Islam forbids

[John Lemmon]

Sunni, one question: do you wipe only your own ass with your hand or do you get to wipe all your wives poo holes as well?

 

[Liability]

I couldn't even finish the video, his style of speech is so annoying and douchebaggy. Anyone want to provide me with a summary?

The semi-official Kalam's words-to-truth translator service 100% accurate interpretation:

That guy told the truth about the Qur'an and Islam.

This quite understandably offended Kalam.

The guy didn't tell the truth about the Qur'an or Islam.

He was just funny because of his ignorance about the subject

Oh bull. As we all know, he told the unmitigated truth.

And the humor comes from seeing how absurd the "faith" of Islam is.

 

[Liability]

Anyone want to provide me with an actual summary?

Play the video. It's much more complete and accurate and not even all that long.

 

[Sunni Man]

No need to watch the video Kalam.

It's just more anti Islamic nonsense by a misinformed fool

 

[Kalam]

Anyone want to provide me with an actual summary?

Play the video. It's much more complete and accurate and not even all that long.

I suffered through 3 minutes of pseudo-intellectual douchebaggery for nothing.

• He makes references to Aishah's age when she was married to Muhammad. We now know that the marriage took place when she was in her late teens, according to most sources.
  
• He claims that Aishah was beaten by Muhammad and cites Muslim 4:2127 as his source. How can it be a "Qur'anic" challenge if he invokes accounts from hadith collections?
  
• He mentions that Muhammad had multiple wives. This is true, and all of them were widows or women whose status he drastically improved through marriage.
  
• He mentions that Muhammad owned slaves. Muhammad captured prisoners of war, but aside from that encouraged the manumission of slaves. He, his family, and his companions freed nearly 40,000 of them.
  
• He mentions that Muhammad "slaughtered hundreds of Jews." This refers to a falsified account in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, one that we now know was based on tall tales told by spiteful Madinan Jews (as there is no archaeological evidence suggesting that such an event ever took place.) Even if we were to assume that the account was legitimate, it was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, not Muhammad, who decided the fate of the Banu Qurayza.

 

[Liability]

Anyone want to provide me with an actual summary?

Play the video. It's much more complete and accurate and not even all that long.

I suffered through 3 minutes of pseudo-intellectual douchebaggery for nothing.

• He makes references to Aishah's age when she was married to Muhammad. We now know that the marriage took place when she was in her late teens, according to most sources.
  
• He claims that Aishah was beaten by Muhammad and cites Muslim 4:2127 as his source. How can it be a "Qur'anic" challenge if he invokes accounts from hadith collections?
  
• He mentions that Muhammad had multiple wives. This is true, and all of them were widows or women whose status he drastically improved through marriage.
  
• He mentions that Muhammad owned slaves. Muhammad captured prisoners of war, but aside from that encouraged the manumission of slaves. He, his family, and his companions freed nearly 40,000 of them.
  
• He mentions that Muhammad "slaughtered hundreds of Jews." This refers to a falsified account in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, one that we now know was based on tall tales told by spiteful Madinan Jews (as there is no archaeological evidence suggesting that such an event ever took place.) Even if we were to assume that the account was legitimate, it was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, not Muhammad, who decided the fate of the Banu Qurayza.

Bull. We KNOW she was 6 when married and 9 when the pedohile Mohammed consumated the marriage by having intercourse with the little girl.

He DID keep slaves.

Mighty nice of him to encourage that slaves be freed. Whatta guy!
Imagine those 'sptieful Joooz" being spiteful in light of the kind and gentle loving respectful references to Joooz in the Qur'an.

Come on. Try being honest. That supposedly holy book is quite full of hate and depravity.

 

[Sunni Man]

Play the video. It's much more complete and accurate and not even all that long.

I suffered through 3 minutes of pseudo-intellectual douchebaggery for nothing.

• He makes references to Aishah's age when she was married to Muhammad. We now know that the marriage took place when she was in her late teens, according to most sources.
  
• He claims that Aishah was beaten by Muhammad and cites Muslim 4:2127 as his source. How can it be a "Qur'anic" challenge if he invokes accounts from hadith collections?
  
• He mentions that Muhammad had multiple wives. This is true, and all of them were widows or women whose status he drastically improved through marriage.
  
• He mentions that Muhammad owned slaves. Muhammad captured prisoners of war, but aside from that encouraged the manumission of slaves. He, his family, and his companions freed nearly 40,000 of them.
  
