I want to discuss Islam, with Muslims and non-muslims. Is Islam true? Let's argue.

I want to discuss Islam, with Muslims and non-muslims. Is Islam true? Let's argue. Why do nowadays many Muslims feel ashamed of their religion? Was Christ really just a prophet who said worship god and not him? What about paganism, is it really evil? These are some questions that recur in my mind.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is Islam true?
    Christian heresy that gained traction and split.
    simple as.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      If it were that clearly simple 99% of Muslims would convert out. So it's not that simple.

      Mainstream Islamic theology is too simplistic and cannot handle the problem of determinism and free will, but this escapes most Muslims, because they more easily adhere to authority and aren't as capable of critical thought.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        it is that simple.
        they just cope with stuff like "the Bible is corrupted!" when their own book says it is the word of God, and that the word of God is impossible to corrupt.

        Aquinas details it in his polemics against islam; conversion started with ignorant men who were enticed by the pleasures of the flesh and other desires that they were promised.
        with that army they threatened the wise men and scholars with conversion or the sword.
        it was not conversion by belief, by faith, or anything of the sort. it was by concupiscence to those foolish enough to listen, and by the sword for the wiser men.

        as for more of his expositions
        >he (Mohammed) seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.

        >he (Mohammed) did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms – which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Quran was actually changed with time as early as the eight century where parts of the older manuscripts found contain different words and wordings than the modern Quran.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            along with the practice of rabbinic judaism-esque divine revelation to the teachers.
            same as they have the Oral Torah, Talmud, etc, muslims have their hadiths.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure. Link to proof of this?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look for Quran manuscripts some channel on YouTube shows the proof.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'll try but tell me ahead of time. Were they different editions of the Quran, or just differing versions of individual sheets (which are a weaker indictment)? Also were the manuscripts forensically proven to not be forgeries?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The forensics were legit. Yes only parts of the writing was different. Minor changes but sometimes a whole sentence is different. I don't even think that disproves Islam honestly just modern Islamic thinking that the Quran was never changed.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right. Just as NT manuscript copying errors don't disprove Catholicism.

            Still, if the vast majority of Qurans are consistent, all these contradictory Arabic Qurans don't break Islam's perfect preservation narrative, since isn't there even a Quranic verse that warns about the israelites trying to tamper with the Quran's writing?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know, I'm not an expert.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know, I'm not an expert.

            If there's an unbroken chain of consistency among orthodox Qurans, then their own claims are fine. Alternate manuscripts of verses of the Quran are like alternate manuscripts of the NT, but 100% (not 99%) of the earliest NT manuscripts ever discovered textually agree on theologically important verses, which is practically speaking, miraculous, since to my knowledge, no other body of copies has this distinction.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >they just cope with stuff like "the Bible is corrupted!" when their own book says it is the word of God, and that the word of God is impossible to corrupt.
          Which we Christians are accused of similarly with the NT. The problem is that both the NT and Quran are both well planned and impervious to these accusations, since both are self-consistent.

          You could also argue that since even Belloc admits that art is Catholicism's main attraction for conversion, that Catholicism is culpable of pleasurable similitudes with Islam.

          >>he (Mohammed) did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration
          In Islam there was the miracle of splitting the moon. I think that's bullshit. But they have a claim here.
          >which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration
          It really isn't, since many cults have been able to fake miracles, so even signs and wonders aren't inarguable signs of God's favor. The Quran points that moot point out, but not the Bible, afaik.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Which we Christians
            >some rando's opinion on drawing people in with beauty that reflects the divine, and comparing that to drawing them in with lust and concupiscence
            >le moon split, which he claimed by just saying "look, i split that!"
            least obvious falseflagger.

            >through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms.
            These are more misrepresentations and misunderstandings of Aquinas, love him as I do. Muhammad apparently gained his first converts through persuasion. He gained his greatest conquest, the city of Mecca, without shedding blood.

            When you face your opposition you should be aware of their true strengths, and not false impressions, because failing to do so sets you up for failure in real world confrontations.

            by implied violence. as i literally and explicitly explained, by the threat of the sword.
            he descends on Mecca with an army, what are the people going to do, come out unprepared and unarmed to fight them?

            >through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms.
            He actually gained his largest prize yemen for free since it was a war torn shithole for the past century due to Aksum and Persia so the rulers of Yemen who were persian just submitted to him because he became the biggest kid on the block and these persians were practically abandoned by the persian empire

            yeah, that's why some like to call it a war cult.
            i find the most clear example of it the time when mohammed was being hunted down by a group of attackers, and one by one he convinced the men with him to stand behind and fight to the death by promising them his "heaven" (aka infinite hedonism with virgins, milk, and honey) so that he could get away.
            that along with the fact that women aren't mentioned at all in regards to salvation or anything, because they're unnecessary when all you need are the men and their weapons.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >least obvious falseflagger.
            I mean you can say that but I in no way endorse the lie that is Islam. Some Catholics are just able to understand both sides. It's not that unusual.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >yeah, that's why some like to call it a war cult
            Uh what. He literally got it without any fiighting. Just negiotating with the rulers

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            This. If you're willing to deal fairly with Muslims despite what you wrote in the OP, step aside and let the big boys discuss.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes, leveraging an army.
            if Rome didn't have Pompey and the remaining legions , Caesar could have done the same after crossing the Rubicon.

            >by implied violence.
            But Anon, Christianity does that too. Muslims are more irrationally violent, but that's a double edged criticism.

            when did the church, ex cathedra, command violence of the sort?
            did the Pope ever lead the force of his catholics into battle, or use it as leverage to convert a people?
            have any unbelievers been put to the choice of conversion or the sword?

            inb4 you misrepresent the crusades.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're moving goalposts and you're ignoring the political reality: By default, Christianity has had to use the threat of violence to maintain order. It's unavoidable when dealing with obnoxious Bruno type heretics, who are irrational and with irresponsible influencing that cannot be suppressed through words alone.

            And when you take that into account, and to be consistent, you cannot use your complaint against force and violence against Islam. Islam has had a strong public reputation, since Muhammad has been outwardly presented as a shining moral example: kind, peace loving, etc. Their use of violence is conducive to peace in that regard. If there's a flaw to their narrative in this point, you should emphasize that more clearly.

            I'm not saying this stuff to make you look bad. I want you be on the level to where you should, so you can be a better defender of Catholicism. If I really wanted to hurt you, I'd let you stay naive.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >by implied violence.
            But Anon, Christianity does that too. Muslims are more irrationally violent, but that's a double edged criticism.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that along with the fact that women aren't mentioned at all in regards to salvation
            https://quran.com/33/35
            But it does and that just scratches the surface
            You're just showing you've scratched the surface of Thomism and barely know things about Islam. You're far from a great defender of Christianity and make other Christians look silly by comparison.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            when discussed, paradise is shown as what it'd look like to a concupiscent man.
            virgin women and all.

            your example isn't something of the sort for the opposite sex, but a simple general platitude.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, are you going to keep moving goalposts so lamely? Just read the fricking Quran at some point. Anyway there's also a verse where it says eternally youthful handsome boy spirits will be in paradise for the ladies.

            https://quran.com/76/19

            I'm not spoonfeeding you anymore. Stop sidestepping with your petty complaints and learn about Islam as well as your own religion at some point.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        not to forget that the rest of the believers have a duty to kill you on sight for leaving the religion.

        also i found the quote i first reference in

        it is that simple.
        they just cope with stuff like "the Bible is corrupted!" when their own book says it is the word of God, and that the word of God is impossible to corrupt.

