About to read this

Guaranteed replies

Once you're done reading it, you'll realize that any conversation about Islam or the Quran will be this

I heard somewhere that the Qur'an is extremely hard to read like you would a regular book. It's not something you can just pick up and read by the fire on a cold snow-day.

I'm willing to bet bitcoins that this is the op

I'd bet that was pretty tame for the day.

Perttz good prose, even in translation, I can´t imagine how good the original must be. Also the usual idiotic world-view of Abrahamic faiths. Less of the Judeo-Christian slave-mentality, more of the Last Men bullshit.

It actually wasn't. It was legally a step backwards into tribe like legal systems the Jews and other nations used to have in their very beginnings, so the first written legal regulations. And the Arabs had a lot more sources to draw from, Codex Iustinianus for example, making it backwards even considering the time.
Europe in comparison had fallen to barbarian tribes which even then used to have much more reasonable legislation.

Because executions are not murder, obviously.

Really? The Torah is full of laws and punishment we would consider cruel today.

Fanfiction of the Torah by people who don't consider the Christian bible to be canon.

Apparently it can be quite confusing when Mohammed talks about peace and brotherhood in one passage, then total warfare in another.

>It actually wasn't. It was legally a step backwards into tribe like legal systems the Jews and other nations used to have in their very beginnings

Yeah but the Arabs we're fucking crazy. There is no way they could have established such vast and powerful empires without Mohammed commanding them not to go on killing sprees. They committed warfare, sure, but it wasn't crueller or more destructive than what you would normally expect from war.

Mohammed also brought lots of social changes, like how women should be respected in inheritance law. You could point out "lolz Saudi Arabia" but that speaks more to how insane the Arabs are than anything. Honor cultures are a cultural centerpiece in india and the Arab world, which apparently decreased after the Muslims took over in the Golden Age, and have only increased in popularity recently (except in India where they we're always popular and nothing seemed to change that).

Violence is a very small part of both the Quran and the Bible but the Old Testament uses violence as a means to actively justify the destruction of other tribes. Just like how all the Crhistfags ask atheists to consider the quotes in context, I don't know they then assume that these Quran quotes can be interpreted with the help of theology.

Consider this. The vast majority of Muslims in the world don't commit religious violence. Why interpret the book the way just a handful of them have and not consider all the other shit in it about brotherhood and peace?

skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html

fpbp

The Bible 2: The Sandman Strikes Back

>Consider this. The vast majority of Muslims in the world don't commit religious violence. Why interpret the book the way just a handful of them have and not consider all the other shit in it about brotherhood and peace?

How do you possibly sanitize shit like ?

Also, the majority of Muslims live in countries where people still chop off each others heads and the punishment for homosex is getting thrown off a roof. As the population of muslims increase in a nation, we increasingly find the beautiful lands of forefathers, justly won with their own blood, becoming more like muslim countries. I don't want to live in a Muslim culture, it's barbaric.

>How do you possibly sanitize shit like ?
implying killing opposing religious factions isn't in the old testament

>Also, the majority of Muslims live in countries where people still chop off each others heads and the punishment for homosex is getting thrown off a roof.
what is turkey, albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia.

Interpretations on homosexuality in Islam varies depending on the sect. The quran calls it a sin, but doesn't really call out a punishement. On the other hand differen't hadiths call for differen't consequences. So how homosexuals are treated varies on which hadiths their sect accepts and such.

So ye people aren't burnt at the stake for being gay, generally it's treated as a taboo, and would be ostracized for doing so.

>I don't want to live in a Muslim culture, it's barbaric.
Have you ever talked to a muslim before. I assure you they aren't all savages like you think they are.

>How do you possibly sanitize shit like
Are you retarded?

Religious and trade wars, especially at the tribal level, had been going on for hundreds of years in that region.

It was common knowledge that If the Arab's were to survive the combined might of the Byzantine and Sasanids they would have had coalesce their forces and to strike first to gain momentum, using religion as a pretext to fight.

I find it amazing that similar verses in the Torah and OT are overlooked because many say it must be accepted due to the historical context of the time, which is true, but then those same people apply double standards to Islam.

Truly amazing.

The funniest part of the "B-but the Crusades" argument, is that the First Crusade was a result of Muslim conquest of Iberia and Southern Italy.

Boredom with a little chliche-ridden stupidity

>This is a letter which was issued by Mohammed, Ibn Abdullah, the Messenger, the Prophet, the Faithful, who is sent to all the people as a trust on the part of God to all His creatures, that they may have no plea against God hereafter. Verily God is the Mighty, the Wise. This letter is directed to the embracers of Islam, as a covenant given to the followers of Jesus the Nazarene in the East and West, the far and near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown.

