Can you prove beyond any doubt that Islam is anti-free-speech? No vague or wishy washy out of context quotes or Quran verses.
They murder people for drawing cartoons
>>55370169
>>55370169
What is the ultimate goal of Islam again?
>>55370169
Well, you can't say you don't want to believe in Islam anymore. Apostasy is a death sentence.
>>55370234
To conquer the world.
>say something ill of muslims
>they murder you
>>55370169
Islam isn't. Muslims are. But then, so are Jews (see holohoax).
>>55370189
/thread
>>55370169
Hate speech isn't free speech, so Islam isn't anti-free speech, just anti-hate speech.
>>55370234
To turn the world into a battlefield. Whenever Islam becomes the dominant force in a region it just folds in on itself and sectarian conflicts begin.
The war god demands sacrifices.
>>55370247
>Islam isn't. Muslims are.
nice b8 m8
Qur'an (4:89) [slay anyone who doesn't convert to islam]
Qur'an (5:33) [anyone opposed to allah should be murdered]
Qur'an (2:216) [fighting is alright if in the name of allah]
Qur'an (3:51) [cast terror in the unbelievers]
Qur'an (4:74) [those who fight for allah shall be rewarded]
Qur'an (3:56) [those who reject the islamic faith will be punished]
Qur'an (9:95) [those who strive and fight for allah get a special reward]
Qur'an (8:12) [cast terror into disbelievers and strike their heads and fingers off]
Qur'an (9:5) [take idolaters hostage and captive]
Islam is definitely not anti-free speech :^)
>>55370343
I don't see anything about stopping people from speaking :^)
>>55370169
According to the democracy index (google it or wikipedia it)
No country where Islam is practiced by more than 20% is considered a full-democracy.
No country where Islam is practiced by more than 75% is even considered a democracy despite calling itself as such or having a a parliament modeled around democracy.
>>55370169
Can you prove beyond any doubt that shit stinks? No vague or wishy washy out of context odor tests or chemical composition analysis.
>>55370169
Look at Bangladesh
Secular writers are hacked to death with machetes. This isn't the government doing this, just your average citizen. I imagine those kinds of things will happen much more frequently once Islam is the majority in your country
>>55370343
>33:57
Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
>33:61
Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
>>55370169
>can you prove that a widely diverse religion followed by a billion people in all different parts of the world is absolutely completely 100% one thing or the other
No. Does this mean that the general tendencies of Islamic ideology can not be said to be at odds with Western Enlightenment values? No.
>>55370439 4U >>55370373
>>55370373
haha well meme'd friend,
you are free to talk about anything just make sure you convert to islam against your will or die. Good luck!
>>55370189
Looking for actual references from Islam rather than isolated incidents carried out by fringe maniacs, thanks.
>>55370216
But ISIS =/= the religion of Islam.
>>55370343
Like the paki said, there's nothing there that explicitly forbids open and free speech.
>>55370439
ditto
>>55370477
>speaking
And sedition is a crime in most societies.
>>55370514
If you can't fight back, you deserve to be conquered, innit?
>>55370535
>there's nothing there that explicitly forbids open and free speech.
>anyone opposed to allah should be murdered
wut, mohammed pls
>>55370535
>Looking for actual references from Islam rather than isolated incidents carried out by fringe maniacs, thanks.
Not a single muslim in the whole world denounced that and it also caused riots in Pakistan.
>>55370546
>innit
The fuck? Are you a Paki who actually went back home? /pol/ needs to know about this, you should do a thread. /brit/pol will love you.
I've never seen a native Paki who knows British colloquial speak other, so you must be a returner.
>>55370477
why would you try to tempt anyone with fucking grapes.
>>55370611
>I've never seen
and if you haven't seen it then it doesn't exist, aint that right guvna?
>>55370546
Unless you speak arabic and are directly quoting from the Qur'an, any translation only gives a "sense" of the text so I wouldn't get hung on one word or another as if it was set in stone.
The sense here is clear that if you displease muslims and/or allah through your thoughts and words, then you shall be made an enemy.
>>55370648
Most foreign-born recently-immigrated pakis seem to speak this weird American accented English so I assume they learned it from watching Hollywood brainwashing material. What Brit TV do you watch over there?
>>55370673
>I wouldn't get hung on one word or another as if it was set in stone
I agree, I would not get hung on any word or phrases from the koran.
>>55370169
This >>55370189
Now fuck off, Abdul
>>55370535
>fringe fanatics
Top kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg
>>55370673
Your problem isn't really that you think Islam is anti-free speech, but rather that you want to validate your decision to do things which Muslims find displeasing. More power to you, I guess, but anybody would be butthurt when someone goes out of their way to dick with them, and Islamic scripture is just honest about that aspect of human nature. You make an enemy out of anyone if you do things they find offensive.
>>55370716
The office, The thick of it, Black Mirror, Doctor Who and all sorts of weird Brit-shit.
>>55370169
There is a majority of peasefull muslims, but there will always be extremists. These extremists are the people that censor and cause problems. But they are the people that make all of the noise.
>>55370169
Name a single Muslim country with freedom of speech.
>>55370761
>The office, The thick of it,
Only good ones you mentioned, Dr Who is shit aimed at kids and haven't seen Black Mirror.
>>55370761
>, but anybody would be butthurt when someone goes out of their way to dick with them
Maybe butthurt but they don't murder th3m. Muslims kill people.
>>55370761
>Islamic scripture is just honest about that aspect of human nature
>[25.53] basically salt water and fresh water do not mix
>taking the koran seriously
>inb4 stop cherry picking
top kek m8s
>>55370830
I will once you prove what I asked.
>>55370773
the "peaceful" majority that you're talking about is the same majority that supports those who fight for the implementation of sharia law in britain and france
>>55370169
1. Go to Saudi Arabia
2. Tell people that Islam is wrong
3. ...
4. PROFIT!
>>55370879
The reaction of all primitive peoples when faced with material that enrages them is violence. You should fault the cultures for this, not the religion.
>>55370880
It's not just the Quran, the Hadith also mention righteous indignation ending in bloodshed.
>>55370964
1. Go to Sweden
2. Tell people that Islam is wrong
3. ...
4. BEHEADED!
>>55370169
Charlie Hebdo, Theo van Gogh. Next.
>>55370971
Whereabouts in Pakistan do you live? Are many people into foreign media?
>>55370169
>that flag
Either bait or shitskin.
>>55371050
Lahore. Everyone I know is into foreign media. You can't go 2 miles without running into some pseudo-intellectual faggot spouting Murakami or Munroe.
>>55370642
>why would you try to tempt anyone with fucking grapes.
Because you always have 72 of them no matter how many you eat. It's muslim magic.
>>55370169
Hey Mohammed. Get the fuck out of Britain you ugly shitskin.
>>55370902
Asking someone if they support something is a different question to if they support it through violence.
>>55370761
Oh fuck off with the "displeasing/butthurt feels" arguments.
It's all political maymays to distract your masses from what's happening right in front of your eyes. Just like when Khomeini put a fatwa on Salman Rushdie ... coincidentally within 30 days of getting BTFO in the Iran-Iraq War after butchering thousands of kids and dilapidating the state's coffers. More iranians were in arms about the satanic verses fatwa than they were about a 10 year war. But it's not always just this pathetic.
Or just like when Indonesia got super booty blasted when the US & Australia stopped supporting the East Timor genocide and cockblocked suharto. Ben Laden addressed that in the top 3 points of his manifesto, and said the muslims will never forgive the west for not letting them murder fellow people of the book. That's pretty haram tbqh, family.
Or what about the 20 odd muslims state that tried to coerce a dutch head of state into imposing anti-free speech regulations on his own citizens, while attacking the dutch embassies all across their respective nations?
Or what about the OIC, led by your country, trying to lead the charge since 1999 at the UN to impose anti-defamation regulations on Islam due to fear of oppression...even though you have the worst record when it comes to kurd, khazar, berber, maronite, Khadem, Hindu minorities in your own borders.
You literally act like spoilt brats who can give it, but can't take it and then throw their dummy out whenever it suits them. Get fucked cunt.
>>55370535
please fuck off, seriously.