        Aquinas details it in his polemics against islam; conversion started with ignorant men who were enticed by the pleasures of the flesh and other desires that they were promised.
        with that army they threatened the wise men and scholars with conversion or the sword.
        it was not conversion by belief, by faith, or anything of the sort. it was by concupiscence to those foolish enough to listen, and by the sword for the wiser men.

        as for more of his expositions
        >he (Mohammed) seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.

        >he (Mohammed) did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms – which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

        >What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning (1). Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms.
        >Nor do divine pronouncements on part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.
        >It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity.
        It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly.”
        Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 6, Art. 4. Footnote: 1. Sura 21:5, Sura 44:14; Sura 16:103, Sura 37:36
        hard to find this quote for some reason.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms.
          These are more misrepresentations and misunderstandings of Aquinas, love him as I do. Muhammad apparently gained his first converts through persuasion. He gained his greatest conquest, the city of Mecca, without shedding blood.

          When you face your opposition you should be aware of their true strengths, and not false impressions, because failing to do so sets you up for failure in real world confrontations.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms.
          He actually gained his largest prize yemen for free since it was a war torn shithole for the past century due to Aksum and Persia so the rulers of Yemen who were persian just submitted to him because he became the biggest kid on the block and these persians were practically abandoned by the persian empire

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He actually gained his largest prize yemen for free
            Was Yemen more important than Mecca? I'm no expert and I'm interested.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Was Yemen more important than Mecca? I'm no expert and I'm interested.
            Far more important. Yemen had a large population. Most of the soldiers of the arab conquests came from yemen

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He actually gained his largest prize yemen for free
            Nah, he sent his goons to destroy their temple, even though they did nothing to him.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_Dhul_Khalasa

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        It is that simple but moslems are bad at history and logic. The region had already converted to an expelled nontrinitarian Christianity before the time of Ha-messhugah

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      FBBP. Basically Arab Mormonism.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Other way around, Mormonism is white Islam.

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is Islam true?
    No.
    >Why do nowadays many Muslims feel ashamed of their religion?
    False, very few do.
    >Was Christ really just a prophet who said worship god and not him?
    Only Muslims believe it.
    >What about paganism, is it really evil?
    Shirk is the biggest sin in Islam.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Was Christ really just a prophet who said worship god and not him?
      > Only Muslims believe it.

      Muslims believe Mohammed was the last prophet.

      Christians believed Christ when he said :
      “No one comes to the Father except through me”.

      It all boils down to what you believe. Because thoughts mean little, at the end of the day - yet *they* all put so much stock into them.

      I'd rather trust the words of a man who died for what he believed rather than the words of the mob that killed him. And *they* do kill... The rational man is a dead man, as they eliminate all that is not befitting of their dream.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Christians believed Christ when he said
        You only believe what has been related to you about what Christ said, for which you have no evidence to authenticate it, no chain of narrators, no chain of scribes, no mass transmission, no internal evidence in support of the authorship.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Is that what you *think*?

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do nowadays many Muslims feel ashamed of their religion?
    They've felt that way ever since the West surpassed them, they're supposed to be the posessors of the one true religion after all, so they have been asking themselves why have these infidels managed to elevate themselves above them and gain dominion over Dar-al-Islam.

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Every time I take a shit I have to bathe right after so I'm grateful to Muslims for making me feel like less of weirdo.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're confusing Muslims with Hindus

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Moslems who wear hindoo robes and perform hindoo rituals while kissing a Shiva lingam? Those moslems?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Very israeli response

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Very poo response

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do nowadays many Muslims feel ashamed of their religion?
    They're stuck with being forced to call a pedophile the best imitated, greatest, and most moral man to ever live. So this is very a embarrassing thing to affirm for the modern westernized mind.

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is Islam true?
    To preface my answers, I should let you know I am not a Muslim, but that is of secondary importance to what I am about to tell you.
    Islam cannot be true, logically speaking, because at multiple points within the Quran, which is considered the infallible literal Word of God, spoken by him, as uncreated and eternal as Allah himself is, it states very clearly that the Bible is true, and relevant for israelites and Christians, and there is no reason for them to convert. This is indisputable. The WHOLE Bible, Old and New Testament, as it stood in the 6th and 7th centuries, and since the Latin Vulgate was already propagated by the 4th century, this means that the Bible Christians and israelites have today is the same one they've had since centuries before Muhammad was born. However, since the Quran also makes a lot of mistakes about what Christians believe, and says many things that the Bible contradicts, this means the Quran is wrong, if you accept the Bible as true.
    So the dilemma for Muslims is:
    >If the Quran is wrong, then Islam is false. This has no impact on whether the Bible is or is not true, so is irrelevant for israelites and Christians.
    >If the Quran is correct, then the Bible is true, and the Bible says the Quran is wrong, so that means the Quran is wrong, and Islam is false.
    That's coded into the very basis of their "holy" book. Unavoidable, incontrovertible.
    >Why do nowadays many Muslims feel ashamed of their religion?
    They don't, they're practicing taqiyya to make their religion seem more presentable to westerners.
    >Was Christ really just a prophet who said worship god and not him?
    No, it is impossible to read the bible and come to this conclusion unless you rewrite it to say what you want.
    >What about paganism, is it really evil?
    Depends on how you define paganism, but the short answer is yes, because you ought not to worship any created thing, only uncreated creators.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >However, since the Quran also makes a lot of mistakes about what Christians believe
      Like what? There is no one Christianity or a single unitive doctrine of Christian belief.
      Are you talking about the Trinity being called Father, Son, Mary? That appears to me as a parody of Christian belief, a mocking interpretation of the Holy Spirit. But if intentional it doesn't mean they made a mistake from ignorance.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        well it says Jesus wasn't crucified, which is the one thing literally everybody on the planet who isn't insane knows happened as an indisputable historical event

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          To see it from a general angle, half the world isn't Abrahamic. They don't know what happened. It doesn't really matter to them. Chinese, Indians, Asians, most Africans, and many Westerners don't really care about the debate. It's debatable what happened at the crucifixion, which is why Islam was able to kidnap so many souls.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's debatable what happened at the crucifixion
            I'm pretty sure nobody on earth except Muslims is willing to entertain the idea that God cast a glamour on an innocent man to look like Jesus and take his place at the crucifixion while Jesus himself just yeeted out of there to heaven for no reason.
            I don't see how you could plausibly maintain the position that this is a reasonable belief even by the standards of divine revelation, especially right after reading Surah 5:47

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm pretty sure nobody on earth except Muslims is willing to entertain the idea that God cast a glamour on an innocent man to look like Jesus and take his place
            yeah it sounds ridiculous but if you dont think it can hold in other peoples minds im sorry but youre autistic

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do Christians not believe in miracles anymore?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Deception is not a miracle

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those who endeavoured to kill Jesus Christ were deceived. Seeing as Christians justify their salvation through the death of the innocent Messiah, perhaps you too would have called for him to be killed, so God deceived you killers of prophets and I see not fault in it

            "They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear so unto them"

            cont.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            well it says Jesus wasn't crucified, which is the one thing literally everybody on the planet who isn't insane knows happened as an indisputable historical event

            cont.

