It's time for one of these threads again! What are you reading, Veeky Forums?

It's time for one of these threads again! What are you reading, Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Only one I have. Pls post moar

...

...

...

...

>implying you read the Koran
You got that backwards friendo.

I posted it in the last thread but I'm too lazy to make a new one

...

Hey! That's actually not a bad book

I didn't dislike it, actually, I'm still reading it, but Sagan spends too much time, imo, talking basically the same things about abductions, sexual abuse on children and hallucinations.

The Qur'an is like 90% praising God, saying there's only 1 God, and asking people to do good deeds. It's only 10% warning sinners about Hell or giving justification for war under certain circumstances.

Read it again. Read it ALL, not the select verses your favorite youtuber asks you to read.

If only alla snackbars would do the same.

> everything I need to know about Christianity I learned from this film


Imagine how much I'm missing out on if I thought like this, like a completely useless fucking asshole

How many innocent people died at Jesus Camp?

none are innocent

True. But 9/11 was supposedly a few guys. Jesus camp was A WHOLE FUCKING ARMY OF RETARDED SHILLERS NUMBNUTS

All those kids died bro. That film is nothing but genocide from start to finish.

Please don't compare charismatic protestant churches with real Christianity. Thanks.

>implying
I study jihadism for a living you cuck, I've read it multiple times, colleagues who speak Arabic have read it and compared the translations, and I work closely with muslims whose literal religion it is. There is absolutely nothing progressive in it by a 21st century standard, and it is doctrinally the word of god and is utterly inadaptable to modern ethical and political beliefs.
Nothing on the right of that image is correct. If you want me to break it down I'm more than happy to.

>I study jihadism for a living you cuck,

>There is absolutely nothing progressive in it by a 21st century standard
What about the charity, all races are equal, the golden rule etc...

This. What does "study jihadism 4 a living" mean? Are you a youtube pundit?

>charity
This has been a thing in pretty much every society since forever. It's also only for muslims.
>all races are equal
Sure, but not all religions.
>golden rule
Which isn't a rule.

I can do this all day my dude.
I have nothing against muslims, but the Ideology laid out by the Koran is cancerous as fuck, and I'm more than happy to point to academic sources on modern jihadism to build my case as to why.

Nah Intel my dude.

>No compulsion in religion
>every nation has been given a prophet
>Reason, rationality and peace are promoted above all
>violence is only permissible to protect the weak and persecuted from oppression. Oppression is worse than war.
>women are equal to men before God
>female prophets
>women are allowed to own property and divorce their husbands
>all races are equal
>accumulating money and holding back on charity is heavily condemned

Throw me any verse you think is bad and I'll not only explain the verse, I'll hit you with 5 verses that promote peace, kindness, love, and piety.

Kek. More colonialism and you'd be bang on.

What does a computer company have to do with jihadism?

fuck you OP for that bait image

>"You will assuredly find that the most hostile of people to the faithful are the Jews and the Pagans..."
>"Among them there is a righteous community; but many among them are evil-doers"
>Believers, do not seek the friendship of those who have mocked and derided your religion, among those who were given the Book before you; nor of infidels."
>"Believers, take neither Jews nor the Christians for your friends."
>When they came to you they said : 'We are believers'. Indeed, infidels they came and infidels they departed.
>The punishment of those that make war against God and his apostole and spread disorder in the island shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land."
>"As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for what they did. That is the punishment enjoined by God."
Literally three pages I flipped through randomly off my bookshelf. I can do this all day.

Fuck man I just finished dune and I want the jihad so bad

...

...

>"You will assuredly find that the most hostile of people to the faithful are the Jews and the Pagans..."

The early Muslim community was persecuted by Jews and Pagans. This isn't prejudiced against ALL Jews and Pagans from ALL places of the world. How is this a bad thing? It's just stating a fact. Jews and Pagans were hostile.

>"Among them there is a righteous community; but many among them are evil-doers"

Many disbelievers are righteous but many are evil-doers. Again, how is this wrong? It acknowledges that some are good and some are bad.

>Believers, do not seek the friendship of those who have mocked and derided your religion, among those who were given the Book before you; nor of infidels."

