Islam is such a fucking cope.

[Ghost Philosophy]

@TRUE_CEL respond to my cumments before saying I know nothing about Islam. Address every point i made.

im not going to waste my time on you, everything you said confirms what i said. im not here to be your helper but if you speak with such confidence then i cant help but chuckle at how misguided you are.

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

wdym - muslims translating greek?

did you conveniently forget europe was in the dark ages while the islamic world was thriving? islamic scientists kept greek texts and they had translated them into arabic.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Stoning in islam

I answered it. It's about coercition and fear. Where you gonna find 4 fucking people that witnessed adultery? Especially when spying is forbidden faith wise?

- Chopping off hands for minor robberies

? It's not "minor" it's about a high equivalent in gold. And it won't work if you'r poor or in need. Use your common sense, then again it's for instigating fear not applying it. During history less than 100 cases were applied, do your maths and understand the "ratio legis" behind it.
N

- Death penalty for apostasy

Never meant to be applied it's only when the individual do contribute to make the society collapses that there is a juridical procedure. Less than 1k cases were fully applied, do your maths.

What the quran says about the Old and New Testament. It confirms they are accurate and tells jews and Christians to follow their books.

No, it's clearly states that the former have sold their book for few bucks. Idk how you made that up.

- The ridiculous misunderstanding the quran has about Miriam daughter of Imran and Mary mother of Jesus.

Very common in the time to refers people as that, because of their proximity in high piety, J did it, C did it :
a bit of reading :

Spoiler: spoiler

“The Prophet (peace be upon him) sent me to Nadjran [in Yemen].
There they told me: "You are reciting:" O Sister of Aaron ", while Moses lived so many and so many (centuries) before Jesus!" I did not know what to answer them.
When I returned (to Medina), I questioned the Prophet on the subject. He said to me: "You would have informed them that they gave themselves as names those of the prophets and pious who lived before them!" "(Muslim, 2135, at-Tirmidhî, 3155, Ahmad).

In the light of this word of the Prophet, several interpretations have emerged among ulemas regarding the questioning "O sister of Aaron" mentioned in the Koran ...

- A) Either it is another Aaron than the brother of Moses:

In this case the Hadîth can be understood as meaning that the Sons of Israel gave their children the first names of prophets and pious predecessors; and at the time of Mary mother of Jesus, there was indeed a man to whom his parents had given the first name "Aaron":

--- A.a) either this man was from the same family as Mary but did not have a direct relationship with her ("nussibat ilâ rajulin min qawmihâ": at-Tabarî);

--- Ab) or he was not from the same family as Mary but was known for his piety ("nussibat ilâ rajulin sâlihin kâna fîhim, ismuhû Hârûn, fa kânat tata'assâ bihî fi-z-zahâda wa-l- 'ibâda ": Ibn Kathîr).

According to this interpretation, when some people wanted to reproach Mary for what they thought, namely that she had had a child without being married, they called out to her using the figure of speech "O sister of Aaron", wanting to tell her : "O you who say you are on the same path as Aaron, this contemporary respected for his piety, how could you do such a thing?"

-
- B) Either it is Aaron brother of Moses and contemporary of Pharaoh:

In that case...

--- B.a) or the Hadîth means that the Sons of Israel called each other (this may be the meaning of the term used in the Hadîth: "yussammûna") by the names of prophets and pious who lived before them.
According to this interpretation, these people reminded Mary that all her family bore the first names of the family of Moses: "O you in whom we esteemed and whom we have compared until now to Aaron's sister, whom you besides the first name, how could you do such thing? " Mary's entourage therefore saw in her and her family a family comparable to that of Mary, daughter of Amram and sister of Moses and Aaron, not only in piety but also in relation to the similarities in the first names.