            >On the historicity of the crucifixion
            The 12 Disciples didn't witness the crucifixion according to the Gospels. So, when supposedly "Matthew" and "John" wrote their gospels, they were either inspired by the Holy Spirit(none of the gospels claim to be inspired) or were compiled from hearsay.

            A close reading of,
            >1. Galatians: "have I not portrayed Christ as crucified to you?"
            >2. Corinthians: Paul mentions "enemies of the cross"
            >3. Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians: "on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death — whom some deny"
            Indicates that there were First Century Christians who denied the death and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

            And as attested to in Magnesians, they were israeli Christians who kept the Law, the movement which we knew James, the brother of Jesus, headed after Christ, as attested to by Josephus and in Acts, who is strangely absent in the narratives of the Gospels

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hmm, I wonder who in the 1st century AD would be denying the resurrection and divinity of Jesus Christ
            |
            |>
            |
            |3
            |

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            James the Brother of Jesus, who suceeded him according to Josephus and Acts. His epistle has no mention of the crucifixion or resurrection, nor of atonement. israeli Christians came to refute Paul in Galatia and Corinth according to most exegetes. Even the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas acknowledges James as successor to Christ

            Jesus himself said, "I come for the lost sheep of Israel"

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why would Mary Magdalene go to the tomb? Why did he repeatedly said he was going to die? Why were the disciples mourning? Why did he show them the wounds?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you think each Gospel has a different narrrative about what happened after the Crucifixion? Each Gospel has its own narrative which implies their own theological ideas. It's highly symbolic and allegorical, especially the Gospel of John.

            It is important to note that the Four Gospels are written in the style of greek fiction. While a gospel of another type, Gospel of Thomas which is a sayings gospel, has no mention of the crucifixion, death nor resurrection

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did they go to hell though? What about the verse, forgive them father for they know not what they do? What's the point of saying that if they will just go to hell?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >forgive them father for they know not what they do?
            This is only in Luke. Why would Jesus, who is God, beseech the Father, who is also God, to forgive them? Doesn't Jesus have authority to forgive in other parts of the gospels, according to Christians?

            And what is the source of Luke? He never saw the crucifixion, nor did he meet Christ? Did he learn this from Paul? Or one of the disciples? Or what is just hearsay, considering the quote doesn't exist in the other gospels?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The higher dimensions of the mystery of Christ are a part of faith. That faith cannot be explained with words, they cannot grasp this dimension.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The fact of the matter: Christianity crumbles under scrutiny

            While Islam is inpenetrable, the critics of Islam grasp at straws. They resort to citing textual variants, when the variants are so minute (San'a Palimpsest), compared to variants of the gospels where entire passages are ommitted or added(Pericope Adulterae, John repeating passages etc.).

            They resort to saying Islam is too simplistic, like that in of itself is necessarily a bad thing.

            They resort to liberal morality, when their own Bible is in opposition to it.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >While Islam is inpenetrable
            Does the sun sit on a muddy spring?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Does the sun sit on a muddy spring?
            Like I said, clutching at straws.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >mohammad was a pedophile warlord
            >quran has many scientific errors in it
            >there is no soul in islam none, even heaven is made up of 72 virgins
            what else do you need?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            His culture being replaced by low iq browns.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christianity crumbles under scrutiny
            >Islam is inpenetrable
            Funnily enough, the opposite is true
            Muhammad had to retcon the Bible and he barely had any connection to the Israelites of old, while the New Testament builds off of the Old Testament

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Neither truly fall apart under scrutiny, tbh, though each has suspicious claims
            - The response to Muhammad plagiarizing the Bible: It can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it has any errors. That's true despite counter claims like the Quran was edited or plays language games
            - The response to the NT continues the OT: Bible scholars openly acknowledge there's extreme variation among Bibles. If the Bible could be changed by man, the true Bible actually anticipates Muhammad as the final prophet.

          • 8 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            >there's extreme variation among Bibles
            no there isn't.
            the majority text has been the majority text since the Apostles
            but please, base your religion on atheists.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is the majority text in your view?
            Islam has a better claim to scriptural purity, with far fewer outlier variants.

            Septuagint has different passages than majority Hebrew equivalents.
            The RCC adds apocrypha to the OT
            There's extreme variety in different choices of books, different textual variants, different translations

            It's not atheism, even Christian scholars acknowledge this.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            If only the Quran didn't directly refer to Torah and Gospels.
            >inb4 bUt it wAS cORRupteD
            The why does it command Christians to judge by the "corrupted", "nonexistent-anymore" gospels in 5:47?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The why does it command Christians to judge by the "corrupted", "nonexistent-anymore" gospels in 5:47?
            Idk or care enough about Islam to investigate your claim, but for you to dodge like this, you're probably mistaken about Quran verses too. I bet a learned Muslim can prove you wrong.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not that anon. Even if I were, I wouldn't be dodging since Muslims historically claimed the scripture as part of their canon. Only after it had become apparent, that is a pile of made-up israeli folklore did they drop it. Unfortunately for them their book still refers to it, so they can't wind their heads out of the noose here.

            Also you wiener sucking for Muslim won't do you any favor, as they're gonna throw you under the bus at the first sign of disobedience anyways. Provided ofc you're tayquiya'ing, which seems very likely ngl

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I wouldn't be dodging since Muslims historically claimed the scripture as part of their canon.
            Sure I'm interested. Post a reputable source.

            No I'm not taquitoing, but I am hungry for Mexican food now, thanks.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            literally a verse before the verse I posted, 5:46
            you find many more such lines throughout the Quran
            holy shit why do you even discuss Islam if you knowledge about it equals 0

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's a verse with your interpretation, which is not reputable. Now what Islamic or otherwise sources show that Muslims used to consider the Bible canon? Or are you just another schizo?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            How fricking moronic are you on a scale of Muslim to Muslim supporter? It lit-er-all-y says in their central text you dense moron. What do you think this means exactly:
            >We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah
            >We gave him the Gospel
            >a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing
            You guys are really something.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You haven't proven anything. You've just made claims that are clear only to you. Autism or schizo?

