smith.. making stuff up in solitude where no one can verify because "he is the chosen one". That's not how Prophets work.

It's a heretical icon, the Holy Spirit is not a dove.

Maybe you should read a Quran instead of going on "wiki islam"

but hubohomo doesn't get you pic related

How convenient that the Arabs would "correct" the story!

Oh no, it was actually ISHMAEL: father of the Arabs who Abraham REALLY loved more

>there exist millions of people who obey the words of a known con man

Aye, but the uninitiated would have no idea what the dove was supposed to be an icon of. Hence the lack of any knowledge of the Holy Spirit in Islam.

I would much more recommend answeringislam; islam is a mess.

I think it's more of a reliance upon the firstborn being the one who inherits. Ishmael is Abraham's first born son.

But there are many instances in the bible where the elder son does not inherit, and his younger brother does. Jacob and Esau, and Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh come to mind.

The crucial distinction is that Ishmael was born to Abraham and Hagar out of the flesh, and Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarah out of faith.

The Lord could not be more clear. The son of the handmaiden, Hagar, would not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Where are the quotes from the Qur'an from that say what you assume?

I think it's sura 4-157

I'm sorry, was that a rebuttal? Mohamed claims allah (Satan) allows such things, right around when such questions are brought to him. Even Aisha says its suspicious.

Christianity is not an action-based religion, it is faith-based.

You are not Christian if your beliefs are radically different from Christianity. If a sect is more similar to the mythology of William Blake than scripture, it isn't Christianity.

Trust the wife to get in a snide "Gee, sure seems like your god appears rather quickly when you need a new revelation do do what you want".

This. All religions try to get people to clean themselves, improve themselves, act right, do good, avoid evil; this is all the way satan takes people to hell. Nobody but Jesus can get into heaven this way.

Hence the need for salvation being a gift offered by a loving, gracious and merciful God, instead of the punishment we all deserve.

God's love is infinite and awesome, something that the entity that Muslims worship - Satan, or a demon at the least - does not express.. only submission and worship.

>Even Aisha says its suspicious.

That's interesting. Any reference to a particular Hadith?

>OT prophets

Those are Meccan deities whom Muhammad incorporated into his religion as "Allah's daughters" and later expunged them claiming that it was Satan who dictated those verses. Thus the name "Satanic verses".

>Christianity came to baptize pagan cultures
Holy fuck the delusion of christians.
Protip, most of the destruction of Temples in Egypt, were done by Copts, way before muslims came.

>Sahih Bukhari (60:311)
>"I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly).

It's likely to be blown out of proportion by people today. 600 AD it's a different story to have sex with a female captive but it's one of those things that people will take advantage of.

And surely Allah is testing those, who keeps true to one verse but fails on the other.

> Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)

It is "permitted" but there is no "here is what happens at the day of ressurection" rather just says "there is a day of ressurection"

There are many hadith to this effect.
Narrated 'Aisha: A complete month would pass by during which we would not make a fire (for cooking), and our food used to be only dates and water unless we were given a present of some meat. (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 465)

Narrated 'Amir bin Al-Harith: Allah's Apostle (Prophet Muhammad) did not leave a Dinar or a Dirham or a male or a female slave. He left only his white mule on which he used to ride, and his weapons, and a piece of land which he gave in charity for the needy travelers. (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 738)

I couldn't find the specific one about his house at death. But he didn't benefit much economically from the conquests since he gave most of it away.

Also vote for this
presidentialopenquestions.com/questions/4696/vote/

>"I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

Literally like Joseph Smith.

ISIS individuals are very pious Mohammedans, then, by raping their captives.

Yep, as mentioned

When have the teachings of Christ been changed? There are transcripts dating to pre 70 AD.

The definition of "Christian" was not concrete at this time. But I expect I'm debating an article of faith at this point and won't get through to you.

>Mohammedans
You are not an 18th century priest so stop pretending to be.

I'm not, but their worship of Mohamed is evident in their behavior, beyond veneration. Clearly they do not worship God.

