Why don't Muslim's actually believe in the Qur'an? Why do we vilify and scapegoat a book they don't adhere to...

Why don't Muslim's actually believe in the Qur'an? Why do we vilify and scapegoat a book they don't adhere to, instead of holding the Middle Easterner's responsible for their shite culture?

Other urls found in this thread:

discover-the-truth.com/2014/11/08/debunking-the-myth-that-the-quran-endorses-violence-2/
norasensation.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/misquoted-violent-verses-in-the-holy-quran/
al-islam.org/life-muhammad-prophet-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/battles
m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3FaBDuekwo
m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVYl4bqeUvg
submission.org/abrogation.html
wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Alcohol
answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm
google.com/search?q=islamic golden age myth&oq=islamic golden age myth&aqs=chrome..69i57.6745j0j4&client=ms-android-americamovil-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Islamic_philosophy
answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv2.html
lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Islam is cancer and ISIS are the only real Muslims.

Original Image that some faggot would have you believe about the fourth installment in the "polytheist is bad" tetralogy

Cool, it decided not to attach, wicked.

Islam is no more wrong than Christianity.

Turning your question around. Why did Europeans slaughter, genocide, and wholesale convert indigenous cultures and civilizations, in order to plunder gold under the guise of Christian conversion?

Because it was a convenient reason to go to war.

It's no different, what each book says, and the way it's "followers" act in their names are all arse backwards.

Yeah so?

It does not make Western and American efforts to destroy Islam any more justified because their civilization is different.

All religions are violent.

That neocons today think that it is they who are the enlightened moral paragons, while they colonise and destroy the Middle-East, shows you who the real "backwards" people are.

Just because West has the enlightenment does not make you the judge of any other civilization and have a monopoly on truth. Don't be surprised when the muslims react against you, because of this.

>COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT

Times of war

Self-defense is not allowed?

Protecting your mother, your child, your wife is not allowed?

Treason of war are not punishable by death?

Breaking treaty shouldn't cause war? Even if the opposing sides kill your people?

We should let people kill us?

>HERE ARE ALL THE CONTEXT OF THE VERSES
discover-the-truth.com/2014/11/08/debunking-the-myth-that-the-quran-endorses-violence-2/

norasensation.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/misquoted-violent-verses-in-the-holy-quran/

>THE REASON FOR BATTLES DURING MUHAMMAD TIME
al-islam.org/life-muhammad-prophet-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/battles

>thinks that happened
You need to lay off the sjw propaganda, son.

>Tu quoque evasion

>KILLING OF INNOCENT IS NOT ALLOWED IN ISLAM

The Quran tell us that:

Quran 5:32
...that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind....

Where did you get that i think it's justified?

I'm drawing attention to the use of Islam as a scapegoat. The real reason for Western imperialism is not religious, but socio-political.

The founding Principles that Western civilization was founded on isn't too different than the Principles that middle eastern culture was founded on (Abrahamic Religion and Post-Roman Law vs Abrahamic Religion and Post Eastern-Roman and Persian law)

The presence of legality and what is essentially modern morality through religion, rather than through social "enlightenment" have been ingrained in each culture since their inception. My point is only to note that they did not have a different origin to The west, but spend more time throwing rocks at gays than advancing mankind's efforts to understand things and quench our innate curiosity.

The question I'm Asking, is why do we blame their failure to re-advance themselves into modern human culture, on Aspects of their previous culture, rather than on other, more likely causes?

If we consider how they have fallen from the major source of human philosophical, scientific, and medical advancement, to beige coloured rubble and violent bigots, It's not hard to figure out that the direct influence had by ulterior cultures(The West and The USSR, for example) has strewn them off of course, and the few internal conflicts that have led to their collapse have no basis in their own history and civil evolution. It's like finding gills on a fucking mountain goat.

The Islamic golden age Ended when the Ottoman Empire collapsed because of loss of Territory and war against the west. all of that's shite now.

Syria was a quickly developing state with a high GDP for the region and a growing economy before America destroyed it with proxy wars

Iraq was growing brilliantly before the Gulf War, then destroyed by America Directly

Iran was great before the Iranian revolution, funded by America

Why do we blame a book?

I was correcting the picture, not trying to put the idea across that Islam is all that bad.

My anime pic? It's your pic? I like it very much.

No, this one, you fuckin' weeb
My goal was to put across that the perception of Islam has nothing to do with the actual theology.