Don't hang out with people who make fun of what you hold sacred. Well, if you truly hold it sacred, why would you be really good friends with someone who doesn't respect your deeply held belief? It's okay if they don't share your belief, but if they're bullying you for your religion, they aren't really your friends and are likely just using you.

>"Believers, take neither Jews nor the Christians for your friends."

This is again one of those verses that gets taken out of context a lot. It doesn't mean don't take ANY Jews or Christians as friends. It's talking about a particular group of Jews and Christians, during a state of high tension and war.

>When they came to you they said : 'We are believers'. Indeed, infidels they came and infidels they departed.

Some people aren't honest and lie to you to then betray you. Is this verse wrong?

>The punishment of those that make war against God and his apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land."

So...you're saying a religion should be cool with people waging a war against God and his prophet? They should've just lain back and taken it? Do you have any idea what was being done to the early Muslims at the time? Do you know how THEY were being slain and tortured for their beliefs?? This is a verse about enacting justice against people who were persecuting and harassing the early Muslims.

>"As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for what they did. That is the punishment enjoined by God."

Which translation are you reading? What exact verse is this? The verse I'm familiar with is this one: "The male thief, and the female thief, you shall mark, cut, or cut-off their hands/means as a recompense for what they earned, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise. Whoever repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, then God will relent on him. Truly, God is Forgiving, Merciful."

When you read it fully, it says that the person who repents and makes amends will forgiven. If you take the time to read up on Classical Arabic used in the Qur'an, you'd know that the word "cut" isn't the same verb "cut" used to mean physically "cut" here.

You said: "There is absolutely nothing progressive in it by a 21st century standard"

I just gave you some. I dont al-Quran is a great book of morality or even better than it is horrible, but its not rotten 2 the core.

BLOWNTFOUT

>The early Muslim community was persecuted by Jews and Pagans. This isn't prejudiced against ALL Jews and Pagans from ALL places of the world. How is this a bad thing? It's just stating a fact. Jews and Pagans were hostile.

Then the Muslims continued to conquer the world and make the largest Empire it had ever seen. Most of its history it was in aggression with its neighbors.

"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted." 49:13

"Is the reward for good [anything] but good?" 55:60

"‘And they say, ‘None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.’ These are their wishful beliefs. Say, ‘Produce your evidence if what you say is true!’
Nay, whosoever surrenders his whole being unto God, and is a doer of good, shall have his reward from his Lord; on them shall be no fear, neither shall they sorrow.’" 2: 111-112

"So verily with the hardship there is relief. Verily with the hardship, there is relief." 94:5-6

"My mercy embraces all things" 7:156

"‘Say: The Truth has come from your Lord. Let him who will, believe it, and let him who will, reject it.’" 18:29

"‘Good and evil can never be equal. Repel (evil) with that which is better, and see how, then, someone between whom and you was enmity shall become a true friend. Yet none is given such goodness except those who are patient; none is give this but the most fortunate.’" 41: 34-5


"‘The flesh of sacrificial animals does not reach God and neither their blood; but only godliness from you reaches Him.’" 22:37

Im not sure the point you're making with all the context here, theologically this is the word of god. It's not "haha dude it totally just applied to this narrow definition" it's "this is the literal word of god".
These are clearly xenophobic and violent passages and any attempt to portray them in a separate context is disingenuous. They are repeated again and again throughout the text and at no point is there anything that directly contradicts any of these outside of "completely submit to God (Islam) and we'll forgive you."
These beliefs are all utterly incompatible with western liberal democracy in the same way that fascism is, and should be addressed as such.
At no point does the Koran say, "but at some point in the future these doctrines no longer apply." It's all very straightforward and the context you're attempting to provide has no actual basis in Islamic ideology or in a historical reading of Islamic thought.
It's almost as bad as people in the west who try to redefine jihad as some sort of spiritual inner struggle when no one in the Islamic world outside of the Sufis actually holds that doctrine.

Unless you can actually point towards a mainstream Sunni/Shia theological system that would abrogate any of this all the quotes stand as stated.