            Have fun.
            https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html

            Post the direct passage. Not digging through all that. Burden's on you for making a claim.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not digging through all that.
            Typical lazy muslim, unable to do anything if he's not micro-managed as frick. Look there are tons of Quran verses that directly imply the Bible is perfectly fine as a source of religion, it's your own problem for not seeing those verses and not accepting what they say.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not Muslim and if you can't cite something clearly that shows your ignorance and incompetence if anything.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            Here's for you mongrels.
            >In the epistle of Ibn al-Layth, on the other hand, tahrif is clearly interpreted as a distortion of their sense: whoever looks in the books of the prophets will find Muhammad mentioned, but the People of the book have obscured these references by changing their interpretation. Ibn al-Layth categorically denies the possibility of passages having been added to, or omitted from, the scriptures, and professes his belief - and Caliph Harun’s - in the authenticity of these scriptures. This point of view seems to be shared by Ibn Rabban

            >The accusation of deliberate distortion of the Torah, which we find for example in the works of Ibn Hazm, is nowhere voiced in Kitab al-din a’l-dawla ... he refers to a distortion of the interpretation of the scriptures and not of the text itself ... However, Ibn Rabban could ill afford to reject the Torah as a forgery, for this would deprive him of the main proof he adduces for Muhammad’s veracity; the frequent occurrence of his name and description in the israeli - and Christian - scriptures. To a large extent, the same goes for Ibn Qutayba’s Dala’il al-nubuwwa

            >Ibn Qutayba used the Torah not only as a book in which the advent of the Prophet is foretold, but also as a historical source
            >It is clear that what is meant by tahrif is giving a wrong interpretation to an otherwise genuine text. Ibn Qutayba does not question the authenticity or validity of the israeli scriptures, and nowhere does he accuse the israelites of having distorted them.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >As in the cases of Ibn Rabban and Ibn Qutayba, tahrif does not seem to have been an issue for al-Ya‘qubi
            >Most important, however, is the fact that like Ibn Qutayba al-Ya‘qubi sees no reason not to accept evidence from the Torah.

            >It would seem that al-Baqillani simply assumed it to be authentic, albeit abrogated
            >Apparently al-Baqillani believed that the words of Moses were still extant in their Hebrew original, and could serve as the touchstone with which to compare the statements made by the israelites. The term as used by him stands for inadvertent errors made in the process of translation, rather than deliberate alterations effected in the text of the Torah. (pp. 234, 235)

            >According to al-Ma‘sudi’s account of the Torah - which echoes that of al-Ya‘qubi - the text of the Torah was not corrupted; no new laws were introduced; the old ones were just reinstated
            >The one time he addresses the issue of tahrif – in the Muruj - it is clear that he accuses the israelites of distorting the sense of the Torah, not the text

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, if you can't prove the Muslims once considered the Bible canon, you're a full of shit and a liar. Surely some Hadith would indicate your claim? You can't just point at some verses that are open to interpretation and claim Muslims used to believe this or that.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hey Abdul.

            >It was found that the MAJORITY of our authors subscribe to a mild interpretation of the Koranic allegation of large-scale tampering with the Torah by the israelites (tahrif); according to this interpretation, only the sense of the biblical text had been changed while the text itself remained intact. Only al-Maqdisi and Ibn Hazm believed that the text had suffered distortion.

            >Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah’s creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves."

            >As for Allah’s books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED." Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah’s creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves."

            These aren't quotes from their prophet and reflect the views of ordinary men. It doesn't sound like it was the common view.

            I looked at a Muslim source and it's reasonable

            >As for Allah's Books, they are still preserved and cannot be changed." Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement. However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous misinterpretation. Those who rendered these translations have incorrect comprehension in most, rather, all of these translations. If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He has with Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed.

            You haven't proved anything and your claims so far have been flimsy.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >These aren't quotes from their prophet and reflect the views of ordinary men. It doesn't sound like it was the common view.
            LMAO what a pathetic cope. It was common view before Ibn Hazm changed the status quo.
            Abu’l-Rabi‘ b. al-Layth (c. 8th century A.D.).
            ‘Ali b. Rabban al-Tabari (b. 810 A.D.).
            Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah b. Muslim b. Qutayba (b. 828 A.D.).
            Ahmad b. Abi Ya‘qub b. Ja‘far b. Wahb b. Wadih al-‘Abbasi (b. first quarter of the 9th century A.D.).
            Abu Ja‘far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (b. 839 A.D.).
            Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali b. al-Husayn al-Mas‘udi (b. 893 A.D.).
            Abu Bakr Muhammad b. al-Tayyib b. Ja‘far b. Muhammad b. al-Qasim (ibn) al-Baqillani (b. 950)
            Abu Nasr Mutahhar b. Tahir al-Maqdisi.
            Abu’l-Rayhan Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Biruni (b. 973 A.D.).
            Abu Muhammad ‘Ali b. Ahmad b. Hazm (b. 994 A.D.).
            >The first 7 writers were of the opinion that the Hebrew Scriptures remained intact, with the last 3 claiming that textual corruption had taken place. Ibn Hazm was the most vociferous of those who held that the text of the Hebrew Bible was corrupted.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Now what I'd REALLY like to see is you making a claim that becomes self evident after presenting both sides of the case, something you have failed to do this entire time, despite making many claims.

            All you have done is copypasta low tier propaganda and treated it as undeniable fact.

            >was common view before Ibn Hazm changed the status quo.
            Maybe. Idk, since I don't know their theological history. Can you show a reputable source that shows these were the orthodox view?
            Also you realize the verses involved are open to interpretation anyway right? Do you really understand what that means?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Also you realize the verses involved are open to interpretation anyway right?
            Not when they literally say stuff like
            >43. But why do they come to you for judgment, when they have the Torah, in which is God’s Law? Yet they turn away after that. These are not believers.
            >47. So let the people of the Gospel rule according to what God revealed in it. Those who do not rule according to what God revealed are the sinners.
            >68. Say, “O People of the Scripture! You have no basis until you uphold the Torah, and the Gospel, and what is revealed to you from your Lord.” But what is revealed to you from your Lord will increase many of them in rebellion and disbelief, so do not be sorry for the disbelieving people.
            >91. And when it is said to them, “Believe in what God has revealed,” they say, “We believe in what was revealed to us,” and they reject anything beyond that, although it is the truth which confirms WHAT THEY HAVE.
            >48. But when the truth came to them from Us, they said, “If only he was given the like of what was given to Moses.” Did they not disbelieve in what was given to Moses in the past? They said, “Two works of magic backing one another.” And they said, “We are disbelieving in both.”
            >49. Say, “Then bring a scripture from God, more conductive to guidance than both, and I will follow it, if you are truthful.”
            You fricking clown.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Those who do not rule according to what God revealed are the sinners.
            >and what is revealed to you from your Lord.
            >But when the truth came to them from Us
            >49. Say, “Then bring a scripture from God, more conductive to guidance than both, and I will follow it, if you are truthful.”
            Can't you see that Muslims can interpret these as meaning the Quran overtakes their rulings, although whatever truth in older scripture is fine for them for moral guidance, if not ultimate truth? Don't tell me you only see things your way.