• He mentions that Muhammad "slaughtered hundreds of Jews." This refers to a falsified account in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, one that we now know was based on tall tales told by spiteful Madinan Jews (as there is no archaeological evidence suggesting that such an event ever took place.) Even if we were to assume that the account was legitimate, it was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, not Muhammad, who decided the fate of the Banu Qurayza.

Bull. We KNOW

"We know" Son you don't know jack about Islam or Muslims.

What little bits of info you do have. You got from that loon Mr. Fitnuts.

Now that's a real knowledgable source

 

[Liability]

I suffered through 3 minutes of pseudo-intellectual douchebaggery for nothing.

• He makes references to Aishah's age when she was married to Muhammad. We now know that the marriage took place when she was in her late teens, according to most sources.
  
• He claims that Aishah was beaten by Muhammad and cites Muslim 4:2127 as his source. How can it be a "Qur'anic" challenge if he invokes accounts from hadith collections?
  
• He mentions that Muhammad had multiple wives. This is true, and all of them were widows or women whose status he drastically improved through marriage.
  
• He mentions that Muhammad owned slaves. Muhammad captured prisoners of war, but aside from that encouraged the manumission of slaves. He, his family, and his companions freed nearly 40,000 of them.
  
• He mentions that Muhammad "slaughtered hundreds of Jews." This refers to a falsified account in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, one that we now know was based on tall tales told by spiteful Madinan Jews (as there is no archaeological evidence suggesting that such an event ever took place.) Even if we were to assume that the account was legitimate, it was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, not Muhammad, who decided the fate of the Banu Qurayza.

Bull. We KNOW

"We know" Son you don't know jack about Islam or Muslims.

What little bits of info you do have. You got from that loon Mr. Fitnuts.

Now that's a real knowledgable source

I aint your son, son.

Oh, and what I know of the dishonestly labeled "religion of peace" I learned from a wide variety of sources including that terrible book itself, the Qur'an.

The religion of pieces makes reasonable people cringe. What filth.

 

[Sunni Man]

The religion of pieces makes reasonable people cringe. What filth.

Please post a verse, or any verses, out of the Qur'an that contains "filth"

Thank You

 

[Liability]

The religion of pieces makes reasonable people cringe. What filth.

Please post a verse, or any verses, out of the Qur'an that contains "filth"

Thank You

It has been done repeatedly. You just ignore it.

Repeating it for you will thus serve no additional purpose.

But what the hell?

If a woman is raped, the offending party cannot be convicted except upon the confirmation of four witnesses. But, you know, sometimes rapists don't commit their rapes in front of other people. Wo the Qur'anic command that rape requires four witnesses really serves no rational purpose in this universe where forensic evidence might serve the actual purpose. but it sure as hell CAN get a woman in trouble. For if she is a victim of some asshole's rape of her, and if she has the unmitigated audacity to accuse the scumbag, but there are not four witnesses to the attack, then she is admitting fornication and in some of the enlightened sharia law lands, this can get her imprisoned, whipped or even executed.

Surah 24, verses 11- 15. 24. Light

Or perhaps the Qur'anic command to lightly beat one's disloyal or poorly behaved wives is not depraved?

Surah 4, verse 34.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

4. Women - IslamiCity

And there's always that old standby:

Surah 9, verse 11 -12:

But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.

12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

9. Repentance, Dispensation

Lots of this is just tip of the iceberg stuff.

Lets contemplate Surah, verse 38.

As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.

5. The Table, The Table Spread

Sweet. Not perverse or depraved at all. Unless it's just a mistranslation. Is it a mistranslation? Or DOES the Qur'an command that theives (either gender) should suffer amputation in that way?

Or, perhaps we can discuss again Surah 9, verse 29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9. Repentance, Dispensation

I don't feel inclined to ever feel "subdued." I will not pay any Jizya. Must you, then, now fight me? No depravity in that? Is it ok with you if I disagree and demand that you pay some humilation tax to me until YOU feel subdued and bow to some other "God?" Would THAT be depraved in your view?

 

[Sunni Man]

I see no "filth" in the verses you posted.

These are all just civil and criminal laws that are enforced in some Islamic countries.


In Europe there is no death penalty.

They see Americans as "filth" for executing convicted murderers.


In other words, you might not agree with other countries criminal laws.

But that doesn't make it wrong or "filth", as you put it.