>This letter contains the oath given unto them, and he who disobeys that which is therein will be considered a disobeyer and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is a Sultan or any other believer of Islam. Whenever Christian monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad

:^)

That depends user, what language are you reading it in?

If you're reading it in any language other than Arabic, then expect to be literally reading instructions.

If you're reading it in Arabic, then expect some god-tier poetry.

>those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land

Literally not a single fucking person is doing this. It's the Islamic extremists that are waging the war.

And at least include the next fucking verse you imbecile:

Quran (5:34): "Except for those who repent before you apprehend them. So know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

>it's an alt right cucks are afraid of violence episode

Islam doesn't have the split between old and new and is seen as the literal absolute word of God. Islam itself sees itself differently, or can at least be defended as such completely coherently.
edwardfeser.blogspot.hr/2016/05/islamophilia-and-falsification.html?m=1

it's basically bible fan-fic with some "kill all infidels" thrown in here and there, but it's quite short compared to other religious texts

In English, it's little more than a rule book. IT does feature some fascinating depictions of hell, but it isn't very impressive.

>it's basically bible fan-fic

To be fair, so is the New Testament.

A defuse kit

It's much less monolithic than you make it out to be. Even Wahabbis, who are more or less the Islamic equivalent to Calvinists in their austerity, depend much on extra-quranic texts of arguable cannon status. The shi'a are a completely different story, resembling catholicism in their emphasis on ritual tradition, clergy, worship of saints and iconography. There's also a whole cult/mythology around the figure of Ali and eschatological prophesy concerning the hidden imam. Islam has produces a great variety of heretical sects, probably as diverse as those spawned from Christianity; Druzes, Alevis, Sufis, Alawites, the Mouradis of Senegal, have as much in common with mainstream Islam as Mormons do with orthodox Christianity. Islam is not exceptional, like any set of ideas it's constantly shaped by its environment.

There's no 'real Islam' only a multiplicity of 'imaginary Islams'. Much like 'real Christianity' or 'real communism', it's useless as everyone thinks their own version is the definitive platonic form

I disagree. The New Testament has little in common with the old.

No. All those sects, aside from the shias, amount to less than 1% of Muslims. Even Shias are only about 10% of Muslims. It's not like Christianity where there are many sizable branches, Islam is very much monolithic compared to pretty much every other major religion.

Sufis aren't heretical. The majority of Sunni authorities throughout history either approved of Sufism or were practicing Sufis themselves (the best example being al-Ghazali, the gold standard of medieval Sunni orthodoxy).

If Sufis are less than 1% of all Muslims, why are there a fuckton of Sufi shrines in nearly every Muslim country?

As for Islam being monolithic, what are you smoking? Even among Salafis there seems to be a new schism every couple of years. Muslims can't agree on anything.

Right. So Muhammad gave protection to Christian communities in the Sinaï and some other places in the middle East. How does this relate to the conquest of Spain and South Italy that followed? Please enlighten us.

>Also, the majority of Muslims live in countries where people still chop off each others heads and the punishment for homosex is getting thrown off a roof

They do that in Indonesia? I think you are thinking Christian countries like Ethiopia :)

No, the First Crusade was the result of the Fatimids desecrating the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and persecuting their Christian subjects.

Give the Crusaders some fucking credit. It would have been retarded to fight the Fatimids and attempt to conquer Jerusalem on account of a completely different dynasty conquering a completely different part of the world.

>How do you possibly sanitize shit like

Ask the Muslims that aren't killing people. Or the millions of deranged Christfags on Veeky Forums that would probably kill you in a second if they we're forced to apologize for the old testament and live with heretics

>So Muhammad gave protection to Christian communities in the Sinaï and some other places in the middle East

Nice strawman.

It was for all of Christendom and the Caliphs broke that covenant in their pursuit of power.

Ever heard about Khalid bin Walid and the Umayyads?

>Islam doesn't have the split between old and new and is seen as the literal absolute word of God

Ok, but what does that have to do with the original point, that a vast majority of Muslims don't do shit like that?

And how many of them are the bad kind of Islam, like Wahabbis? Less than 1%?

There are billions of Catholics and Protestants, how many of the various other Christian demographics?

Sufis are not a sect, just a mystical approach to religion that is shared by a few "elite" people across sectarian lines. You have Sunni as well as Shia sufis for example. You even have a few Christian sufis.

>Even among Salafis there seems to be a new schism every couple of years. Muslims can't agree on anything.

Disagreeing on minor point of law doesn't make a schism. Just right now there is disagreement within the Catholic church on to what extent women can be deacon. that's still not a schism.

