>Kaffir "Why do you guys allow slavery? come on then i'm all ears">Muslim "First of all define slavery, if you mean transatlantic slavery where everyone is kidnapped based on his race, taken from their homeland, stripped of their name and religion and culture, then no Islam doesn't sanction that, if you mean indentured servitude, captives of war, then sure we can discuss further">Kaffir "why do you guys allow child brides? I mean didn't your Prophet marry a young girl?">Muslim "What's your definition of child? Are we talking in a context of 7th century society or today's definition of a child?">Kaffir "Look at the Qu'ran, kill them wherever you find them? sounds pretty clear-cut to me mate">Muslim "and what's the context? is it on the battlefield? we need to know these things before opening our mouth and speaking out of ignorance">Kaffir "stoning for adultery, eh? that's barbaric if you ask me">Muslim "What's your definition of barbaric? If God says something it's good, right? you told me you're a Christian so if the Bible says stone for adultery and says God said it, is the Bible wrong?">Kaffir "What about you guys and your treatment of women? keeping her covered, yeah? oppressing her? this is a cult mate, a male chauvinist cult!">Muslim "Ok, so then define oppression, are you using the modern kind of liberal woke definition of oppressed? I can show you your Bible and there are many rulings pertaining to women in there that would be considered oppressive by secular liberal standards, no?">Kaffir "Praying separate from women, eh? no mixing of genders? that's right is it?>Muslim "define right and wrong"You cannot bring arbitrary examples and verses out of context when it relates to a religion as finely detailed as Islam. You cannot judge Islam as you would judge a political ideology or movement, where views and laws changed over time. Everything in Islam is fixed but knowing correct context and correct application is key.
Ah yes, like when Mohammed flew to the moon on a horse and split it in two. Such clear precision and detail
>>16544326You don't need "you don't understand muh context" and your pathethic attempts at whatabouting about the West, or Christianity, to see how Islam has behaved in practice, and how even pre-modern non-muslims considered it bloodthisty demon worship.Fuck that pig-blooded son of a whore you call a prophet, and his grotesque book, whispered into his ear by whatever hellspawn is sodomizing him in hell right now.
You realise that Ali and Mohammad Hijab are basically the muzzie equivalent of Evangelical T.V. preachers right?Their rage-baiting to get YouTube views so they can in turn get donations their probably gonna spend on blow and getting whores drunk at some club.
>>16544326You can't blame non-Muslims for reading your texts too litteraly while so many Muslims are doing the exact same thing.
>>16544537Islam is blunt and clear about what is sanctioned by God, yes. Nothing is being hidden away. The issue is that laws and rulings require details and conditions around them before they are implemented and then they would need to be implemented by the proper authorities not random Muslims on the street, vigilantes, etc, and this is what the Muslims are trying to explain and what the non-Muslims don't understand. That before you get to the "barbaric" part, there are some finer details that need to be clarified and ironed out before we even get to the actual ruling.Take the issue of hand-cutting for stealing. A non-Muslim will approach a Muslim and say >"Hey, you barbarians cut people's hands off for stealing, don't ya? that is BARBARIC by any metric!"While the punishment of hand-cutting will be affirmed as being true, what the Muslim is trying to convey is that it is not as simple as just spotting someone stealing a loaf of bread and cutting his hand off on the spot. These sorts of issues have conditions that have to be fulfilled before you get to the "barbaric" part (did the offence take place under a Sharia system in a Sharia land, was the person starving, etc). Non-Muslims run on emotions and just jump straight to the most scary sounding part.
>>16544602Brutality and mutilation as punishment is a massive for Christians and anyone raised in a Christian culture. I get what you're saying in that many don't try to understand your perspective, but if you understand our perspective you'd know why. Extremists in our own history have certainly done it, but it's never been condoned under any circumstances
>>16544326>if you mean transatlantic slavery where everyone is kidnapped based on his raceThe Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was based on religion
>>16544326I don't know why religitards always start sperging about transatlantic slave trade when slavery in their religion is brought up. Not everyone is an American, not everyone automatically defaults to American plantations when talking about slavery.Do you just expect people to say that American slavery is le bad but Roman or semitic slavery was le good?
>>16545173The Atlantic Slave Trade was justified on religious grounds
>>Patrick Manning, a professor of World History, states. However, if a non-Muslim population refuses to adopt Islam or pay the jizya protection/subjugation tax, that population is considered to be at war with the Muslim “ummah” (nation), and it becomes legal under Islamic law to take slaves from that non-Muslim population.accept islam or pay ransom tax otherwise muslims will raid your territory and take kaffir slaves
>>16544326Your prophet married someone who by modern standards would still be in kindergarten and he fucked her three years later, nothing arbitrary or out of context about it. You either disagree with the prophet (and by extension God, so you are automatically wrong) or claim you are a more moral man than him.
>>16545251That's no fair, a 6yo would already be in elementary school unless she was held back because of mental retardation.
>>16545261
>>16544326I don't like the Dawah bros but they aren't wrong that most of the counterjihad crowd are liberalized compared to old school Christians and Jews (attacking Islam for being patriarchal, female modesty, anti democracy)And while traditional Islamic law permits offensive jihad and other things considered to be war crimes, counterjihad do take the war verses out of context.Most Islam baiting is just a proxy for race. Tommy and Douglas Murray wouldn't be ok with mass non-western immigration even if they were a bunch of gay socially liberal atheists, but Western discourse sees open racialism as a taboo. They ally with Hindus and Sikhs because they don't see them as a demographic threat to their race, and Jews because they see them as part of white Christian civilization.
>>16544802Byzantine emperors started practicing eye gouging and more rarely nose cutting as acceptable compromises when the Church complained about executions and stuff. It's not as clear cut as you present it. Corporal punishment has been a part of Christian culture since the beginning. Permanent mutilation not so much (except the above and few others) but Christians had other creative ways to deal with criminals.
>>16545267Not in my country.
