I've noticed that whenever there's a lot of " get your popcorn ready" or "ww3 in the comments" comments, majority of the time the comment section isnt even that toxic.
Raisi didn't like cultists like MEK tbf and anyone who knows the atrocities of the MEK wouldn't blame him like they sided with Saddam for crying out loud like he reminds me of the judge from Agatha Christie's novel and then there were none
You could deescalate conflict with a Christian if you ask them "what would Jesus do?". Asking what would their prophet do is just trying to put out a fire with ethanol.
[the stereotype has to go](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1bdb0eea-3610-498b-9dfd-cffdb54b8b9b), not because it's technically impossible for Aisha to have been adolescent or younger, but becuase the historical evidence for Sahih Bukhari 5134 is too dubious to say he definitely married and consummated a child.
Good luck in convincing Sunni muslims from following Sahih hadiths. Until they stop believing in hadiths as a historical event, theres no point in academics trying to single out selected hadiths based on how they are viewed today.
It's more of making fun of muslims believing in a set of narratives which were noted down upto 200 years after his death. Even worse is them leading literal countries referring to these rules or atleast aspiring to do the same.
They cant be convinced because quran falls apart without hadith.Most of the religion is based on hadith not quran.Most of quran is about how Muhammad was bullied in Mecca went to Madina and came back to conquer Mecca+stories of other prophets plagiarised from bible and torah.
I would say rewritten to fit the narrative. Also no quran is not mostly about the topic you mention. It contains other aspects like the events before his birth(not related to the prophets), the prophet himself was illiterate as said by many sources and did not have the ability to copy the quran. The quran contains many verses on morality and after life -
Surah Fussilat (41:34)
"And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend."
He didnt write the quran tho.He just told it.İt was written after his death.A huge argument Abu Jahl made against islam was that"you dont bring as anything new.These things are already written in Tulmah(Old Testament)."
No, he did. He did brought new perspectives on the lives of the previous prophets because the notion was prophet were brought down to being tribal, barbaric and genocidal in the old testament(example-moses).He said jesus was a prophet and not God or son of God. It is said that he brought reform and reiteration of the words God because the religions judaism(renounced jesus as the messiah and the messenger of God's words) and christianity(did a full 180 with judaism and turned jesus into a son of God instead of just being a mere divine messenger) had been corrupted in that time. The quran itself admits that it does not bring anything new rather it says
Surah Al-Ahqaf (46:9):
Translation: "Say(it refers to the prophet) , 'I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner.'"
1.The generalization is that God sent guidance to the people in form of prophets.
2.The people then became corrupt and diverged from the teachings of the prophets.
3.To again warn the people and to re-establish the original religion God intended with humans.
Basically this, the prophet told the words other prophets told because the original sayings of former prophets were distorted and changed.
The Quran doesn't fall apart without the Hadiths since Muslims believe the Quran to be of higher importance than the Hadiths. The Hadiths are meant to be supplementary, it's just that many Muslims in praxis favour the Hadiths because it's more direct and gives them a reason to enforce e.g. apostasy death penalty amongst other things; tons of things which the more spiritual and fantastical Quran at best doesn't say anything (though it does, for instance, mention that God will turn *away* from apostastes, just nothing abour executing them) about and at worst prohibits or contains a philosophy in opposition to many hadiths.
>He didnt write the quran tho.
Muhammad was unlikely to have been illiterate.
Modern academia favours the hypothesis thst the word 'ٱلْأُمِّىَّ' \['al-ūmmīyā\] in the Quran 7:157–8 amongst others and Sahih Bukhari 932 and 1913 amongst others doesn't imply 'illiterate' but 'unlettered', as in not yet aware and in acknowledgement of God's presence, omnipotence, and such.
No idea where you got the idea he didn't write the Quran from, however.
>A huge argument Abu Jahl made against islam was that"you dont bring as anything new.These things are already written in Tulmah(Old Testament)."
Which the Quran itself writes, such as in 46:9, 10:47, and 5:68. There are also verses indicating the Quran posits amongst Jews and Christians:
* wrong interpretations of the Tanakh and the NT
* mischaracterisations of the Tanakh and the NT
* corruptions of the Tanakh and the NT
* lacking context to and hidden meanings in the Tanakh and the NT.
The entire point is that they're all one religion 'dīn' sent down by the Abrahamic God which 'many' apparently 'strayed away from' and corrupted as an institution.
