6 ms·

> How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ? You haven't pointed out any references so f

by azth 11y ago

> How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ? You haven't pointed out any references so far. > Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies... You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through. Back in the day, marriage at a young age was a norm, and the Prophet Peace be upon him did not commit anything foreign to the culture in this regards. Other people at that time, Muslims and non-Muslims, married young. Even in Western cultures up to a few hundred years ago, we see similar behavior. I take it it is clear now that Islamically, the ruler is to be elected, and not passed down as you were trying to imply before. > Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations[1] The link you pasted was about Fatimah and Ali, Peace be upon them. Please link to the appropriate Hadith. > verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on. > penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. Again, citation needed. This is beyond a doubt not the case. Please cite your reference. A Muslim person can, for example, drink alcohol, knowing that it is not permissible, and knowing that there is a punishment if he is caught (lashing). The death penalty will never come into action here, regardless of how many times he repeats this sin. > I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ? I do. Citation needed. > Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy There are different degrees of apostasy (Kufr), and only one or two of them have the death penalty (e.g. Treason). Furthermore, not any action that constitutes apostasy will result in the person automatically becoming a non-Muslim (much less get the death penalty). For instance: http://quran.com/5/44 http://quran.com/5/44 The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws).

waps 11y ago
It is funny to see you squirm in your arguments. Again you don't answer the arguments, you beat around the bush. How much more squirming before you admit the truth ? > You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through. Hey now you just implied that the prophet did something wrong, despite wurming your way around saying so, and failing miserably. Was the prophet justified in raping a 6 year old ? Do you agree with that act or not ... I would also like to point out that marriage at 6 years, or even 9 was very much not a common occurance. For obvious reasons, most cultures (including islam, when the prophet is not trying to rape a young girl) find that marriage should occur no earlier than 12 (we both know what is meant here, let's just say earlier results in "damages to the body" and leave it at that), and generally happened around 14. Romans generally married later, if they married at all (like in Judaism at the time, marriage was a contract, which implied among other things that it couldn't be entered into before adulthood, and can't be entered into by parents on their children's behalf. A roman contract was between equals, so for it to make sense for a man and a woman to get married, this implied that both had significant assets (like a store, a caravan, for example, something)). Oh and if you wish to be truly and completely disgusted by islam, google for the word "thighing", which is related to Aisha's wedding according to the highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia (but I'm sure you know more about islam, right ?). Why don't you defend the meaning of that word ? (extremely NSFW, and frankly, just NS). In 1500 years of English there was no need for that word in the language. But now we have muslims speaking English. Feel proud, man, feel very proud. To be frank, if you find yourself in a situation where you would have to admit Romans responded more moral than you did, you are a very immoral human being indeed. These are the people that lined the road between 2 major cities with crosses and nailed (upper estimates) almost 5000 people to those crosses, and let them die from hunger and thirst, feeding them acid when they asked for water (and if they were lucky enough). Yet those people are far better human beings than your paedophilic massacring prophet. And if you are a decent human being and find the sale and barter in human beings despicable, never mind "agreements" about having sex with 6 year olds, what does that tell you about islam itself ? > The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws). You squirm you way around this don't you ? It specifically mentions that these people are like the Jews. Do tell, if a muslim becomes a Jew, which is what this verse compares knowingly violating sharia compares to, what is to happen to them ? And if you want, we can go over the story of the group of muslims that "accepted islam", then moved away against the wishes of the prophet. He had them massacred. You know this story, or at least, I've heard too many young muslims say that it was told to them in school. Don't you think someone making a religious judgement might take that sort of story into account ? I'm behaving like your paedophilic prophet here : http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/082-sbt.php#008.082.809 http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... After all, if religious people avoid killing for their religion, what does your prophet do ? Well he points out they really should kill, and threatens them (unless you call surrounding them with an execution squad of muslims something other than a threat). I love that story, because it reveals true morality, and the very essence of what is good in the world : > So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess. Of course it is the sinner, who is put to death, who shows us the true