>>16545251>the age modern children go through various stages of the education system is objective biological fact>30-35 being the life expectancy of human beings (with it being generally worse for females) in the 7th century doesn't matter>the Arabs not recording their dates of birth and their lack of a proper calendar is something we should look over>the fact she was already engaged to be with someone else previously and the numerous conflicting reports of her age are irrelevant >her society, parents and herself considering her an adult woman that was mentally and physical mature is also irrelevant>ignore the age of the other wives, the fact they were mostly widows and that there was even a waiting period after marriage You sure about that "nothing arbitrary or out of context about it" claim of yours?>You either disagree with the prophet (and by extension God, so you are automatically wrong) or claim you are a more moral man than him.False dichotomy. You could do what most muslim scholars do. There is a reason most muslim countries in the modern age do not allow child marriage, even the Saudis have done this, "the regulation, vetted by the Islamic Affairs Committee at the Shoura Council, has raised the age of marriage to 18 years and prohibited it for those under 15 years.[292]." Are you saying they think he was immoral lmao?
>>16544326Is this a falseflag or an actual barely sentient sandfucker
>>16544326how is this any different from when christians cope about the trinity and incarnation? any can cope their way out of a simple answer. if muslim discovered the new world before europeans, they 100% woudlve had a similar structure to the transatlantic slave trade, theres no reason to believe otherwise
>>16546204you are a kuffar, aisha is said to have been playing with dolls and needed to be fattened up to have sex with muhammad, every aqidah affirms that in order to have sex with your wife she must be 9 or physically able to withstand you, its only with modern western muslim scholars do we see the cope about aisha being 18 or 21 (oh wow how convenient they align with modern western values!!!)you on one hand try to cover your bases by saying 'well if she was 9 the life expectancy makes it ok, and actually uhm arabs didnt record their ages like we think they did' everything you say is just bad faith apologetics, stand up for yourself and stake out a position instead of pussyfooting.
>>16544326>>Kaffir "why do you guys allow child brides? I mean didn't your Prophet marry a young girl?">>Muslim "What's your definition of child? Are we talking in a context of 7th century society or today's definition of a child?"9 years old was disgustedly young in plenty of places back then as well. Of course the best argument against islam is just to look at the sort of societies it creates; weak shitholes.
>>16546777allah akbar give me your daughter
Islam is just so unbelievably stupid. The worst of all religions by far
>>16546760Christfags don't believe that the trinity lets them assrape 9 year olds dude.
>>16546777>you are a kuffarWho put you in charge of deciding that?>aisha is said to have been playing with dolls and needed to be fattened up to have sex with muhammadOn this very website grown men play with dolls, that's no definitive proof of anything. What is certain is she believed she was a woman when the marriage got consummated and so did her society. Also baseless claim about "fattening up".>its only with modern western muslim scholars do we see the cope about aisha being 18 or 21You are confusing creed with jurisprudence. But anyway this particular criticism of the prophet only appeared in like the 19th-20th century after the feminist reformations what do you expect?>stand up for yourself and stake out a position instead of pussyfootingMy position is very clear about her age just like those scholars you've mentioned. But even if I was wrong about the particular number, sharia did not change and the fact that the conditions of today are vastly different is taken into account when deriving rulings. This applies to things other than marriage, like abolitionism and the permissibility of mortgages/insurance. As mentioned previously muslim states have implemented these religious edicts into law, who do you think they are trying to please?
>>16544326It's funny how retarded those muslim street preacher videos always areOI MATE LISTEN YEAH OI LISTENMATE IF ALLAH (SUBHANAHU WATALA) IZZN'T REAL YEAHTHEN WHO MADE DA ERF BRUV?YOU AIN'T GOT NO ANSWER INNIT*arabic screeching over a shitty animated logo*
>>16546204>30-35 being the life expectancy of human beings (with it being generally worse for females) in the 7th century doesn't matterYou're retarded.
>>16547227not an argument
>>16547229The life expectancy was low because of infant mortality you spastic. Women in the 7th century weren't rushing through life on fast forward to experience everything before they dropped dead at 33.
>>16544326so what you're saying is islam, just like modern leftism, is a failed ideology that can only survive through semantics?
>>16547490Nobody said otherwise, "a woman at age 20 could normally expect about 17 more years." These are stats for comfy Europe not a fucking desert. In many places it was worse. How much time does that give to raise children until adulthood? Give me a vision of the society you are proposing here
>>16547037>On this very website grown men play with dolls, that's no definitive proof of anythingthis is bad faith, you know just as well as i what this means, youre dodging. >What is certain is she believed she was a woman when the marriage got consummated and so did her societycorrect>Also baseless claim about "fattening up".its not a baseless claim, its from sunan abi dawud, here is the quote:>My mother intended to make me gain weight to send me to the (house of) the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). But nothing which she desired benefited me till she gave me cucumber with fresh dates to eat. Then I gained as much weight (as she desired).>But anyway this particular criticism of the prophet only appeared in like the 19th-20th century after the feminist reformations what do you expect?this is true, marriage age and consummation have historically always been low. >As mentioned previously muslim states have implemented these religious edicts into law, who do you think they are trying to please?modernity has rotted them
>>16546830i didnt say anything about the character of what theyre defending, what im criticizing the spiraling aspects of their arguments, how they attempt to bring their advisory into the depths of word battles and semantics hoping to lose them in the bushes and declare victory.
>>16547525People who made it past childhood had normal human lifespans. There were not huge swathes of people dropping dead in their 30s, there were huge swathes of infants dying, skewing the average.
>>16544326OP, as a Muslim who reveres the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), what do you think the age of consent should be?
>>16547532>this is bad faithyour opinion doesn't matter>its not a baseless claimnice try but where does it say to have sex with him? the chapter of that hadith is called "medicine">marriage age and consummation have historically always been lowokay then what is your problem? this was standard practice for humanity for a reason, people didn't suddenly discover morality in the past ~100 years>modernity has rotted themthe situation of human beings changed more like
>the best apologia internet Muslims can come up with is "depends on what the definition of "is" is"I sleep
>>16547552>People who made it past childhood had normal human lifespansIrrelevant, I just quoted you the estimated lifespan of females at age 20. Given those numbers you are suggesting a society where the concept of grandmothers is practically unheard of. How many women even reached 20 in the first place?