--- Bb) or the Hadîth can be understood as speaking of Mary precisely: it is of her that the Prophet spoke when he said that the Sons of Israel were named according to the names of their ancestors: it is thus she who was named after the name of a pious among her distant relatives, in order to reproduce, given the fact that her father was called Amram, the succession of names that existed among the distant ancestors: Mary (the mother of Jesus) daughter of Amram was comparable to Mary (the sister of Moses and Aaron) daughter of Amram.
In this case, "O sister of Aaron" is to be understood as meaning "O descendant of Aaron". Luke relates that Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah of Abia and the mother of John the Baptist, descended from Aaron (Gospel according to Luke 1/5) and that she was a relative of Mary (Ibid. 1/36). It is therefore possible that Mary, the mother of Jesus, also descended from Aaron. (Which would imply that Mary descended both from the royal line of David and therefore from Judah - as we said above - but also from the priestly line of Aaron and therefore also from Levi.)
Now, in the Arabic language, "So-and-so's sister" and "So-and-so's brother" do not systematically designate "the girl and boy having the same father or the same mother as So-and-so": these terms sometimes designate "the descendant - girl or boy - of So-and-so himself ". Here is an example present in another verse of the Koran: "And quote the brother of Aad, when he warns his people…" (Koran 46/21): it is question here of the prophet Hûd. But Hûd is absolutely not Aad's blood brother, he is a descendant. Aad is in fact his ancestor. However Hûd was named here: "brother of Aad". Ibn Kathîr also quotes this Arabic expression: one calls out to the Quraysh by saying: "O brother of Quraysh!", The Tamimite by saying: "O brother of Tamîm!" (Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr).
It would therefore be the same thing in the verse "O sister of Aaron": when some people wanted to reproach Mary for what they thought, namely that she had had a child without being married, they called out to her using the figure of style "O sister of Aaron", wanting to say to him: "O you who descend from the pious Aaron, whose descendants are attached to the service of the Holy Oratory, how could you do such thing?"

The quranic view of the sun and the flat earth. Especially Surat al-Kahf verse 86

It's about the description of Dhul Qarnayn, it's stated explicitely in the verse you quoted ! Not what God said. It appeared like that to Dhul quarnayn. Nothing else.
Regarding the flat earth it's again a problem of sentient from those who claim it : The Revelation says it's "rounded" like a carpet, what to understand from that? But at the same time says from our perspective that it looks like it's flat to not distrurb our way of living. Not that it actually is, again a problem of perspective from you.

- Islamic view of female genital mutilation. That's aside from circumcision which is also male mutilation.

What do you want to know from that? For females it's not from muslims and the prophet said it was a bad thing to do, and didn't let it happen, it's just a pre-muslim culture. Read a bit please you'r confused.
About the male one? It has more pros than cons, again the consequentialism realism of it. What you want more?

 

[Deleted member 3043]

The quranic view of the sun and the flat earth. Especially Surat al-Kahf verse 86

It's about the description of Dhul Qarnayn, it's stated explicitely in the verse you quoted ! Not what God said. It appeared like that to Dhul quarnayn. Nothing else.
Regarding the flat earth it's again a problem of sentient from those who claim it : The Revelation says it's "rounded" like a carpet, what to understand from that? But at the same time says from our perspective that it looks like it's flat to not distrurb our way of living. Not that it actually is, again a problem of perspective from you.

- Islamic view of female genital mutilation. That's aside from circumcision which is also male mutilation.

What do you want to know from that? For females it's not from muslims and the prophet said it was a bad thing to do, and didn't let it happen, it's just a pre-muslim culture. Read a bit please you'r confused.
About the male one? It has more pros than cons, again the consequentialism realism of it. What you want more?

 

[Deleted member 3043]

What I have to say? well guess what

IM GOING TO SHOWER NOW
AND ALLAH CANT STOP ME

Read about relative free will, you'll need it, and come back if you don't understand it, again the most rational position regarding this issue.

 

[lutte]

did you conveniently forget europe was in the dark ages while the islamic world was thriving? islamic scientists kept greek texts and they had translated them into arabic.

ok chaddam

 

[Deleted member 10987]

did you conveniently forget europe was in the dark ages while the islamic world was thriving? islamic scientists kept greek texts and they had translated them into arabic.