>>55371128
Sounds pretty cool, btw you shouldn't knock pseudo-intellectuals, at least people who read are better than wilfully-ignorant and uneducated shits like most low/middle class British people.
>>55371278
TL;DR
>>55370169
Go to Iran and shout "death to Islam"
see how that works out
>>55371279
Answer the question instead of crying, you shill
The problem for you is that you cannot prove beyond a doubt that Islam is anti-free-speech. All people have done so far is cry about the actions of individuals and people, and find unrelated verses, all things I said do not prove me wrong.
>>55371316
there is literally nothing wrong with wilfully-ignorant and uneducated shits, they make for great unpretentious company. For "intellectual" conversations you can always find m'lady types on the internet.
>>55371327
Here's your (you)
I cannot wait til Modi literally rapes your countrymen again in Kashmir. it will be a most excellent adventure.
>>55370169
Nigger it's a religion obviously there will be rules against heresy.
>>55370169
http://www.muslimconverts.com/insulting/punishment_for_those_who_insult_prophet.htm
>>55371327
>TL;DR
You got btfo.
Islam has traditionally discouraged artists from depicting living creatures, especially human beings. That's why Islamic art tends to be abstract or decorative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam
Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions.
>>55370971
>You should fault the cultures for this, not the religion
They're the same.
>>55371485
I read once it didn't even explicitly forbid, something along the lines of Muhammad saying to someone who wanted to draw something that he should only draw it knowing that God would ask him to blow life into whatever it was on the Day of Judgement and if he couldn't he wouldn't be allowed to leave, or an approximation.
>>55371327
You got fuckin REKT m8.
>>55371522
No, they are not. Middle-eastern Muslims are culturally different from South east asian Muslims, who are culturally different from far-east (Indonesian, Malaysian) Muslims. This is most apparent when you look at what these people do for a living. Hint: the Arabs don't really do anything.
>>55370169
I think being anti-free speech and being able to do anything about it are two different things, look at the two islamic turds in Texas who tried to shut down a mohamed cartoon competition. They took the law into there own hands and received an instant lesson in free speech from an American cop.
>>55370642
Assuming that Grapes are something that are uncommon for a desert people due to the environment.
muhammad killed people for criticizing him
>>55370169
>>55370169
Mohammed outright tells his followers they must kill any who criticise or satirize him. Literally worse than Hitler.
>>55371594
I believe the orthodox Islamic scripture only explicitly bans depictions of Gods and Prophets and associates depictions of living beings with idolatry. Cultures dominated by Islam are traditionally very much opposed to free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Islamic_societies
Alright, we have a batshit Paki who thinks it's okay to murder people for doing things that offend mudshits.
It's almost as if mudshits are completely and utterly blind to the fact that this door can easily swing both ways: The Western world will grow tired of this intolerant, backward religion and release all of it's offended, disgusted feelings upon them in the form of slaughter, until all mudshits are erased from this planet.
If it's fair for them, then it's fair for us, too. You'd think the stupid cunts would at least PRETEND to be civilized by not murdering people for saying things they don't like, but they don't and that's fine.
They have made their bed.
>>55371629
No, that's socio economics. Being child like violent shitskins is culture, and is highly informed by race.
Proof was asked for, and the response was overwhelming. 1 billion Muslim faggots and their pedo false prophet btfo.
>>55370189
I love when the first reply ends the thread
>>55370189
This.
9:29 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 feel themselves subdued.
This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources.
[Tafsir ibn Kathir, on 9:29]
"religion of peace"
>>55372214
sure, race, culture, whatever. It's all ethnicity. The religion does not factor into it. White Muslims are not as violent or irrational as Arab or subcontinental Muslims.
>>55371327
>I have no argument left
>>55371991
Grapes are rare, but arab virgins are even rarer. They all get poked by an uncle or cousin, and failing that, they get rekt by european chads when they come to our universities
>d-dont worry husband, of course I will get a medical virginity test :^) :^) :^)
>>55372294
Jordan Horner
>>55372368
I said white, ginger is just an anagram of nigger.
>>55372401
Gingers are whiter than normal whites
>>55370535
oh god, here's the fucking "not all of us!!!" bullshit again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy
The Ayatollah of Iran ordered all Muslims on Earth to kill the British author Salman Rushdie because one of his books.
This lead to the deaths of publishers around the world, shops like WH Smiths refusing to stock it etc and him being in state provided hiding.
Why don't more British people know this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gLxpNlC2qs
>>55372446
>oh god, here's
Why do you write sentences like you're on the Daily Mail comments section?
Get educated, even 50 year olds can join community college.
>>55371391
all organized religion are anti-free-speech in some sense.
also, refer to >>55371027
>>55372525
>muh semantics
i was over the tiny-cock overcompensation grammar shit ever since I turned 15 and removed the stick up my ass. suck it faggot
>>55371391
An ideology is judged off the actions of it it's followers. Nobody cares what Marx said when all implementations of Socialism have lead to tyranny.
>>55370169
Name me a islamic country where i can safely say that Islam is bullshit and Muhammed was a pedo faggot.
>>55370169
Islam is not anti free speech, people were free to insult Muhammad back when he was alive if they didn't attack the Muslims. In early Caliphate anti-Islam criticism was accepted, philosophers published pamphlets against Islam and would get answers from Islamic academics.
Today there is less freedom of speech because since the Islamic revival criticism of Islam equate criticism of the government.
>>55372892
Early Islamic Caliphates, see >>55372943
>>55370169
The salafism strand of islam (Saudi Arabian Islam) is the one that inspires most terrorists and is the most hard line. Other forms are fine. There are lots of nice moderate muslims from the Ibadi, Shia and Sunni faiths. The differences between them are embarrassingly small.
>>55373053
They're not actual salafists, they give themselves that name like north korea calls itself a democratic republic.
They're kharijites using "we're pure salafists i swear" propaganda to market their shitty ideology to idiots.
>>55372943
Pact of Umar (first proper political application of the dhimmi) disagrees with you family, tbqh
>>55373197
Which version? Dhimmi means protected people, you pay taxes we protect you.
>>55373278
what happens if you fail to pay the tax?
>>55373278
>Dhimmi means protected people, you pay taxes we protect you.
Sounds like a mafia. Protect from what ?
>>55373278
>you pay taxes we protect you
Damn son, check your Muslim privilege.
>>55373286
If you're too poor you're already exempt, if you're too poor Dar-el-Islam is obligated to provide food and shelter to you disregard your religion.
Is that your question?
>>55373321
Mafia? It's a government you know..
Protected from thieves, murderers, invaders, etc
>>55373406
Well meme'd
>>55370169
In Islam there are "no creature worst" than those who forge lies against Allah.
Furthermore, those who "spread corruption" in the land are to be punished.
Figure it out.
>>55373321
Come on, you already pay taxes.
I'd prefere to pay the jizya to the muslim than to the ZOG.
Taxation is theft.
>>55373461
>thieves, murderers, invaders
So... the Muslims. We pay a tax to Muslims to be protected from Muslims.
Riiiiiiggggghhht. No.
>>55370169
>no quotes
>no quran verses
Go back to Tardlr
>>55373538
You are already paying taxes to your jewish controled gvt to house and feed muslim "asylum seekers".
Islam is peace.
Islam is freedom.
Islam is not against free speech only defamation of the one true religion which is an insult to us all.
Fuck you all.
>>55373486
Divine punishment != human laws.
The Qu'ran is very clear, for example 100 lashes for adultery, your biased mix and match verses conclusion is pretty much non-sequitur.
>>55373538
Are you dumb? It's a government and you pay taxes, that's it.
>>55373627
Which is a bad thing. You don't get credit for helping us fix the problem by making it worse for us and better for you.
https://youtu.be/7XRCYlZ4XOQ
>>55370373
What is.... Proselytizing?
Nice try Ahmed.