 

[Liability]

I see no "filth" in the verses you posted.

These are all just civil and criminal laws that are enforced in some Islamic countries.


In Europe there is no death penalty.

They see Americans as "filth" for executing convicted murderers.


In other words, you might not agree with other countries criminal laws.

But that doesn't make it wrong or "filth", as you put it.

Interesting deflection. Focus on just one point and pretend that's all that had been said.

You Izzy's love to do that kind of transparent crap.

It is the stinking Qur'an that ends up getting rape victims imprisoned for the audacity of accusing the bastards who raped them. Filth.

It is the Qur'an that tells Izzys to subjugate the unbelievers until submission. Filth.

And, as I noted, these are but tip of the iceberg examples.

The Qur'an is a filthy nightmare of 7th Century barbarism.

 

[mal]

I see no "filth" in the verses you posted.

These are all just civil and criminal laws that are enforced in some Islamic countries.


In Europe there is no death penalty.

They see Americans as "filth" for executing convicted murderers.


In other words, you might not agree with other countries criminal laws.

But that doesn't make it wrong or "filth", as you put it.

Stoning a Women to Death over Simple Accusations of Infidelity, by being Stoned after being Buried up to her Head, is Animalistic and Barbaric...

Putting a Murdering Rapist to Sleep after 15 Years of Due Process, 3 Hots and a Cot and a Master's Degree in the American System, is Humane.

Fuck you and Fuck Islam.



peace...

 

[Sunni Man]

None of your examples are what could be called "filthy"

Maybe you and Liabiliy need to look up the definition of the word before you run your mouth.

You might disagree with Islamic jurisprudence.

But that is a subjective call based on your opinion, and basically means nothing.

 

[Kalam]

Bull. We KNOW she was 6 when married and 9 when the pedohile Mohammed consumated the marriage by having intercourse with the little girl.

If you choose to rely on the authority of a single source. Both Abu Dawud and Ibn Kathir indicate that Aishah was significantly older when she married Muhammad. Her age was artificially lowered in Bukhari to remove any doubt about her virginity and the legitimacy of Muhammad's offspring through her, most likely.

He DID keep slaves.

Did I deny this?

Mighty nice of him to encourage that slaves be freed. Whatta guy!

"Nobody wishes more ardently to see an abolition, not only of the trade, but of the condition of slavery; and certainly, nobody will be more willing to encounter every sacrifice for that object." - Thomas Jefferson, slaveowner (1788).​

Imagine those 'sptieful Joooz" being spiteful in light of the kind and gentle loving respectful references to Joooz in the Qur'an.

I hear Madinan Jews had it especially rough.

"To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.

...

The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families" - Muhammad, "j00 hater" (622).​

Come on. Try being honest. That supposedly holy book is quite full of hate and depravity.

Whatever you say.

 

[mystic]

I see no "filth" in the verses you posted.

These are all just civil and criminal laws that are enforced in some Islamic countries.


In Europe there is no death penalty.

They see Americans as "filth" for executing convicted murderers.


In other words, you might not agree with other countries criminal laws.

But that doesn't make it wrong or "filth", as you put it.

Interestingeflection. Focus on just one point and pretend that's all that had been said.

You Izzy's love to do that kind of transparent crap.

It is the stinking Qur'an that ends up getting rape victims imprisoned for the audacity of accusing the bastards who raped them. Filth.

It is the Qur'an that tells Izzys to subjugate the unbelievers until submission. Filth.

And, as I noted, these are but tip of the iceberg examples.

The Qur'an is a filthy nightmare of 7th Century barbarism.

I find it so sad when people fall prey to propaganda. There's really no excuse for ignorance in this day and age where there are media outlets that are not sponsor funded and the vastness of internet.

If you bothered to read some books on the subject, Liability, you would know that rape victims being imprisoned has more to do with tribal codes. Not Islam.

The Quran talks about defense. I suppose you stopped reading before you got to the part where it says to stop fighting when they stop fighting you.

I know you haven't actually read the Quran from cover to cover as I have. No, you just get little snippets from websites that pander to this type of misinformation.

You do realize how easy it is to totally misrepresent what is being said by only taking a small piece of the whole...? They do it to celebrities and politicians all the time.

If you have a brain.....use it.

 

[mystic]

Stoning a Women to Death over Simple Accusations of Infidelity, by being Stoned after being Buried up to her Head, is Animalistic and Barbaric...