Because it's a lot easier from a moral standpoint to attack a religion than it is to attack a group of people.

>Why do we blame a book?
Because without the book we wouldn't have had Al-Wahhab, and the Saudis are printing the book to spread their ideology, not Americans.

Whereas the Falsafah made Muslims scholars read by everybody in Europe because they carried on the work of Hippocrates, Galen, Aristotle and the Neoplatonists, not the Qur'an.

Books matter.

>PROTECT WOMEN, CHILDREN AND FEEBLE MEN FROM OPPRESSORS

How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and (for the cause) of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender! [4:75]

I got no idea what you're trying to say. Have you read the context of the verse you post in ?

Islam is not just theology, it's about the way of life.

Should we also blame the bible's failure to mention paedophilia as a sin, or should we blame the priests sticking their dicks in kids?

Wahhabism is in itself contradictory to much of the qur'an, If god's up there, and goes by the book, most wahhabi's are going to hell for the violence, hatred, and oppression they've spread, Read the threads starting post, the concepts of wahhabism and "radical Islam" go against a few up there.

Those fucker's that blow themselves up for "72 virgins" haven't read the source material.

The modern perception of Islam by the west is entirely based off of Middle eastern culture, not on the values preached in the qur'an.

Modern Muslims live a life style independent of the theology present.

All of this shit ou saying is through YOUR lenses of enlightenment morality. Who the fuck appointed you as a judge, to say if they are advanced or not advanced?

They had their own culture and lived just fine, it is Western civilization that is trying to wipe them out.

What makes your socio-economic imperialism in any way morally superior, from counter-religious defensive violence?

historical facts are now SJW propaganda?

Oh, ok. Sorry for misunderstanding.

But yeah, during the time of war, you got to protect your love ones and people that is under your protection.

Again, Islam is not just about theology, it's about what acts should be done during various conditions, including the times of wars.

Most Muslim, even in America, still live according to theology taught in the Quran.

You don't understand my perspective, I agree with you on your second point, and inr egard to your third, read my posts again, I don't support western imperialism in the middle east, I'm specifically saying I'm against it.

There isn't much good shit coming out of Damascus nowadays, though. Technology and civil rights has always been the basis of how we rank societies, and they've fallen behind. We clearly agree why that is.

I've never met a Muslim who's read through the Qur'an, personally. Most Christian's I've met have never read more than half of Genesis, by the same tune.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should live by any particular religious text, but in that case, maybe those who don't shouldn't so closely align themselves with those who do.

But do filthy infidels qualify as innocent people? A great deal of the Quran is devoted to describing the horrible punishment that awaits those who reject Islam. If what you are saying is true, than that means that the subjects of divine wrath are innocent people.

t. ISIS-supporter

How did you come to that conclusion?

Ok user, sorry for misunderstanding. It's just your out-of-context pic makes me think otherwise.

We Muslim believe that by practicing Islam throughly that we can make life better for both Muslim and Non-Muslim.

All the ISIS bullshit is no more than KKK to Christianity. They do not follow the Quran to the letter.

Stoning? Need four trustworthy people to SEE CLEARLY the cock entering the vagina to execute the punishment. LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to punish someone for adultery. See:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3FaBDuekwo

Cutting hand? Also the same. Beheading? One the most humane executions. NOT SAYING THAT ISLAM TOLD TO BEHEAD EVERYONE, but only for crimes punishable by death.

Also, if you have the time, please watch:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVYl4bqeUvg

Again, PLEASE READ THE CONTEXT in the link in .

>Muslim apologists still trying to say Islam is the religion of peace

Have any of you ever actually read the Quran, hadith, and general commentary? Or know shit about abrogation, tafsirs, levels of autenticity, revelational circumstances, etc?

It isn't the same as the Bible. The Bible says a lot of bullshit, but there is a key difference in how the books are meant to be viewed by their followers.

The Bible: Jesus is the best and died for your sins. Pray to him and try your best not to sin.

The Quran: This is the perfect, unalterable word of god. Mohammad was the perfect human, and you are obligated to follow both the Quran and his example (hence why hadith are such an important secondary source for Muslims).

So, when Mohammad killed unbelievers and performed jihad, you as a Muslim must do so as well. Whereas if Jesus smacked some money changers in a temple, Christians aren't told to go out and literally do that too.

Also, stoning only just there as a warning not to sleep with someone's wife.