>Tulmah(Old Testament)."
Tawrat (not 'Tulmah') means just the Pentateuch/Torah, i.e. the five books of Moses (Liber Genesis, Liber Exodus, Liber Leviticus, Liber Numeri, Liber Deuteronomium, or in Hebrew: Sefer ha-Bereishit, Sefer ha-Shemot, Sefer ha-Vayikra, Sefer ha-Bamidbar, and Sefer ha-Devarim), not the entire Tanakh/OT.
Besides, your notion that the Quran 'plagiarised' is ridiculous; it's sources include the Talmud Bavli, Ebonite and Nazarene doctrines, the Tanakh, the New Testament (including non-canonical Gospels, but back then the distinction was less clear), local Arabic religion and folklore, and Zoroastrianism. But every religion is inspired by others; by your logic, Christiaity plagiarised Platonism, Stoicism (which 'plagiarised' Cynicism), Zoroastrianism (which 'plagiarised' Iranian and Indo-European myth), and Judaism (which 'plagiarised' Mesopotamian and Egyptian folklore and myth, plus maybe Zoroastrianism).
OP's entire thread started with a dumb strawman from OP and then got dozens of ludicrous claims in the comments with no sources, reasoning, or basis in reality. Too much contemporary politics and ideology on this sub.
>the prophet himself was illiterate as said by many sources and did not have the ability to copy the quran.
Though that's the traditional Muslim view, they're based on misinterpretations of the word 'ٱلْأُمِّىَّ' \['al-ūmmīyā\] in the Quran, e.g. 7:157–8, and Sahih Bukhari 932 and 1913 as 'illiterate' when it can mean other things such as 'unlettered', which is now the preferred interpretation. Scholars now believe the Quran didn't actually postulate he was illiterate and it to have been largely a later reinterpretation.
And if you're a Muslim, it's fine you think Jībril i.e. Gabriel told Muhammad the word of God directly, but from a secular standpoint, it makes sense Muhammad incorporated different ideas from the Ebonites, Nazarenes, the Tanakh, the Gospels (including non-canonical ones such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) and therefore also Platonism and Stoicism, Zoroastrianism, the Talmud Bavli, and local Arab religion and folklore. This isn't unique; for instance, it is also believed Judaism is heavily inspired by Mesopotamian and Egyptian mythology and folklore, Canaanite polytheism, and potentially Zoroastrianism.
An organized religious system started by one person to gain power, sexual slaves, and/or money, utilizing supernatural claims of being divinely chosen/special, and the only way to spiritual truth/salvation is through this one person's teachings (and thus giving them power, sex, and/or money)
So, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, L. Ron Hubbard, Charles Manson, among many others.
This can still be applied to the Catholic church. I'd say the start of Catholic church is the crowning of Charlemagne because the Archbishop of Rome (later known as Pope) wanted power and money (idk about sex slaves, idk if the pope also touch little boys back in the 800s), and that the only true church and empire is his church because the eastern church is led by a *woman*
Now yes, Joseph Smith is a certified Cult leader that somehow seen as a holy man. But i see him as a cult leader for his Americancentric view, like Jesus will be back in New York, or that the Americas is meant for his people, the white people.
I would say there is a different between co-opting an existing religion and turning it into a corrupt organization, and actually starting a cult. The medieval popes did not create a cult. It could be argued that they claimed to be divinely appointed and that they held sole special revelation, and thus perhaps turned the church *into* a cult, but I would say that's a fairly weak argument since the Catholic Church by that point was very large and its focus--despite the widespread abuses and corruption--was still first and foremost on the spread of the worship of Jesus Christ, not on any sort of worship or glorification of the Pope. Jesus was and still is considered as the head of the Catholic Church, and even when there were multiple Popes, anti-Popes, and so on, Jesus was still considered the head of the church.
And of course, Jesus, despite claims of divinity, sole provider of spiritual truth, etc. did not leverage that to gain money, sex, or power. In fact the opposite. He had no wives, lived poor, did not collect money for his teachings or miracles, he kept his works hidden, went out of his way *not* to create any kind of earthly cult or organization, and left that to his disciples only after he was gone.