I wouldnt say the that europe was in the dark ages (we say this because of the point of view of the Romans, for them it was trully horrific, but germanic kingdoms trived) but the Ummayads/Abbasids were most powerful in the world at those times

What fucked the Islamic/Arabic world is lazy arabs letted turks in the rule the armies after they took them in slavery and the caliphates dementled in smalls emirates/kingdoms
Add the Mongol invasion and the plague

North africa was fine tho because they didnt have those problems i cited

 

[Enfant terrible]

Based.

Also

- Belief in God keeps society together
- God and religion is the mortal enemy of Chads and women

NO just need to look at history

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

I wouldnt say the that europe was in the dark ages (we say this because of the point of view of the Romans, for them it was trully horrific, but germanic kingdoms trived) but the Ummayads/Abbasids were most powerful in the world at those times

What fucked the Islamic/Arabic world is lazy arabs letted turks in the rule the armies after they took them in slavery and the caliphates dementled in smalls emirates/kingdoms
Add the Mongol invasion and the plague

North africa was fine tho because they didnt have those problems i cited

by "dark ages" we are referring to the period where there was no law and order and there was a feudal system. this feudal system was implemented in the entirety of europe. the dark ages is the period before the renaissance so this is way after the romans. so the germanic kingdoms werent thriving either.

what destroyed the islamic world was the mongol sacking of baghdad in 1258. hulagu khan had successfully killed the caliphate. before it got sacked, the era was called the islamic golden age because of good it was back then. a stark contrast between the dark ages in europe and the golden ages in the islamic world.

i am not sure but i think north africans were imperalists in parts of spain but i could be wrong about that part.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

wdym - muslims translating greek?

not J old language.
I'll provide quote, read :

Spoiler: read

Guillaume in his preface of the book The Legacy Of Islam writes:

Since the beginning of the nineteenth century there has been a constant recourse to Arabic for the explanation of rare words and forms in Hebrew; for Arabic though more than a thousand years junior as a literary language, is the senior philosophically by countless centuries. Perplexing phenomenon in Hebrew can often be explained as solitary and archaic survivals of the form which are frequent and common in the cognate Arabic. Words and idioms whose precise sense had been lost in Jewish tradition, receive a ready and convincing explanation from the same source. Indeed no serious student of the Old Testament can afford to dispense with a first-hand knowledge in Arabic. The pages of any critical commentary on the Old Testament will illustrate the debt of the Biblical exegesis owes to Arabic.[23]

Actually this phenomenon of the use of Arabic words and grammar by Jews goes back to the times of Saadia Gaon.

The Qur'an: How It Influenced The Jews and What They Say About it?

The Jews were greatly influenced by the work of Arab grammarians who analysed the Qur'an. Their influence was primarily on the linguistic and contextual interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Most of the quotes are self explanatory. According to the Jewish scholars:

Jewish scholars in Arab lands for the first time in history acquired the tools for proper contexual study of the scriptures. Islam had spread the tenets of rationalism, mediating in part the philosophical teachings of classical Greece.[24]
In addition, Arab grammarians had developed a systematic method for analyzing the style and the structure of classical Arabic, the language of the Koran. This enabled them not only to interpret the Koran but also to compose new works in the strict standards of the classical idiom.[25]
Jews in Arab lands had the potential to become comparative semitic linguists.[26]
Jews who studied Arabic language and literature, as well as other academic disciplines, learned the new linguistic science and desired to exploit it in their exegesis of the Bible and the analysis of Hebrew grammar. Only those who knew Arabic grammar developed the proper understanding of the Hebrew verb as the stem built upon three consonants. Hebrew verb stems in which the letters alef, vav and yod appear for example, do not display these weak consonants in all forms. These weak consonants do appear in the various forms of Arabic verb, However. Jewish scholars with linguistic sophistication realized that the weak consonants were part of the Hebrew verb even where they are not evident. Jewish exegetes, such as those in France, who did not read Arabic, failed to comprehend the triconsonantal basis of the Hebrew verb-stem and as a result, confused certain stems and misinterpreted them. C'est la vie. Characteristic of the Spanish Jewish scholars was their superior interest and training in linguistic analysis, a benefit of having grown up in an Arabic milieu.[27]
His (Rabbi Saadiah) Arabic translation of the Bible, however continues in use as the official version of Jews from Arab lands. It is also a mine of original insight into the meaning of difficult Hebrew words and phrases in the Bible, of which the modern scholars have barely taken advantage.[28]
(Ibn Janah's) two-volume analysis of biblical vocabulary, grammar, and style remains the most brilliant and valuable contribution of all time to the study of biblical language. The two volumes The Book of Roots and The Book of Embroidery (his figure for grammar) exist only in the original Arabic and a medieval Hebrew translation.[29]