>>16546204>the age modern children go through various stages of the education system is objective biological factIt was an example to demonstrate just how young she was, most people know how young and small someone in kindergarten is so it gives them a better, more relatable reference than a number.>30-35 being the life expectancy of human beings (with it being generally worse for females) in the 7th century doesn't matterIt does not, no. If anything trying to impregnate a 9 year old would only contribute to lower life expectancy because of how underdeveloped a child is to carry a baby to term compared to a grown woman.>the Arabs not recording their dates of birth and their lack of a proper calendar is something we should look overTheir oral tradition is what we have to go by and when they compiled their history and consulted the people who knew the sources seemed to converge or her being 6 when married and 9 when the marriage was consummated. Even if they're off by a few years it's still bad.>>the fact she was already engaged to be with someone else previously and the numerous conflicting reports of her age are irrelevant >her society, parents and herself considering her an adult woman that was mentally and physical mature is also irrelevantTwo wrongs don't make a right>ignore the age of the other wives, the fact they were mostly widows and that there was even a waiting period after marriage Being married to a widow or two justifies marrying and fucking a child how?>Are you saying they think he was immoral lmao?By extension of forbidding the behavior they are labeling it as immoral, dangerous or otherwise harmful and in turn the prophet's behavior falls under those categories as well. Either he should have known better (by virtue of having direct access to the deity which determines perfect, timeless morals for all eternity) or the society which contradicts his teachings and lifestyle claims they know better.
I honestly find it hilarious how retard tier islam is lmao the more I learn about it. Imagine your religion being based around texts which have verses dedicated to what to do with sex slaves and cleaning cum out of clothes. Even their relationship with God is so reductive and childish, with them trying to win goodboy points so they can get all their earthly desires like sex, food, etc achieved in heaven. It honestly feels like something that a retarded teenager would think up.
>>16544326>If god says something is good it's good>But I'm gonna walk back and lie about these other things God said because they are barbaric
>>16547581Those numbers are inaccurate that's the point. you derived those numbers from skewed statistics
>>16547037Look, if Aisha was 9, would that be a problem for Islam?
>>16545983>stop beheading and mutilating people in the 21st century>WHATABOUT BYZANTINE EMPERORSleast inbred muzzie
You'd think Muhammad wrote a book about whataboutism and semantics with the way his followers like to argue.Nigga you follow a 7th century merchant warlord.
>>16547755>more relatable reference than a number.It was an appeal to emotion, the number is way more relevant than an institution that did not exist in the 7th century>It does notOkay then, use pic related stats on that lifespan and see how humanity would have been practically extinct. Again I don't think the number is to be trusted but what is certain physical and mental maturity according to the parents and society was the "age". This is something that is pretty much universal across all cultures, they surely wanted to see their mothers and daughters around for longer so there was an incentive to increase their lifespan by waiting a bit more beyond biological adulthood>Their oral tradition is what we have to go by...Even if they're off by a few years it's still bad.The oral tradition also claims he was a prophet who performed miracles, do you suddenly trust that 100%? What is the golden number you are seeking btw and where did you get it from?>Two wrongs don't make a rightIrrelevant, the point was to show that it was unlikely she was that young and also that her people considered her practically ready way before marriage to the prophet was even considered.>Being married to a widow or two justifies marrying and fucking a child how?Who said that? It just shows the ages of his other wives indicating that hers was also likely around a similar age.>By extension of forbidding the behavior they are labeling it as immoral, dangerous or otherwise harmful and in turn the prophet's behavior falls under those categories as well. Nope, that is just you pushing opinions onto other people. Again slavery was also allowed and now it isn't because sharia doesn't work the way you think it does. The fact is the vast majority of muslim states have laws in this area comparable to western ones. This is what people who believe in the prophet voted in, including religious scholars. The same doesn't apply to gay marriage so clearly external forces here cannot override religion
>>16548078Those numbers are also incredibly similar in other parts of the world for most of human history. And once more from looking at regional trends we should expect a harsh desert climate where lack of food was also common to lower that even more. This really only changed very recently, and surprise surprise the feminist reforms also happened as that started to improve. It's obvious that it was a major factor here.
>>16548238Thanks to the wonders of the internet you can view interviews with people who were 100 years old in the 19th century and they weren't all that odd. There were American Revolutionary War veterans who went on to live to see the Civil War.You were more likely to die to a disease or some shit but people still mostly lived to see their hair gray.
>>16548254>you can view interviews with people who were 100 years old in the 19th century and they weren't all that odd.It's odd today and you are telling me in the past this was commonplace, exceptions from the 19th century do not prove anything >You were more likely to die to a disease or some shit but people still mostly lived to see their hair gray.Why are you discrediting disease? It is a major cause of death, probably the most important. What you think people died all the time in wars and accidents or something?
>>16548260The thing is that these were common people. I am not telling you about how x Roman Emperor lived to be 89 but that Bob Hayseed could make it to 90 and people weren't going "OMG THE ANCIENT ONE"
>>16544326Test
>>16548271>The thing is that these were common people.Yes common people who somehow avoided getting blood clots, cancer, cuts, bites and bruises until they were old farts. Don't be retarded people died way more easily when medicine wasn't able to protect them and they had less nutrition.
>>16544326>Kaffir: "Fucking children is bad".>Muslim: "What is a child?"Damn, I'm convinced.
>>16544326Slavery : Arabs did it first. The christian toffs ended it.
>>16548424>Arabs did it firsta history board on 4chan was a mistake
imagine being a god and writing a vague book that needs context to be able to understand it you guys dont understand that muslims will always interpret the text the way thats convenient for them it can be a religion of peace and religion of evil depending of how you interpret the quran
>>16548443Middle & Far East, I mean. But yeah - it was a game everybody played throughout history.
>>16548610If they were treated as animals - why did they stick their dick in?