meaning of good. I hope that I am capable of showing such greatness at some point, but to be frank, I doubt I am half as moral as that Jew. Islam's prophet is the one inciting muslims and Jews to kill very moral people, even when they don't want to. Are you proud of your religion ? It is despicable. I know of course that islam is not based on rational reasoning like Christianity and to a lesser degree Judaism is, but you're pathetic. You keep defending paedophilic rape, should we next start discussing Khaybar and what happened there perhaps ? How it is "totally" different from massacring, raiding and stealing. How "allah" declared peace treaties invalid, which of course made the massacre A-ok ? Or should we talk about how entire tribes should be massacred over a lover's quarrel ? How islam agrees with all that ? Or should we simply agree that islam is a despicable, disgusting and immoral ideology ? > Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on. http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.311 http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.311 Why don't you interpret for me what she meant here ? Or should we discuss one of the "it was then that the revelaton X was sent down" verses perhaps ? I remember reading one that mentions laughter went around the muslims when the timing of revelations was mentioned. Or how about we revisit the whole "allah has 3 daughters" saga ? It'd be funny to hear your response to the timing of the revelation that that verse of the quran was wrong, or the mere fact that quran says about itself that it is wrong, or at least, can and has been improved ... It is only truth as long as the paedophilic prophet feels it convenient according to hadith.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  How on earth can you call a tribal supremacist fairy tale and its reworked descendant fertility cult "based on rational reasoning"? I shudder to think of what else is getting past your filters if those are your standards.
  - waps 11y ago
    It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. So was the council that collected these works into the New Testament. In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.
    - selimthegrim 11y ago
      Mind control is mind control is mind control, by any other name...mind control made up by "educated people" is probably harder to fight
    - azth 11y ago
      > The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon. Again, false information. The Quran was written down during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, as was the Hadith. Both were both transmitted orally and through scribes. We have early scribes that were written during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, and later on narrations that were documented decades after him, and they match perfectly.
      - waps 11y ago
        There are 5 different versions of the quran, with differences in wording and meaning, in wide use today. The number of different versions known to be in print is 20. As an example, buy one in Morocco and one in Egypt ... and they don't match. So while you're reciting one of the paedophiles' prophet articles of faith, muslims have actually not yet resolved to have a single version of the quran TODAY. Whatever date a single version of the quran gets, the year will be 2015 or larger. "During the time of the prophet ?" ... it isn't even cleared up after the THIRD time the line of caliphs died out, and islam as a state was destroyed by the Turks. But islam clearly states there's only one version. Who is lying ? Reality or your paedophilic religion ? As for the islamic history's version of the quran's collection, read it and you will realize just how absurd it is that it would be even remotely accurate ... > "...By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran... So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men.[Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:60:201] This statement obviously means that there were no more than fragments written down 2 years after your prophet died. Supposedly, the first version was written down 25 years later. That's the version of history in the hadith, and very few historians believe it to be accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn_Affan_and_the_canonization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn... Note that while there is a "canonical" version of the quran in existence (Ottomans robbed it from Baghdad and it's still in Turkey), "for some reason" nobody's allowed to see it. Fragments of one of the others was found in graves in Yemen (the famous Sana'a manuscripts) and ... surprise ! They don't match. Nobody was surprised of course, but you're still going to deny it, aren't you ? Usually muslim lunatics claim this is a conspiracy against islam, just so you'll have some inspiration ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript Do note that this is a script from after the canonicalization. So this should have been copied from a written quran, and thus presumably much more accurate than the copies made orally. And yet ... hundreds of differences. (note that there are internal inconsistencies in the Sana'a manuscripts too. The multiple copies found don't even fully match eachother. Sorry to state the obvious, but clearly early muslims weren't very concerned with exact copies of the quran, in the way that, for instance, Christian monks were for the bible) Muslims responded with violence and attacks. At the time, people were actually surprised at this. Also note that, in order to "guarantee nothing got lost", the hadith actually contain alternative versions of ~40% of all verses in the quran. And that number goes above 50% if you take all hadith accepted by any sect of islam (instead of just sunnis). Another conspiracy perhaps ?