>The following was revealed when the ‘Arniyyūn came to Medina suffering from some illness, and the Prophet (s) gave them permission to go and drink from the camels’ urine and milk. Once they felt well they slew the Prophet’s shepherd and stole the herd of camels:
>"Truly the [only] requital of those who fight against God and His Messenger, [by fighting against Muslims,] and hasten about the earth to do corruption there, [by waylaying,] is that they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, [that is, their right hands and left feet,] or be banished from the land
>(the aw, ‘or’, is [used] to indicate the [separate] application of [each of] the cases [listed]; thus, death is for those that have only killed; crucifixion is for those that have killed and stolen property; the cutting off [of limbs on opposite sides] is for those that have stolen property but have not killed; while banishment is for those that pose a threat — this was stated by Ibn ‘Abbās and is the opinion of al-Shāfi‘ī; the more sound of his [al-Shāfi‘ī’s] two opinions is that crucifixion should be for three days after [the] death [of the killer], or, it is also said, shortly before [he is killed]; with banishment are included similar punishments, such as imprisonment and the like).
>That, [mentioned requital,] is a degradation, a humiliation, for them in this world; and in the Hereafter theirs will be a great chastisement, [namely, the chastisement of the Fire.]
>Tafsir al-Jalalayn, one of the major classical Qur'an commentaries

>Disagreeing on minor point of law doesn't make a schism. Just right now there is disagreement within the Catholic church on to what extent women can be deacon. that's still not a schism.

Look up "Madkhalis."

Also, if what occurred between al-Qaeda and ISIS doesn't constitute a schism, I'm not sure what does.

The majority of Umayyads are seen as wicked by all sects of Islam. They kept murdering Mohammed's grandchildren.

>They do that in Indonesia?

Indeed they do. The province of Aceh has the full sharia enforced, stoning included.

>I think you are thinking Christian countries like Ethiopia

Not as far as i know. You can do jail time for homosexuality but there is no death penalty for it. And they don't cut head either.

Sufism is not really an elite thing. Membership in Sufi brotherhoods is really common among the peasantry in many Muslim countries. Prior to the 20th century it was nearly universal as the Sufi brotherhoods were associated with professions.

>implying that when it comes down to it, having Americans believe that Islam is evil (regardless of if it is or isn't) isn't a good thing

Wew

I'd say about 30-40%. Pretty much all of Pakistan/Afghanistan, the Arabic Peninsula, Sudan and Somalia has the bad kind of Islam. It's also prevalent in Egypt, Libya, Iran and Irak.

t. Shlomo

Say what you want but you know it's the best in the long run.

>Madkhalis

Not a schism in any way.

>Also, if what occurred between al-Qaeda and ISIS doesn't constitute a schism, I'm not sure what does.

It certainly isn't. fitna=/=schism.

Want a modern islamic schism? Lookup Ahmadiyya. That's a proper schism.

Most Pakistanis follow Sufi holy men and go to shrines. The same is true of non-Saudi Arabs (look at the popularity of the Yemeni Habaib, or the Qadiri and Rifa'i ashraf in Iraq). Prior to the 90's the same was true of Sudan and Somalia.

These aren't minor disputes. The different Salafi groups often make takfir of each other. When you're casting the other group out of Islam, I'd call that a schism.

I should add that a fitna can become a schism. The Sunni/Shia split was initially just a fitna. Both groups disagreed on whom should have the leadership but they still recognized each others as proper Muslims. It's only later that their doctrines diverged sufficiently that they no longer considered each others equally Muslims.

I'd say the Sufis are more accurately described as the Catholics of Islam than the Shi'a.

They have ascetic brotherhoods with distinctive spiritual exercises, shrines, a ton of extra holidays (like Mohammed's Birthday and the birth and death anniversaries of saints), a lot of blessed and holy sites (holy wells, holy trees, etc.), rosaries, litanies, etc.

The Shi'a are like... I dunno, the Orthodox, I guess. They wear black a lot and don't seem like the same religion sometimes.

So? Don't tell me you buy into the "Sufis are gentle Muslim" Western bullshit? Yes, Sufi practitioners are disliked by salafis because their mystic rituals are considered bid'a, an unnecessary innovation. Still, Sufis can and often are as radical as salafis. They tend to be inward looking due to the nature of their practice and so can appear more peaceful superficially (or not, the Janissaries were sufis practitioners because they thought it improved martial abilities).

>The different Salafi groups often make takfir of each other. When you're casting the other group out of Islam, I'd call that a schism.