>>16548229>It was an appeal to emotion, the number is way more relevant than an institution that did not exist in the 7th centuryYou seem to be emotional about it at any rate, but if it makes you feel better I won't say that that he married a kindergartener and fucked a third grader, he married a 6 year old and fucked a 9 year old.>Okay then, use pic related stats on that lifespan and see how humanity would have been practically extinct. Life expectancy stats are heavily skewed by infant mortality. If you made it through childhood your heart isn't going to randomly give out at age 27 because a high child mortality means the life expectancy of your people was 27 at the time. If you don't want people dying young then it's also a good idea to not try to impregnate 9 year olds because even if they've had their periods their bodies are not developed enough to properly carry and deliver babies.>The oral tradition also claims he was a prophet who performed miracles, do you suddenly trust that 100%? What is the golden number you are seeking btw and where did you get it from?I'm not religious, I don't believe in any miracles. Muhammed was just some guy who started a cult that took off, he had no special powers and Allah does not exist. However, I'm willing to believe he did things that are obviously possible so accounts that say "around this date he traveled to city X" and "in the year XXX he met with Y" are potentially credible.>Irrelevant, the point was to show that it was unlikely she was that young and also that her people considered her practically ready way before marriage to the prophet was even considered.The people who were consulted when the history was compiled seemed to corroborate on her being very young. >Who said that? It just shows the ages of his other wives indicating that hers was also likely around a similar age.That's your interpretation, the others claim she was not.
>>16548229>Nope, that is just you pushing opinions onto other people. Again slavery was also allowed and now it isn't because sharia doesn't work the way you think it does. The fact is the vast majority of muslim states have laws in this area comparable to western ones. This is what people who believe in the prophet voted in, including religious scholars. The same doesn't apply to gay marriage so clearly external forces here cannot override religionIt's me following very simple logic. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy if Muslims are willing to update their laws to be more modern, but if you ban X with the justification that it is immoral, unjust or whatever and the prophet engaged in X then you are by extension calling the prophet immoral, unjust and so on.
>>16548714That's better at least now you have some semblance of historicity in your claims.>literally the same arguments as the other guy in this threadNo point in repeating myself go look at the replies if you care.>I'm willing to believe he did things that are obviously possible What you are saying is that you are picking and choosing from the sources based on no other methodology other than your personal feelings on what should have happened or not. The same people saying those things about those miracles are the ones who report on those "potentially credible" things as well. I am willing to attribute any logical discrepancies to human error in light of the other factors mentioned, but what about you? Were they lying half the time or were they deceived, where do you draw the line?>The people who were consulted when the history was compiled seemed to corroborate on her being very young.Yeah she was "young" that part is obvious. Still ready for marriage according to their knowledge.>That's your interpretation, the others claim she was not.And others claim she was. Guess what this happens all the time between scholars. They bring the evidences they have and then you can use your reason to determine the truth about whatever they were discussing about.>>16548718>if you ban X with the justification that it is immoral, unjust or whatever and the prophet engaged in X then you are by extension calling the prophet immoral, unjust and so onThat's not what is happening here though. X isn't just an action divorced from the world with no context whatsoever. You can have a guy steal something and then he'd be punished but if he did it because he/his family was literally starving then there are concessions. This is also like saying Muslims should apply the prayer shortening ONLY when riding horses/camels (but not cars and airplanes) because that is exactly what the prophet did. Nonsensical position really, this isn't how sharia works nor what most Muslims believe.
>>16548776>What you are saying is that you are picking and choosing from the sources based on no other methodology other than your personal feelings on what should have happened or not. The same people saying those things about those miracles are the ones who report on those "potentially credible" things as well. I am willing to attribute any logical discrepancies to human error in light of the other factors mentioned, but what about you? Were they lying half the time or were they deceived, where do you draw the line?I'm picking and choosing what to believe based on what I think seems credible. You can have stories that involve both credible and incredible things. If there's a general that travels with his army to city X to fight a battle it is credible to believe that he was indeed there and he did indeed fight (or at the very least oversaw the battle) but you might not believe that last claim that he was literally the first man over the walls and he personally killed 200 men on his own. Only the last part of the story is unbelievable and one part of the story does not necessarily make the other parts unbelievable.>Yeah she was "young" that part is obvious. Still ready for marriage according to their knowledge.And their knowledge can be considered abhorrent by modern standards or at the very least very outdated. The problem arises when a person that's supposedly the prophet of a deity that is the source of all morality acts in ways that can be considered outdated. Muhammed, of all people, should be a paragon of virtue and those virtues should be timeless. You can't say that he was a product of his time because he (allegedly) had direct contact with the creator of the universe and all morals, now, then and forever. He would have known better than anyone. If Muhammed did it, it is morally permissible (then, now and forever) OR you claim that you know better than Allah, or at the very least you claim you know better than his chosen prophet.
>>16544431Poor butthurt Chritard having an emotional response to rationality, nice fit, but if there's someone here that'll taste the everlasting flames of hell that's in all likelihood you
>>16544802No it isn't. Mutilation, torture, blinding, were common in Christian kingdoms from Byzantium to England.
>Arguing with a muslimAlways kick a muslim in their face if they talk about their religion
>>16544326what exactly was the context in writing a fan fiction of a jewish religion, why is that book so popular anyway?
>>16548803>I'm picking and choosing what to believe based on what I think seems credible.Great, so you are agreeing with what I said it's just your opinion based on presuppositions. Fortunately for us whenever a transmitter of hadith is known to exaggerate, has poor memory, makes up stuff, etc then he is weakened if not outright rejected based on all the evidence presented. In this case the source of the apparent error was different but the principles are the same in how to derive the accuracy of the reports in question.>The problem arises when a person that's supposedly the prophet of a deity that is the source of all morality acts in ways that can be considered outdated. That's not what is being said at all though. If you have a society in 2024 that pretty much operated as if it was still in the 7th century with lack of food/medicine/education/etc and if the exact action would be performed as in the past then it would be equally as moral since the circumstances are the same. There is nothing magical about current year that causes past practices to become outdated. This just speaks to the universality of the divine laws given to us.