>>55373702
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_4cYF3zikM
>>55373461
>According to Abu Yusuf, jurist of the fifth Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid, those who didn't pay jizya should be imprisoned and not be let out of custody until payment.[139] The collectors of the jizyah, wrote Abu Yusuf, were instructed to show leniency, and avoid corporal punishment in case of non-payment.[140] If someone had agreed to pay jizya, leaving Muslim territory for non-Muslim land was, in theory, punishable by enslavement if they were ever captured. This punishment did not apply if the person had suffered injustices from Muslims.[141]
In practice however, non-payment of jizya tax, or the associated Kharaj tax, by any non-Muslim subject in a Muslim state was punished by his arrest or enslavement. Non-payment of either taxes was additionally frequently punished with the arrest of family members and selling the family members into slavery.[142][143][144] The women and girls of an enslaved family would become property of a Muslim master and serve as houseworkers and sex slaves (raqiq or baghiya).[145][146][147][page needed] In South Asia, for example, seizure of dhimmi families upon their failure to pay annual jizya was one of the two significant sources of slaves sold in the slave markets of Delhi Sultanate and Mughal era.[148][149]
In some regions of Islamic rule, the Sultans faced rebellion and the non-Muslim masses refused to convert to Islam or pay jizya.[150] Militant opposition erupted to Islamic punishment for refusal to pay discriminatory jizya taxes, such as in India, Spain and Morocco.[151][152] In some cases, this led to its periodic abolishment such as the 1704 AD suspension of jizya in Deccan region of India by Aurangzeb.[153]
Why do infidels have to pay an extra tax?
>>55373656
>Are you dumb? It's a government and you pay taxes, that's it.
Right, because in Western countries, tax rates by legitimate governments are largely determined by what religion you are and a failure to pay these taxes means death? Again, no.
That's government and taxation for Muslims, not for civilised people.
Islamic culture is superior to godless European culture.
Why do you complain when people want to enforce it in your lands?
Can anyone explain this nonsense?
>>55370535
you asked why islam was anti-free speech and then denied us to reference their holy book. how dumb are you?
>>55373739
Grammar Nazis!
>>55370169
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/09/02/good-news-muslims-furious-that-quebec-will-not-criminalize-criticism-and-mockery-of-islam/
FUCK ISLAM.
>>55373744
>extra tax
Muslims pay a tax too, even if you convert you're going to pay the government to protect you.
>>55373769
Why are you so irrational? Muslims pay taxes too and have other obligations that you don't have, you don't get killed for not paying taxes.
Are you pretending to be stupid?
>>55373656
Hmhm.
But if Islam is true, and if making people stop believing in Islam will send them to hell, either temporarily and forever, what's the point of allowing people to potentially corrupt somebody else with their dangerous idea?
Surely, we wouldn't want those to spread and corrupt society, when the Koran is perfectly clear on what is good and what is bad, yes?
Why allow people to talk against Islam then? Or against your shitty prophet?
There's no rational for it in Islam. Furthermore, we know that Allah does not like those who allow that which was forbidden and forbid that which was allowed, and forging lies against Allah doesn't really seem allowed, neither is spreading corruption in the land.
Unless, of course, you're gonna argue that both these things are allowed in Islam, which is possible but that doesn't seem to be the case.
>asks for evidence
>gets evidence
>pretend not to see it
You niggers are posting in a bait thread.
>>55373788
>Implying the endless wastes of the middle east are anything but godless. Islam ruins everything it touches.
>>55373461
Muslims are this nice? How come everything you say never happens in the real world. Where are these benevolent Muslims you speak of?
>>55373845
Muslims pay zakat, infidels pay jizya, kharaj, fai, ushur, ghanima
Doesn't really sound fair, besides you don't have to pay zakat if you don't earn enough money, just like jizya.
>>55373849
>But if Islam is true
>If Islam is true
>Islam true
Watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCHHfBeu0QE
The Quran and the Islamic religion is simply the bully club/cult of an old world Arabian warlord.
How anyone could watch that video and still believe that the Quran are "gods words" or anything like that is beyond me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCHHfBeu0QE
Watch the video and tell me you disagree.
>>55373495
I prefer paying taxes for my fellow countrymen, not some mudshits. Sale cocu.
>>55374021
Operative word being "if".
>>55373849
To quote the Qu'ran:
>Say [ô Muhammad], "I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner."
So how can you believe you can make decisions based on what you think will happen to people? See all the layers of abstraction you add?
I think this post is important because it shows how "bearded men" can corrupt Islam with their opinions. I could argue that Islam is against transgression and oppression and that removing freedom of speech is exactly that, but I don't even need to because the Qu'ran has pretty clear rules for what is not allowed (see: adultery).
>>55374006
Early Islam only had jizya and zakat, later inventions derived from (perceived) political needs cannot be considered Islamic since they have no theological ground. And ghanim is for Muslims, I'm not familiar with fai or ushur.
You're right that no everyone has to pay jizya/zakat, it depends of your financial situation, Christians who had no need for protection because they had their own militias allied to Muslims didn't pay jizya either.
>>55373278
My bad, just got back. At work atm still.
The 717 one, at the end of the first sassanian conquests.
And it is not quite just a simple toleration + taxation of the people of the book that he enacted. He makes it clear one of the reason for his excessive ban on proselytising was because it implicitly clashed with the shahada ( one god. One prophet) thus they (christians, jews) could not even really talk about their god with muslims or other minorities as it would contest the 2 testimonials.
Even from the start, it was doomed. Just like the Abu Bakr correspondence with sassinian king yazdegerd iii, where the young 8yo king asks why the muslims are raiding his land, and the islamic emissary responded "because god ordered them to do so". Let's remember the sassanians never even got the chance to oppress arabs : (a) they never controlled that area of the gulf and (b) they just concluded a devastating war with constantinople and were simply incapable of being aggressive, even if they wanted to. The only reason why Abu Bakr attacked his neighbours was not to protect muslims, but military conquest.
There was also the Ridda apostacy wars happening around the time in yemen and borders of east africa.
The only time muslims put religion "aside" was during the early abbasid period with the mutazili doctrine & and actual repression of mullahs during the madhi inquisition.
All caliphates (in the relifious sense) a shit.
>>55370535
>fringe maniacs
try saying anything bad about Mohammed or Islam in an Islamic country.
fucking retarded Achmed sandnigger, fuck off.
>>55374444
Quads of truth.
Try saying it in Malmo Sweden or parts of Germany now also and you will be killed.
>draw Jesus and nobody bats an eye
>draw Muhammad and an entire fucking nation demands your crucifixion
>>55374231
Did you watch the video?
>>55374337
At first, at Mecca, Muhammad was self described as only a messenger and a warner, but afterward in Medina he became a judge, a military commander and a legislator.
The Medina constitution makes this clear enough.
Now, 5:33 states :
>Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
Now, if I start to actively preach against Islam, am I not "waging war against Allah and his messenger"?
You guys should read Pierre Bayle. Or John Locke on tolerance. Or Voltaire.
>>55374387
First pact was made in 637, a lot of the restrictions came from the Christians themselves.
Are we arguing politics or theology? Yes the Caliphates made a lot of mistakes, as for the Ridda wars it was tribes breaking their oaths. I'm not an expert on why they attacked the Sassanians but I doubt it was transgression.
>>55374534
>invade and bomb civilians in Middle-East
>support theocracies and terrorists
>now is a great time to make edgy cartoons!
Causality is a thing.
>>55372989
So you have to go back more than a thousand years, seems to me this is not about history but about the present and in the present there is not a single islamic country where your safety can be garuanteed if you insult Muhhammed. Islam is anti free speech as fuck.
>>55370169
Try saying you're gay in Mecca, the spiritual capital of Islam. If I have real free speech I'd have the right to say that weather true or a joke.
>>55374559
Yes.
>>55374534
I don't think there are any laws against drawing Wolverine.
>>55374653
>>invade and bomb civilians in Middle-East
American citizens are responsible for the actions of the rich globalist elite slash the Federal reserve who control our military and fuck with other countries for their own gain.
Really?
>>55374653
>Causality is a thing.
Yeah because the Charlie Hebdo shooters both said they were retaliating against Western foreign policy regarding the Middle East.
That's a great point, mate.
Or no, wait, now I remember..... THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO MURDER PEOPLE FOR DRAWING CARTOONS THEY DIDN'T LIKE
>>55370611
There's plenty of them in Middlesbrough.
>>55370879
WHAT FLAG IS THIS
>>55374824
Some cute little tiny Island owned by the Brits.
And yes it is rare flag.