Thanks mate, I'll watch those in a minute,
It's fantastic to have a conversation with someone who genuinely believes in what they claim to believe in.

My only real goal in this thread was to point out how rubbish the liberal and conservative perspectives are on Islam and the middle east. I'm glad we were able to have a good discourse on the matter.

Did you read the post? it mentions killing people.
And yes, I've read the Qur'an twice, the old testament once, and the Jerusalem bible twice.

Read the thread, wanker.

The Quran and Muhammad said that if the situation arises, we must act according to the Quran and Sunnah, including time of war.

YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD LET THE ENEMIES KILL OUR LOVE ONES?

That's bullshit. What kind of religion is that?

Again, PLEASE READ THE CONTEXT in the link in .

See

Yeah. I read the posts. And they source blogs and youtube videos of people making excuses and flying in the face of what the Quran actually says.

Like how people use surah al-kafiroon to be a verse of peace, when in reality the revelational circumstances was Muhammad saying "fuck off we won't cut deals with you", not a verse proclaiming peace. Not to mention it was abrogated later by the verse of the sword because it is a Meccan surah and earlier than the Medinan ones.

Either learn about Islam and provide real information beyond blogs or stop being dishonest, taqiyyah only works on the ignorant,.Abdul.

None of the posts with anime pictures are mine.
I'm not supporting Islam in any way, I'm the one suggesting that the cultural issues in the middle east don't have any strong ties to the actual religion, and pointing out that the western perspective on Islam is bullshit(first two images)

"I've read the Qur'an twice"
-me(2017)

Which verse of Surah Al-Kafiroon?

Again, DID YOU READ THE CONTEXT of those verses?

>ABROGATION OF THE QURAN
No such things. Here:
submission.org/abrogation.html

They actually do. The Middle Eastern culture is very much based on the Quran and hadith. It wasn't like that before the rise of Islam.

Because Islam is seen as the literal word of god and not "divinely inspired", it is seen as literal. As are authentic hadith, though those are secondary to the Quran.

The Middle East before Islam was very different. If you read up on the history, you'd see that. It wasn't like the Middle East was a war torn shithole and then Islam came and changed nothing about the cultural values at the time. It is a war torn shithole because of Islam, western interference, religious disputes (whether because of doctrinal disputes within Islam or against people of other faiths, which is promoted), etc.

No such thing as abrogation? Then explaih the verses on alcohol where at some points it was allowed and then banned.

Because it was once allowed by Muhammad himself if you read the hadith. Only after everyone went to a particular battle drunk and they got their shit kicked in was it outright banned.

So unless Mohammad was breaking the Quran, abrogation clearly does exist.

>promoted
Please see Yes, it include innocent Non-Muslim as well.

You do refuse to read the context, aren't you?

Nope. Your own verse says "or corruption on the earth". Now look at how Islam views polytheists, unbelievers, dhimmis, etc. They are seen as corrupting people with their false views. Hence why it has always been permissible to kill such people. And to kill those who accept Islam and then choose to forsake the faith and turn to apostasy.

You are the one who clearly does not understand the context of any of these verses.

In other words, in Islam, goint against Islam in word or deed is seen as worthy of death. As can be seen from the past (Mohammad ordering people who wrote defamatory poetry about him killed, him attacking various people who did not believe in him, etc.) and in modern times where it is permissible to kill cartoonists which defame Mohammad or Islam, unbelievers such as Hindus, Christians, Jews, apostates, etc.

What I meant was the abrogation of the verses in the Quran.

But the abrogation of horrible culture do happen in the time of Muhammad.

>wine
Regarding that hadith, the misunderstanding comes from the mistranslation of the Arabic word "Nabith" into "Wine" which is not always correct.
Nabith is a drink made by macerating fruit into water. It's not always alcoholic, or not to the extent of being an intoxicant.

In most ahadith referring to Nabith, none made it clear that it was an intoxicating dring.
In addition, there are many ahadith by the same narrator that emphasize on refraining from drinking alcohol. Of course there are contradicting ahadith, but for this one, the ambiguous use of nabith makes it impossible to draw the conclusion that Mohammad drank (I doubt he didn't in his lifetime BTW)

Actually, if you read the verses, it makes specific mention of alcoholic drinks, and their intoxicating effect. Like not coming to prayer intoxicated, references to wine, references to people saying that intoxicating drinks are unlawful, etc.