Agreed. Has nothing to do with Islam.

KKK says they have Christian morals too. Do you believe them as well?

Putting a Murdering Rapist to Sleep after 15 Years of Due Process, 3 Hots and a Cot and a Master's Degree in the American System, is Humane.

No, it's not humane. If it was my mother he raped and murdered, I'd prefer him to be beheaded (like the Saudis do ) thank you very much. But maybe you just don't care as much about your mother...?

Fuck you and Fuck Islam.



peace...

How old are you?

 

[Liability]

None of your examples are what could be called "filthy"

Maybe you and Liabiliy need to look up the definition of the word before you run your mouth.

You might disagree with Islamic jurisprudence.

But that is a subjective call based on your opinion, and basically means nothing.

It is your subjective opinion that denies that Islamic "scripture" is what motivates Islamic "jurisprudence" or that it is anything but filth.

And it is your denial that means nothing.

By the way, I do believe that in some VERY limited circumstances, a death penalty might be appropriate. It is not a tenent of my "faith," however.

And if some 7th Century style Barbarian consider modern Western values and the present American legal system to be "filthy," I don't give a rat's ass. I do not seek to compel anybody in any other part of the world to adopt our system of justice or our moral directives. But Islam DOES seek to compel those who do not embrace Islam to embrace Islam under compulsion. Filth.

And if you truly cared about the definitions of words, you could look it up: filth - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

In case your mind is as narrow as your views, you should probably be advised: I object to Islam, not to Muslims. Anybody in THIS land is free to BE an adherent of Islam, but that doesn't mean I have to endorse their misguided judgment and beliefs.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

I find it so sad when people fall prey to propaganda. There's really no excuse for ignorance in this day and age where there are media outlets that are not sponsor funded and the vastness of internet.

If you bothered to read some books on the subject, Liability, you would know that rape victims being imprisoned has more to do with tribal codes. Not Islam.

The Quran talks about defense. I suppose you stopped reading before you got to the part where it says to stop fighting when they stop fighting you.

I know you haven't actually read the Quran from cover to cover as I have. No, you just get little snippets from websites that pander to this type of misinformation.

You do realize how easy it is to totally misrepresent what is being said by only taking a small piece of the whole...? They do it to celebrities and politicians all the time.

If you have a brain.....use it.

I was half-inclined to respond to you a bit more civilly, but since you are a bit of a dope and have your own issues of incivility, I guess it will save time to just be blunt.

I am not subject to YOUR propaganda precisely because I took some time and made the effort to go to the source. That is how I have learned what Islam is all about. And upon doing that I discovered that it is a vile religion started by a nasty barbaric scumbag. It is because I am not moved by YOUR efforts tat propaganda that you get upset with my words.

I don't ask ANYBODY to accept what I say about Islam on the basis of my say so. I have not accepted anybody else's spin about what Islam is, either. As I noted, I have gone to the source, instead.

Rape victims are imprisoned not just on dopey tribal codes. They are imprisoned based on a depraved reading of ignorant words in the Qur'an -- perhaps coupled with dopey tribal codes or customs.

And I did read the filthy Qur'an so while I know that it SAYS 'stop fighting when they stop fighting,' I ALSO know (as you fail to mention) that the cited passage is CONTRADICTED in at least one other passage of the Qur'an. And this point has already been discussed several times in this and a couple of related threads. Try to keep up when pretending to lecture a class, sweetie.

And when I go back to cite some of that garbage which I have read, since there is no rational reason on Earth to commit any of that filth to memory, you bet your ass I use online resources. So your false claim (imagine an Izzy engaging in lies -- gee, who'd'a ever thunk it) that I have not read the entire book is just more of your baseless speculation which you try to foist off as if you had any facts to back it up. You don't.

It is also easy to misrepresent what Islam is and what the Qur'an says (as you and a few select others on this very thread are guilty of doing) by selectively choosing passages that appear to support your denial of a claim, all the time refusing to admit the contradictions themselves and by claiming that the alleged contradictions are actually just misinterpretation of the seamless non-contradictory whole.

Bull. It isn't seamless. It endlessly contradicts itself. And there is a doctrine of abrogation which many of you faithful adherents pretend doesn't exist. Islamic "scholars" themselves constantly contradict each other using the words of the Qur'an as support for THEIR respective interpretations, as some of the folks HERE have even noted.