>>16544326This is just taqiya, similar to talmudic spiel. The Muslim is at war and the "Kaffir" is the enemy, there is no notion of having a reasonable discussion with them, and besides, it does no good to reveal the ways in which you are undermining them.
>>16548876>Great, so you are agreeing with what I said it's just your opinion based on presuppositions. Fortunately for us whenever a transmitter of hadith is known to exaggerate, has poor memory, makes up stuff, etc then he is weakened if not outright rejected based on all the evidence presented. In this case the source of the apparent error was different but the principles are the same in how to derive the accuracy of the reports in question.Fortunately for me it's not my opinions and my own retelling of events after reading the source material, it's the widely agreed upon story. You can go to Aisha's wikipedia page right now and read excerpts such as "A preponderance of classical sources converge on Aisha being 6 or 7 years old at the time of her marriage, and 9 at the consummation; her age has been a source of ideological friction.[9]" and "Islamic sources of the classical era list Aisha's age at the time of her marriage as six or seven and nine or ten at its consummation. In a hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha recollects having been married at six years of age.[31]">That's not what is being said at all though. If you have a society in 2024 that pretty much operated as if it was still in the 7th century with lack of food/medicine/education/etc and if the exact action would be performed as in the past then it would be equally as moral since the circumstances are the same. There is nothing magical about current year that causes past practices to become outdated. This just speaks to the universality of the divine laws given to us.When I make comparisons to modern morals do you think I believe that modern morals are different because there is something inherently magical about the year itself or because society itself has changed and gone through a lot of reflection and development? If you think it is immoral to beat children does that mean it was moral back then or did people simply occasionally act (by modern standards) immorally for understandable reasons?
>>16548946>Fortunately for me it's not my opinions and my own retelling of events after reading the source material, it's the widely agreed upon story.Yeah in this particular case but that's not how you determine what is true or not when reading these reports in general. There is a reason that is the case and I have mentioned it. Do you think Malik ibn Anas was asked about muh pedo prophet? In the very wiki article you mentioned it highlights "In Islamic literature, the young age of her marriage did not draw any significant discourse; nonetheless, Spellberg and Ali find the very mention of her age to be atypical of early Muslim biographers, and hypothesize a connotation to her virginity and, more than that, religious purity.[32][35][b] Her age did not interest later Muslim scholars either, and went unremarked-upon even by medieval and early-modern Christian polemicists.[36] Early Orientalist writers, even in their condescending approach towards Muhammad and Islam, were primarily concerned with Muhammad's embrace of polygamy and the ethics of marrying for political causes;[37] the few, who discussed Aisha's age chose to explain the age-gap — without any condemnation — by citing the contemporary understanding of the Orient as a hot place, that promulgated sexually deviant practices.[38]" The only reason it has been widely agreed upon is because it was nothing special in the past.>society itself has changed and gone through a lot of reflection and development?It doesn't matter what you believe, this is about objective morality. You are saying that society changing and historical context shouldn't impact how we understand these divine laws and that doing anything other than the absolute identical to what the prophet did means we believe he was immoral. Also there are multiple societies with different outcomes to their reflection/development even now your simplistic approach simply wouldn't work on them.
>>16549015Out of curiosity, do you think it is immoral for grown men to marry and fuck children?
>>16548842Based.
>>16549056most muslim states don't allow "child" marriage and I follow the majority on this
>>16549092Do you only think it's immoral because a majority of Muslim states don't allow it? Do you condemn Muhammed for doing it?
>>16549107yes what scholars determine is typically more important and just than what Muhammad did or said
>>16549107It's immoral because there is good reason to believe it's against the sunnah and that's why it got adopted into their laws. I don't believe he did "it" for reasons already discussed
>>16549131How can you trust any of the hadiths then? It's in Sahih al-Bukhari. Isn't what makes something Sunnah being in line with the hadiths? Are faqihs arbitrarily choosing what is and isn't Islamic, even if Mohammed himself did it?
>>16549123How can scholars know more about Allah's will than Allah's own prophet?>>16549131>It's immoral because there is good reason to believe it's against the sunnah and that's why it got adopted into their laws.If it was never mentioned in Islamic texts would you have an issue with it?>I don't believe he did "it" for reasons already discussedYou'd be going against mainstream opinion on the subject so I guess you know something that everybody else don't, but fine, you're entitled to believe that.
>>16549139Nowhere in the religion is it stated to blindly follow hadith books without proper evidence, that's not how it works there are many reports that are rejected following the methodology used by scholars. Grading is not set in stone either as evidenced by Al-Albani and other scholars.>>16549156>If it was never mentioned in Islamic texts would you have an issue with it?I don't make up my own morality, what do you think I am an atheist?>you're entitled to believe thatI have my reasons and they have theirs. Nothing special about this as it happens all the time on different issues.
>>16549196How do you know the methodology from scholars is something that Allah would approve of? This is an honest question. You say it needs proper evidence, so I'm guessing they use a coherentist model for legal rulings. If grading is not set in stone, however, what makes it different? What is plausible for someone five hundred years ago or a thousand years ago might not be plausible today. At that point you're stumbling around shifting your religion to fit with whatever new information is out there, but that does not seem like a divine religion to me then.
>>16549196>I don't make up my own morality, what do you think I am an atheist?I was just checking if you were capable of thinking for yourself or if you always defer to religion even when the answer should be painfully obvious.
>>16549204We are simply instructed to follow the prophet's teachings. He is not around anymore and what we have are the reports of the companions and others from the time. We use reason (also instructed by God) to determine methods that will enable us to find out historical truth. Yeah new information is a thing that happens, one of the schools of thoughts frequently has rulings that are different from the others and this is attributed to the fact that the founding scholar didn't have all the source material when he gave fatwas and the like. He himself told his followers to prioritize reports from the prophet he doesn't know yet about over his reasoning. btw nobody expects an individual to know every single detail of the prophet's life, this wasn't even expected of the companions so I am not sure what is your issue here. >>16549207The fitrah is a thing. But do go on tell me how is it painfully obvious to secular societies since they all implement different moral rules based on nothing other than popularity amongst its citizens or whatever the dictator wants.