            I mean it's a pretty straightforward claim: the idea of Gospel corruption began with Ibn-Khazem, who reasoned such an idea must be true because the Quran contradicts the gospels.
            So I guess go check if anyone has arguments against this claim, but in absence of a defeater I see no reason to doubt this myself

            I don't know enough about Islamic lore but your response is fair. I'm very interested if there are older versions of the Quran edited to be based on pre Ibn Khazem interpretations, because that could break Islam.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Islam is perennialism made obvious. Differences between religions are meant to be.
            This is the absolute WORST take possible on the matter. You are an obscurantist of the worst kind. I fricking hate ecumenical mystics, there's nothing so despicable.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            meant for

            Islam is perennialism made obvious. Differences between religions are meant to be.
            >To each of you We have ordained a code of law and a way of life. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given ˹each of˺ you. So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you ˹of the truth˺ regarding your differences. (V, 48).

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon but in his defense that's clearly what Muhammad taught until he gained power, as shown in that verse and other sources like it

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nta, took 2 secs from that link
            https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/adams/early_islam_bible.html
            >the notion that the Bible was corrupted developed within Islam when latter generations of literate Muslims came on the scene and realized the irrevocable differences between the Bible and the Qur’an, as Dr. John Wijngaards pointed out:
            >"In the Qur'an Muslims are told to respect the Gospel revealed to Jesus Christ and read by Christians. The Qur'an presupposes that the Gospel possessed by Christians is in fact identical with the original one proclaimed by Jesus.2 In the first four centuries after Muhammad (600 - 1000 AD) no Muslim theologian seriously contended that the Gospel texts were not authentic. They might accuse Christians of giving a wrong interpretation to the words; they would not dispute the words themselves. As studies of Muslim apologetics have shown it was only with Ibn-Khazem who died at Cordoba in 1064, that the charge of falsification was born.3
            >In his defence of Islam against Christians, Ibn-Khazem came up against the contradictions between the Qur'an and the Gospels. One obvious example was the Qur'anic text ‘They slew him not and they crucified him not’ (Sura 4:156). ‘Since the Qur'an must be true,’ Ibn- Khazem argued, ‘it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians.’ His argument was not based on historical facts, but purely on his own reasoning and on his wish to safeguard the truth of the Qur'an.5 Once he was on this path, nothing could stop him from pursuing this accusation... This led him eventually to make the cynical statement ‘The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them.’7
            >Later writers took up the same reasoning, enlarged it and embellished it... From then on it became a fixed ingredient of Muslim apologetics."

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you, much clearer. Though the link could be right, how can I be sure that they're not just biased and otherwise wrong.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >wrong.
            wrong?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean it's a pretty straightforward claim: the idea of Gospel corruption began with Ibn-Khazem, who reasoned such an idea must be true because the Quran contradicts the gospels.
            So I guess go check if anyone has arguments against this claim, but in absence of a defeater I see no reason to doubt this myself

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You haven't proven anything
            I have proven my claims. I have given you the citations for them. I explained in so much detail, even the 9yo Aisha would understand. I have convinced every objective reader that comes across this thread. I have made every objective reader question your integrity and faith. Whereas you have accomplished nothing. Just as Muslims have accomplished nothing in the last one thousand years. You can now know abandon this thread, as you usually do. And just as usually do, you can make another thread in the next couple day. In which as usual I will btfo you again.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok schizo got it

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Btw if it wasn't clear
            5:47
            >And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.
            >And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.
            This second sentence seems to show that Allah has final say, as revealed in the Quran, over whatever Allah revealed in the NT. Doesn't seem very contradictory since Christians think the same about israeli scripture.

            But you have yet to show that Muslims used to consider the Bible canon.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Gospels reveal information that contradicts the Quran.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have fun.
            https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the rebellious.
            Al-Ma'idah 5:47

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Islam has a better claim to scriptural purity, with far fewer outlier variants.

            This isn't actually true. The Quran was assembled by a commitee and there's some 30 versions with textual differences

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Islam has a better claim to scriptural purity,
            This is true you dimwit. It has a better claim than the Bible, since
            >with far fewer outlier variants.
            Overall less variant early manuscripts exist, compared to the thousands of different ancient world Bibles.

            Fricking moron, learn reading comprehension before you respond to me next time

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pulling numbers out of your ass isn't convincing in the slightest. Nor is pretending additional historical varients weren't compiled/destroyed by the commitee that assembled the Quran.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If the Bible could be changed by man, the true Bible actually anticipates Muhammad as the final prophet.
            is this the power of muslim logic?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >While Islam is inpenetrable
            So where's the gigantic iron wall?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >hy would Jesus, who is God, beseech the Father, who is also God, to forgive them?
            Because the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.
            >Doesn't Jesus have authority to forgive in other parts of the gospels, according to Christians?
            You could say that by requesting the Father to forgive them, the Son is also tacitly forgiving them Himself.
            >And what is the source of Luke?
            The Apostle Luke.
            >He never saw the crucifixion,
            He spoke to those who did.
            >nor did he meet Christ?
            Are you insane?
            >Did he learn this from Paul?
            He got it from the witnesses.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father
            Yet they are both God, both with authority to forgive, yet Jesus calls unto the Father to forgive them, instead of forgiving them himself

            >You could say that by requesting the Father to forgive them, the Son is also tacitly forgiving them Himself
            This is sophistry

            >He spoke to those who did.
            These people are not known. On the contrary, It is insane that you base your salvation on unknown people, and take their words for granted.

            The least Luke could have done was cite from who exactly he got his information from

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yet they are both God,
            In essence, not in personhood, big difference.
            >both with authority to forgive, yet Jesus calls unto the Father to forgive them, instead of forgiving them himself
            Both have the authority, but there is nothing odd with the Son also requesting the Father to forgive them, they're not the same person after all.
            >This is sophistry
            No it isn't, it's sound theological reasoning.
            >These people are not known.
            Yes they are, the Apostles knew them, Jesus' followers knew them, these were not strangers, plus there's the fact that the Holy Spirity had been poured unto them.
            >On the contrary, It is insane that you base your salvation on unknown people, and take their words for granted.
            You could say the same for the Quran, Muhammad thought he was being attacked by a demon at first.
            >The least Luke could have done was cite from who exactly he got his information from
            Why? It's not like it would've made any difference for people like you. And Muhammad does the exact same with the Quran.
            >Yeah bro, an angel told me, trust me.

            >Does the sun sit on a muddy spring?
            Like I said, clutching at straws.

            >clutching at straws.
            I've met ex-Muslims for whom that question was the beginning of the end for their faith. It was all downway from there.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >sound theological reasoning
            you are like a israelite, who pretends to be white when convenient and becomes israeli when convenient. When Jesus prays to the Father, then this means Jesus is distinct from him. When Jesus says he is one with the Father, then this means Jesus isn't distinct from him.

            You use distinctions that are meaningless to most people(essence, person) to make your self contradicting book make sense.