>>55374653
>using war propaganda to justify the murder of people who did nothing more than use pen and paper
This mindset is why your people have provided no positive contribution to human civilization and have spent the past millennia killing each other in the middle of the desert with sticks and rocks.
>>55374337
Ushur is a tax on agricultural produce/ trade tax (for infidels it was twice as much), fai was when muslims seized properties from infidels, which infidels could sometimes buy back (at around 100%).
>>55372700
Why didn't you also get over sounding like an emotional hysterical 55 year old woman too?
>>55374644
No, the context here is war and killing not writing pamphlets or making cartoons, here is the verse before that:
>Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.
You can say what you want, as long as you don't transgress (kill or attack Muslims).
>>55374698
Dominant Islamic sects of today are shit, they're afraid to lose their power, that's the reality.
>>55374760
They absolutely did talk about foreign policy and started shilling Alqaeda shit, they didn't translate the interviews and phone calls?
Those people went to Middle-East to get their training, probably paid by your tax money.
>>55374757
First valid point I see in this thread, fair enough you're right.
>>55374868
There's only like 50 people on that island and they all share 2 gigs of data a month, so it's obviously a proxy.
>>55370189
>less than 1 minute
MUDSLIMES
BTFO
T
F
O
>>55373804
I didn't deny it, it wasn't valid because nothing said that free speech is banned or even wrong.
>>55374824
Pitcairn Islands, actually a pretty rare flag. I'm frankly quite impressed >>55370879
>>55374898
I do not justify it, I just said that it was expected, we cannot control our retards when civil war is wrecking countries and anti-Islam propaganda everywhere on the web.
As I said, causality is a thing.
>>55374913
I knew that greedy Muslim politicians would use jizya to persecute non-Muslims (especially when the Ottoman empire was relevant) but that's pretty harsh.
Still waiting for that proof
Btw emotional appeals like this >>55374444 do not constitute proof
>>55370169
''33:59 Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garment hang low over them, so as to be recognized and not insulted [aa-dh-aa]: God is most forgiving, most merciful. 60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. 61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed''
Does this Sura satisfy your demand?
>>55375074
muhammad killed a woman who wrote offensive poetry
>>55375288
That report is considered to be fabricated and not authentic.
>>55375233
'the hypocrites, the sick at heart' are vague terms for infidels. but 'those who spread lies' is a pretty clear term.
>>55375288
That event is not well-recorded, but even so, prove that he killed her because he didn't agree with her having free speech
According to people who recorded the event he had her killed because she was raising sedition against him and also calling for his death
There are no countries on earth that have such liberal free speech laws that you can openly call for someone's death
>>55374918
I knew what 5:32 was and it doesn't help your case.
It states quite clearly that murder is forbidden except for those who have themselves killed or for those who have done corruption in the land. Well, that second point is at the heart of the matter, because the definition of "corruption" isn't clear.
But even accepting your main point that 5:33 is ties to its context, are you actually saying that it isn't relevant anymore and can be ignored, since the original context doesn't exists anymore? Are you saying that there are part of the Koran that can be discarded? And if they cannot be discarded, are are they to be incorporated?
I'll bring up another example. We know that when Muhammad won against the Quraish, pretty much one of the first thing he did was smash the old idols. We also know that polytheism is one of the worst sin of Islam.
Well, that's all fine and well, but how are you gonna argue that Muhammad was the paragon of tolerance and free speech when he himself basically outlawed whole religions? The only religions he respected where the "corrupted" abrahamic ones, Judaism and Christianity and even then the believers of same had to be second class citizens.
All of this annoys me. We don't need it. We can just put it aside and do better than this and do so all day every day. People can do what they like with their property and we don't need the Koran to tell us about it.
>>55374653
Who are you kidding, of course the first treaty in 637 was more benign. It had only been 5 years since mohammad's death, and they were still mostly flirting with the southern regions of the sassanian empire. They were not in position to command global policies yet. The 717 version is the first dhimmi treaty on a conquered land, with muslims as absolute rulers. Their tunes changed immediately once control was achieved.
And no, the persians committed no transgression apart from being in their way up north from the gulf. As I said, they just came out from a pyrrhic succession of battles with constantinople (they had been engages in constant disputes and armistices since the 300s) and could not even carry an aggressive policy if they wanted to. That's why abu bakr captured so much southern land quickly and 3 years later umar 1st enacted his pact and rallied the support of minorities against the zoroastrian state by making grand promises. It took a dozen or so years for sassanians to replenish their army and develop a resistance. When the conquest was finished and arabs finally had a working administration, umar II ironically finished the job that his namesake predecessor began 60 years before.
The sassanians literally did nothing wrong.
And it's pointless to seek to separate theology from political in a caliphate. The laws are based on the qur'an, the language was made to recite the qur'an, the leadership is based on the clan surah of the qu'ran and the judiciary, executive and legislative branches of government are intermarried with ijtihad and fatwas.
7th century shit, basically.
>>55375393
A prophet should have nobler aims in mind than the preservation of his own political power, or even his life.
>>55370546
We're not interested in letting Muslims define what is and isn't 'sedition'
>>55370169
Who gives a fuck what the books says, look at what the followers do. Words on a page mean fuck all if the followers are acting like wild chimpanzees, and they are. Look at Rotherham, at the Hebdo murders, look at all the seperate incidents that have one thing in common, the criminal identifies himself as a Muslim. Grow the fuck up kid, if you're so butthurt about the image of islam in the West, then set out to change the followers of islam instead of wasting our time lying and shilling.
>>55375624
That's not how language works you fuckwad, you don't get to define a word and then tell us what you think it should or shouldn't mean. Sedition is sedition, plain and simple.
>>55375393
heh, he ordered someones death because she called for someones death
but the frenchie above said it's mawdu so i guess it is
33:57: Indeed, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.
So, annoying allah and Muhammad is a big no-no
What about the punishment for apostasy? Is it really free-speech if I'm going to be executed for leaving Islam?
>>55375588
If he doesn't also consider his own survival how will he propagate his message?
You have a very naive and romanticized idea of what a prophet should be.
>>55375963
Jesus is a counter example to this claim.
>>55375861
>What about the punishment for apostasy? Is it really free-speech if I'm going to be executed for leaving Islam?
2:256
You won't be
>>55376015
Jesus was sold out by the jews
>>55375456
Corruption is clearly defined as murder in the verse before, I'm starting to think that you have reading comprehension issues.
Why are you moving goalposts? You use logical fallacies such as contextomy and start moving goalposts when corrected?
The Qu'ran is very clear: "for you is your religion and for me mine", you brace for freedom of speech and belief yet you tell me that I shouldn't follow the Qu'ran with very weak "arguments".
>>55375492
The pact was changed, that was my point. Not all the laws are based on the Qu'ran, in fact most are not, they're based on commentaries, debates and consensus. How can you not know this and argue on this topic?
>>55376015
It's a great example actually, we don't know what Jesus said.
>>55376061
Daily reminder mudslimes unironically think Jesus sent another person on the cross through the use of deception
>>55376061
2:256 is not about apostasy tho, but about forced conversions iirc
Sahih Bukhari 9:83:17/ 4:52:260 pretty much tells you to kill people that leave islam (but not if they were forced to convert)
>>55376379
>Sahih Bukhari
>>55370169
how about you go to a radical islamic country, openly insult mohammed and claim islam is not the true religion. ill even pay for your trip if you video tape yourself doing that.
>>55376416
aint bukhari one of the most legit hadiths? nice meme photo btw, can i use it?
>>55376222
>let me teach you your religion
except that's not what we believe at all
>>55376379
woah woah, since when were you the one who gets to narrowly define what any verse in the quran means? you're behaving very much like ISIS right now
>>55370169
I cannot prove anything since even muslim scholars disagree with each other. The least I can say is that 78% Of Danish muslims wanted to prosecute the cartoonist who belittled the prophet and it is enough to be wary of Islam.
>>55376609
>cannot prove anything
First honest answer, congratulations
>>55370169
Blasphemy is a punishable offense. Therefore, there's no free speech.
I have no problem with honest Muslims openly claiming that they are enemies of free speech. They're against me and I'm against them. Clear and simple.
But you guys saying that Islam can adapt to Western society, free speech, freedom of religion, are lying scum. Shill somewhere else.
>>55376556
>ad hominem
well
Allah said, (There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.