So, yes, it refers to alcohol and intoxication.


wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Alcohol

And before you cry about my link, at least mine references Quran, hadith, and scholars. Your links are blogs and youtube videos. I think it is clear which has more weight.

>APOSTASY IN ISLAM
There is no reason to kill someone who doesn't deserve to be killed.

Certainly if the apostate is hostile toward the Muslims and joins the enemy in a war against them, or tries to corrupt the Muslims in the Muslim lands by trying to convert them to his/her new deviant religion, then the matter becomes different.

But if a Westerner today for instance embraces Islam for a while and then changes his position due to the overwhelming false anti-Islamic media, then certainly killing that person would be a grave sin and a big mistake.

For more reading, here:
answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm

The qur'an states a few times that Islam means submission to god, and that all of the Abrahamic religions are the same faith, And that every monotheistic faith is interconnected.

Regardless of how Christians or Jews we're treated historically, They are supposed to be counted as no different than Muslims in regard of adherence to faith.

Oh, and Jesus wasn't the son of god, he was god personified as man, as we are all created in god's image(as sentient beings), anyone who genuinely understands the bible knows this. Google the holy trinity, The Qur'an states that Christians who believe him to be the literal son of god are perverted by falsities, and the same for any monotheist that worships a false idol. God is a single entity that is all encompassing, so those who believe in that, are those who are supposed to be "believers".

It does refers to the alcoholic drinks. But abrogated by the Quran during Muhammad lifetime.

What I meant was abrogation of Quran verses is a lie. But abrogation of horrible culture do happen.

>There is no reason to kill someone who doesn't deserve to be killed.

I agree. Islam just believes that such things are deserving of death. Mohammad doesn't say only people who join against Muslims are apostates deserving of death. He says whoever leaves Islam is to be put to death. There were no qualifiers or strings attached. Leave the faith? Die.

>corrupt the Muslims in the Muslim lands by trying to convert them to his/her new deviant religion, then the matter becomes different.

So people should accept your faith and preaching when it is shown that where Muslims are the majority they deny others this right? Doesn't seem very fair to me.

Why do so many Muslims believe that those who commit adultery should be stoned to death? I know that there are hadiths that prescribe stoning as a punishment for sexual sins, but I always thought that these hadiths are unreliable since they contradict the Qur'an, which prescribes lashing as punishment for premarital and extramarital sex. By the way, ISIS is frequently compared to Kharijites, but many people forget that Kharijites opposed stoning.

The faith doesn't mean Islam as a religion, it's referring to belief in a god as a whole.

>Holding in Middle East responsible
You know radical Islam developed due to covert actions by the West to protect their oil interests, right? And you remember the instability in the region can be traced further back to Western colonization with the hectic drawing of nonsensical borders? If anyone is held "responsible", it is western nations.

Again, I strongly urge you to read the context in .

This is what i meant, that was just b8 to get the thread started. I Think you'll find we already agree, user.

Except alcohol is mentioned in the Quran. At first it was "it has some good, but a lot of bad so use at your own peril and don't come to prayers intoxicated" and "paradise has rivers of wine" to later outright forbidding it and saying it is haram. If it was always haram I don't think the Quran would say it had a little good in it or had rivers of it in paradise.

Unless you're also gonna say bacon, illegal sexual intercourse, and other haram things have some good in them too. Because those are all expressly forbidden from the start and seen as terrible, but alcohol was clearly permitted and the verses regarding alcohol were around at that time, hence why Muslims drank at all. Mohammad ended that later and that is when it became forbidden. How is that not an example of abrogation?

Alcoholic verses were out, Muslims drank and Mohammad knew this, after a big defeat come the verses saying alcohol is haram.

No, it does mean Islam as a religion.


Sahih Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Sahih Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Sahih Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."
As seen by the Jew who joined Islam, went back to Judaism and was seen as still an apostate. Even if what you said was correct, why do you think killing anyone for lack of belief is moral, and why should anyone accept that?

And I have and cited examples where defaming Mohammad, Islam, spreading other religions, apostasy, etc. Are also worthy of being killed due to "corrupting" and thus falling under your own verse. Unless you would like to explain how a butthurt Jew writing poetry against Mohammad was harmful and Mohammad was justified in having him executed.

>Whereas the Falsafah made Muslims scholars read by everybody in Europe because they carried on the work of Hippocrates, Galen, Aristotle and the Neoplatonists
What? The Islamic Golden Age was kick-started by the fact that they had a greater amount of surviving Greek philosophy than the West, notably more Aristotle.