            >Yeah bro, an angel told me, trust me.
            You are like the israelites at the time of Jesus, doubting a prophet and prophecy, when dozens of prophets came before you, and you believe in them, yet you doubt the one before your very eyes.

            Luke never claimed to be inspired, nor did any of the Gospel writers. So it is his duty to provide a source for what he says, which contradicts Jesus forgiving people by himself

            >I've met ex-Muslims for whom that question was the beginning of the end for their faith
            Every ex-muslim is a liberal. They apostacize because of liberal morality. Nobody is convinced of "sun sets in muddy spring" arguments, these only exist to confirm their already crumbling faith

            I as a Muslim, in critiquing Christianty, focus on the underlying message of Christianity and fundamental problems in its historicity. When Christians "critique" Islam, they always focus on small, highly subjective issues, "sun sets in muddy spring", "prophet went to war", "sex slavery", "4 wives" and regurgitate already refuted arguments and false information like "Muhammad thought the devil came to him", "Muhammad tried to kill himself" etc. etc.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you are like a israelite, who pretends to be white when convenient and becomes israeli when convenient.
            Cool it with the antisemitism there bro.
            >When Jesus prays to the Father, then this means Jesus is distinct from him.
            Yes, obviously.
            >When Jesus says he is one with the Father, then this means Jesus isn't distinct from him.
            It means They are One in essence.
            >You use distinctions that are meaningless to most people(essence, person)
            I don't care about most people, most people are moronic.
            >You are like the israelites at the time of Jesus, doubting a prophet and prophecy, when dozens of prophets came before you, and you believe in them, yet you doubt the one before your very eyes.
            I doubt him because Jesus warned of false prophets and false christs that would come in His name, bringing strange teachings and a different Gospel, Muhammad is exactly that, just like others like Joseph Smith, he's not special.
            >Luke never claimed to be inspired, nor did any of the Gospel writers.
            The Book of Acts informs us that they were powered by the Holy Spirit to write down the Gospel.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't care about most people
            Then you will die out like the Gnostics

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Gnostics didn't die out, they were defeated, by us, and so will you.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Muhammad is exactly that, just like others like Joseph Smith, he's not special.

            This.
            Why would i follow a cursed one, like Mo?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you are like a israelite, who pretends to be white when convenient and becomes israeli when convenient.
            Cool it with the antisemitism there bro.
            >When Jesus prays to the Father, then this means Jesus is distinct from him.
            Yes, obviously.
            >When Jesus says he is one with the Father, then this means Jesus isn't distinct from him.
            It means They are One in essence.
            >You use distinctions that are meaningless to most people(essence, person)
            I don't care about most people, most people are moronic.
            >You are like the israelites at the time of Jesus, doubting a prophet and prophecy, when dozens of prophets came before you, and you believe in them, yet you doubt the one before your very eyes.
            I doubt him because Jesus warned of false prophets and false christs that would come in His name, bringing strange teachings and a different Gospel, Muhammad is exactly that, just like others like Joseph Smith, he's not special.
            >Luke never claimed to be inspired, nor did any of the Gospel writers.
            The Book of Acts informs us that they were powered by the Holy Spirit to write down the Gospel.

            >Every ex-muslim is a liberal. They apostacize because of liberal morality.
            You could say the same about many ex-Christians, they don't leave because of some flaw within Christianity, but rather because it doesn't affirm their liberal morals.
            >Nobody is convinced of "sun sets in muddy spring" arguments,
            Not by itself, but that is just one of many entry points to all the other mistakes in the Quran.
            >these only exist to confirm their already crumbling faith
            And why is their faith crumbling in the first place, if Islam is so perfect?
            >When Christians "critique" Islam, they always focus on small, highly subjective issues, "sun sets in muddy spring",
            These are not small, highly subjective issues, they pierce at the very core of Islam. Your religion sets its own bar way too high in claiming that the Quran is perfect and without error, that is why if we find even one mistake, the whole thing crumbles, that is why we focus on such topics, because by your own rules, they completely shatter the whole religion.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >These are not small, highly subjective issues, they pierce at the very core of Islam. Your religion sets its own bar way too high in claiming that the Quran is perfect and without error, that is why if we find even one mistake, the whole thing crumbles, that is why we focus on such topics, because by your own rules, they completely shatter the whole religion.
            That's the thing that always got me with Islam. israelites and Christians can come up with excuses, but if Muhammad got all this stuff directly from an angel, there is no excuse for the things we can prove factually aren't true.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I've met ex-Muslims for whom that question was the beginning of the end for their faith. It was all downway from there.
            Sounds like your peer group is as weak minded as you

            >sound theological reasoning
            you are like a israelite, who pretends to be white when convenient and becomes israeli when convenient. When Jesus prays to the Father, then this means Jesus is distinct from him. When Jesus says he is one with the Father, then this means Jesus isn't distinct from him.

            You use distinctions that are meaningless to most people(essence, person) to make your self contradicting book make sense.

            >Yeah bro, an angel told me, trust me.
            You are like the israelites at the time of Jesus, doubting a prophet and prophecy, when dozens of prophets came before you, and you believe in them, yet you doubt the one before your very eyes.

            Luke never claimed to be inspired, nor did any of the Gospel writers. So it is his duty to provide a source for what he says, which contradicts Jesus forgiving people by himself

            >I've met ex-Muslims for whom that question was the beginning of the end for their faith
            Every ex-muslim is a liberal. They apostacize because of liberal morality. Nobody is convinced of "sun sets in muddy spring" arguments, these only exist to confirm their already crumbling faith

            I as a Muslim, in critiquing Christianty, focus on the underlying message of Christianity and fundamental problems in its historicity. When Christians "critique" Islam, they always focus on small, highly subjective issues, "sun sets in muddy spring", "prophet went to war", "sex slavery", "4 wives" and regurgitate already refuted arguments and false information like "Muhammad thought the devil came to him", "Muhammad tried to kill himself" etc. etc.

            >Every ex-muslim is a liberal. They apostacize because of liberal morality. Nobody is convinced of "sun sets in muddy spring" arguments, these only exist to confirm their already crumbling faith
            Legit point. Ex-muslims don't just give up on Islam, they tend to give up on life itself. I wonder why people who reject Islam tend to be so life denying...

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Sounds like your peer group is as weak minded as you
            Sour grapes.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ex-muslims don't just give up on Islam, they tend to give up on life itself. I wonder why people who reject Islam tend to be so life denying...
            Literally the opposite is true, once you leave Islam you can actually live.
            >Eat pork
            >Drink and party
            >Listen to music
            >Enjoy art, without being afraid of muh idolatry.
            >Don't have to do 5 moroner prayers throughout the day.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>Eat pork
            and party
            Hedonism is actually life denying. Why potentially damn the life of the eternal soul for empty pleasures?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            hedonism is one of the only points to life (in moderation)

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Hedonism is actually life denying
            It's not hedonism, it's called knowing how to enjoy life.
            >Why potentially damn the life of the eternal soul for empty pleasures?
            Islamic heaven is the most hedonistic juvenile fantasy anyone could have come up with?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            lol

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >neverending orgy with virgins drinking infinte wine in heaven.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >any man that has had anything to do with women wishing to be surrounded by them in heaven
            Islam truly is the incel religion. Its just bait for perma virgins

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >1 in 4 of Westerners drink themselves to death or die of alcohol related diseases
            >Alcohol causes long term problems in society of recklessness and violence
            >These idiots are calling this life affirming
            Bravo. Never call Muslims bad at logic

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            And yet you believe you get to drink all the alcohol you want in heaven.

