Is any of this actually true?
no
if you kill a man his wives are part of the booty
nope
>>56605028
There are actually 2 sides of Islam that correspond to different time points of Muhammad's life:
If you read the Koran, you will find that there are some good things, and many MANY terrible things.
The good things were said when the Prophet was in Mecca, when Islam was new and had not consolidated it’s power.
When the Prophet went to Medina however, the revelation took a very dark turn. The good Meccan verses (what we western liberals would like) were abrogated (naskh) for the later Medinan verses.
You cannot say it’s wrong, that would be apostasy which they kill you for. To suggest reform is to imply it’s not perfect as it is – which is rewarded with death. Ask Mahmoud Mohammed Taha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha
>>56605028
yeah except ISIS has nothing to do with obeying islam
Well apparently shooting at Pilots after ejecting is just fine
>>56605615
Fuck off. The Koran is no more inherently violent than the bible. Good luck finding verses which contradict the OP pic.
>>56605028
This was true before the crusades only
So rape appears to be alright.
>>56605028
Protip : are they using any source to back that claim up?
Are they satisfying any burden of proof? No?
It's bullshit.
>>56605028
>if ISIS actually read the quran
there leader only has a ph.d in islamics studies. i mean how much qurans does this guy have to read to be islamic accordign to tumblr?
>>56605028
Well i guess "being good" to prisoners can mean many things. Maybe they think beheading is good thing for prisoners.
>>56606103
there is no source for this, its propaganda.
>>56605732
The Quran doesn't have much to say about ejecting fighter pilots for some reason.
>>56605028
No.
What people dont realize is that the Quran says that any LATER rulin in it overwrites any earlier ruling.
So if mohamed first wrote "Love aand shit" and later "Kill everyone" then "Kill everyone" is the ruling you have to abide to as muslim.
This means whenever some mudshitlover quotes the "peacefull" quaran its deception or ignorance, as those peacefull lines have been overturned 40 pages later
>>56606007
The revised Tumblr edition.
>>56605745
Ok Ahmed.
>And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.
3:85
>Not is for a Prophet that (there) should be for him prisoners of war until he has battled strenuously in the land. You desire (the) commodities (of) the world, but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah (is) All-Mighty, All-
8:67
>Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."
Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:148
>Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
9:29
>>56605028
protip: Not aplicable to Infidels.
>>56605028
These rules only apply to other muslims. If the enemy is non-muslim you can do whatever because they aren't considered on the same level
>>56605903
that's why they aren't supposed to kill women
FUCK OFF ISLAM APOLOGISTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGE2eBUdlQ
DEATH TO ISLAM
>>56605028
HAHAHAHA
>>56606370
kek is that the best that you can do? Which of those verses contradict the OP's pic? The bible is also far more violent.
>>56606700
Just look up "dar al-harab" and "dar al-islam"
Everyone who's not a muslim is BY DEFAULT AT WAR WITH ISLAM
>dont enforce islam
Qur'an (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers." The key phrase here is to fight until "religion be only for Allah."
>>56605028
Where are the sources for that chart?
>>56605028
What is the Rashidun Caliphate?
>>56606234
I like you
>>56606700
>The bible is also far more violent.
Please show us examples. New Testament of course.
>>56605028
>Doesn't mention just simply "Don't kill".
Tricky Muslims trying to get you to buy their propaganda.
>>56607023
Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..." Prayer and charity are among the Five Pillars of Islam, as salat and zakat. (See below). The Quran thus sanctions violence as a means of coercing religion.
Also, in the Quran, contradictions are resolved by abrogation - where the later verse supersedes the earlier one. Abrogation is an accepted and valid practice by every islamic denomination, otherwise the quran wont make any sense
Opposite day all the time when you're a Muslim.
>>56607023
'Fight' doesn't have to be violent. MLK was fighting for a cause.
>>56606700
where does the bible commands christians to kill unbelievers?
>in b4 the book of joshua
the killings only apply to the the conquest of caanan. it does not say "fight until everyone on the planet is Christian"
>>56607449
>hen fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them
so the slay part is not violent either?