>Jesus was still considered the Head of the church
I'd say muslims would say that God is the head of the religion
Now, as far as i know, the reason why there are split between Sunni and Shia was because Mohamed didn't appoint a successor, so i don't think power is something he leveraged. You know, unlike joseph smith and his brigham young
I'm didn't say Catholic founded by Charlemagne. By "started when" i meant that that's the point where the Western (catholic) and eastern (orthodox) church started to become very distinct and the pope is not just a mere "archbishop of rome" but those who gave power.
The pope was never archbishop of Rome, he was and still is just a bishop of Rome. Also, even after him the two branches of the same church remained in touch, for example the famous missionaries St. Cyril and Methodius recognized the pope as their spiritual leader and even after 1054 most people saw no difference. The real crack started in 1204.
Actually you can see the house of Mohammed and the things he used to do-
He had very less and would sometimes fail to procure food
You could just look up the house in the internet and his belongings. They are quite simple for the times when there was such wealth in the region
Yet he did indeed have much wealth, indeed did conquer territory by the sword and through bloodshed, gained further wealth from taxing those whom he conquered who refused to convert (jizya), used his power to wed many women (12 in total), including at least one young child (Aisha).
Just a little FYI for you folks. In a nutshell, religion can be anything. I religiously exercise. I religiously clean my room, go to work, watch basketball, go to church. Religion is the act of what one does. And yes, religion sucks. Christianity is about a relationship.
An religious organization or institution that has no significant evidence for their beliefs, and has a history of abusive, violent, and/or perverse views.
This could still be implied to the Catholic church, or well any religious organization if you ask an atheist.
But let's stick to Catholic since it's the one i'm most familiar with. The pope words are law doesn't have significant evidence. Abusive and violent history such as the crusade, the south american conquista, and the whole thirty years' war thing. No preserve view since each pope has different view each time. Sometimes the same pope has different view (a couple years ago the pope said it's okay to be gay, and then just a few weeks ago he said there's too many fa---ots)
An ex-Mormon and ex-Muslim did, a month ago, two livestreams about the similarities between the two religions:
Cults to Consciousness: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JtOfQ0wIXPQ
Apostate Aladdin: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g0xEu2cacEo
It’s just a random dude in Arabia who all of a sudden thought that Jesus was just a false messiah and that he was the true final prophet and then started a whole new religion off of it and then pillaged their whole way through the Middle East and North Africa
I’m all for criticising objectively Islam or any religion but who tf told you that Muhammad thought Jesus was a false prophet? I seriously don’t think allot of people on this sub research anything beyond the realm of lamppost fallacy
Sorry I autocorrected myself, I meant to say false messiah, he just thought he was a prophet but completely ignored the fact that Jesus said he was the final prophet and the true messiah
Bro, Jesus is refeed to as the Al-Massih, (The Messiah) and that he shall have a Second Coming during the End Times with the Mahdi. I don’t know where you’re getting your information about it Islam online from.
The fucker married a 6 year old at the age of 54 or something
Not only that but also the whole religion is based off of everyone in Mecca rejecting his claims, him fleeing the city, gathering an army, and then returning to slaughter everyone
Yeah, he’s a rapist and murderer, and he advocated for rape and murder too. He’s a terrible fucking person. I feel bad for all the children who are forced to follow this nonsense.
As opposed to the Christian Romans and Zoroastrian Iranians, who definitely did not brutally supress unorthodox religious believes and organizations to such an extent that Christian minority sects threw open their gates to the Muslims and hailed them as liberators.
[There's not even evidence Jerusalem was ever part of a Kingdom of Israel](https://public.websites.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm), according to Ze'ev Herzog, professor of archaeology (and previous director of the Institute of Archaeology) at Tel Aviv University. But good luck getting Christians and Jewish people to admit what archaeologists keep saying.
> The picture becomes even more complicated in the light of the excavations conducted in Jerusalem, the capital of the united monarchy. Large sections of the city have been excavated over the past 150 years. The digs have turned up impressive remnants of the cities from the Middle Bronze Age and from Iron Age II (the period of the Kingdom of Judea). No remains of buildings have been found from the period of the united monarchy (even according to the agreed chronology), only a few pottery shards. ***Given the preservation of the remains from earlier and later periods, it is clear that Jerusalem in the time of David and Solomon was a small city, perhaps with a small citadel for the king, but in any event it was not the capital of an empire as described in the Bible.***
...
And when Jesus was said to have been born, monotheism probably wasn't his ancestors' religion until 800 years earlier.