Literally what does a single quote here prove other than, "if you're Islamic god likes you." That exists in any religion or belief system from the beginning of civilization and does nothing to temper the blatant xenophobia and violence I pointed to earlier from literally three pages earlier. And again I would point that at no point in mainstream Islamic theology or history have any of your attempts at context been the actual practiced doctrine.

Under Muhammad (pbuh), the Arab tribes united into a single Islamic Arab nation. It didn't extend out of Arabia and there were no efforts to conquer anyone. It wasn't until after Muhammad died that this Caliphate began expanding towards northern Africa and southeast Asia. There was a civil war between Muslims and massive political and theological disagreements.

Muhammad (pbuh) never gave any order that there should be conquest. The war that was waged under him was purely defensive. Is it possible that just because a lot of Muslims do something, it doesn't reflect on the religion? Muslims are human beings and fallible. This was a time when conquest was a typical trend for large, powerful nations to do. Without the spiritual guidance of the Prophet, the people began deviating. There's no question that the history of Muslims is rife with deviation and error. Don't blame Islam for Muslims.

>united because Muhammad violently conquered them killing tons of pagans and Jews in offensive wars
You left that part out.
Unless you're going to say he just defensively raided and conquered people and play the cognitive dissonance game.

It's weird. You say that the verses shouldn't be taken out of context...yet you say that I shouldn't be giving them context? Historically, the context HAS been given, through the biography of the Prophet and through the Sunnah of the Prophet. No one read the Qur'an without knowing and understanding the history of Muhammad and the Sahabah.

The violence is all measured out and many verses clearly state when, where, and how violence in a situation of DEFENSIVE WAR should be carried out. Xenophobic? No. The Muslims let in many Pagans, Jews and Christians who had formerly persecuted them and they were betrayed again and again.

>"At no point does the Koran say, "but at some point in the future these doctrines no longer apply.""

These verses are about History, not about a Law. When it comes to Islamic Law, there must be a specific punishment entailed and specific reasoning. In these verses, it's clearly just war-commands and cautionary verses about enemy invaders. This is how Muslims have traditionally understood the text. I'm not inserting my own perspective into it.

WHAT?? Jihad is universally held by Muslims to be an internal spiritual struggle. There's Greater Jihad and Lesser Jihad. Greater Jihad is a spiritual struggle and Lesser Jihad is defensive war. You've just proved you don't know what you're talking about in the least.

For 13 years, Muhammad preached peacefully in Mecca without a single fight or murder. It was the early Muslims who were being tortured, beaten, mocked, and killed by Pagans and some Jews.

The early Muslims were the ones being raided of their goods and murdered. What was taken from the raids of the pagan caravans were the goods and money which had been previously stolen. The early Muslims weren't stealing anything, they were taking back what had been stolen from them.

>It's almost as bad as people in the west who try to redefine jihad as some sort of spiritual inner struggle when no one in the Islamic world outside of the Sufis actually holds that doctrine.

i fucking hate that shit, it's like trying to say communists don't want to overthrow the government because "revolution" just means turn something in a circle, how stupid do you think we are man

Did you even bother reading any of these verses? Try again. Read the verses and try to guess what each of them means.

Hint: NONE of them mean "if you're islamic god likes you."

Jihad has always meant "struggle" in Arabic and in the Hadiths, Muhammad talks about "Greater Jihad" which is spiritual, and "Lesser Jihad" which is defensive war to protect the oppressed and persecuted.

You don't know shit about Islam and you're hilariously acting as if people who know what they're talking about when they say "jihad" are somehow wrong. NO. You're wrong.

>shouldn't be giving them context
They don't need context, it's the literal immutable word of god, by definition you're altering the intent by trying to change it beyond its literal meaning.
>muh defensive war
Except this isn't a thing and is clearly contradicted in the Koran by multiple statements of seeking out disbelievers and overcoming them as well as Mohammad's offensive actions like Badr or the expelling and slaughtering of the Jews.
>let in many pagans Jews and Christians
They literally conquered and ethnically cleansed the Zoroastrianism following an offensive war, as well as ethically cleansing and arabizing the entire Middle East, as well as directly enslaving and oppressing Christians.
>I'm not inserting my own perspective into it
Yes you are, you're clearly a western Muslim and entirely unfamiliar with actual discourse in the Islamic world, but if you insist on me rattling off theologians I will.
>WHAT!? Jihad is held universally to be an inner struggle
No it isn't, no one outside of western muslims and Sufis believes this, and again if you want me to start sourcing all this I will. Jihad has been understood historically in the Islamic world as a concept of armed struggle. It's a literal meme that won't go away because some westerner that I forget latched into Sufism.

>Jihad has always meant "struggle" in Arabic

no, shit just like there are dozens of words in english that mean things besides war but are used as a euphemism for war

"the final solution" just means to arrive at a completion to a problem, a lot of nazis were just into math problems as a kind of personal activity, it has nothing to do with genocide

He expelled and killed an entire tribe of Jews because one woman was beaten.
He wiped an entire religious system off of the Arabian peninsula because they sauf mean things about him.
You're literally just as bad as /pol/ fags that claim hitler din du NUFFIN because the Jews boycotted german businesses.

And no. The battle of badr was distinctly offensive and started because Mohammad was granted by God the license to raid an unarmed caravan as long as he distributed a fifth of the spoils in a particular way.

I mean holy shit the cognitive dissonance to be able to reconcile genocide and attacks against civilians because "they were mean to us".
I'll be sure to go ahead and kill civilians next time I'm overseas and try to explain to my court martial board that because they did it, im allowed to do it now.

Everything you're attempting to say is utterly unreconciable with modern notions of ethics.

I did and you're being pointlessly obscurantist. It applies purely to those that follow the word of God, and you're just dodging and twisting points that aren't even held to be controversial.

>altering the intent

Do you even know the meaning of the words you're saying? The intent was for a specific purpose, laid out by the Sahabah in the Hadiths. You're the one changing the intent by imposing a universality to all verses. There's no precedent in any school of Islamic jurisprudence on this.
LITERALLY, the verses refer to specific things, not universal things and we would be fools to apply these verses universally because other verses contradict the supposed universality of specifically historical verses.

Ugh. They're seeking out the enemies because they're in a war. This is what happens in a war. You look for the enemy to kill them because they're looking for you to try to kill you. It's not a difficult concept.

There weren't Zoroastrians in Arabia. Later Caliphates invaded Persia. The prophet had long been dead by then.

Jihad has always been about internal struggle. I just explained what Jihad has historically been according to the Prophet himself. Even without this conception of jihad as an internal struggle, Islam as violent action is still jihad in the defense of the oppressed, not for the sake of conquest or earthly gain.

>all this mental gymnastics to justify wasting your life following some ideology created by a medieval warlord

wooo lad lol

>word of God
>not abrogated at any point
>not universal
You're going to have to go ahead and resolve this real quick before I stop this conversation all together and I just admit I got baited.

>merchant for 15 + years
>preacher for 13 years
>general and leader for 10 years

Also you're just lying about Jihad.
I mean literally, you're just lying. It's understood as armed struggle, and it's doubtful that the Hadith talking about "greater jihad" even existed.
wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad
Here, written by actual muslims, because I don't have time to explain your own religion to you, and I'm starting to think I'm being baited.

piss be upon him

The concept of abrogation was invented by later Islamic theologians and scholars. Nowhere does Muhammad ever even talk about abrogation. The Qur'an is the word of God, and God doesn't change his mind.

Okay so I am being baited.
Well this was fun, im going to bed.

It's true that it's not a super reliable hadith, but it's a hadith nonetheless. People believe far less reliable hadith than this one all the time.

>Under Muhammad (pbuh), the Arab tribes united into a single Islamic Arab nation

And how did he accomplish this?

Reported for derailing the thread.

...

Kafka complete works

In fairness even with the all races are equal rule the arabs tended to get preferential treatment throughout much of the MENA region which is why much of it is heavily arabacized now. In addition Arab muslims tended to overwhelmingly make up the ruling class as they spread through newly conquered territories such as that of the Amazigh, Persia, Anatolia, and Spain.