In the words of the famous Hebrew linguist Saadia Gaon:

Saadia expresses himself unreservedly about his indebtness to Arabic authors, who served him as models in the composition of his work. "It is reported," he says, "that one of the worthies among the Ishmaelites, realizing to his sorrow that the people do not use the Arabic language correctly, wrote a short treatise for them. From which they might learn proper usages. Similarly, I have noticed that many of the Israelites even the common rules for the correct usage of our (Hebrew) language, much less the more difficult rules, so that when they speak in prose most of it is faulty, and when they write poetry only a few of the ancient rules are observed, and majority of them are neglected. This has induced me to compose a work in two parts containing most of the (Hebrew) words." [30]

The author went on to say:

The rules of the Hebrew grammer adverted to in the fragments of this work possessed by us - only a little more than the introduction has been preserved - like wise reveal the influence of the school of Arabic grammarians.[31]

And in another place in the same book, we read:

In all probability the language of the Koran had become the vernacular of most of the Jews and the Samaritans soon after the Hegrah. This being the case, it is obvious that Saadia could make use of the literature of the Arabs as well as the works of Judeo-Arabic authors.[32]

 

[Deleted member 7866]

NO just need to look at history

ok give me a history then mr. Terrible

 

[Deleted member 3043]

I used to be the most religious guy in my school and I was almost going to do Islamic studies and become a sheikh at one point. I know 20 times more than you probably,

Ah yes le "i was scholar, son of scholar, father of scholar, scholar in my essence i know more than your soul",while the boy provides only some polemical points that are refuted 100x times and by itself.
Bro.stop.

 

[Deleted member 7866]

ok give me a history then mr. Terrible

i am still waiting @Enfant terrible

Ah yes le "i was scholar, son of scholar, father of scholar, scholar in my essence i know more than your soul",while the boy provides only some polemical points that are refuted 100x times and by itself.
Bro.stop.

ayo u a religion or an atheidiot?

 

[Deleted member 3043]

I wouldnt say the that europe was in the dark ages (we say this because of the point of view of the Romans, for them it was trully horrific, but germanic kingdoms trived) but the Ummayads/Abbasids were most powerful in the world at those times

What fucked the Islamic/Arabic world is lazy arabs letted turks in the rule the armies after they took them in slavery and the caliphates dementled in smalls emirates/kingdoms
Add the Mongol invasion and the plague

North africa was fine tho because they didnt have those problems i cited

what bring arabs down is that they believed there were the chosen ones, while there are none. God says himself " i don't change a people without it changing itself first" but we acted like sheytan,and were arrogant.

 

[Enfant terrible]

i am still waiting @Enfant terrible
ayo u a religion or an atheidiot?

iam writing a longer comment you idiot
have patience

 

[Deleted member 7866]

iam writing a longer comment you idiot
have patience

ok

 

[Deleted member 3043]

ayo u a religion or an atheidiot?

i'm a believer that admitted he is a believer not a believer who believes he knows while he actually believes - an atheist.