It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said [that before Islam], "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated [from Al-Madinah], some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed,
(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)
Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,
("Embrace Islam." The man said, "I dislike it." The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.")
here is my nigga Ibn Kathirs tafsir on it. Sounds alot like he talks about forced conversions, not about killing apostates
>>55376181
>Corruption is clearly defined as murder in the verse before
Are you refering to 5:32? I will have to respectfully disagree.
If 5:32 is to define corruption as meaning "murder", then the sentence is very redundant indeed.
>We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land [...]
> kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption
The use of the word "or" makes it quite clear that murder (the taking of a soul) and corruption are two different things.
Another translation reads :
> On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.
It is, again, clear that "murder" and "spreading mischief" are two different concepts and that the former is not the definition of the later.
Just to be clear, the goalpost is to know whether or not Islam is in favor of free speech as we understand it today. If, in order to maintain that it is, you have to defend an incoherent interpretation of the Koran, then I'd argue that Islam doesn't support free speech, which I why I ask if 5:33 can be discarded entirely or if it's still relevant, because I'd argue that if you maintain that it can be discarded, then you'd be contradicting your scriptures.
>>55376181
The point is indeed crystal clear. The muslims invaded a land of a 8 year old king that posed no threat to them, nor intended to, and in fact was rather tolerant for its time. They made false promises to minorities during their first arrival and later on once they finally gained power, summarily retracted them and enforced harsher rules upon those minorities that initially supported them.
I've already mentionned ijtihad and fatwas making a large bulk of the shari'a. That being said, those interpretations and rulings are based solely on the qur'an. See the early salafists of the 7th-8th century. The sheik al-islam and his other fellows were fervant ascetic monks who based their entire philosophy on, and only, the text.
Come on, how can you call yourself muslim and say the majlis-ash-shura (that is rule by consultation within caliphates) is not synonymous with islamic governance? And where does shura comes from? The qur'an once again. Everything about islam is intertwined, and as long as they are unwilling to separate state from religion, there will never be a chance at peace.
>>55376682
This so much.
would you /pol/?
>>55376725
>or for spreading mischief in the land
aka not being a good infidel and living as a 3rd class citizen under oppressive Islamic rule.
>>55376774
Yes. I love smart, opinionated women.
>>55376705
That still doesn't mean the verse only has that one meaning. That's one possible meaning. Taken in a wider sense, it could also mean that you can't stop people leaving it either, otherwise the non-compulsion wouldn't make any sense.
>>55376705
>>55376890
Muhammad never narrated any verse of the Quran to his followers and said "This is the only possible meaning of the verse"
>>55376556
>taqyyiah intensifies
Andtheysaid we have killed the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him unto himself. God is almighty and wise.
qur'an 4:157
Also daily reminder the cruxificion is one of the 2 things we absolutely know to be true about jesus through recognized ancient roman historians like josephus and tacitus.
Islam can't even into known history.
>>55377090
And where did that verse say we believe he got swapped around with some guy? Stop making shit up and then accusing us of taqiyya, you're just doing your non-Muslim flavoured taqiyya right now
>>55377232
>it was made to appear like that to them
Did they use a hologram?
>>55370169
Can you prove beyond a doubt that Islam supports free speech?
>>55372294
But white Muslims are more violent than the white population at large.
>>55370169
>people take islam as a threat
>>55377090
Read again you mong.
>did not die
>not even crucified
>it was made to appear this way to them
>dont worry kuffar, it's everyone else who is lying
But somebody did die on that cross. We know that there was a crucifixion. So either jesus died up there, or somebody swapped prisoners and made him take his place.
>>55376890
>>55376945
I gave you a tafsir on why 2:256 is about forced conversions and not about killing apostates, and even gave you hadiths that tells you to kill apostates.
Is that free speech to you, killing apostates? And judging by what Muhammad did, this doesn't really seem that strange.
I'm done talking to you if you won't come with anymore arguments
>Hur durr
>>55377568 meant for >>55377232
>>55376725
Did you read the notes? Corruption is defined as waging wars, burning trees, attacking people. It has nothing to do with anti-Islamic pamphlets or cartoons.
The problem here is YOUR OWN incoherent interpretation of the Qu'ran, you refuse to respect the context of the verses you quote. Show me clear quotes against freedom of speech, not contextomy and your own "what if", we already have bearded men to make stupid assumptions.
>>55376735
>That being said, those interpretations and rulings are based solely on the qur'an
That's factually wrong, Islamic jurisprudence started with consensus about "what Muhammad would do/did" and developed like that.
The Caliph's rule is secular, he leaves the theology to qadis and ijma al-aimmah, for example Muhammad applied different jurisprudences Jews/Christians were free to use their own.
If you want to discuss the mistakes of the Caliphates it's fine but it's political and not theological.
>>55376512
Bukhari has most of the reports but is no the most legit, it was canonized in the 11th century while Muwatta was considered more authentic.
Hadiths are not that reliable desu, sometimes Muslims applied special rules for special occasions and hadiths reports are often without context.
>>55377820
yea, if the hadiths contradict the quran, then the hadiths are bullshit. but hadiths can be used if they support what is already written in the quran. i read up about sahih-al bukhari, and found out that "sahih" means correct, so they should hold some merit if they don't contradict the quran
>>55376813
lol kuck
>>55377389
You think God can't do miracles?
>>55378057
Yes but you should look at the methodology used to define hadiths as sahih or not, it's just circular reasoning because they rely on hadiths to validated other hadiths instead of the Qu'ran.
The biggest scholar of the latest century was kicked out of Saudi Arabia, lost his teacher job and mosque and put in jail for criticizing the hadiths and that methodology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Nasiruddin_al-Albani#Legacy
>>55377584
>tafsir
Is not authoritative and does not become law just because some guy said so
tafsir is explanation of a verse, ie. one possible explanation
>>55378225
hm, thanks for the info
>>55377753
>Did you read the notes?
It seems to me you are giving me an interpretation of "mischief" and "corruption" that is just as much the product of bearded man as the one I would be likely to provide.
Ibn Kathir states :
> ("Do not make mischief on the earth''), that is disbelief and acts of disobedience.''
> (And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,''), means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=436
Is this the only interpretation? Presumably not, but it's a very plausible one from a reputable scholar.
>>55378183
God can do anything.
But your original point was that it would be stupid to suppose that Jesus was replaced by some other guy on the cross, and when I point that the alternative is no less ridiculous, you tell me that God might have performed a miracle.
But by the exact same reasoning, God could have swapped Jesus for another guy on the cross. The wording of the verse suggests that that's what happened somehow.
So either some other guy was killed instead of Jesus, or there was a hologram, or people hallucinated, etc.
>>55378369
>It seems to me you are giving me an interpretation of "mischief" and "corruption" that is just as much the product of bearded man as the one I would be likely to provide.
How so? I use nothing but the context of the previous verse? It's not an interpretation, I'm just pointing out the context.
>Is this the only interpretation? Presumably not, but it's a very plausible one from a reputable scholar.
Now you're using an alternate translation to lookup the notes for a different verse? That definition applies for Muslims, but how does it apply to non-Muslims who are free to believe what they want?
Please answer my question, surely you can provide a quote.
>>55377753
>That's factually wrong, Islamic jurisprudence started with consensus about "what Muhammad would do/did" and developed like that
And how the hell are they supposed to do that without using the qur'an? The ahadiths had to come from fucking somewhere first. Are you actually saying that islamic legislation has in fact nothing to do with islam?
>The Caliph's rule is secular
Shura is dictated practice straight from the qur'an. How can a caliphate be secular when the governance system employed in islamic countries is issued from their holy book? Even caliph basically means steward (to mohammad).
>If you want to discuss the mistakes of the Caliphates it's fine but it's political and not theological
It is both, family. Tradition stems back to mohammad 10 years as a statesman after his flight in 622. For the following 10 years, he made laws, waged war, collected taxes, made alliances and deals, mediated disputes and so forth. He ruled, basically. Politics is intertwined with Islam simply due to the fact your prophet was a politician for the 10 most interesting years of his life. And he was successful at it. You can't seriously say this had no impact on the practice and understanding of islam. That's something not seen in the key prophets of judaism or christianity, where Jesus died as an outcast on a cross; or moses who died as in exile, forbidden by god to enter the promised land.