>>56607687
Maybe ancient Muslims were big on stand up comedy?
>>56605028
No it's not...
The muslim 'God" is "so great" he can change his mind... So you'll find many contradictions in the koran... And guess what? When Islam was weak in the beginning that god wanted them to be peaceful, but as they became stronger and more dominant he commanded them to conquer. (this gods last opinion is the one that counts)
Now the koran isn't written chronologically, but is divided by length, so you actually need to know quite a bit to understand it correctly.
[SPOILER] THE TERRORISTS GOT IT RIGHT [/SPOILER]
>>56606700
3:85 basically says that there can be compulsion in religion, and the Islamic civilization has used duress to convert people throughout its existence. This is confirmed by 9:29.
This nullifies the last point in OP's pic.
The pact of Umar states :
>Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
Verse 8:67 and Bukhari 5:58:148 states that Mo himself killed PoW and didn't care about it. It is an acceptable practice in Islam.
This contradicts the second to last point.
>They will not harm you except for [some] annoyance. And if they fight you, they will show you their backs; then they will not be aided.
3:111
This contradicts the seventh point.
Know your Islamic law fagget.
>>56605028
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>arguing about the validity of holy books
who is right to say that their interpretation is the correct one?
Nobody. ISIS' interpretation is just as valid as the majority of peaceful Muslims' interpretation.
It's a fucking holy book. You can't say either side is wrong or right because it's a fucking book written about gods and prophets. The sheer fact that it CAN be interpreted differently shows what a load of shit religion is.
How many ways can you interpret Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica i.e. Newton's Laws?
>>56607804
What the fuck, that's not the pact of Umar. This is :
>We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicicze practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims.
>>56607862
See, thats a misconception.
While the bible was writen over centuries by many authors, the Quoran was written by one guy in one lifetime.
And hes pretty clear about whats right and whats wrong.
watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY
Islam isnt a religion like Christianity, Islam is Cancer that wants Sharia everywhere.
>>56607804
>3:85 basically says that there can be compulsion in religion
No it doesn't fucktard, it specifically states that the consequences for not following Islam will be delivered in the HEREAFTER. Meaning afterlife. Jesus said the exact same shit -- arguably more violent actually.
8:7 says NOTHING about killing PoW just taking them.
>>56606700
Yeah, but the Bibles violence was used in order to protect God's people, as nobody else on earth would have worshipped God at that point anyways. And now since the gentiles can be saved, Jesus has said no war. Turn the other cheek, etc. He's not insecure that if someone were to say "God Damnit" you can fucking kill them. He allowed killing for protection of His people.
Allah is just an insecure little prick whose gotta bully people who don't like him.
>>56608320
>the Quoran was written by one guy in one lifetime.
Okay, but it's still about gods, prophets, angels, and general fairy tale shit
From what I know about Islam, it's actually possible. But only because he just mentions the Koran and maybe does some cherry picking.
If we were to take into account every line plus the Hadith and the Sira(?), which are sayings attributed to Muhammed with accompanying islamic scholarly literature and his biography respectively.
>>56608403
Lel, I know the context of 8:7.
People wanted to ransom their prisoners, but Mo didn't wanted to, so they killed them all.
Mo also had 600 to 900 jew killed that had surrendered.
9:29 compels muslims to fight until those who do not believe feel themselves subdued.
Being subdued is living under duress.
Get bent fucktard.
>>56605028
nice try faggot, lies are lies and that's all there is to it
>>56605028
>People believing what they want to believe, instead of what's true
>People trusting an unsourced tumblr image instead of actually checking the Quran
>People claiming that the leader of ISIS with his phd in Islamic Studies has it ass-backwards and all he had to do was check this tumblr graphic to have his whole education come crumbling down and then he would know Islam as well as these tumblrinas
>Actually believing that Muhammad commanded to never "enforce Islam" despite actual historical records of him doing so
It's 2+2=5 all over again
You know, the book was originally going to be called "The Last Man in Europe"
>>56608403
Also, reliance of the traveler, classical text of Islamic law, states, section 09.14
>When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph considers the interests of Islam and the Muslims and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
>>56608661
Moving goalposts, you said its "open to interpretation" which it isnt. Mohamed wrote it, and he even said that if you have to choose two parts, to decide like it was written at the latest in his book.