 

[Enfant terrible]

ok give me a history then mr. Terrible

Religion always leads to conflict
different branches emerge
Catholics against Protestans
30 years war etc.
Catholicism couldnt stop the french revolution for example
Because people will always have different believes about how things should be and about how things really are.
You cannot unite all humans under one believe system.

 

[Deleted member 7866]

Religion always leads to conflict
different branches emerge
Catholics against Protestans
30 years war etc.
Catholicism couldnt stop the french revolution for example
Because people will always have different believes about how things should be and about how things really are.
You cannot unite all humans under one believe system.

those were just wars of soldiers. the religious peasants lived happy lives while the soldiers fought. its when atheism happens that people become degenerate.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

by "dark ages" we are referring to the period where there was no law and order and there was a feudal system. this feudal system was implemented in the entirety of europe. the dark ages is the period before the renaissance so this is way after the romans. so the germanic kingdoms werent thriving either.

what destroyed the islamic world was the mongol sacking of baghdad in 1258. hulagu khan had successfully killed the caliphate. before it got sacked, the era was called the islamic golden age because of good it was back then. a stark contrast between the dark ages in europe and the golden ages in the islamic world.

i am not sure but i think north africans were imperalists in parts of spain but i could be wrong about that part.

For me the feudal system wasnt that bad, it was just a different way of life than in Antiquity and the caliphates were kinda similar with Emirs (Lords), Farras (Knights) etc...
but the islamic world was falling way before mongols
Mongols were just the final nail in the coffin
Even in the 1000s, the caliphates was desagrating in small emirates who only cared about themselves
The caliphates stoped their conquests in the 800s after defeated the chinkoids at Talas in 751 and just like the romans before, they became lazy degenerates,
The Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines was triving again with Basil 2 who regained glory for the eastern romans/byzantines
And the eastern romans were starting to attack the levant emirates

And for Nafris, they conquered spain and some part of southern france but they gradually losed it with the reconquista

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Religion always leads to conflict

Religion isn't the main cause of conflit in history, not even the second, and not even close tho.
Who cares if it leads to conflit when people don't all follow 1. the truth one that prevent that. 2. In the truth one, pretend to follow it, but in actuality don't want to?
It's all prophetized, who cares. If you follow the truth one, you won't create conflit, in the contrary.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

what bring arabs down is that they believed there were the chosen ones, while there are none. God says himself " i don't change a people without it changing itself first" but we acted like sheytan,and were arrogant.

True but again, there is free will
They chosed to be lazy degenerates

 

[Enfant terrible]

those were just wars of soldiers. the religious peasants lived happy lives while the soldiers fought. its when atheism happens that people become degenerate.

You know how many people died in the 30 years war
civilian deaths range from 4.5 to 8 million, mostly from disease or starvation.
Caused by religious disagreement
Just one example
Also iam not advocating for atheism
just saying that religion does not guarantee stability.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

True but again, there is free will
They chosed to be lazy degenerates

yes exactly, but we deserved every bit of it. Until they are not all true virtuous individuals, that at least wake up every morning for the fajr prayer, nothing will change because God won't.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

You know how many people died in the 30 years war
civilian deaths range from 4.5 to 8 million, mostly from disease or starvation.
Caused by religious disagreement
Just one example
Also iam not advocating for atheism
just saying that religion does not guarantee stability.

If wasnt for religion, they would have chosen another reason to fight

 

[Deleted member 10987]

yes exactly, but we deserved every bit of it. Until they are not all true virtuous individuals, that at least wake up every morning for the fajr prayer, nothing will change because God won't.

The individual can still change

 

[Deleted member 3043]

The individual can still change

i totally agree, that's the sole way: Act good, and the rest will follow by his will.But people are shocked that these societies are nowadays doomed while they deserved every bit of it by not beeing faithful inthe 12ish century and latter on.