Those biographies are bound to impact the temperament and culture shaped by those religions.
Islam was meant to be a glorious and victorious tale, to inspire conquest and expansion. And as I said in >>55377090 , even mohammad could not handle the idea of a "failing jesus", so he told a different version of that story.
It's not my problem islam can't even plagiarise properly without exposing the seams.
>>55378525
Nevermind that it tells the christians that jesus basically lied, never died for their suns, that the original sin is still in full effect and salvation/resurrection is a photoshopped meme.
>>55378816
>And how the hell are they supposed to do that without using the qur'an? The ahadiths had to come from fucking somewhere first. Are you actually saying that islamic legislation has in fact nothing to do with islam?
It's not hard to understand:
- you shouldn't eat swine => Islamic law
- pact made with Christians/taxes => politics
>Shura is dictated practice straight from the qur'an. How can a caliphate be secular when the governance system employed in islamic countries is issued from their holy book? Even caliph basically means steward (to mohammad).
Can you rule with the Qu'ran alone? The answer is no. I already told you that Muhammad applied different jurisprudence including jewish/christian jurisprudence.
>It is both, family. Tradition stems back to mohammad 10 years as a statesman after his flight in 622. For the following 10 years, he made laws, waged war, collected taxes, made alliances and deals, mediated disputes and so forth.
That's not the Qu'ran, he didn't always use Islam to do so, do you have trouble understand this?
>Those biographies are bound to impact the temperament and culture shaped by those religions.
Agreed, but culture is different from theology.
>It's not my problem islam can't even plagiarise properly without exposing the seams.
If you complain about continuity in Abrahamic tradition I have bad news for you.
Why do you waste your life shitposting about Islam? Your weak arguments are easily dismissed by anyone with knowledge and irrational criticism is a compelling argument against you, so why?
>>55370169
In a german Facebook group I like to read from in from time to time, people actually debate certain contents from the quran. They seem pretty civilized to me, even their grammar is pretty perfect. They even complain about muslims that don't abide the law of the country unless it's highly offensive to them. Whatever that means. Germany was obviously not highly offensive ot this particular person.
>>55379141
Easy with ad hom, I can see you are upset. And it is obviously religious. The umar pact (both iterations from both umar) are based on the qur'an's dhimmi.
Saying ijtihad is not muslim and not related to quran teachings is top kek.
Also the millets developed later and only really forished under the ottoman.
Im not here to defend christianity. I think you're both shit. Albeit different and normies dont understand that yet. Try harder.
>>55378620
>How so? I use nothing but the context of the previous verse? It's not an interpretation, I'm just pointing out the context.
Ibn Kathir is also using context.
>Now you're using an alternate translation to lookup the notes for a different verse?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I used another translation earlier to show that both translation made a distinction between "corruption/mischief" and "murder".
> That definition applies for Muslims, but how does it apply to non-Muslims who are free to believe what they want?
If we refer to the Ibn Kathir quotes provided, we will see that "mischief" includes disbelief. Spreading mischief thus means, among other things, spreading disbelief and as such it applies to non believers.
Furthermore :
> If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to Allah, they are indeed unjust wrong-doers. (3:94)
> Who doth more wrong than he who inventeth a lie against Allah or rejecteth His sings? But verily the wrong-doers never shall prosper. (6:21)
>Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what Allah hath revealed"? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! - the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),"Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against Allah, and scornfully to reject of His signs!" (6:93)
And there are many more. Now, it seems to me that saying lies against Allah and his prophet, which includes denying the existence of Allah or denying the prophethood of Muhammad, is something that his VERY (the most?) wrong indeed according to the Koran, and therefore is a form of mischief, and should not be tolerated.
At the very least I fail to see why there is ground to tolerate that which is considered to be the greatest wrong one can do.
>>55379477
>Ibn Kathir is also using context.
It's not the same verse, the tafsir for 5:33 is (surprise!) about war, not making cartoons peacefully.
>I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I used another translation earlier to show that both translation made a distinction between "corruption/mischief" and "murder".
I asked you to look for the tafsir of those verses specifically.
>If we refer to the Ibn Kathir quotes provided, we will see that "mischief" includes disbelief. Spreading mischief thus means, among other things, spreading disbelief and as such it applies to non believers.
But that's your opinion/interpretation, how can an opinion/interpretation be over the Qu'ran? The Qu'ran is very clear: you're free to believe and worship what you want. How do you deal with contradictions like this?
>And there are many more. Now, it seems to me that saying lies against Allah and his prophet, which includes denying the existence of Allah or denying the prophethood of Muhammad, is something that his VERY (the most?) wrong indeed according to the Koran, and therefore is a form of mischief, and should not be tolerated.
>At the very least I fail to see why there is ground to tolerate that which is considered to be the greatest wrong one can do.
Divine punishment != human laws, what Allah will do with them in the afterlife is irrelevant as Allah said they're free to believe what they want in this life.
It's not hard to understand.
>>55370169
The earliest biography (sirat) of Muhammad's life is the work of Ibn Ishaq (85-151 A.H.) who was born in Medina. In this we learn of Muhammad's actions after he had conquered the towns of Khaybar. This event is also accepted and recorded by Ibn Kathir [1].
THE REST OF THE AFFAIR OF KHAYBAR
Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, (tr. A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 515.)
This action of Muhammad teaches us a very important point about his character. He was the type of man who used torture to achieve his goals. In this case he wanted the treasure of the tribe of al-Nadir. The custodian of the treasure would not give it to him, therefore Muhammad gave the order to have him tortured. Muhammad's companions knew how to torture someone and proceeded to do so. This is the type of man Muhammad was. He could be merciful and forgiving if he wanted to be, but he could also have someone tortured for money to expand his empire. In this regard Muhammad is like ordinary kings and dictators throughout human history.
>>55379435
>it's x because I said so
Look, you have no rebuttal and it's okay, if you're going to deny facts like the formation of the Islamic jurisprudence and all that then I'll mock you for it.
You didn't answer, why?
>>55379873
>>it's x because I said so
That's a funny comment on a thread where all the replies have been 'it's x because I said so' except the guy who said he had no proof.
>>55379777
I know it's not the same verse but it refers to the same concept. It's the same word. There are other verses in the Koran prohibiting the spreading of mischief.
> I asked you to look for the tafsir of those verses specifically.
> The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification -- such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth -- will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=786&Itemid=60
So it leaves the question of the definition of mischief open, which I why I provided the Ibn Kathir definition.
> you're free to believe and worship what you want. How do you deal with contradictions like this?
The Koran only recognize the right to worship of people of the book. And you're the one moving the goalpost here. The debate is about free speech and people's right to say, more or less, whatever they want, not their right to, for example, private worship as dhimmis.
>how can an opinion/interpretation be over the Qu'ran?
All reading of the Koran are a form of interpretation. There isn't a "non interpreted" version. It all boil down to justification.
>Divine punishment != human laws
It's fairly clear the Muhammad formed a government under which religious freedom was limited, in the form of the destruction and the prohibition of the cult of the polytheist. These were very much temporal actions, and seem to be the context of many of those verses concerning the mischief spreading and the forging of lies against the prophet.
It seems to me that you're the one interpreting things to suit your need. Once again, I fail to see how there can be any Islamic justification for allowing unbelief to spread, especially when it's considered to be one of the worst act one can do.
>>55380298
Talking about yourself mister "the Islamic jurisprudence comes from the Qu'ran"? People like you are hilarious, I wouldn't imagine going on another thread to shitpost about a religion I don't know much about just "because".
That's pretty irrational, so answer me? Why are you doing this? What type of person would go out of his way to waste hours shitposting about something like this? Honest questions.
>>55380459
I'm OP in case you didn't notice. I still haven't got an answer to my question, only emotion and diversionary tactics. No one has proved that Islam is anti-free-speech. No one has come with a verse from the Quran that explicitly takes away the right of free speech from any Muslim or non-Muslim.
I even produced a verse that says 'There is no compulsion in religion", which could be taken to mean apostasy is allowed, contrary to what people have been saying.
I'm still waiting but I'm pretty sure no one will prove beyond a doubt that Islam is anti-free-speech.