Yeah, but no. Popes have excommunicated people and group of people all the time. There was still a clear distinction with schismatic sects, such as the Cathares, which they did not bother to excommunicate since they were not considered Christians to begin with.

Shia isn't a sect. You have Sufi shias. Often in a community just a few people will be sufi practitioners but are still considered the same as everyone else. A bit like being a choir boy makes you a bit special but still very much a catholic like everybody else in the church.

Sorry i meant "sufi isn't a sect".

I know Sufi isn't a sect. For the most part it's associated with Sunni Islam though (al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, etc.). Shi'a Sufis exist, but they're very marginal and I've seen Shi'a condemn them as "Sunni-ized." Shi'ism has its own mystical tradition called Irfan. The Ayatollahs approve of Irfan, but not Sufism.

Peace and brotherhood is with muslims, war is against the unbelievers.

“Muhammad is the Messengerog Allah. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” Quran 48:29

Messengerog. XD

"Messenger of", of course.

It's got to do with reading the article

Moderate Muslims need to start speaking out and condemning these Salafists and Saudi Wahabists who are nothing more than Satan's dogs.

Until that happens most of the western world will see Islam as a scourge upon it, unfortunately. This will also continue as long as Muslims try to convert Europeans by hook or by crook to Islam and impose Sharia Law, which is a useless and outdated machination of the Querysh clan from 1300 years ago.

Islam will always be seen as a cancer because that's what it is.

Muslim apologists are the worst, especially the few who have actually read the Quran. I'm not sure how you can delude yourself into believing Islam is anything more than poison after reading the damn thing.

A lot of self-righteous bullshit, ignorant claims about reality, and immorality offered up as benevolence.

Basically, what you get from most scripture.

"Moderate muslims" are muslims that choose to ignore many commandments in their holy book. They are alright, but the religion itself will always be a fertile breeding ground for violent "extremists" for as long as it's around. There are commandments for mercy, but these are generally reserved for people of the book or potential converts. All it takes to become an "extremist" is to take in the Quran in its entirety.
It's much easier to weasel out of violence in Judaism or Christianity because there is legitimate theology dismissing the applicability of those ancient laws and punishments in modern times.

Unfortunately, this is also a central criticism by Muhammad. Islam was therefore designed to be unalterable and unreformable, forever removing itself from the evolving debate of morals and ethics and locking itself into a tribal iron age mentality.

>be a fertile breeding ground for violent "extremists" for as long as it's around.
You're not very smart are you?

There were no Muslim extremists before the rise of the Najd empire of the Saudis, just think about that for a second.

They were always the "good guys" and the Soviets were the "terrorists" and "evil empire"

That's okay, I don't expect much from summerfags or /pol/fags that come onto this board.

Who cares? It is a holy book, a holy book that is infallible. Are you telling me that a holy book, which is directly channeled from the Great One (Allah) to the people, necessarily has to be interpreted in its proper timely context? Surely you can disregard anything in the Qu'ran then

Islam's history has been continuously bloody from the very start. It certainly didn't begin in modernity. The text itself inspires and commands bloodshed and a rigid model of society and law.

The Sunni sects of Salafism and Wahabism are a modern phenomena.
Also a lot of Christians, such as the monophysites helped and respected early Islam because they were actually protecting the Pilgrims in Anatolia and the Levant from bandit raiders.

So your attempt at revisionism is a poorly placed one that's clouded by your hatred. Its obvious.

What the fuck does fpbp mean.

Any good books to learn about Libertarianism? (please none from the American point of view, just neutral ones)

And Islamic violence didn't begin with Salafism and Wahhabism. Tell me, did it spread by peaceful proselytization, or by the sword? How does Islam deal with dissent and apostasy? How does it view open critical inquiry or freedom of belief and expression? You are committing Chomsky's error, where every bad thing happening in the Middle East is never the result of the local culture, but always caused by external factors.

Islam is pure fucking cancer, and nonmuslim apologists are even below that.

And by the way, it's "phenomenon".

Then you haven't really read the New Testament. It is essentially a rewriting of parts of the Old Testament with (superficially) a new caste of fictional characters.

This pic with its willful misrepresentation triggers the fuck out of me.

>And Islamic violence didn't begin with Salafism and Wahhabism. Tell me, did it spread by peaceful proselytization, or by the sword

The same exact thing can be said about Judaism and Christianity, you make the dubious flaw of applying double standards.

Why don't you go ahead and explain the Albigensian Crusade to people and how that was different than what Islam was doing back then as well?

Many modern Muslims live in peace more so than even so called "Christians". Christian countries (and the sole Jewish one) today are responsible for more wars around the globe than Islamic ones, so your understating of Geo-politics and history is deeply flawed.