 

[Deleted member 9989]

Islam is based on woman tbh

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

For me the feudal system wasnt that bad, it was just a different way of life than in Antiquity and the caliphates were kinda similar with Emirs (Lords), Farras (Knights) etc...
but the islamic world was falling way before mongols
Mongols were just the final nail in the coffin
Even in the 1000s, the caliphates was desagrating in small emirates who only cared about themselves
The caliphates stoped their conquests in the 800s after defeated the chinkoids at Talas in 751 and just like the romans before, they became lazy degenerates,
The Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines was triving again with Basil 2 who regained glory for the eastern romans/byzantines
And the eastern romans were starting to attack the levant emirates

And for Nafris, they conquered spain and some part of southern france but they gradually losed it with the reconquista

its not about our personal opinion on whether we find a feudal system bad or not. its about what makes a society progress for the better and that is through education. education can only exist in an environment where there is law and order.

the islamic world was indeed already crumbling but that was centuries even before. it started happening during the first fitna. although ironically enough the sacking of baghdad which ended the islamic golden ages also was the cause for the crumbling of the mongol empire. berke khan had reverted to islam and swore vengeance against his cousin hulagu khan. they never got to meet each other in battle because they died - first hulagu and then later berke khan - but it had already caused a lot of damage.

also remember how the arabs lost palestine... they sided with the british after they caused division and the arabs murdered ottoman troops. then palestine fell into british hands and since then its been a mess. if we had one ummah with unity then no such thing would have taken place and there would have been no oppression. but alas, you reap what you sow and my sympathy is lost on the palestinians.

 

[Deleted member 7866]

You know how many people died in the 30 years war
civilian deaths range from 4.5 to 8 million, mostly from disease or starvation.
Caused by religious disagreement
Just one example
Also iam not advocating for atheism
just saying that religion does not guarantee stability.

i understand, i didnt know. thanks for correcting me on this matter

Still, it does not necesarily prove that religion is always bad considering most of Europe was very uneducated at the time. They might just be fighting for fighting as @Maesthetic said

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

Islam is based on woman tbh

i hope you understand islam gave women rights 1300 years before the western world did

 

[Enfant terrible]

Religion isn't the main cause of conflit in history, not even the second, and not even close tho.
Who cares if it leads to conflit when people don't all follow 1. the truth one that prevent that. 2. In the truth one, pretend to follow it, but in actuality don't want to?
It's all prophetized, who cares. If you follow the truth one, you won't create conflit, in the contrary.

I never said its the main cause of conflict.
It can be a source of conflict is all i said.

the truth one that prevent that. 2. In the truth one, pretend to follow it, but in actuality don't want to?
????

 

[Enfant terrible]

If wasnt for religion, they would have chosen another reason to fight

Nah

 

[Deleted member 3043]

I never said its the main cause of conflict.
It can be a source of conflict is all i said.

the truth one that prevent that. 2. In the truth one, pretend to follow it, but in actuality don't want to?
????

Ye, basically the teachings of the blessed one says that you should only fight for self defense when you'r oppressed, and when it happens, never oppose the weak, the old, the kid, the woman, the civilian, cutting trees, burning anything nor doing any injustice, and even the fighter who opposes you but then ask for help you must help him.Who does that in history?
And the overall teachings are about seeking peace, and trying to help others, nothing related to conflict, but you can't either be a beta that accept oppression for years if it happens.

Those who pretend are the typical case of hypocritical individuals in the faith meaning, and historically were the main reason of internal dissension - A Ibn Sanah with Ali for example - since i can only talk about one faith that i know a bit.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

its not about our personal opinion on whether we find a feudal system bad or not. its about what makes a society progress for the better and that is through education. education can only exist in an environment where there is law and order.

the islamic world was indeed already crumbling but that was centuries even before. it started happening during the first fitna. although ironically enough the sacking of baghdad which ended the islamic golden ages also was the cause for the crumbling of the mongol empire. berke khan had reverted to islam and swore vengeance against his cousin hulagu khan. they never got to meet each other in battle because they died - first hulagu and then later berke khan - but it had already caused a lot of damage.

also remember how the arabs lost palestine... they sided with the british after they caused division and the arabs murdered ottoman troops. then palestine fell into british hands and since then its been a mess. if we had one ummah with unity then no such thing would have taken place and there would have been no oppression. but alas, you reap what you sow and my sympathy is lost on the palestinians.