So allow me to state it very clearly. Islam allows free speech.
And a clarification, Islam does not allow sedition against the state authorities. Which is not equivalent to free speech and never has been in any society, not from the time of ancient Greece.
>>55380456
>I know it's not the same verse but it refers to the same concept. It's the same word. There are other verses in the Koran prohibiting the spreading of mischief.
That's not how Arabic works friend, a word can have different meaning based on the context.
>So it leaves the question of the definition of mischief open, which I why I provided the Ibn Kathir definition.
It doesn't, you're adding abstraction by using translations and looking up the tafsir and opinion of different verses. Why do you need all this? :^)
>The Koran only recognize the right to worship of people of the book. And you're the one moving the goalpost here. The debate is about free speech and people's right to say, more or less, whatever they want, not their right to, for example, private worship as dhimmis.
You didn't answer the question, how do you deal with that contradiction? Why do you value unrelated opinions over the Qu'ran?
>All reading of the Koran are a form of interpretation. There isn't a "non interpreted" version. It all boil down to justification.
We're not at that stage yet, you refuse to read it without contextomy and other layers of abstraction like unrelated opinions. Why?
>These were very much temporal actions, and seem to be the context of many of those verses concerning the mischief spreading and the forging of lies against the prophet.
Non-sequitur, you're moving goalposts I'm correcting you for failing to provide a quote while the Qu'ran is very clear about punishment (adultery).
>I fail to see how there can be any Islamic justification for allowing unbelief to spread, especially when it's considered to be one of the worst act one can do.
As I already said: divine punishment != human laws, being considered bad and having laws against it are not mutually exclusive, please try to make sense.
>>55380643
Oh nevermind yes, I'm writing a paper on my second monitor and not really looking at ids.
All I want to know is why people would go out of their way to lie about a different religion, I don't see myself doing it that so it's really weird.
>>55379873
Look, it's not my fault you went full going autistic when I said in >>55376735 that ijtihad and fatwas make a large portion of the shari'a, and that those things are obviously based on the qur'an.
Obviously not every every ahadiths will have its sources straight from the qur'an, and sometimes (and eventually often) will come from someone else's preexisting interpretation or ruling. I've never tried to say that, what I am saying is that legislation and religion have always been intermarried within the caliphates.
If you simply want to say that Islamic jurists had already worked out an legislative system independent from the Qur'an by the late 630s, a time where qur'an was purely transmitted orally and the companions still existed, then be my guest.
It still does not make it any less qur'anic or muslim at its core.
>You didn't answer, why?
If you mean "can you rule with the qur'an alone?", that's because I never made that claim. However it is equally ridiculous to claim that the qur'an is not the root from which islamic jurisprudence was built and developed. It shaped the form of islamic governments, the roles of the institutions, the standards for whom can take office, a certain amount core of laws. Like I mentioned earlier with the early uluma salafis, just look at both the work and life of sheikh-ul-Islam Hanbali and the influence he had on your courts and compendium of laws.
If you find it easier to sleep by pretending islamic jurisprudence has nothing to do with islam, that's it's only political, then more power to you.
>>55370343
Thank you Australia
>>55370169
See
>>55370189
/thread
>>55381158
>and that those things are obviously based on the qur'an.
Because this is not true as I already told you, commentaries on the hadiths and consensus make up most of it. You cannot rule only with the Qu'ran.
As I already told you the Islamic jurisprudence started as "what Muhammad would do/did", you cannot rule with the Qu'ran alone.
>If you mean "can you rule with the qur'an alone?", that's because I never made that claim. However it is equally ridiculous to claim that the qur'an is not the root from which islamic jurisprudence was built and developed. It shaped the form of islamic governments, the roles of the institutions, the standards for whom can take office, a certain amount core of laws. Like I mentioned earlier with the early uluma salafis, just look at both the work and life of sheikh-ul-Islam Hanbali and the influence he had on your courts and compendium of laws.
The Islamic jurisprudence was following the example of Muhammad and his great mediation, they wanted to emulate his sense of justice and used hadiths, reports and commentaries for that, are you pretending to be stupid?
>If you find it easier to sleep by pretending islamic jurisprudence has nothing to do with islam, that's it's only political, then more power to you.
Already told you:
- you shouldn't eat swine => Islamic law
- pact made with Christians/taxes => politics
>>55380849
>Why do you need all this?
The Koran leaves the definition of mischief undetermined in the verse cited (5:33). We therefore have to look elsewhere to get said definition. We cannot expect the Koran to repeat the definition of a concept every time it makes use of it.
I also use Ibn Khatir because he is a reputable scholar on the subject, and we can't accuse him of wanting to bash Islam.
>Non-sequitur, you're moving goalposts I'm correcting you for failing to provide a quote while the Qu'ran is very clear about punishment (adultery).
I did provide a quotes about the spreading of mischief and the forging of lies against Allah. 5:33 was such a quote but you have rejected it by saying that it is tied to a certain context even though, from an inter-textual perspective, a certain definition of mischief include the spreading of unbelief and even though, from the context of the life of Muhammad, it is clear that he either smashed the idols once in power or placed people of the book in the condition of second class citizens.
You say I don't pay attention to context but when I do provide context, inter textual or otherwise, you accuse me of using other verses or of making non sequiturs.
I mean, look, I get it. You want to believe that the Koran is this liberal document of freedom and modernity. That's fine.
> how do you deal with that contradiction
I thought I made it clear that there was no contradiction. Islamic freedom of worship is limited and does not imply freedom of speech as understood today.
>being considered bad and having laws against it are not mutually exclusive
So an Islamic society would allow that which is bad? That doesn't seem to happen much in practice but that may be.
I'll note that, for somebody who asks for quote and sources, you don't provide much quotes yourself. I think you're committed to believing the Koran is something it isn't, that it's closer to western ideals than it really is.
>>55370169
I could post a long list of sources and quotes I could post statistics of indcidents of free speech violations and attacks on people for excercising free speech. I could read the Qoran myself and site it. But I will not because I have no particular desire to understand Muslims, except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other Middle eastern characteristics, the Muslim has no regard for human life and is an all out son of bitch, barbarian, and rapist peadiphile.
>>55380643
>I still haven't got an answer to my question
You've had about a half a dozen posters posting excerpts of the qur'an showing just the opposite.
Your only rebute, and of other mudshits, was that it was not technically anti-free speech because it violates the qur'an or that violence is justified when provoked.
>No one has come with a verse from the Quran that explicitly takes away the right of free speech from any Muslim or non-Muslim.
>>55370343
>>55370439
>>55372276
>>55375233
>>55375861
That's even without going into all the contemporary shit we've been seeing proving just the opposite.
>>55380643
>I even produced a verse that says 'There is no compulsion in religion"
It's a shame its only in surah 2; and thus can be superceded depending on the interpretation regarding the priority in which verses are revealed, and which can be abrogated.
But followers will always find a way to justify their cherrypicking in order to match the day's weather, or their own ambition.
>2:106
"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"
>And a clarification, Islam does not allow sedition against the state authorities. Which is not equivalent to free speech in any society
Nice dystopian touch : Let me make an impossible claim, then make it law and blasphemy to challenge. It's no longer a ban on an activity, it's a ban on thinking and that is about as close to totalitarianism as you can get.
You have to be smoking crazy shisha to believe your own shit.
>>55370189
First reply is always best reply
>>55381529
Must I repeat myself?
I have already said that shari'a is made of both laws upon the qur'an and the sunna. Are you saying either are not related to quranic teachings, that the influence and thematics of islam have not inspired and shaped those rulings, and the rulings and all the other isnads that preceded them before fiqh is enacted ?
What I am saying is that "qur'an is the fundamental root of islamic jurisprudence" and your response is "not every law is directly derived from the quran". It's autistic as fuck.
>>55382025
>The Koran leaves the definition of mischief undetermined in the verse cited (5:33).
Wrong, your inability to read the previous verses and context is the issue here. This is called contextomy and is not a valid methodology.
>I also use Ibn Khatir because he is a reputable scholar on the subject
Non-sequitur, Ibn Khatir doesn't talk about those specific verses but the general definition (that can change, because Arabic) of one word from an alternate translation. Lot of abstraction and logical fallacies so far, why do you need all this?