>Islam is pure fucking cancer, and nonmuslim apologists are even below that.
Wrong and...
is that way, stormfag.

>And by the way, it's "phenomenon".
Wrong again.
dictionary.com/browse/phenomena
>plural of phenomenon

Notice how I used two sects? That would indicate plural. Maybe you should go back to school and correct yourself before trying to correct others with your shit excuse for comprehension.

>>And by the way, it's "phenomenon".
>Wrong again.
>dictionary.com/browse/phenomena
>>plural of phenomenon

You said "a phenomena", you goddamn idiot.

>You said "a phenomena", you goddamn idiot.
Which is plural for phenomenon, which is the correct form.

How retarded are you exactly that you have trouble understanding something so simple? Oh, that's right, you're a stormfag. I forgot, you brainless shit stains are more emotional and "muh feels" than the fucking fascist liberals.

>Albigensian Crusade
>Crusade against heretic Christians
>Christianity had already spread
>talking about the literal spread about Christianity and not mopping up some heretical mess
kek how about you at least use relevant examples like Charles the Great against the pagans. That'd be wrong too but at least you would be somewhere around the money.

>Christianity
>spread through all the Mediterranean through preaching and adaption over a thousand years
>Islam
>literally conquered it all over a few decades
>THE SAME THING CAN BE SAID ABOUT CHRISTIANITY
top kekkels m8

>Crusade against heretic Christians
Also there is the 3rd crusade I believe where the European Crusaders sacked Constantinople instead of helping the Emperor.

You seem to be missing the point, and only focusing on semantics. Christianity and Judaism are not free from the violence that interjects itself into Islam through heretical teachings.

Mohammad himself was a protector of Christianity.

These verses are just a drop in the bucket.

>Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

>Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
>Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

>Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

>Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

>And Islamic violence didn't begin with Salafism and Wahhabism.

No, but those are the only sects we should be worried about as they cause terrorism.

>Tell me, did it spread by peaceful proselytization, or by the sword?

Well for most of East Asia it spread through trade and for, immigration.

>How does Islam deal with dissent and apostasy?

Probably like any other religion: there is a great amount of diversity. Some places probab l have stonings, there was the historical jizya tax, other places like most Muslim countries don't give a fuck.

>You are committing Chomsky's error, where every bad thing happening in the Middle East is never the result of the local culture, but always caused by external factors

And how is that an error? Chomsky has a great deal of material that supports this point. All Veeky Forums has is a bunch of autists copy and pasting spooky sounding Quran passages.

>And by the way, it's "phenomenon".

>Moderate Muslims

>focusing on semantics
>actually responding to the question posed
I did not argue that Christianity or Judaism, two wildly different religions and I'll ignore the second one, cannot justify violence. I am arguing as the other user probably is, that Christianity does not suffer from justified violence through its teachings from the beginning, while Islam most certainly does. This is easily exemplified in how the religions spread from the very beginning. Christianity spread peacefully through preaching, and Islam immediately took to the sword because this is justified through their religion, which cannot only be seen by their actions, their false writings, but even through those conquerors who continually spread of their love of God and martyrdom which means not to be persecuted and killed, but to do battle until one dies. Another way of easily seeing it is through the very behaviour of their "founders", as you bring up Muhammed himself. It does not matter who he protected. It matters that he was a murderer and a warlord. Jesus Christ was quite a different characters.

You'll get there eventually, when you start trying to learn instead of trying to make the world fit what you think should be true.

>moderate Christians

totally not a tu quoque fallacy too

>copy and pasting shitty verses without the context

Same thing can be said about the Bible

God will punish women by aborting their fetus through a miscarriage.

“Give them, O LORD–what will You give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.” (Hosea 9:14)

God teaches the use of a bizarre ritual using cursed “bitter water” to abort a fetus who was conceived through infidelity. (Numbers 5:11-21)

God orders Moses to kill every Midianite woman who was no longer a virgin. (many of these women would obviously have been pregnant) (Numbers 31:15-18)

God promises to destroy the infants of Samaria and rip open the stomachs of pregnant women.

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. (Hosea 13:16)

God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah to be ripped open.

At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)

God commands the killing of infants and nursing babies.

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)

God repays your enemies by destroying their babies.

Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalms 137:8-9)

> Christianity spread peacefully through preaching, and Islam immediately took to the sword because this is justified through their religion, which cannot only be seen by their actions, their false writings

Absolutely untrue; outside of Charles there were plenty of Christian Sects that proselytized by the Sword and committed atrocities en masse. The Teutons being one of them.

You really don't even know what you're talking about.