Unfortunately, I dont believe in the ummah in a state/politics/country
It wont work, the arabs didnt care about the ummah, same for turks etc....
Blood is what make the difference

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Nah

there will always be people with power that will sell their salvation in the future life, for more power and wealth in this life. It only needs one bad powerful man to start a conflit. And it's always the poor,the civilians that pay the toll.

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

Unfortunately, I dont believe in the ummah in a state/politics/country
It wont work, the arabs didnt care about the ummah, same for turks etc....
Blood is what make the difference

yeah its beyond repair. the miseries that exist only exist because of us. its good in theory but in practical terms its unrealistic

 

[Deleted member 10987]

its not about our personal opinion on whether we find a feudal system bad or not. its about what makes a society progress for the better and that is through education. education can only exist in an environment where there is law and order.

the islamic world was indeed already crumbling but that was centuries even before. it started happening during the first fitna. although ironically enough the sacking of baghdad which ended the islamic golden ages also was the cause for the crumbling of the mongol empire. berke khan had reverted to islam and swore vengeance against his cousin hulagu khan. they never got to meet each other in battle because they died - first hulagu and then later berke khan - but it had already caused a lot of damage.

also remember how the arabs lost palestine... they sided with the british after they caused division and the arabs murdered ottoman troops. then palestine fell into british hands and since then its been a mess. if we had one ummah with unity then no such thing would have taken place and there would have been no oppression. but alas, you reap what you sow and my sympathy is lost on the palestinians.

But i dont think the palestinians/arabs liked to be under turkish rule
They thinked that their was going an unified arab state

 

[Enfant terrible]

Ye, basically the teachings of the blessed one says that you should only fight for self defense when you'r oppressed, and when it happens, never oppose the weak, the old, the kid, the woman, the civilian, cutting trees, burning anything nor doing any injustice, and even the fighter who opposes you but then ask for help you must help him.Who does that in history?
And the overall teachings are about seeking peace, and trying to help others, nothing related to conflict, but you can't either be a beta that accept oppression for years if it happens.

Those who pretend are the typical case of hypocritical individuals in the faith meaning, and historically were the main reason of internal dissension - A Ibn Sanah with Ali for example - since i can only talk about one faith that i know a bit.

The rashidun and umayyad Caliphate attacked and conquered almost all of the middle east, north africa and spain
the reasons were not self defence
Talking about causing conflict

 

[Deleted member 3043]

The rashidun and umayyad Caliphate attacked and conquered almost all of the middle east, north africa and spain

Most attacked them first. Second,they refused to make treaty of peace with them. It was considered back in time as self defense in the geopolitical theory.Today is different, the normal state of the world is the peace ie treaty of peace.

 

[Enfant terrible]

there will always be people with power that will sell their salvation in the future life, for more power and wealth in this life. It only needs one bad powerful man to start a conflit. And it's always the poor,the civilians that pay the toll.

Its not all about power
If you really believe
and see that some people are spreading heresy for example
you want to stop that.
Its not all about power hungry individuals thats cope.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Its not all about power
If you really believe
and see that some people are spreading heresy for example
you want to stop that.
Its not all about power hungry individuals thats cope.

Wdym by heresy? What i'll do is let them spread but outside of my kingdom, as long as they don't plan on ending me.

 

[Enfant terrible]

Wdym by heresy? What i'll do is let them spread but outside of my kingdom, as long as they don't plan on ending me.

Iam talking abou the spreading of protestant believe in catholic lands.
Yes outside your kingdom
but inside you will end them.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Iam talking abou the spreading of protestant believe in catholic lands.
Yes outside your kingdom
but inside you will end them.

