The Holy Quran

How in the hell can people claim that this book promotes peace and tolerance?

Did I miss something?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sb7lhUNqHsg
youtube.com/watch?v=SID869na8yw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Cherry picking. Just like every other religion in existence.

The idea is that all religions are "peaceful" and Islam is "just like any other religion". It's just parroted by people who are promoting their bland "religion is great" brand of bullshit pacifist modern "love and peace man" warm horse vomit in the modern discourse.

Apologists (i.e. the "Muslim community leader" you see on TV) can even pull out passages that could be interpreted as promoting a way of conducting oneself that are arguably in line with what we would tend to see as peaceful - though such passages tend to be the exception; are generally surrounded by a violent context which changes their meaning; or are abrogated (in Islam, later revelations replace earlier ones) by later violent texts.

Lucky for us, most Muslims don't read it either, and most of those that do don't take it seriously.

Not the literal interpretation meme again.

Look up Sufism.

not really
you literally can't cherry pick things from New testimony to promote violent conquest for sake of god at all.
It's the most pacifictic religion (from the classical Euro-Middle-Eastern ones)
and even with the Old Testimony it's still somewhat hard, especially when the New kinda overrides it

to put it other way, Old testimony is to Quran is what Commentarii de Bello Gallico is to Mein Kampf (very loose comparison but you know what I mean)

lol af

>testemony
>pacifictic

what are you talking about?

It promotes tolerance among muslims.

The genius of it is that it solves the conquered tribe problem of ancient warfare, integrating the losers into an expanding culture rather than exterminating them or merely transferring them like land.

Too bad it didn't recede with the empire that spread it.

nigga what

peace and tolerance are for fags
tolerance is a mere mask for hatred of all kinds
peace isn't an actual state unless it's within one's self. people are in constant wars, socially, economically and politically, never mind psychologically
tolerance is a 2k16 thing used to satisfy the liberal trash agenda and far left imbeciles

youtube.com/watch?v=sb7lhUNqHsg

this. For example, the shittiest parts of Sudan (Darfour, South Sudan) are not Sufi

itt: fedoras talk about things they dont understand nor care to

Well, the violence in the Quran is used in context for war. But that's irrelevant to the majority, right?

Lakum dinikum waliyadin, nahmean?

>tesitmony
*Testament
>pacifictic
*peaceful

FTFY

>Did I miss something?
Yes, all the passages promoting peace.

...

Yeah, the Islamic Golden Age.

Basically, people see the (very, very relative) tolerance of the Golden Age (brought about by many complex factors) and get the idea that Islam is all Liberal sunshine and daisies; alt-right retards do the same with fundamentalism. The reality is that religion is based on interpretation, nothing else.

**Pacifistic

FTFY

This is false. The NT condones slavery, promotes sexism and condemns sex out of wedlock. Barbaric non-sense.

>(brought about by many complex factors)

what were they?

Nigger I'm lazy, there's a reason I said that and not "economy, administrative needs of a large (and multicultural) empire, influence from other cultures/large trade network" &c.

The circumstances by which the people in power got there. (Not the other user).

yeah but all of those factors could be said for the middle east today

What the fuck are you smoking.

The Middle East today is governed by religious nuts, that wasn't the case in the past. The problem is that scriptures support them.

Given certain circumstances Christianity could be barbaric today and still be supported by scripture.

Islam is a religion of peace. That's the problem, It's the religions of peace that end up causing the most destructive wars.

A religion of violent can tolerate conflict. A religion of peace on the other hand will feel compelled to annihilate anything that does not conform. Any amount of suffering caused in the short term is an acceptable means to the end of peace.

We should go back to worshiping Ishtar.

You mean that brief period where they accommodated the territories they had conquered until they got tired of accommodating people within the various Islamic realms and purged them?

The one that was pretty much based off "We conquered all the hot dry places where Greek texts could survive?"

The one where it was funded mostly from capturing some of the richest provinces in the Eastern Roman Empire and being at the crossroads of trade with China?

That 'Golden Age'?

Yeah.

Nope. New Testament=New Covenant=New Rules.

People who base their religious doctrine on the Old Testament and call themselves Christians are doing it wrong.

I am not here to do away with old rules blah blah &c.

The koran itself leaves no room for interpretations. This is why Sufis and Shia have been slaughtered by the millions

youtube.com/watch?v=SID869na8yw

NT has barbaric stuff too.

The New Testament brought with it the doctrine of eternal punishment for sinners.

That means torture forever and ever and ever in literal fire, and they preach it to children.

you missed the entire book.

you forget the Quran is not only a holy book, but a book of law with strick laws and duties to be applied by a totalitarian goverment. this is called "Sharia Law".

did you read it, or are you just memeing?

Edgy
Any examples or are you just gonna shitpost like a fucking idiot?
Because we all stone women for adultery right?

>Any examples or are you just gonna shitpost like a fucking idiot?
Yeah

This

redpill me on Veeky Forums - literature, Veeky Forums

You are wrong. Your interpreation is shallow.
t. Catholic Church.

we don't have pills here go away

what's some books

NT condones slavery, promotes sexism, condemns sex out of wedlock, etc.

Nice ad hominems.

Veeky Forums - random

go to the library and pick what you like
read it and make a thread about it here
get memed and never post here again

>Condones slavery
How? Yeah, it admits slavery existed during the Roman Imperialistic Period but it doesn't outright condone it.
>Sexism
Again, how? Yeah, it was a common belief that women were less intelligent than men, even in non-Christian circles. In addition, the NT has very few recommendations that apply only to women and even these aren't barbaric. "Wow, cover you head in church that's so sexist" That's hardly sexist as you claim.
>Sex out of wedlock
Okay that's an actual point, but that's not barbaric at all. It's just ethical mores that are perfectly within the bounds of reason and can be refuted as well.

>Wow, that's so barbaric. They believe in eternal punishment.
Some schools of Buddhism don't believe in eternal punishment per se, but they do believe in punishment for long periods of time. Again, how does this translate to burning houses and raping women like barbarians?

>Slavery
Slavery appears in several parables, but is never recognized as something to be condemned. The Bible includes instructions to slaves to serve their masters as they would serve God and to their masters to threat the slaves in a kind manner (in this sense Christianity did strive to improve the conditions of slaves). It never in any way condemns slavery as a sin.
>Sexism
Numerous examples in Ephesians, Corinthians, Timothy, Revelation, etc.
I apologize if I misquote as I'm pulling this from memory:

>“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” 1 Timothy 2:11-14

>“…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

And so on.

>Sex out of wedlock.

Condemns homosexuals to damnation or sexless life, since it doesn't provide marriage for them. The verses condemning homosexuality per se have ambiguous translations, so I don't use them to criticize the Bible, yet this is clear. I think that sex out of wedlock is neither a bad or a good thing, but I agree that's another discussion.

>using a non-literal interpretation of the literal and inerrant word of God

Please interpret this in any way you want to not promote sexism.

>Sex out of wedlock.

Believe it or not but they didn't have reliable birth control in 0 AD and getting preggo without a man tied to you meant you were, pardon the expression, fucked.

I can understand this logic; nonetheless, the Bible values are promoted as appliable for eternity.

Where did these reactionary christians even come from, I mean this is fucking Veeky Forums

wedlock births in poor communities remains a contemporary issue

it's a meme you dork

Isn't the problem the rejection of birth control by the church?

Yes I'm pretty sure the church is why they pump and ditch