            Your religion is a fricking joke.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's metaphysically consistent you fool.
            The Quran acknowledges there are positives to alcohol. In paradise, alcohol keeps its positives and is removed from its negatives. If you believe in an afterlife, please tell me what's inconsistent about that?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            So why doesn't Allah remove the negatives here on earth too? Why doesn't he prevent 1 in 4 westerners drinking themselves to death or die of alcohol related diseases? Why doesn't he prevent long term problemsin society of recklessness and violence? If that good alcohol in heaven exists, what excuse does he have for not bringing it here to earth?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you're not smart enough to understand something as simple as Christian theodicy, something that intelligent Christians understand, you're not smart enough to debate with me.

            Next.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a christcuck though.

            So answer.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            frick off then

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            if you are not an evil person alcohol has no negatives

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Alcohol is fine in moderation its even good for you

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >suffer ringworms
            >Be intoxicated
            >Worship statues
            >Complete abandonment of your guide in life

            >This is fun

            I'm sorry, there isn't a need for a debate. This is like trying to debate with a troony about genders, your human natural innate deposition is entirely corrupted and bankrupted due to repeated violations of God's commands. This is why you also probably see furries and sex dolls as viable sexual mates.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >your human natural innate deposition is entirely corrupted and bankrupted due to repeated violations of God's commands
            >says the one who explicitly rejects God's guidance because the inbred mongrels he dares to call scholars have told him it's been corrupted by human hands.
            The natural human disposition is to want to live among your own people. Islam completely rejects that. That's just one example.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Shut up trannoid, this is the future you want

            https://www.euronews.com/video/2022/10/28/indians-celebrate-the-hindu-god-beereshwara-swamy-with-a-cow-dung-fight

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's depressing how muslims are so desperate they have nothing at all but strawman and tu quoque. You lost the plot a very long time ago.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            An absurd opponent deserves an absurd response. You don't deserve better. That's all there is to it.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pathetic beast. You will be wiped out by God's fury and wonder why landed in Hell.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            kek keep sperging he's done you. Islam is intellectually bankrupt

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're confusing posters. I'm against islam and he's for it.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not for Islam, dumb trannoid. Another sign you're wrong about everything. You keep making stupid statements, whereas the Muslim actually makes sense on some points.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not for Islam
            Then your posts are poorly written and you didn't care to interject without making clear what your position is, stupid monkey. You ought to be slapped repeatedly until you die.
            >whereas the Muslim actually makes sense on some point
            No such thing as a muslim being right, you filthy cuck.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            According to what rules?
            Sorry, you're autistic and not making much sense. I respect Muslims more than you.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You seem way more autistic, troony.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ah yes wanting a proper moderate society free from indulgence and wasteful revelry is truly the ideal troony society

            There's a right way to party, but neither you or the Muslim understand. The Muslim does however understand ethics better.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao you fricking clown. Islam has zero morality, nothing is off the table, including saying the biggest lies ever like you just did.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The only "people" who respect mohammedans are other mohammedans

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            weak weak weak

            All too weak such a shame

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            the al-fitra argument is stupid nonsense. Show me one instance of your monotheistic israelite God being venerated sometime before 1200 BCE (~300.000 years time span should be enough time to find a single instance)

            >inb4 ugh ehh but what about animism and sheeiiit
            That's exactly the stuff Mo fought against and which is diametrically opposed to everything you stand for and you can't claim that stuff unless you de-anathematize shirk which is the very core of your cult + it doesn't show that any fairy / unicorn / leprechaun or other dumb childish shit is real, because there are way simpler explanations for why humans come up with stuff like this

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >well it says Jesus wasn't crucified, which is the one thing literally everybody on the planet who isn't insane knows happened as an indisputable historical event
          [citation needed]

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The preponderance of evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus is so overwhelming that not even atheist historians will deny that the man was executed by the Roman government during the administration of Pontius Pilate. They'll debate the historicity of miracles and resurrection and deity, but there's more documentation of the crucifixion of Christ than there is for the destruction of Pompeii. Muslims denying the man was crucified is no different than denying that Mount Vesuvius erupted.

          • 8 months ago
            Sage

            Okay then, providing this evidence should be trivial then. The fact that it isn't, because there is basically no physical or historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, is why you should stop making this claim that it's "overwhelmingly agreed upon"

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes he died but god lifted up his soul

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          why don't you frick off with your trolling?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >well it says Jesus wasn't crucified, which is the one thing literally everybody on the planet who isn't insane knows happened as an indisputable historical event
          Look up docetism, moronic c**t. It was a common viewpoint among many older gnostic schools, including Marcionism and Manichaeism.

          https://i.imgur.com/FySLvVB.jpg

          I want to discuss Islam, with Muslims and non-muslims. Is Islam true? Let's argue. Why do nowadays many Muslims feel ashamed of their religion? Was Christ really just a prophet who said worship god and not him? What about paganism, is it really evil? These are some questions that recur in my mind.

          I hate all of Abrahamism, but I think the Nicene creed is worse than even Talamudic Judaism and fundamentalist Islam, which is saying a lot.
          Anyone who follows the Nicene creed is a genuine subhuman who should be slowly tortured and executed imo. Deep down that's what they want anyways.
          However, I do consider certain strands of older Gnosticism such as the Valentinians interesting and better than the rest of Abrahamism.
          Protestants and Catholics are just a bunch of soulless subhuman loons.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You deserve to live among muslims. Have fun.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Only Alawites and Isma'ili Shia are close to Gnosticism. Twelvers Shia and Sunni are both moronic in comparison to those two.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Gnosticism is bollocks I'm sorry.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree, but it's better than the trashy Nicene creed. Nicene Christcuckery is even worse than Talmudic Judaism or Islamic extremism, which is saying a lot. It's the dumbest tradition that's ever come on Earth. It is nonsensical and basically boils down to cucking to the flesh of a man rather than any higher metaphysical principle.
            Granted, Buddhism, Daoism, and Vedanta Hinduism are all better than the entirety of Abrahamism, including Gnosticism.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Islam is perennialism made obvious. Differences between religions are meant to be.
      >To each of you We have ordained a code of law and a way of life. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given ˹each of˺ you. So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you ˹of the truth˺ regarding your differences. (V, 48).

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Islam is perennialism made obvious.
        This would be a valid claim if there wasn't a bunch of dumb Arabic tribal bullshit attached, like the Earth being flat, the benefits of drinking camel urine, all of the silly superstition regarding djinns, etc, on top of "Allah" getting basic facts about the world wrong, like basic mathematics, the shape of the planet, what stars are, basic facts about other religions, etc.