That and the Islamic golden age is a myth. Jews, Christians, and other Arabs had a hand in translating and expanding on all this, but very few of the ones doing such work were Muslim. If anything it should be the Middle Eastern golden age because almost none of it had to do with Islam at all. Sure, some did, but hardly enough to qualify it as a golden age of Islam.

Chapter 52 of the qur'an has 49 verses
Chapter 83 of the qur'an has 36 verses
Chapter 84 of the qur'an has 25 verses
Chapter 89 of the qur'an has 30 verses

The recurring theme is that these are not from the qur'an, they are from "Sahih al-Bukhari" which was written 230 years after the qur'an was written, and most certainly isn't the qur'an.

We're talking about the qur'an. stick to the qur'an

That is a fucking retarded statement.
But maybe I'm completely wrong, provide sources.

Those are authentic hadith. And are ya trying to get into the Quranist trap? If we only stick to the Quran then you lose a few prayers a day, the actions and sunnah of Mohammad, and the Quran then refutes itself by not being a complete guide of everything (though it does that anyway given the vast need for supplemental commentaries and material).

And given it does not directly refute the Quran's words, and scholars see them as authentic hadith, they are valid to use in terms of religion. Don't be mad because it blows apart your argument and original claim.

google.com/search?q=islamic golden age myth&oq=islamic golden age myth&aqs=chrome..69i57.6745j0j4&client=ms-android-americamovil-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8


Take your pick. Granted, the sources are biased. But if you read who they cite for these arguments, they are still factual. Christians and others just love to hop on it because they think it makes their arguments any stronger.

Fuck them, the qur'an is supposed to be the absolute word of god, anything that strays away from its specific teaching is in direct opposition to what the qur'an is supposed to be. It's a direct contradiction.

>white text on black bg

Why do you hate people with blue eyes?

I have blue eyes and i have no trouble reading it.

Okay, but those hadith do not stray against the teachings of the Quran or what Mohammad practiced in his life.

Go on, find all 5 pillars of Islam in the Quran and all 5 prayers. Because I think you'll find those come from hadith, as the Quran itself advises you to follow the Sunnah. And the sunnah is only really found in hadith.

Not that user, but hadith can be wrong sometimes. Among the authentic hadiths, there are contradiction among each others.

But if the hadith contradict the Quran, then it should be discarded.

This user links provides Quranic verses that not all apostates should be killed.

Try to look around you after reading that whole text
It fucks up your eyes for at least 30 secs
Is it so hard to have black text on light bg?

So the myth claim is bullshit and only exists as an online meme by non-historians?

Except he cites bullshit and tries to spin it in a certain way. Whereas I am citing hadith that are seen as authentic to this very day and have been seen as such since the origins of Islam.

Because Saudi Arabia itself follows such teachings. So, unless kaffirs and unbelievers in true Islam control Mecca (a thing which apparently cannot happen since Allah will defend it), then clearly it is not very bad.

And I'll take the words of Muslim scholars on their own sources, and the words of those first hand sources, over some random Muslim guy with a blog who routinely gets blown the fuck out by the Christians at Answering Islam.

No. Clearly ya didn't read any of those links or their claims. Try harder, Mohammad.

Maybe, just maybe, it might be the guys who cut up little girls' cunts

The Middle East before Islam was more or less the exact same, with large empires rising and crumbling repeatedly, a learned merchant and priestly class that spread language and culture, tribal and civic law that maintained segregation of cultural islands, religious unrest, and invasions from Europe or Central Asia that destabilizes the region for decades.

Right, sure, you just gotta believe!

You're right. A political and religious ideology with specific cultural teachings and ideas had zero impact on the Middle East or its culture. Boy, I'm sure glad you were here to provide such an in-depth analysis.

Next you'll tell me humans have never changed since the beginning of time because we still have wars and fuck each other over.

>or tries to corrupt the Muslims in the Muslim lands by trying to convert them to his/her new deviant religion
In other words, if Christians allow Christian lands to become Muslim lands but people continue to be Christian, killing them will be "different" and no longer be a "mistake". Thus, by the logic in where any violence you do during a time of war to protect yourself or your family is justified, combined with the Islamic desire to see the entire world worship Allah, and suddenly all western actions in the Middle East are justified. In fact, they don't go far enough, and converts to Islam are traitors who should absolutely be punished by death.