by azth 11y ago

waps 11y ago

It is funny to see you squirm in your arguments. Again you don't answer the arguments, you beat around the bush. How much more squirming before you admit the truth ? > You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through. Hey now you just implied that the prophet did something wrong, despite wurming your way around saying so, and failing miserably. Was the prophet justified in raping a 6 year old ? Do you agree with that act or not ... I would also like to point out that marriage at 6 years, or even 9 was very much not a common occurance. For obvious reasons, most cultures (including islam, when the prophet is not trying to rape a young girl) find that marriage should occur no earlier than 12 (we both know what is meant here, let's just say earlier results in "damages to the body" and leave it at that), and generally happened around 14. Romans generally married later, if they married at all (like in Judaism at the time, marriage was a contract, which implied among other things that it couldn't be entered into before adulthood, and can't be entered into by parents on their children's behalf. A roman contract was between equals, so for it to make sense for a man and a woman to get married, this implied that both had significant assets (like a store, a caravan, for example, something)). Oh and if you wish to be truly and completely disgusted by islam, google for the word "thighing", which is related to Aisha's wedding according to the highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia (but I'm sure you know more about islam, right ?). Why don't you defend the meaning of that word ? (extremely NSFW, and frankly, just NS). In 1500 years of English there was no need for that word in the language. But now we have muslims speaking English. Feel proud, man, feel very proud. To be frank, if you find yourself in a situation where you would have to admit Romans responded more moral than you did, you are a very immoral human being indeed. These are the people that lined the road between 2 major cities with crosses and nailed (upper estimates) almost 5000 people to those crosses, and let them die from hunger and thirst, feeding them acid when they asked for water (and if they were lucky enough). Yet those people are far better human beings than your paedophilic massacring prophet. And if you are a decent human being and find the sale and barter in human beings despicable, never mind "agreements" about having sex with 6 year olds, what does that tell you about islam itself ? > The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws). You squirm you way around this don't you ? It specifically mentions that these people are like the Jews. Do tell, if a muslim becomes a Jew, which is what this verse compares knowingly violating sharia compares to, what is to happen to them ? And if you want, we can go over the story of the group of muslims that "accepted islam", then moved away against the wishes of the prophet. He had them massacred. You know this story, or at least, I've heard too many young muslims say that it was told to them in school. Don't you think someone making a religious judgement might take that sort of story into account ? I'm behaving like your paedophilic prophet here : http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/082-sbt.php#008.082.809 http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... After all, if religious people avoid killing for their religion, what does your prophet do ? Well he points out they really should kill, and threatens them (unless you call surrounding them with an execution squad of muslims something other than a threat). I love that story, because it reveals true morality, and the very essence of what is good in the world : > So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess. Of course it is the sinner, who is put to death, who shows us the true meaning of good. I hope that I am capable of showing such greatness at some point, but to be frank, I doubt I am half as moral as that Jew. Islam's prophet is the one inciting muslims and Jews to kill very moral people, even when they don't want to. Are you proud of your religion ? It is despicable. I know of course that islam is not based on rational reasoning like Christianity and to a lesser degree Judaism is, but you're pathetic. You keep defending paedophilic rape, should we next start discussing Khaybar and what happened there perhaps ? How it is "totally" different from massacring, raiding and stealing. How "allah" declared peace treaties invalid, which of course made the massacre A-ok ? Or should we talk about how entire tribes should be massacred over a lover's quarrel ? How islam agrees with all that ? Or should we simply agree that islam is a despicable, disgusting and immoral ideology ? > Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on. http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.311 http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.311 Why don't you interpret for me what she meant here ? Or should we discuss one of the "it was then that the revelaton X was sent down" verses perhaps ? I remember reading one that mentions laughter went around the muslims when the timing of revelations was mentioned. Or how about we revisit the whole "allah has 3 daughters" saga ? It'd be funny to hear your response to the timing of the revelation that that verse of the quran was wrong, or the mere fact that quran says about itself that it is wrong, or at least, can and has been improved ... It is only truth as long as the paedophilic prophet feels it convenient according to hadith.

selimthegrim 11y ago
How on earth can you call a tribal supremacist fairy tale and its reworked descendant fertility cult "based on rational reasoning"? I shudder to think of what else is getting past your filters if those are your standards.
- waps 11y ago
  It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. So was the council that collected these works into the New Testament. In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    Mind control is mind control is mind control, by any other name...mind control made up by "educated people" is probably harder to fight
  - azth 11y ago
    > The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon. Again, false information. The Quran was written down during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, as was the Hadith. Both were both transmitted orally and through scribes. We have early scribes that were written during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, and later on narrations that were documented decades after him, and they match perfectly.
    - waps 11y ago
      There are 5 different versions of the quran, with differences in wording and meaning, in wide use today. The number of different versions known to be in print is 20. As an example, buy one in Morocco and one in Egypt ... and they don't match. So while you're reciting one of the paedophiles' prophet articles of faith, muslims have actually not yet resolved to have a single version of the quran TODAY. Whatever date a single version of the quran gets, the year will be 2015 or larger. "During the time of the prophet ?" ... it isn't even cleared up after the THIRD time the line of caliphs died out, and islam as a state was destroyed by the Turks. But islam clearly states there's only one version. Who is lying ? Reality or your paedophilic religion ? As for the islamic history's version of the quran's collection, read it and you will realize just how absurd it is that it would be even remotely accurate ... > "...By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran... So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men.[Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:60:201] This statement obviously means that there were no more than fragments written down 2 years after your prophet died. Supposedly, the first version was written down 25 years later. That's the version of history in the hadith, and very few historians believe it to be accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn_Affan_and_the_canonization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn... Note that while there is a "canonical" version of the quran in existence (Ottomans robbed it from Baghdad and it's still in Turkey), "for some reason" nobody's allowed to see it. Fragments of one of the others was found in graves in Yemen (the famous Sana'a manuscripts) and ... surprise ! They don't match. Nobody was surprised of course, but you're still going to deny it, aren't you ? Usually muslim lunatics claim this is a conspiracy against islam, just so you'll have some inspiration ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript Do note that this is a script from after the canonicalization. So this should have been copied from a written quran, and thus presumably much more accurate than the copies made orally. And yet ... hundreds of differences. (note that there are internal inconsistencies in the Sana'a manuscripts too. The multiple copies found don't even fully match eachother. Sorry to state the obvious, but clearly early muslims weren't very concerned with exact copies of the quran, in the way that, for instance, Christian monks were for the bible) Muslims responded with violence and attacks. At the time, people were actually surprised at this. Also note that, in order to "guarantee nothing got lost", the hadith actually contain alternative versions of ~40% of all verses in the quran. And that number goes above 50% if you take all hadith accepted by any sect of islam (instead of just sunnis). Another conspiracy perhaps ?