>I did provide a quotes about the spreading of mischief and the forging of lies against Allah.
I already provided a rebuttal to this, you're unable to provide a clear quote and you need:
- an alternate translation
- a general definition of one word of said translation
- the non-specific opinion of a scholar that doesn't apply to non-Muslims
All this over the context of those verses and factual/historical data (how people were allowed to criticize Muhammad and Islam). You have problems.
>I mean, look, I get it. You want to believe that the Koran is this liberal document of freedom and modernity.
No, it's you who want to believe that the Qu'ran is literally hitler, I'm sorry for correcting your weak "arguments".
>I thought I made it clear that there was no contradiction.
Freedom of worship is not limited (at least not by the Qu'ran) you didn't answer the question, how do you deal with that contradiction?
>So an Islamic society would allow that which is bad? That doesn't seem to happen much in practice but that may be.
>I'll note that, for somebody who asks for quote and sources, you don't provide much quotes yourself. I think you're committed to believing the Koran is something it isn't, that it's closer to western ideals than it really is.
You need to stop making assumptions and moving goalposts, I think my point is pretty clear.
>>55370535
>isolated incidents carried out by fringe maniacs
Sure Muhammad, because Islamic societies are nothing but bastions of liberty.
>>55382390
Your reading comprehension is really awful, I'm contesting "and that those things are obviously based on the qur'an. ". That's wrong, commentaries of the hadiths and the hadiths themselves can be totally unrelated to the Qu'ran. Even worse if we take in account hadiths before the Qu'ran was complete or when Muhammad used jewish laws for jews.
What shaped the Islamic jurisprudence is the will to emulate Muhammad's (perceived/alleged) actions.
>>55370169
Of course, of course a stupid faggot from Britain would think otherwise. Fuck you European traitors.
>>55382749
>bomb countries
>support terrorism
>support warlords and theocracies
hurrr muh bastions of liberty!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
It's as dumb as looking at Christian African country to criticize Christianity, as dumb as looking at Stalin to criticize Atheism.
>>55382861
It's not like the US is keked by another semitic religion, ayy.
>>55370169
i suggest going to pakistan with a sign saying "Muhammad was not a prophet" or "There is no God". i suggest going to any muslim community anywhere in the world and doing this.
>learn by doing
>>55382136
The first verse (4:89) in the ones you quoted is a blatant and shameless misquote, therefore I disregard the rest as lies and propaganda.
Do better on your next attempt, you're getting there.
>>55382136
>superceded
Surah 2 being the 2nd Surah doesn't mean it's superseded at all. Who told you that? Where in the Quran does it say that? Not in the ones you quoted, 2:106 only talks about the concept of abrogation, not that later Surahs supersede previous ones. Not how it works. If that was true, Surah 114 (Mankind) would be the only one that mattered.
>>55382849
>tafsir is unrelated to the qur'an
If you believe the mufasireen are not basing their methodology, teachings and rulings on the qur'an (whether it is weakly or strongly linked to an ayaat). They're even told to do it as "if allah's hands was over their hands".
If you want me to bite the bullet and say "those things are not based directly on the qur'an", it still does nothing to refute that qur'anic teachings or islamic teachings (whichever pill is easier to swallow) make the core of sharia. Shari'a literally means the God's law. We're really arguing semantics here.
Which is probably what you prefer to dilute the argument of any sense, when the core of the original discussion was that caliphates are not secular by definition. You could not argue the historical validity of that statement, nor refute the poor conduct of the early caliphs which you praise as exemplars.
>>55383379
Tafsirs are always only one possible explanation of many. I think that's what he was trying to say.
>>55383379
You're moving goalposts, I'm only correcting your mistakes and yes saying that Islamic jurisprudence is based on the Qu'ran is a big one.
I'm sorry for correcting you, spouting lies about Islam online is your hobby?
>>55383379
>>55383483
Also, regarding the concepts of Tafsir (explanation) and Ta'weel (interpretation)
http://quran.com/3/7
>>55370535
>fringe maniacs
78% of british mudslimes support punishment for the people who published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/
>>55383230
>I dislike what one poster said, therefore I disregard all others
Nice evasion tactic, must come real handy when things get messy.
Isn't all translations supposed to be slightly inaccurate since only the arabic qur'an is supposed to be the legitimate article? You shouldn't get so hung up on mistranlation or "misquotes" then when people try to learn about your faith. Not my problem your god seems to be a monoglot.
>>55383321
As I said, it can be superceded. It has been done before. That's why I linked that secon ayaat showing that technically nothing can be "forgotten", but things can be given priority upon others depending on the fiqh.
With such loose rules (by yourself by the way), it's no wonder arguing exegesis is insane.
Personally I'd rather argue what happened in practice historically than get lost down the jurisprudence rabbit hole. But whatever.
>>55383656
A majority of Americans favor a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning, what's your point?
>>55370169
>SOME OF THE MAJOR SINS IN ISLAM ARE AS FOLLOWS:
>Ridiculing Islam, or hating it.
>Making lawful that which Allah has made unlawful or vice versa. To speak about what you do not know about Islam.
>Cursing or insulting any of the Prophet's companions.
>Telling lies, breaking promises, and forgery.
>Arrogance and ridiculing others.
>Backbiting and slandering.
>Music.
>>55383056
Sure thing Muhammad.
Hey, I'm just wondering, what happened last time someone made a cartoon about Muhammad? You couldn't be more obvious you sand nigger. The difference between religions is the proportion in which their followers commit acts of violence, and for what reasons. Islam is the one which stands out above all else in terms of sheer violence and oppression.
>>55383534
>talking about how caliphates are not secular
>shift the subject to muh pure sharia
>hur dur you made a mistake by calling something qur'anic rather than just islamic
Yeah, sure I'm the one moving goal posts. You can be sure things will not be as easy as with the sassanians this time. We have the history records to remind us of that.
>>55370535
>fringe fanatics
They all believe that shit, just not all of them have the guts to do it. Why do you think in the wake of all this Islam based violence, all they do is blame westerners for being "Islamophobic."
>>55370247
>>55382682
>Wrong, your inability to read the previous verses and context is the issue here
I've already explained to you that 5:32 itself refers to the concept of mischief and therefore cannot be itself the definition of mischief.
>an alternate translation
Literally no idea what you mean here. If you're referring to my use of two translation of 5:32, I already explained why I did so and it was only to prove that different translation agree on the fact that there is a difference in concept between "corruption in the land" and "murder".
>a general definition of one word of said translation
That I provided, and which you rejected on the ground that it wasn't defined at 5:33 or 5:32, as if the location of a definition was what mattered.
>how people were allowed to criticize Muhammad and Islam
At Mecca. Not afterward.
>moving goalposts
Next time you talk of goal post, please state two things :
1. What you think the goalpost is
2. Where you think I moved it
Your whole strategy seem to be to ask for justification, and when it's provided you just ask for another one, leaving your opponent to do your heavy lifting for you.
I hope this is how you defend Islam in real life, because it's very unpleasant.
>>55383990
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Wars.2C_armed_conflicts.2C_and_genocides
You're right, we should look at factual data. :^)
>>55384000
Look, I'm sorry for correcting you but your behavior is irrational, find a better hobby than shitposting about Islam.
>>55383867
>>I dislike what one poster said, therefore I disregard all others
Not at all. It's more like 'you started out by lying therefore all further conversation with you is likely to be lies also', lies include wilful mistranslations and misrepresenting your opponent i.e. strawmanning.
>priority
You have no understanding of how abrogation works in Islam though. Don't make claims from a standpoint of absolute ignorance, you just end up looking a fool, which is exactly how you're looking.
>>55384007
Even if they do, that's not what we're doing ITT.
Maybe if we find the cause of the symptom we can stop the symptom. The cause of their behaviour (and I agree it's irrational) is probably linked to believing (as you do) that Islam is anti-free-speech. I'm trying to show that you're wrong and they're wrong.
>>55384341
>Maybe if we find the cause of the symptom we can stop the symptom.
The cause is islam.
>>55384317
As I haven't said anything incorrect so far, it's qualityposting if anything.
>muh sharia and caliphates are not based on the qur'an 1!!!1!
Top wew, lad