        If this was Zoroastrianism or something where shared traits from a common origin were claimed to be from the actual original religious body and everyone else got them wrong this might be acceptable, but the specifically Arab quality (and it's hilarious stupidity) makes this simply a laughable claim.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well yeah, Islam is just as corrupted as the religions it claims were themselves corrupted. Still it feels pretty close to the truth just like zorastrianism does

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Still it feels pretty close to the truth
            No it doesn't, Abdul. It completely destroys nations.

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    One about a guy who tells people to be nice and is tortured to death. The other about a guy that said he met an angel in a cave then spread his new religion with an army of mercenaries while hanging out with his 8 year old wife.

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is Islam true
    for muslims maybe for christian is complete heresy
    >Was Christ really just a prophet
    for muslims yes, for christians is a heresy
    > What about paganism, is it really evil?
    depends do they cause harm and pain to other people with their practices?.
    What Muslim believe about Christians has nothing to do with what is and was practiced by Christians and their writings

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Given how Islam hates art and music, and Muslim apologists on Oyish have only brought up "le western degeneracy" as arguments justifying this view
    I'd say that Islam is false

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's funny, because the Old and New Testament says for worshipers to celebrate God with music, and King David was literally a musician.

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    If Christianity was the final word of God, then there wouldn't be so many diversive sects of Christianity that all hate each other and interpret the Bible differently, that, and the fact that the Bible itself as been rewritten so many different times throughout history. If the Bible was the true word of God, then societies would mold themselves around it to this day, instead of the Bible molding itself around modern societies.

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    As fricking stupid as Judaism and Christianity are, they are nowhere near as moronic as Islam.

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Of course it is. Alhamdulilah for Islam

  13. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a former Muslim now Christian. Islam is a false religion invented by the false prophet Muhammad Abdullah who was an evil, pedophile, rapist, warlord.

    • 8 months ago
      Ο Σολιταίρ

      Amen.

  14. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is Islam true?
    No. But the Quran is true (it's complicated).
    >Why do nowadays many Muslims feel ashamed of their religion?
    Because it's a pile of stinking crap deadly for any civilization, and I'm very charitable in that description.
    >Was Christ really just a prophet who said worship god and not him?
    He never said to worship himself, but he is more than a prophet, he's the messiah who was crucified for our sins.
    >What about paganism, is it really evil?
    Of course, it makes a mockery of truth and basically insults God. Now, this doesn't mean you can't appreciate some figures like Odin or whatnot,, or have a very deep connection with nature, just don't see them as gods and don't pray to them.

  15. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here's another shining example of tolerance to a fault

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63785679

    Drink. Party. Lose your mind. Frick a man. Become a woman.

  16. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    What do these onions posters using gigachad memes tend to look like irl? Can anyone grab a Twitter sample pool so I know how mid these wimps are?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      They're probably fat

  17. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    > I just wanna talk about Islam
    > Thread fills up with seething israelites.
    This board is just a venue for israelite butthurt about Christianity and Islam.

  18. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Drop the masquerade. Everyone ITT knows what's up you wannabe smartass

  19. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why does LGBT bash on Christianity and Christians but support Islam and Muslims?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Leftists and israelites love muslims because they destroy Europe.

  20. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Funny how the inbreds became silent.

  21. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Are you of low intelligence
    >do you want to marry your cousin
    >do you want to be told what to do every second of the day
    Islam is for you

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      /thread
      deep down they know their religion is shitty, they just hope it might become decent if enough people convert to it

  22. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Islam completely falls apart the moment you find out Mohammed fricked a 9 year old lmao. If you look past this , it’s already too late. You’re lost. Oh and by the way he was around 50 when he fricked a 9 year old and 6 when he married her.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was a different time

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't having sex with a girl below the age of 13 expressly forbidden in the Quran?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, but the laws concerning sexual morality are abrogated for the Prophet, military leaders, and preachers.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't having sex with a girl below the age of 13 expressly forbidden in the Quran?

      Reminder that there are NO theological arguments against child marriage. It's not sinful.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Since when has theology ever mattered?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Since creation. Time immemorial.
          Definitely before you entered a religion thread on Oyish

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Since creation.
            It was a rhetorial question, theology has never mattered, what old farts in their temples and monasteries thought about the world has never matter. It is science who pushes society forward.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Science says that pedophilia is harmful to the victim, the perpetrator, and society as a whole.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know, that's why I oppose it.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            True, which is why it shouldn't be done. Back then they had bigger problems though.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Science says that pedophilia is harmful to the victim, the perpetrator, and society as a whole.

            >science says
            Science says "if she bleeds she breeds". It's feminists and "progressives" who started that claim.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Science says "if she bleeds she breeds"
            Not necessarily. And it woudn't matter, just because a little girl can get pregnant doesn't mean that she should immediately be breeded.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            *bred

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The ideal age for breeding in terms of health of the child is not when menstruation starts, it's a few years after. The pelvis is too small and the reproductive system is too weak, the kid literally does not get the proper nutrition.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Pedophilia is not conducive to the furthering of the race and is damaging to the folksoul. Also, the Gods don't want you to do it (Thor specifically).

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Where did Thor and the other pagan idols say that it was sinful?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Gods told us to live well and healthily, so see:

            The ideal age for breeding in terms of health of the child is not when menstruation starts, it's a few years after. The pelvis is too small and the reproductive system is too weak, the kid literally does not get the proper nutrition.

            and

            >Science says "if she bleeds she breeds"
            Not necessarily. And it woudn't matter, just because a little girl can get pregnant doesn't mean that she should immediately be breeded.

            . It's an objective fact that pedophilia is physically unhealthy. We are their kin, so it's a worshipful act. It's harmful to the soul (see: literally every Muslim country), and our souls move through Yggdrassil, so pedophilia is detrimental to the metaphysical health of the cosmos.

            Thor personally doesn't seem to like it as he kills (and humiliates) a Dwarf for trying to do it in Alvissmal, and again to Starkadr when he tries it in Hervara Saga ok Heiðreks. This is probably part of his whole "defender of women" thing, so whether it's because of the particularly sinful and harmful nature of pedophilia or just because pedophilia is rape and Thor kills rapists is debatable, but either way he doesn't like pedophiles.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's an objective fact that pedophilia is physically unhealthy. We are their kin, so it's a worshipful act. It's harmful to the soul (see: literally every Muslim country), and our souls move through Yggdrassil, so pedophilia is detrimental to the metaphysical health of the cosmos.
            Gib citations for literally of these

            >Thor personally doesn't seem to like it
            But did he, (or any of them) ever forbid child marriage to their followers? And if so, where?

  23. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only ‘muslims’ that are ashamed of their religion are the ones that at most prayed five times in their life instead of per day.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      On the contrary, they are the least willing to lie to themselves.

  24. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Muhammads Christian knowledge came from heretical arian monks who didn't believe Christ was Lord. That explains Islam's position on Christ.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *