atheists will love this.....

[AllieBaba]

As I said, Muslims are compelled to lie about the core beliefs of their religion, if it will help them conquer infidels.

 

[Kalam]

You can't spout bullshit and claim that I'm lying when I challenge it, you dumb bitch. It's your duty to back up what you've said. Here, I'll save your sorry ass some time:

Of course Muslim defenders don't want to remind us of that, because to do so is also to remind us that in Islam, one does NOT concede defeat.

And if they incline to peace, include thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Surely he is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee. He it is Who strengthened thee with His help and with the believers, and He has united their hearts. If thou hadst spent all that is in the earth, thou couldst not have united their hearts, but Allah united them. Surely he is Mighty, Wise. - 8:61-63
​

The Koran demands that they go out and use any means necessary to conquer the world..and particularly to re-capture any land that they have inhabited at any time. That means France, Spain and any other country they were driven out of after invasion. To do this, they are given permission by the Koran to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

"Any means necessary?" The Qur'an says the exact opposite.

And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive (or do not exceed limits.) Surely Allah loves not the aggressors (or loves not those who exceed limits.) - 2:190​

Muslims are permitted to lie to save their lives, to reconcile a husband and wife, to persuade a woman into a bedroom and to facilitate one on his journey. Muslims are even permitted to disavow Islam and Mohammed if it is not a genuine heart-felt rejection, in order to attain access to positions and status they would be denied otherwise.

Nothing regarding this is said in the Qur'an. The only relevant ahadith explain that people who invent stories to bring peace between people are "not liars," meaning that they should not be treated or punished as liars. Nowhere is this actively encouraged. Moreover, ahadith are unreliable and are of questionable accuracy, unlike the Qur'an, which does not mention anything about dishonesty being permissible in any situation.

Mohammed himself gave permission for a follower to lie in order to kill a Jewish poet who had offended Mohammed.

This has no scriptural basis. This was a false oral tradition printed in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, which is of such questionable accuracy that Bukhari, whose own collection contained inaccuracies, refused to use information from it.

Mohommed himself decapitated women and children.

This is a disgusting prevarication. Even the ahadith contradict this lie.

'Abd Allah reported:

A woman was found among the killed in one of the battles of the Prophet, ﷺ, so the Messenger of Allah, ﷺ, forbade the killing of women and children. - Bukhari 56:147.​

It is NOT a religion of peace, and the Koran is inwritten with permission to lie about anything at all in order to further the cause of dominating the world and slaughtering infidels. Period.

The Qur'an says absolutely nothing about lying being permissible in any situation.

Now surely sincere obedience is due to Allah. And those who choose protectors besides Him (say): "We serve them only that they may bring us nearer to Allah." Surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ. Surely Allah guides not him who is a liar, ungrateful. - 39:3.​

I know that your severe mental handicaps prevent you from being able to understand concepts such as irony, but it's pretty damn interesting that you're the one who's lying left and right while falsely accusing me of doing the same.

 

[Kalam]

No, the koran wants good muslims to kill all non-believers.

Fortunately for you, it doesn't.

You guys are lucky you have oil, now you can buy all our inventions (like bumwad), without oil, you'd all be still living in tents and using your camel as a pillow. Or did a westerner also have to show you all how to make a camel hair pillow?

Oh, god.

While Europe's perverted version of Christianity (with a few notable exceptions such as Aquinas) was trying its very best to erase all progress that mankind had achieved up to that point, the Islamic world was busy making invaluable contributions to every area of human knowledge.

Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, Muslims always pull this crap out too.

Keep in mind the Koran is arranged according to the size of the books, but that the newer additions ALWAYS supercede the older.

Almost without exception, it is only the older books which call for peace...because at the times being written about, Mohommed was a minority and struggling to come up through the ranks. As he became a more powerful warlord, his directives became quite a bit less warm and fuzzy, and always with the direction that when the books are in conflict, always go by the newest one.

Guess what? The more recent books are not about peace, love and honor. They are about butchery, lying, and war.