Do you see the problem in your logic and how inhumane it is when other people use it?

You don't just have to believe. Pardon me for assuming you cared about the facts and would examine the claims and whether or not they were valid. I didn't know you would just be a butthurt Muslim who's mad that Islam's main contribution to said golden age was to slowly become more and more religiously radical and kick out or kill all the other Arabs and groups who fostered it to begin with.

Who are you replying to?

That the Middle East changed a little in its aesthetic culture doesn't also mean its very foundation of social classes, economic structure, and relationship to its own geography drastically changed to an incredible degree.

You keep saying facts, but there's nothing here but blog posts. it's literally Alex Jones tier as an argument.

The verse only says that alcohol got benefits BUT it damage are greater than the benefits.

It addresses wine before it was abrogated. Islam gradually prohibit wine.

Again, abrogated culture do happen.

But it did. Even if you go by Islamic standards. The way orphans are treated, the religious taxes on dhimmis and Muslims (two separate things, and for Islam it's basically obligatory charity), they had to adapt to 5 prayers a day every day, there were reforms because now people were only supposed to be judged based on their devotion to god, there was a larger rise in militant groups under the caliphated conquering areas to bring them under Islamic rule, the previous culture was all but eradicated except for a few concessions held over (hajj, the kaaba, etc.)

The entire Middle East changed pretty drastically.

So, a gradual ban is not abrogating things?

A thing starts off as permissible and was so under Mohammad. Said thing becomes prohibited entirely. That is not a change or abrogation of the verses that came before it that made it permissible?

With a quick google search you can find a wealth of information and resources much more concrete and well documented than your claim.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Islamic_philosophy

Except, all of these things are themselves holdovers from older cultural norms recontextualized in Islamic garb, not that much different from pagan traditions and lifestyles becoming incorporated into local Christianity in Europe. A lot of the 'reforms' you're speaking of are things derived from the hadith, which were a way to ascribe various Middle Eastern habits to Muhammad and thus preserve them in the transition to Islam.

And that's besides the fact that for several centuries, Islam wasn't even the dominant religion and the native Christian, Zoroastrian, and Jewish faiths maintained their traditions that weren't that much different from their Muslim neighbors.

I think he's saying that each "leg" of the ban involves eternal, unchanging verses, it's just that each verse itself referred to a specific timeframe. In other words, the culture changes but the verses do not.

It's a pretty clever way of getting around the whole abrogation thing the way abrogation was invented to get around contradictions , but I don't think it will work for any other example.

No, it's abrogation, of culture.

It was very different. Why do you think they had to spread their ideology by war and had conflicts at all? It wasn't because Islam was exactly like the pagans before them or did the same things. Even if you simplified it as much as possible, there was a vast difference just due to the transfer from polytheism to monotheism and the spread of Islam and Arab culture to Egypt, Northern Africa, the Persians, India, etc., by warfare. That spread of a particular culture, spurred on by the Islamic beliefs that all must be Muslim, changed life for a lot of those area. Arab culture didn't spread far beyond the Arabian peninsula. The caliphates expanded it to a ton of other regions with very different cultures and subjugated them. Changing a rather diverse region of ideas and people into a far more uniform one under Islam.

>Because without the book we wouldn't have had Al-Wahhab, and the Saudis are printing the book to spread their ideology, not Americans.

You know, Al-wahhab tried to peddle his legal reforms in Kufa first. They pelted him with stones and kicked him out, forcing him into the middle of nowhere to seek an alliance with an asshole Nejd tribe no one cared about for centuries.

When this tribe tried to start shit, the Ottomans came in, crushed them, and took their leader back to Constantinople where they forced him to listen to music before beheading him.

Later, when the Turks collapsed and the Saudis swooped in to pillage Mecca and raid Iraq, forcibly expelling all competing schools of Islamic law, the British were the only ones who could have done something to stop them, and didn't. When their leading wahhabi cleric tried to preach his reforms after this, all the other scholars in the Middle East made fun of him for being an idiot - including his own brother who was off studying elsewhere.

And then the entire reason the Saudis are not only allowed to print and distribute their ideology en masse, but also have the funding to do so, is because of the deal they signed with the Americans giving them oil rights in exchange for a free hand and even support in spreading their ideology as a counter to communism.

But I'm sure the book was to blame for the Brits and Americans helping spread what the Middle East itself had been denying for centuries.