That is not Islam.

>“And successful are the believers who guard their chastity … except from their wives or those that their right hands possess.”

They are being tested.

>Mary Worshipers

>Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war ...

That's exactly Islam.

>Sahih Muslim 3371—We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

>Sunan Abu Dawud 2150—The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.

The whole Satanic Verses incident is probably a fabrication perpetuated by subjugated Christians. If the incident were true, then we would expect to see more and stronger narrations in Hadith collections. It doesn't make sense that Muhammad would just one day decide to omit the verse several years later, well after the conflicts and conquering of Mecca. His endeavor to convert the pagans would have also been a great deal more successful, as the Meccans would be willing to accept his prophethood of he conformed to their belief system; but the muhajirun in Yathrib were few. It was only with the conquering of Mecca that most of the pagans converted, and Sunnis and Shias alike would say many of them apostasized after Muhammad's death.

It doesn't say "rape"

>The reference is about sexual relations, which are forbidden with any woman unless she is a spouse or ‘those their right hands possess’. To be clear, this means a concubine, bondmaid or a slave, butintercourse has to be consensual. Rape is forbidden as it is violent, and Islamic texts legislated for the proper and honourable treatment of slaves.

Beaides, you are talking about culture from 600AD, where having female captives in this manner was "appropriate", but it is not rape, because the women consented. Sure, it is not acceptable today, but you are looking at different cultural standards.

Also, there is a waiting period before they are made clean to be slept with. It is clear that Americans and "ISIS" are meme ing the shit out of those verses, and both of them clearly don't understand

>Besides, you are talking about culture from 600AD, where having female captives in this manner was "appropriate"
The problem is that this culture you apologize for is the end-all-be-all perfection of man according to Islam. That's quite an issue.

>but it is not rape, because the women consented.
Where is that? Just like the Yazidis and "apostates" consented to ISIS? Clearly.

>Sure, it is not acceptable today, but you are looking at different cultural standards.

Not relevant, not a defense.

I'm not apologizing. The people who rape others apologize. Muhammed doesn't say "rape them because Allah said" but he says "you can have the captives" and it is after consent only they can have them "their right hand". Muhammed says "for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born." And what he says is as important as what he doesn't say which is the consequences for the action. He says "everyone will be born up again" but he does not say "rape brings salvation" but he says "it is okay to take female captives as your own"

Again, 600AD, Muslims were not the only people sex trafficking. Same with today. You are so quick to call out ISIS and Islam, but you won't ever consider America sex trafficking in secret?

In this period were slavery was common, as was having sex with slaves, consensual or not. There is nothing in the Quran or Ahadith which prohibits the rape of slaves. It is difficult to imagine that it would be impermissible, considering that given the choice, most female slaves would not likely have sexual relationships with their masters.

>Again, 600AD, Muslims were not the only people sex trafficking. Same with today. You are so quick to call out ISIS and Islam, but you won't ever consider America sex trafficking in secret?

The difference is that with Islam, the rape of slaves and sex trafficking are mandated, and thus cannot be abolished or otherwise opposed. Sex trafficking is illegal in America, and legal under Islam.

All of these practices are pre-Islamic.

>Furthermore this isnot an entitlement.Concubinage and interpersonal relations with various bondmaids/slaves was already occurring at the time the Quran came about and subsequent passages list restrictions as a starting point to help to bring about the end of slavery. In any case, marriage was encouraged (Chapter 24:32) with slaves.

Marriage with the slaves is encouraged

>In fact, slavery was never endorsed by Islamic texts; rather it was something inherited from pre-Islamic cultures (pre-600s) that needed to be voluntarily and gradually weeded out of society through manumission, which was highly encouraged (Chapters 24:32-33 & 16:71). Islamic texts list a plethora of avenues to free slaves, as it was seen as a highly virtuous act. It’s difficult to find any references on how tomake slavesout of people; rather the focus is always on ending slavery.