>>16548158kike what are you talking about? That was not what I said. And I'm all for beheading death row criminals worldwide regardless of religion, but that's beside the point.
>>16546674Sentient Paki living in Birmingham, EnglandNot memeing btw
>>16550021>Paki living in Birmingham, Englandspare me the tautology
>How do you define is?>No, ofc I'm not arguing in bad faith.Like pottery, 'tis.
>>16549270>The fitrah is a thing. But do go on tell me how is it painfully obvious to secular societies since they all implement different moral rules based on nothing other than popularity amongst its citizens or whatever the dictator wants.If I asked normal people if it was moral to anally penetrate a toddler they would immediately say no, their moral intuition would tell them its disgusting and aside from their emotional gut reaction they could also make a more logical argument against it. The fact that you're unable to make any such moral judgements on your own without having to consult a book or imam first is worrying because it shows you have no moral compass of your own and you are capable of doing egregious acts if the book says its ok or if it doesn't explicitly forbid it.
>>16551293>If I asked normal peopleGuess what they take their morality from religious teachings, even western atheists but they foolishly attribute it to culture. The only reason there is any similarity between groups of people when it comes to stuff like this is again the innate predisposition.>their moral intuition would tell them its disgusting and aside from their emotional gut reaction Oh so just like homosexuals? Is disgust now an argument we could use?>they could also make a more logical argument against it.Give me one don't talk in general here, let's see you use logic to justify what is moral or not.
>>16544326I judge islam by its fruits. what now, mohamedan?
>>16551638>religion says to do X>people do Y instead because of culture, personal desires, etchurr religion bad
>>16544326>>16544326 (OP)Tbh, Anything else about Islam aside, Dhimma is absolutely inhuman and I cannot fathom how someone would subject a conquered people to it in good conscience. How can muslims think Dhimma is a good thinng?This is a serious question.
>>16551684What is your biggest problem with it? It's not that different with what other empires did when they wanted the conquered people to maintain their own ways without clashing with the ruler
>>16551709The religious and public supression mostly.Also, no, it's very different because most other rulers of that type just established tribute and left them alone.The Dhimmi were opressed much more. And it's clear these measures were meant to coerce people into conversion.Take some excerpts of the pact of Ummar, for example.>We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.>We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. >We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.>We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
>>16551323>Guess what they take their morality from religious teachings, even western atheists but they foolishly attribute it to culture. The only reason there is any similarity between groups of people when it comes to stuff like this is again the innate predisposition.If there's innate predisposition then why does it have to be attributed to religion and not the innate predisposition? Was murder and theft ok prior to the ten commandments or were the commandments based on pre-existing cultural norms?>Oh so just like homosexuals? Is disgust now an argument we could use?You could, yes. Other people could think you are being childish or unreasonable for it so there are a lot of people who are tolerant of homosexuals, but we use innate disgust as valid arguments for other things. If I told you to eat shit it would be enough to say the idea of it disgusts you, you don't have to bring rational arguments like "it is full of bacteria and likely to make me sick" or "the social stigma of eating shit is too strong.">Give me one don't talk in general here, let's see you use logic to justify what is moral or not.I don't want others to do harm to me, so I don't do harm to others and expect them to reciprocate. I think penetrating a toddler would cause both physical and mental trauma to it, therefore it is immoral to me. I also think that sexual acts should occur between consenting people and someone at that stage of development is incapable of giving consent, which also makes it immoral.
>>16551673If the religion allows those who claim to follow it to do contrary to its teachings then the religion and above all its god are weak and worthless, fit only to be a reference for the actions of those that actually follow the branch of it that existsEither call upon your god to fix things as he did back in the day when people disobeyed his teachings, or fuck off and die
>>16552668>prior to the ten commandmentsMurder was certainly not allowed since the time of Cain and Abel. No you can't depend on the innate predisposition because it can get clouded easily by cultural practices or desires, but that doesn't mean it would stop a person from recognizing what is right if it's presented to them properly.>Other people could think you are being childish or unreasonableJust like people who don't mind eating shit? This is a poor argument it's my feelings vs their feelings and means nothing unless you've got more people on one side willing to enforce their preferences onto the other. Disease has been used as an argument against homosexual practices (and premarital sex in general) too but that doesn't mean anything because they simply don't see it as fundamentally wrong or if they do they'll fall for their temptation and feel guilt.>I don't want others to do harm to me, so I don't do harm to others and expect them to reciprocate.If you could get away with it guaranteed then this line of reasoning makes no sense whatsoever and you'd be perfectly fine with a lot of things you consider immoral.>therefore it is immoral to me>also makes it immoralWhy? Atheist states in the past had absolutely no problem with physical and mental trauma nor with violating consent. What makes your opinion moral and theirs not, especially considering they have had power granted to them by millions while you do not.
>>16552745Free will applies to all human beings. You think it ends with the laws being just a mere reference? Whoever escapes punishment at the hands of pious human beings (after implementing them as laws of the land) will not escape the wrath of God on the day of judgment nor will their evils not get undone.
>>16550021I think Ali Dawah is actually a turk but I thought he was a paki too. He looks way too inbred to be a turk so I don't know.
>>16552910Ali Dawah is a Kurd born to an Alawite family before he converted to Sunni
>>16548842>>16548877This, you can't reason with the products of multiple first cousin marriages in Amy case. Frankly given the Islamic fondness for inbreeding, I'm surprised more of them aren't totally nonfunctional Ala Charles II of Spain.
>>16552957That makes more sense. I just saw people on twitter referring to him as a turk.
>>16552859The problem with muslims is that the no true scotsman fallacy is CONSTANT with you. Deep down you know islam is crap but you can't explain why because doing so requires doubting islam, so you just don't want to admit it and keep wondering why your religion is in such a bad state.