Yeah, that's not what happened at all. They didn't spread their ideology by war. The early Arab Conquests had almost no ideology to speak of beyond a belief in their own cultural and moral superiority that entitled them to rule over others. And they actively tried to prevent Arab culture from spreading and mixing into the settled populations, which is why they built cities away from them and made a series of stringent rules about who was counted as an Arab and what people could wear to not end up looking like one.

>transfer from polytheism to monotheism
The entire Middle East and North Africa had been mostly Christian, Zoroastrian, or Jewish by the time Islam appeared. Unless you want to argue that Zoroastrianism was polytheism, it was a transfer of monotheism to monotheism, and where polytheism was encountered further in Africa and India, it survived in huge numbers as distinct animist or hindu culture into the modern age.

What you think is Arab culture today is in fact the culture of Mesopotamia and North Africa that absorbed Arab titles and names, not actual North Arab culture from the Arabian peninsula enforced on supposedly wildly different pre-Islamic culture.

>They didn't spread their ideology by war.


answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv2.html

lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/

Even the second source that defends Islam says they spread and conquered people.

But nice try, ya almost had me going until you tried to actually pull "the religion of peace" card. Very subtle.

You follow Satan you goat fucking pedophile.

How is it subtle? I'm trying to explain to you the academic history of the rise and spread of Islam as understood by Western historians who don't care what Muslim chronicles written centuries after the fact think happened. This is based mostly on Christian sources written during the period in question, so it's a more reliable account of what was happening.

>>They didn't spread their ideology by war.
They didn't. They spread their colonies by war, and it's from these colonies that their culture later spread, mixing with local customs, and aligning itself with the culture of Damascus and Baghdad superficially.

>The Islamic golden age Ended when the Ottoman Empire collapsed because of loss of Territory and war against the west.

But that is fundamentally wrong, though
Islam had been declining for almost 700 year at the time.
The few achievements of the Ottomans can easily be attributed to Turks, not Muslims as a whole. And, outside of Turkish influence, Islam had already stagnated heavily socially and culturally, with radical Islamic views and opposition to progress coming at the same time as Europe was vibrating with the Enlightenment.
They were absolutely opposed to accepting any mistakes in their way of life, and never even tried to adopt Western achievements, whereas Europe was happy to adopt Islamic progress in the Middle Ages

Arabs, which still are the dominant cultural force in Islam, have this tendency of always blaming current problems on outside forces, be it Mongols, Shia, Sunni, Turks, British, Americans, Moderates or Radicals, but never on whatever group they are part of. They are absolutely unable of admitting their own shortcomings or adopting outside influence. They are a fundamentally backwards thinking people, and only appreciate force and barbarism as strength these days

Forgot the meme arrows
>who the real "backwards" people are.

>All religions are violent.
Look up Jainism. Your assertion is patently false.

While you're right about the golden age ending long before the Ottomans collapsed, most everything else here is wrong. The Turks (and the Safavids and Mughals) did enjoy their own cultural flowering periods, and while the Middle East stagnated socially and culturally, radical Islamic views were not around to oppose progress at this time. There was maybe a single generation in the lead up to the Great Turkish War where a fundamentalist Syrian sect began to influence the government while having street brawls with the Sufi orders, but beyond that the region was in flux the instant European colonialism arrived on their shores.

And the Arabs haven't been a dominant cultural force in Islam for centuries, and are only now becoming one thanks to Gulf oil and Pan-Arabism. And they weren't even blaming outside forces - ibn Taymiyyah may have not liked the Mongols, but the majority of his works were directed towards other Muslims and what he believed was internal error and shortcoming.

>Should we also blame the bible's failure to mention paedophilia as a sin, or should we blame the priests sticking their dicks in kids?
I don't blame the Bible's alleged lack of clarity, I blame the Phaedrus, Symposium, and nobody reading the Laws.

Pederasty being a sin is the "interpretation" of the anti-faggotry commandments you can find in the New Oxford Annotated Bible and similar liberal protestant drivel.

>spreading their ideology as a counter to communism
Which communism are the Saudis fighting in Europe and US with their dirt cheap copies of the Qur'an and their colossal mosques, in the CURRENT YEAR, exactly?

>Which communism are the Saudis fighting in Europe and US with their dirt cheap copies of the Qur'an and their colossal mosques, in the CURRENT YEAR, exactly?
None. They're just carrying on doing what they've been doing since World War 2, trying to appease their own wingnuts at home by directing them outward.