>Again, 600AD, Muslims were not the only people sex trafficking. Same with today. You are so quick to call out ISIS and Islam, but you won't ever consider America sex trafficking in secret?

Strawman, see what this user said , apologist.

Also, references in Islamic texts about slavery don’t apply any longer for a modern age given that slavery has been officially bannedinternationally since 1948. There is widespread consensus across all nations on this, including Muslims ones. There’s no desire among ordinary Muslims to drag humanity backwards into slavery, especially when there was a clear agenda in key Islamic texts to eventually eradicate it.

>worldwide abolishment of slavery
>Muslim countries also agree upon it

So the "ISIS" is not Islam because Muslims already agreed on worldwide abolishment of slavery. They are being counter productive as is the American population believing every lie they are being told by the media about Islam

I'd rather read the Qur'an than "what user said" because none of you guys even consider how many Muslims are doing what they can to restore their religion.

Sex trafficking in the modern USA is both illegal and rare as fuck contrary to what some people will tell you.

None have the right to declare what Allah, his prophet, and Ahl-ul-Bayt have made permissible as impermissible. Geopolitics cannot abbrogate Sharia, otherwise, what else will you abolish to appease the world?

Yeah it's illegal, but that doesn't mean you have people who follow that law. It's just well hidden because it's illegal.

When people take into consideration what Allah says now, then they can understand what needs to be done and what needs to be reformed. If religion was perfect, Jesus and Muhammed wouldn't have to come back and fix it.

So? They are retained by Islam, it makes no difference. And that Islam encourages marriage with slaves does not negate the permissibility of slave rape. A man with four wives has no option to marry his slave, yet it is permissible to have sex with them.

>Also, references in Islamic texts about slavery don’t apply any longer for a modern age given that slavery has been officially bannedinternationally since 1948.
Are you saying that a man-made law abrogates the "literal word of God". the Quran? Not according to Islam.

>There is widespread consensus across all nations on this, including Muslims ones.
Then why is Sharia the official law of Muslim nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

>There’s no desire among ordinary Muslims to drag humanity backwards into slavery, especially when there was a clear agenda in key Islamic texts to eventually eradicate it.

Where is that citation in the Koran? A non-abrogated one.

>I'd rather read the Qur'an than "what user said" because none of you guys even consider how many Muslims are doing what they can to restore their religion.

Then why this entire post?

Human trafficking and modern sex slavery is, after all, not just a ‘Muslim’ issue, it’s even happeningright under our noses in the UKby all sorts of perpetrators. Therefore let’s promote those devout Muslims like Zainab Bangura who work hard to empower victims of Isis’ sexual violence and slavery, as well as those women seeking justice for having been forced intosex slavery elsewhere in the world.

The majority of sane, law-abiding Muslims do notseek to impose themselveson others by force or aggression. They don’t even need me to explain passages in the Quran as they’re not interested in keeping a female slave to rape or ‘humiliate’…

Muhammad was khatam-ul-nabuwat, his revaltion is the measure of all things. There is no room for "reform", at least of the type you advocate.

If "Allah" (Satan) says such things, why does he always contradict himself? Saying the Gospels and Torah are corrupted on one hand, yet telling Muslims that the Christians and Jews are to follow those books, not the Koran?
It is not the word of God, but Satan or a demon demanding absolute obedience.

Did the religion appear before the Caliphate like in the traditional view, or was if only formed several hundred years in during the Abbasid Caliphate in a more revisionist view?

I get the sense that somehow like Muhammad couldn't have been just a fraud and he probably had to buy in to what he was selling to some extent to do the things he did.

Oh what little of it exists is well hidden, but the absurd claims of hundreds of thousands or millions of sex slaves being brought into this country are as unverifiable as they are absurd.

Stop listening to puritan imbeciles.

Sure, sure. Was there someone watching the tribesmen every day to make sure they didn't rape their slaves? Was someone watching to make sure they and their families didn't rape and beat the slaves on a daily basis?

In Saudi Arabia today it is illegal to rape and beat servants, but it still happens. Illegality is not the same as it not being done.