>>16544326You literally cut the balls off your slavesLiterally paid minorities to do it for you too, the whole process what is this nonsense cope
>>16553219>no true ScotsmanExplain, I never said that sinning Muslims aren't true Muslims or anything to that effect. Again what adherents do does not matter to the religion itself. Yeah it's our collective fault four our current state but the revelation is not to blame as you are implying
>>16553286*for but whatever the point still stands
>>16553059Yeah I know him personally. His family are Kurdish Alawis who detest Sunnis and kicked him out of their house when he embraced Sunni Islam and began practicing and growing his beard and praying etc. He lived with Adnan Rashid for a while and that's why he's very close to Adnan's son Musa Adnan. Here are the two back in the day in younger dayshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auzLheBTm1Y
>>16553331>Musa Adnanleast dysgenic muslim
>>16549196>Nowhere in the religion is it stated to blindly follow hadith books without proper evidenceBut you're perfectly happy to believe a man met an angel without any evidence whatsoever that angels exist.
>>16551709>It's not that different with what other empires did when they wanted the conquered people to maintain their own ways without clashing with the rulerWhataboutism again.Jesus, you people really are NPC's.
>>16555294There are plenty of arguments for God's existence. The most convincing ones to me describe a deity that's identical to the one described in this faith so that's a start to look here. I also see no reason to doubt the numerous companions of the prophet when they described what they saw nor are do any of the revisionist history claims the kuffar bring forward (he's mad, possessed, deceived, power hungry liar, doesn't exist) hold any weight when you do even the slightest amount of research. Once you believe in these two it's perfectly reasonable to believe in angels.
>>16555564No evidence then
>>16544478Anyone who can't notice grifters by now never will. These guys started a podcast where they have guys and girls argue about the same petty hypotheticals kids did back in school. Free mixing is bad except for my podcast isn't unique to Ali Dawah, some big Internet sheikhs have been on podcasts sitting next to women without hijabs but would berate girls for going to university since they'd be within the vicinity of men.The hilarious part is they're beliefs aren't even based in Islam but their pre Islamic social norms. The best example is their claim that women can't travel alone. In the hadith, it's stated that a woman should only be within a 3 days journey of the nearest mahram male. Sure in the 7th century that would only be 100 miles at best but nowadays that covers the entire world due to technological advancements. Yet they demand the distance be set to pre industrial travel distances...which doesn't make sense since depending on the terrain and mode of transport, it would've varied back then too. 3 days on foot through a mountain or jungle is completely different to 3 days through flat paved terrain or 3 days by sea. Usually they'd be in a fit of rage about feminism at this point of the conversation before admitting to you they don't agree with the hadith at all, they believe it should be much smaller. Some believe women shouldn't even go grocery shopping and their cope is that they'd be near other men. By now you should've realised this is just deranged levels of mate guarding rooted in a fear of getting cucked. Considering that the guys who push this are usually incels, makes sense. A sub 5 ogre knows his cousin doesn't love him, in fact deep down he knows any woman won't love him, so he uses whatever means he can to extend the genetic dead end he carries which in this case is a shoddy attempt at social engineering with a weak religious argument.TL; DR they don't believe in Islam, they need it to get laid.
>>16555797I once got stopped by a muslim street preacher who tried convincing me that a woman not covering her hair is equivalent to having her tits out. These guys just come across as sex obsessed weirdos who want to rape every woman not covered in a niqab.
>>16555817Here's the thing I'm Muslim and I believe women should cover up but that's not because hair turns me rock hard. The same way guys should cover from their knees to their navel but I won't coom from seeing a guy's thighs and it obviously isn't the same as getting your dick out but they're considered part of your private parts. The guy who told you some hair is the same as tits would genuinely get rock hard to basically anything. There's clips of one London street preacher called Dawah man saying gay shit all the time>he once admitted a clean shaven guy was cute and confused him sexuallyMost Muslims laugh at this and know the guy is clearly perverted but that's where the conversation ends. >who want to rape every woman not covered in a niqabI've interacted with some who genuinely believe women with their tits out are asking to get raped, they're disproportionately south asian then MENA in general for some reason. I guess their societies are more perverted in general. You'll find cases of boys getting raped anywhere on earth but in Afghanistan it's so widespread they have a term for it that everyone knows. Homosexuality happens everywhere occasionally but the royal courts of some of these Islamic states were insanely perverted even by modern standards. Iran might be beating women to death for showing some hair but they allow for legal prostitution, sex change and the combination of both. Yh even Turkey's religious towns and cities have tranny brothels, I remember seeing a video where a crowd of guys, some of whom were barely teens, admitted to soliciting services from one. Maybe western/southern asia is just creepy, you see similar shit with other religious groups from there.
>>16544478youtube was such a fucking mistake, not even religion is free from eceleb drama
>>16549398What about those who are convicted on false claims? What about those who are convicted in a show trial by a corrupt government?
>>16549270> moral rules based on nothing other than popularity amongst its citizens or whatever the dictator wants.As opposed to Mohammad and the 6th century Arabian consensus..
>>16556761"Nor does he speak of his own whims. It is only a revelation sent down ˹to him˺. He has been taught by one ˹angel˺ of mighty power" - Quran 53:3-5
>>16556777>It's revelation, because it's says it is.Sign me up.
>>16556802Nah, it's revelation because of the events that happened.
>>16555797>>16555888I think the pagans had the right idea, boys should be provided with "venus" figurines like this and turn a blind eye to what they do with it to guide their sexuality towards the woman they will love and care for, it seems like it would prevent more sin than it creates.
>>16544406>Muslim "That's what happens when you try to translate it from its original Arabic version, you get a ridiculous story without MUH ELOQUENCE"
>>16556821>It's revelation, because it happened to become popular (using threats and extortion).Sign me up.
>>16556821If you were wrong about that. And actually some of Muhammad or his cotemporaries preferences ended up in there (rather than it all coming from God)How could you go about figuring that out?
>>16556920Do you just enjoy swinging at straw men? Are you one of those atheists that don't accept eye witness testimony?