And the quoran gets more and more "Kill every non-musim, Islam worldwide" the farther you read.
Seriously, the Quoran is somewhere high high above "Mein Kampf" regarding murder and genocide.
>>56608403
>>56606700
>>56605745
It seems like we have an ambassador from r/atheism in the thread
>>56609261
Isn't the Quran in order of the length of the Surahs, rather than chronologically?
>>56608532
>Jesus has said no war
True.
He still wanted God (Allah) to torture people in the afterlife though.
>>56608886
>People wanted to ransom their prisoners, but Mo didn't wanted to, so they killed them all.
Show me where that is stated.
>9:29 compels muslims to fight until those who do not believe feel themselves subdued.
"Fight" doesn't necessarily mean kill. The context is rhetorical battle and you would know this context if you look at all the other verses which follow.
>>56609246
That is not the Koran.
>>56609447
>atheists
>defending Islam
pfff
>>56605028
Islam is relative in nature.
They have a "Let there be no compulsion in religion" rule, yet it is assigned by most to situations of peace, while for war they have "Set fear into their hearts. Strike their necks and strike off their very fingertips".
So "Don't enforce islam" as it is said in this graphic only is sound for certain situations. So is every other rule presented there. And what describes these situations? What describes, when exactly is it war or peace?
Nothing else than the perceiving and conscience of the muslim in question. When a muslim commits a sin but he believes he is not, as long as he regrets it the moment it is revealed upon him that he was commiting sin, he may as well have never commited it. He is forgiven without any prosecution.
Quran, ladies and gents, or as I call it the ultimate excuse book.
>>56605028
>war
>rules
Choose one
>>56608403
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.
>submit to shitskin islam or die
>>56609261
Well considering the number of debates about the real meaning and context of every sentence, he didn't do a very good job of making it easy to follow.
The Bible is exactly the same.
Any book that takes on new meaning over time is not written with objectivity in mind. Every Muslim I know would or has said that the meaning of the Quaran is changing as the world becomes more modern - just like modern Christians are rejecting the absurd parts of the Bible like creationism. They say that they go to their mosque and learn about how to understand the Quran, and how it's meaning is changing to fit in the modern world. Any parts that are clearly in defiance to 21st Century life are quietly discarded. How long before none of it is relevant any more, and the whole thing is one big metaphor?
Any book containing facts will either stand the test of time if the facts are true, or will be discarded as inaccurate when new findings disprove it. Holy books are given a free pass to not be disproved, but just interpreted differently. They are not books of facts.
No.
ISIS preaches that any rules of war from the Koran are temporarily suspended. Not kidding.
>>56609895
>This is not the Koran
But it's waaaaay more authoritative than you. It's an authoritative text of Islamic law, forming a consensus among scholars. Are you a scholar? Neither am I, but I'm quoting them.
>"Fight" doesn't necessarily mean kill
In general, the term Jihad is much broader than simple physical fight, but it includes it. Indeed, we have :
>Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision.
3:169
>And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah, "They are dead." Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not
2:154
Can you be killed in the way of Allah by slipping in the bathtub? Well, maybe.
From Surah 9 we also have :
>Those who believe strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are all good things, they will prosper.
9:88
>Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.
9:111
Fight with their wealth and person ie. physically.
>>56609447
>r/atheism
>not an SJW motherland with a sole vendetta against Christianity in terms of religion
Those rules are for aggressive war, whereas IS sees themselves as fighting a defensive war.
These commands are from Abu Bakr, the first Caliph. He got them from his impression Muhammad reacting to some innocent female having been killed in the course of battle.
Per Islamic tradition, this is as good has having come from the prophet, but ISIS disregards anything that isn't specifically mentioned in the Quran.
>>56605028
Doesn't apply to infidels.