 

[JBeukema]

No, the koran wants good muslims to kill all non-believers.

that's different from the jews, how? -and what are xtians but would-be jews who were the wrong race and whose 'holy book' contradicts itself on whether they were even supposed to be saved?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Yes, Muslims always pull this crap out too.

Keep in mind the Koran is arranged according to the size of the books, but that the newer additions ALWAYS supercede the older.

Almost without exception, it is only the older books which call for peace...because at the times being written about, Mohommed was a minority and struggling to come up through the ranks. As he became a more powerful warlord, his directives became quite a bit less warm and fuzzy, and always with the direction that when the books are in conflict, always go by the newest one.

Guess what? The more recent books are not about peace, love and honor. They are about butchery, lying, and war.

I'm sure you're a reliable expert on Islam, right?

 

[AllieBaba]

I know that much, at any rate.

 

[JBeukema]

I know that much, at any rate.

you speak from ignorance

 

[AllieBaba]

Prove it.

 

[JBeukema]

you literally ignore all evidence that refutes your claims and refuse to process new information

ignorant - uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication

ignorant - unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge;

ignorant - Unknowledgeable or uneducated; characterized by ignorance; Ill-mannered, crude

is the state of not knowing. Ignorance occurs when those who can benefit from knowledge are unwilling or unable to find or assimilate {new information}

 

[AllieBaba]

That's not proving anything, idiot. It's just a definition of ignorance, which, having dealt with you, I'm fully aware of.

Prove that what I said is wrong. Your nonsensical rambling about ignorance does nothing to disprove my commentary.

 

[Anguille]

Once again, Allie Babble gives Christians a bad name.

 

[Kalam]

Yes, Muslims always pull this crap out too.

Keep in mind the Koran is arranged according to the size of the books, but that the newer additions ALWAYS supercede the older.

There is no such thing as abrogation in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself makes this clear in 4:82 - "Will they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Moreover, two of the three suwar I cited, al-Baqara and al-Anfal, were revealed in Madinah, after hostilities had already commenced between the Muslims and the persecuting Quraish. Al-Baqara in particular contains most of the Qur'an's guidance pertaining to dealing with enemies. The only verse I cited that was revealed in Makkah was one of the last revealed in that city, after the Quraish had been actively persecuting the Muslims there for some time. If any of the verses I referred to are "superceded" as you suggest, please show me the verses that supposedly take precedence over them. In 1936, Muslim leader and scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote the following on the subject of abrogation:

That certain verses of the Qur'an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the Qur'an but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (al-Nahl) - a Makkah revelation - and runs thus: "And when We change a message for a message, - and Allah knows best what He reveals - they say: Thou art only a forger" (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur'anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Qur'an. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses in the Qur'an but because he claimed that the Qur'an was a divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: "Only a mortal teaches him" (16:103). According to them the whole of the Qur'an, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.

The other verse which is supposed to lend support to the theory runs thus: "Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it" (2:106). A reference to the context will show that the Jews or the followers of previous revelations are here addressed. Of these it is said: "they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that" (2:91). So they were told that if a certain revelation was abrogated, it was only to give place to a better one. And there is mention not only of abrogation but also of something that was forgotten. The words "or cause to be forgotten" cannot refer to the Qur'an at all because no portion of it could be said to have been forgotten so as to require a new revelation in its place. There is no point in supposing that God should make the Prophet forget a verse and then reveal a new one in its place. Why not, if he really had forgotten a verse, remind him of the one forgotten? But even if it is supposed that his memory ever failed in retaining (which really never happened), that verse was quite safely preserved in writing, and the mere failure of memory could not necessitate a new revelation. That the Prophet never forgot what was recited to him is plainly stated in the Qur'an: "We shall make the recite, so thou shalt not forget" (87:6). History also bears out the fact that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'anic revelation. Sometimes the whole of a very long chapter would be revealed to him in one portion, as in the case of the sixth chapter which extends over twenty sections, but he would cause it to be written without delay, and make his companions learn it by heart, and recite it in public prayers, and that without the change of even a letter, notwithstanding the fact that he himself could not read from a written copy, nor did the written copies, as a rule, remain in his possession. It was a miracle indeed that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'an, though other things he might forget, and it is to his forgetfulness in other things that the words except what Allah pleases, in the next verse (87:7), refer. On the other hand, it is a fact that parts of the older revelations had been utterly lost and forgotten, and thus the Qur'an was needed to take the place of that which was abrogated, and that which had been forgotten by the world.