>>16556874>It's a message for all mankind.. written in a de facto extinct version of the second most difficult language you could possibly learn
>>16556928>It's revelation, because Ibn Ism said Ibn Achmad told him that he heard from Sa'ab Ibn al-Salami that Abu Ubaida ibn Al-Jarrah saw a thing once in the corner of his eye after he blinkedSign me up.
>>16556924What was the prophet's simple preferences is highlighted ("O Allah's Apostle! Is this unlawful to eat?" Allah's Apostle replied, "No, but it is not found in the land of my people, so I do not like it.") and what just the preferences of companions is easily found out using hadith methodology?
>>16556939Okay so you don't. That's all you had to say. I can assure you that you haven't run all the experiments required to determine what little knowledge you have of anything at all so you are a fraud.
>>16556960>Pot calling the kettle black.Sign me up.
He didn't answer any of those questions, he just avoided them. No wonder muslim countries are stagnant, this kind of shit is considered childish and pathetic in first world countries
>>16557062>asking for clarification is avoiding
>>16557062You can't discuss with them in good faith. It's not all Muslims, but it sure is the majority of them and the most vocal ones. You can only make fun of them, since derision of their cult is what they hate the most (because they're well aware of how effective it is).
>>16557070What was the point of his post? There was only asking for clarification, none was provided, he just kept moving on to the next topic instead of actually addressing anything. He has talked a lot but said absolutely nothing. >"Why would you commit such horrible immoral acts?">"Words can have different meanings depending on context.">"Oh ok. Do you like horsies?"
>>16557095>none was providedThat was the problem. How are you supposed to address anything when the other guy refuses to give more information?
What's the context of thinking it's true that a man talked to an angel in a cave 1500 years ago, that makes you not a gullible retard?
>>16544326>Muslim "What's your definition of child? Are we talking in a context of 7th century society or today's definition of a child?"You just proved Islamic morality is relative.
>>16557857That's not what he is saying at all. The rules are constant but society is not.
>>16557866Why did Allah make permanent rules that are scientifically and culturally obsolete?
>>16557899>divine laws should only be for those living in the same society as me at the same time as me
>>16557914That's exactly what Allah did, yes.
>>16557917Clearly not since you are complaining that not all rules apply at all times.
>>16557925Are you a bot? If a rule doesn't apply at all times it isn't constant nor universal.
>>16557930The rule hasn't changed again, Just the context of where you can apply it.
>>16557802What's the context of thinking it's true that a man talked to an angel in a cave 1500 years ago, that makes you not a gullible retard?
Allah
>>16558752Snackbar
>>16544602>While the punishment of hand-cutting will be affirmed as being true, what the Muslim is trying to convey is that it is not as simple as just spotting someone stealing a loaf of bread and cutting his hand off on the spot. These sorts of issues have conditions that have to be fulfilled before you get to the "barbaric" part (did the offence take place under a Sharia system in a Sharia land, was the person starving, etc). Non-Muslims run on emotions and just jump straight to the most scary sounding part.so you erected and demolished a strawman, then acknowledged that the barbarism is true? just in case you think anyone is impressed, the important part is that the process can end in barbarism at all, not whether it happens immediately or without prior investigation.
>>16560239afterthought: this seems to be a pattern with muslims, even converts. there was (is?) a blog titled 'muslimah in progress' written by a woman who converted to some sort of islam as an adult, and in one of her posts she set out defending islam from the calumny of allowing husbands to beat their wives. she starts with the assertion that this is not true, then proceeds to enumerate all the caveats (prior warnings, thickness of stick etc.) before finishing the text on a triumphalist note that she has now clarified the issue once and for all. it never seems to occur to her (or maybe it's some sort of psychological blindness) that the issue was the wife-beating is allowed at all, not whether the conditions are or are not strict.dear muslims: when we say X is allowed in islam, don't substitute it in your diseased minds with 'X is unconditionally allowed in islam', such that then you can air your tongue about the conditions. I know it's hard to accept for you and indeed seems inconceivable but what matters to us here is whether X is allowed at all, under whatever circumstances, vs. it being absolutely condemned under any conceivable circumstances, no matter how many conditions need to be met. if islam only endorsed mutilating thieves under conditions that are technically impossible to fulfill, we would condemn it all the same.
>>16560281afterthought 2:>if islam only endorsed mutilating thieves under conditions that are technically impossible to fulfill, we would condemn it all the same.as indeed muhammad did with his impossible conditions on proving adultery. I suspect a situation whereby arabs were torn apart by a web of vendettas caused by murders based on jealousy, and muhammad wanted to put an end to this by setting impossible proof standards. I recall reading somewhere that the "four male witnesses to see the act of copulation" standard was never actually met in the history of islam, and all condemnations are based on surprise pregnancies or statements by the woman interpreted as confession.
>>16544326Islam is evil, you don't debate evil, you destroy it.
>>16561418in other words you can't debate
>>16544326>if you mean transatlantic slavery where everyone is kidnapped based on his raceNever happened.Transatlantic slavery = white epople buying black people from other black people who had enslaved them.
>>16544326OP if you need to make a rebuttal with "What's your definition of child", then you're definitely a pedophile and you've lost any credibility.
>>16562308why is the biological definition of adulthood different from what society has chosen in the past century or so? read the myth of adolescence if you have any interest in history
>God and therefor objective morality is static and doesn't change>But moral categories are all relative and change all the time so you can't get mad my prophet fucked kids because what even is a kid anywayIf muslims were capable of intellectual honesty they wouldn't be muslims
I think most Muslim peoples worldwide either turned Muslim or stayed Muslim just because they hated whitey more than they hated these Arab fuckers. Such is why American Blacks turn Muslim, and I think the comparison bears out pretty well to the rest of the world throughout history.
>>16562725>moral categories are all relative and change all the timestraw man, the avenues for new slaves simply doesn't exist in the modern world and that doesn't affect "moral categories" and a child has always been a child>getting mad at people who lived ~1500 years ago
>>16562376>why is the biological definition of adulthood different from what society has chosen in the past century or so?Compelling question, now get in the cage.