Based secular Muslims saying the problem is in Islam:
https://theconversation.com/how-islamic-law-can-take-on-isis-50113
>>56605615
Based Taha. What I consider a genuine Muslim, and a palatable red-pill for Muslims who think Islam is inherently peaceful or not oppressive.
Taha's philosophy, and by extension An-Na'im's, as well as other secular Muslim's, require continuous legal abrogation. If all Muslims today agree that XYZ traditions are viable, there is nothing stopping a new abrogation from taking place a few hundred years after that which nullifies that decision and reverts to a more literal translation.
It also highlights how different it is from Christianity.
>>56612012
>and a palatable red-pill for Muslims who think Islam is inherently peaceful or not oppressive.
I meant to say a palatable red-pill for normies.
On violent sections of the Quran:
Muslims will tell you that the Quran is the word of God and so everything must stay in it. They will not remove outdated passages, but will instead annotate the passages as it helps describe what life was like at the time. Taking parts out of context might not help, because Muslims are taught not to follow it but to read it as an account of what Islam was like back in the past.
>>56613613
This contradicts what the Koran is supposed to be.
The Koran is the literal, uncreated, word of God. As it is uncreated, and is co-eternal with God, and cannot be some historical account.
It is timeless.
>>56615184
This is not true.
Look up the concept of Ijtihad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad
>started researching quar'an to btfo muzzies who think it is not violent and backwards
>...hmm that passage seems fair
>muhammad is kinda bro
>shieeet, nearly no degeneracy
>most verses are taken out of context
>go consult a mulla about some controversies
>chop the tip of my dick and stop eating pork
>start getتينغ على استعداد للسفر الى سوريا
تَكْبِير
>>56616342
Kek.
>>56615598
Once consensus is reached among the scholars it is fixed and cannot be changed.
From Abdur Rahman Doi, Malaysian jurist and author of Shari'ah : The Islamic Law :
> As we noted before, the Shari'ah was not revealed for limited application for a specific age. It will suit every age and time. It will remain valid and shall continue to be, till the end of this life on earth. Its injunctions were coined in such a manner that they are not affected by the lapse of time. They do not become obsolete, nor do their general principles and basic theories need to be changed or renovated.
From Nyazee's introduction to Reliance of the Traveler, a classical text of Islamic law :
> The laws in the Koran and the Sunnah of the Prophet, it is true, have been determined and fixed for all times to come. These comprise the core legal concepts, the genetic code, so to say. As Muhammad was the last of the prophets, there is no chance of mutation in these laws. Calls for itjihad in the present age, if they are meant to alter such fixed laws, are futile and unnecessary.
>>56616607
>The reason Islam is fucked: the post
Yes, it's a gigantic pain in the ass. But the consensus that was reached was reached several hundred years after the death of the prophet and did not rely on a literal translation. The act of "closing the gate of Ijtihad" is seen as controversial because,
"There was, of course, no “Gate of Ijtihad” to be closed, and nobody had the authority to close the gate even if one had existed. The metaphor, however, highlighted the contrast between the cultivation of diversity in the first three centuries of Sharia and the stalemate and rigidity of the study of Islamic law since then."
After all, there is no compulsion in Islam.
https://theconversation.com/how-islamic-law-can-take-on-isis-50113
>>56605028
No. Where'd this shit come from? Tumblr?
>>56616931
It is possible that there is some "True Islam" floating out there somewhere that would basically be the equivalent of the American Constitution, but as it is practiced today it is not and thus I do not have to concern myself with some idealized fiction of what Islam ought to be.
Furthermore, there is a good argument to be made that the "no compulsion verse" is abrogated by 3:111.
This further reinforced by the concept of dhimmitude and the pact of Umar.
This is semantic at this point, but being "felt to be subdued" (9:29, pact of Umar) is arguably "compulsion", even if it is not compulsion at the point of death.
Dhimmitude also includes blasphemy penalty the consequences of which may include death or slavery. That is, non believer may not act in such a way as to "offend Islam".
If you want to live under that system that's fine but I'm not interested. I am "vigorously" uninterested.