Almost without exception, it is only the older books which call for peace...because at the times being written about, Mohommed was a minority and struggling to come up through the ranks. As he became a more powerful warlord, his directives became quite a bit less warm and fuzzy, and always with the direction that when the books are in conflict, always go by the newest one.

The message of the Qur'an is consistent throughout its entirety. As I said, all of the verses I cited were revealed after the worst of the persecution faced by Muhammad and his followers had begun. Your abrogation argument was proved false quite some time ago.

Guess what? The more recent books are not about peace, love and honor. They are about butchery, lying, and war.

Guess what? That, like most of your half-baked remarks, is untrue.

The next-to-last surah to be revealed tells Muslims to respect their alliances with disbelievers. The surah immediately preceding that tells us that if someone kills an innocent person, "it is as though he had killed all men." It also explains that all people who believe and do good, not just Muslims, will be rewarded. So much for "butchery, lying, and war." You don't know anything about Islam or the Qur'an; you merely regurgitate the ridiculous bullshit fed to you by ignorant Islamophobes.

 

[JBeukema]

Kalam: you defend the muslim faith more reasonably and convincingly that any jew or xtian has ever defended their holy texts... Several oft-quoted passages I've encountered numerous times you have shown to be quotemined... It seems I need to reanalyze the koran in more detail, as my initial conclusions may not be as accurate as I believed...

PS- are the hadiths considered authoritarian in 'orthodox' islam?

 

[Father Time]

That's not proving anything, idiot. It's just a definition of ignorance, which, having dealt with you, I'm fully aware of.

Prove that what I said is wrong. Your nonsensical rambling about ignorance does nothing to disprove my commentary.

You still need to back up all the crap you said.

 

[Kalam]

Kalam: you defend the muslim faith more reasonably and convincingly that any jew or xtian has ever defended their holy texts... Several oft-quoted passages I've encountered numerous times you have shown to be quotemined... It seems I need to reanalyze the koran in more detail, as my initial conclusions may not be as accurate as I believed...

To tell you the truth, while certain passages do tend to be quoted out-of-context, you may not find anything redeeming about the book. Parts of it must seem repetitive or nonsensical to non-Muslims. If your up to it, though, go for it.

Thanks for the compliment, but as you can see, I can lose it depending on what is said.

PS- are the hadiths considered authoritarian in 'orthodox' islam?

Generally, yes. It depends on the sect, but most Muslims believe that the hadith collections Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are very reliable... even though they occasionally contradict each other and contain internal discrepancies. I wouldn't recommend reading them as they tend to be profoundly dry and boring.

 

[JBeukema]

i other words, it's a lot like the torah and New testament... only in arabic?

 

[Kalam]

i other words, it's a lot like the torah and New testament... only in arabic?

It shares some things in common, but not exactly. It's generally more straightforward in its teachings and relies more on direct commands, simple parables and metaphors, and very concise allegories than it does on the kind of long, detailed stories found in the Bible. The chapters get much shorter, more poetic, and somewhat more ambiguous as you approach the end. It isn't like the Gospels - those are more like the ahadith. I liked the way the Qur'an was written more than I did the Bible, but I'm obviously biased.

 

[TofuDog]

Once again, Allie Babble gives Christians a bad name.

You all give religion a bad name with all the name calling, aggressive attitudes and swearing... Which makes me thinks that NONE of you even have a clue about what you're talking about.

 

[KittenKoder]

Once again, Allie Babble gives Christians a bad name.

You all give religion a bad name with all the name calling, aggressive attitudes and swearing... Which makes me thinks that NONE of you even have a clue about what you're talking about.

So ... it's okay when atheists do it but not those who follow religion? Good to know.