But the folks HERE cannot seem to grasp that the FACT that Islamic Scholars themselves disagree with each other (citing Qur'anic verses as "proof") NECESSARILY MEANS that the Qur'an IS SUBJECT to interpretation and IS thus not clear, not seamless and that their preferred interpretations are not necessarily the "correct" ones.

Try to use your own brain, toots. It appears not to be working so well for you.

 

[mystic]

I was half-inclined to respond to you a bit more civilly, but since you are a bit of a dope and have your own issues of incivility, I guess it will save time to just be blunt.

You know, you're right in that I could have replied a bit more politely. My apologies; I tend to be a sarcastic wench sometimes. I hope there is no permanant damage?

I am not subject to YOUR propaganda precisely because I took some time and made the effort to go to the source. That is how I have learned what Islam is all about. And upon doing that I discovered that it is a vile religion started by a nasty barbaric scumbag. It is because I am not moved by YOUR efforts tat propaganda that you get upset with my words.

I don't ask ANYBODY to accept what I say about Islam on the basis of my say so. I have not accepted anybody else's spin about what Islam is, either. As I noted, I have gone to the source, instead.

So I will ask you a question. Are you religious at all?

Rape victims are imprisoned not just on dopey tribal codes. They are imprisoned based on a depraved reading of ignorant words in the Qur'an -- perhaps coupled with dopey tribal codes or customs.

There is nothing in the Quran that says that rape victims should be punished in anyway. What is happening in some countries with so-called sharia is that when a woman files a complaint of rape, there is never 4 witnesses; so the perps get off scott free and the woman, because of her own admission, is imprisoned under zina laws. This is very unislamic.
I will say again that the tribal laws in these areas trump religion. And in fact, the problem is that they say that their laws are religion...when in fact they are tribal code! They do this to give their laws more weight and influence.
The tribal code pre-dates Islam and obviously supercedes it as well.

And I did read the filthy Qur'an so while I know that it SAYS 'stop fighting when they stop fighting,' I ALSO know (as you fail to mention) that the cited passage is CONTRADICTED in at least one other passage of the Qur'an. And this point has already been discussed several times in this and a couple of related threads. Try to keep up when pretending to lecture a class, sweetie.

This thread is a bit heavy. No, I have not read every post. So I will have to find this post that you are talking about in order to address the point.

I don't recall the verses about warfare being contradicted or abrogated. But then, my views are coming from someone who has read the entire Quran and who doesn't put much stock in what so-and-so says about his interpetation. To those that say that I am not allowed to make my own interpetation...that's why God said that there doesn't need to be an iintermediary between the supplicant and God.

...I will try to keep up, sensei.

And when I go back to cite some of that garbage which I have read, since there is no rational reason on Earth to commit any of that filth to memory, you bet your ass I use online resources. So your false claim (imagine an Izzy engaging in lies -- gee, who'd'a ever thunk it) that I have not read the entire book is just more of your baseless speculation which you try to foist off as if you had any facts to back it up. You don't.

It is also easy to misrepresent what Islam is and what the Qur'an says (as you and a few select others on this very thread are guilty of doing) by selectively choosing passages that appear to support your denial of a claim, all the time refusing to admit the contradictions themselves and by claiming that the alleged contradictions are actually just misinterpretation of the seamless non-contradictory whole.

Bull. It isn't seamless. It endlessly contradicts itself. And there is a doctrine of abrogation which many of you faithful adherents pretend doesn't exist. Islamic "scholars" themselves constantly contradict each other using the words of the Qur'an as support for THEIR respective interpretations, as some of the folks HERE have even noted.

But the folks HERE cannot seem to grasp that the FACT that Islamic Scholars themselves disagree with each other (citing Qur'anic verses as "proof") NECESSARILY MEANS that the Qur'an IS SUBJECT to interpretation and IS thus not clear, not seamless and that their preferred interpretations are not necessarily the "correct" ones.

Try to use your own brain, toots. It appears not to be working so well for you.

I'm not Muslim and I don't think the Quran is perfect. But it's a lot better then the Bible. And of course it is subject to interpretation! Of course scholars are going to disagree.

That's why I prefer to make my own interpetation.

I find quite a bit of beauty reading the Quran. And if I need help understanding something, I look it up and pick the interpetation that I like the most. The one that is most favorable to my understanding.

Most (literate) Muslims will tell you that there is not an example of Islamic society on earth at this present time. So if Muslims are saying that the faith is not being practiced properly...why do you think it is?