No, i don't value "ending". i'll kick them outside of my kingdom if what they want by their behavior factually is to end my kingdom - which is what heresy is on about god doesn't care about heretics in this world, the truth is there, and can't be corrupted it's a social and societal issue.

 

[Enfant terrible]

Most attacked them first. Second,they refused to make treaty of peace with them. It was considered back in time as self defense in the geopolitical theory.Today is different, the normal state of the world is the peace ie treaty of peace.

No muslims attacked mesopotamia first.
from wikipedia
After the Ridda wars, a tribal chief of northeastern Arabia, Al-Muthanna ibn Haritha, raided the Persian towns in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq). Abu Bakr was strong enough to attack the Persian Empire in the north-east and the Byzantine Empire in the north-west. There were three purposes for this conquest. First, along the border between Arabia and these two great empires were numerous nomadic Arab tribes serving as a buffer between the Persians and Romans. Abu Bakr hoped that these tribes might accept Islam and help their brethren in spreading it. Second, the Persian and Roman populations were very highly taxed; Abu Bakr believed that they might be persuaded to help the Muslims, who agreed to release them from the excessive tributes. Finally, Abu Bakr hoped that by attacking Iraq and Syria he might remove the danger from the borders of the Islamic State.[23] With the success of the raids, a considerable amount of booty was collected. Al-Muthanna ibn Haritha went to Medina to inform Abu Bakr about his success and was appointed commander of his people, after which he began to raid deeper into Mesopotamia. Using the mobility of his light cavalry, he could easily raid any town near the desert and disappear again into the desert, beyond the reach of the Sasanian army. Al-Muthanna's acts made Abu Bakr think about the expansion of the Rashidun Empire.[24]

Self defence btw

 

[NorwoodStyle]

Muslims crack me up.
If Mohamad just had the revelation and posted the quran here, every single muslim coper would reply dn rd cope shit thread kys op.
Fucking morons.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

No muslims attacked mesopotamia first.
from wikipedia
After the Ridda wars, a tribal chief of northeastern Arabia, Al-Muthanna ibn Haritha, raided the Persian towns in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq). Abu Bakr was strong enough to attack the Persian Empire in the north-east and the Byzantine Empire in the north-west. There were three purposes for this conquest. First, along the border between Arabia and these two great empires were numerous nomadic Arab tribes serving as a buffer between the Persians and Romans. Abu Bakr hoped that these tribes might accept Islam and help their brethren in spreading it. Second, the Persian and Roman populations were very highly taxed; Abu Bakr believed that they might be persuaded to help the Muslims, who agreed to release them from the excessive tributes. Finally, Abu Bakr hoped that by attacking Iraq and Syria he might remove the danger from the borders of the Islamic State.[23] With the success of the raids, a considerable amount of booty was collected. Al-Muthanna ibn Haritha went to Medina to inform Abu Bakr about his success and was appointed commander of his people, after which he began to raid deeper into Mesopotamia. Using the mobility of his light cavalry, he could easily raid any town near the desert and disappear again into the desert, beyond the reach of the Sasanian army. Al-Muthanna's acts made Abu Bakr think about the expansion of the Rashidun Empire.[24]

Self defence btw

It was basically preventive self defense but i don't defend this, it's was just a prophecy needing to be fulfilled.

 

[Enfant terrible]

No, i don't value "ending". i'll kick them outside of my kingdom if what they want by their behavior factually is to end my kingdom - which is what heresy is on about god doesn't care about heretics in this world, the truth is there, and can't be corrupted it's a social and societal issue.

Yeah maybe you think like that but other people do things differently
like killing them

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Yeah maybe you think like that but other people do things differently
like killing them

They think what they want u asked me, i always see the ratione legis of the laws.

 

[Enfant terrible]

It was basically preventive self defense but i don't defend this, it's was just a prophecy needing to be fulfilled.

What prophecy ?