>>56605028
>dont kill who ran away
this is basically impossible, most war deaths occur during retreat. humans have a prey drive too
>>56618515
It can also be Koranically justified with the following :
>So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions.
47:35
>>56605028
It has never been true.
Maybe objectively the muslims were never as bad as the mongols, but they sure tried.
>>56617760
Well the quotes I gave come from a secularist Muslim, so his "true Islam" is framed in a secular context. I don't disagree that this isn't widely supported in the Islamic world, but I would prefer to encourage that group to become the norm rather than groups like ISIS. or acquiescent do-gooders who mind their business.
As for "No compulsion" being abrogated, part of the consensus you mentioned above included the stipulation that this verse specially was not allowed to be abrogated.
As for the 'semantic' (which I don't agree they are) bits, I do find the verses problematic, but as BritBong anon said up thread, these can be framed in a specific historical context.
>Muslims are good, peaceful people, this book proves it
>OH MY GOD WHY DO YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE YOU DUMB FUCKING CHRISTIAN? CHECK YOUR FUCKING PRIVILEGE, IT'S MY RIGHT AS A WOMAN TO MURDER MY BABY. NO UTERUS NO OPINION
These fucking people man
>>56619196
Secularization of Islam is certainly a thing, but it implies the abandonment of the concept of Islamic laws, as those laws which have divine sanction cannot be amended by a democratic process, since the opinion of men can never override that of God.
As for the abrogation of the no compulsion verse, I would actually like source for the impossibility of its abrogation.
Furthermore, the hadith do not help in this regard :
>Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd at-Tawil from Anas ibn Malis that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out to Khaybar, he arrived there at night, and when he came upon a people by night, he did not attack until morning. In the morning, the Jews came out with their spades and baskets. When they saw him, they said, "Muhammad! By Allah, Muhammad and his army!" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Allah is greater! Khaybar is destroyed. When we come to a people, it is an evil morning for those who have been warned."
>It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.
>>56619196
I also have the following by Ibn Khatir about the "no compulsion" verse :
>Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam, because it is clear and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force...hence Allah revealed this verse.
>But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "fighting...Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih, the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise.
>>56620553
>Secularization of Islam is certainly a thing, but it implies the abandonment of the concept of Islamic laws
My fault - I didn't mean to imply that the desires of that Muslim were secular, only that Islamic law is framed in a context whereby there is interaction with secular states and entities (namely Western schools of thought).
This is not to say that it is an abandonment of Islamic Law and jurisprudence, but that Islamic laws should be reviewed and discussed continuously as new legal matters arise.
I need to run to take my daughter to her Dr.s appointment - if the thread doesn't 404, I will see about getting you the sources regarding the abrogation of that verse.
FWIW, and since I had it on hand, here is the wiki entry on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256
Salaam, brother.
>>56616948
>taqiyya
So tired of this meme. Literally every religion and literally every community on earth would consider it acceptable to lie about their affiliations for their own safety and the safety of their own community. If dogs could talk, I bet they'd agree with it too.
>>56621396
>Salaam, brother
I am no brother, and I doubt there is Salam between us.
Principle of abrogation.
/thread
>>56621396
I now know that the wikipedia entry on this verse is bullshit since they don't fully quote Ibn Khatir.
See >>56621025
>>56606567
incredibly based ladyperson!
>>56605028
Islam is only good if Islam is the winning part.
When Islam starts losing, we resort to any measure to keep it alive.
And by keeping it alive it doesnt mean that there are people still believing in it, by keeping it alive we mean people actually accept it no matter what, ie;if a muslim asks you to open your door so he can give your son a lecture on the Quran and why Islam is the right way, you have to accept and let him inside..if your son refuses, it's his own desire, but the thing is you can't stop the preacher or anyone coming to you or to your family memebers otherwise you're considered an enemy.
Islam is violent if it's not winning and Islam is currently losing, so yes, in these times, you can assume Islam is violent.
Things that are true in all times in that graph:
>Dont destroy a temple or a church
>Don't enforce Islam
>Don't kill a monk/priest
The rest is OK in specific situations.