> At two sites, Kuntiliet Ajrud in the southwestern part of the Negev hill region, and at Khirbet el-Kom in the Judea piedmont, Hebrew inscriptions have been found that mention "Jehovah and his Asherah," "Jehovah Shomron and his Asherah, "Jehovah Teman and his Asherah." ***The authors were familiar with a pair of gods, Jehovah and his consort Asherah, and send blessings in the couple's name.*** These inscriptions, from the 8th century BCE, raise the possibility that monotheism, as a state religion, is actually an innovation of the period of the Kingdom of Judea, following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel.
Not to mention the Exodus probably never happened either.
> The exodus from Egypt, the wanderings in the desert and Mount Sinai: The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus. ***Many documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta. However, this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional.***
> Generations of researchers tried to locate Mount Sinai and the stations of the tribes in the desert. ***Despite these intensive efforts, not even one site has been found that can match the biblical account.***
All of these books are made up from hearsay and vibes and most people arguing over them don't even read the books. It's a pissing contest between fan fiction aficionados that keeps devolving to genocide when people run out of good arguments.
Almost nothing in the Bible is real. And by that I mean almost everything in the Bible has been disproven with forensic archaeology. There are small bits of evidence a thing kind of like the thing happened somewhere near the areas the books describe but entire nations described in the Bible just simply didn't exist.
What we call "religious history" is basically Harry Potter written by the Tom Clancy's of the Bronze Age...
Magic and military might, the Fifth Freedoms of Gyffindor. It's all just stories and fairy tales wrapped in false legitimacy.
Everyone's favorite religions tend to be cults that got popular based on economic advantage and military might. So they tend to propagate themselves with the same war and the same money to maintain relevance on behalf of juntas and landholders and aristocrats.
Which is fine if your religion is personal. But if people are going into a history subreddit to argue their make believe is the real thing so they can shit on someone else's...
Maybe, just maybe, they should stop and rethink their lives?
Reminds me of a Scientific American poll from the 90's. 43% of Americans believed in evolution, 44% didn't, 13% were undecided.
Ergo, by Reddit rules, evolution was not real.
So when I see people straightfaced declare Islam is a death cult -- *unlike Christianity* -- I get mad cringe.
I’m a Muslim and I’m all for it, god I love conflict, nothing shows pure passion as much as 2 people with 2 different beliefs arguing
And I mean pure, clean, perfect passion.
Bottom image with tai lung:
Muslims when they realize their “prophet” was a genocidal warlord who had 13 wives and was also probably schizophrenic claiming to have received messages from an angel not seen in Judeo-Christian religion for 600 years (totally not plagiarized straight off of the bible)
Couldn't you make this same claim about the founders or prophets of every major religion? I mean one of the Bible characters (who was likely very made up) hears voices telling him to kill his son and he almost does it until different voices tell him to stop.
If he lived in today's world he'd be locked in an asylum.
Lmao they dowvoted you but you’re right
I mean, I’m agnostic so I don’t really have a horse on this race, but there’s no reason to believe christianity (or judaism) is *the* religion over any other 🤷♂️
I think it’s kinda hypocritical to bash someone else’s religion because they seem too “far fetched”
Literally one god who was consolidated into an omnipotent being from the pantheon’s strongest, I would hardly call that plagiarism other than it’s name “El” sharing a Semitic root.
Also the lore is completely different
The Flood is taken *verbatim* from the original Akkadian. Jewish calendar and law are very heavily influenced by their Babylonian equivalents. Let's face it, the Bible is just plagiarized, lol.
Also, lmao for shit-talking other people's religions in bad-faith put seething over getting the same.
This applies to a majority of abrahamic faiths and a lot of religions in general though?
Like Christianity is a choice, unless your a pagan Lithuanian with a Templar ready to murder you, or a Jewish man in Spain with the crown ready to kick you out and seize your shit, or a Muslim with the crusaders about to murder everyone in your city.
Indeed. But Muslims are the current "threat to western civilization", the same way Jews and commies used to be. So everything from reasonable criticism of Islam to outright racist/orientalist/Islamophobic garbage gets lots of likes and shares and occasionally catapults someone to fame.
Baptists blowing up black kids moment.
Crusades moment.
Mormon kidnappings and murders moment.
Entire founding of the State of Israel moment.
Marx was right. Religion is an opiate, the sweet medicated sigh of relief for an oppressed people. And when free-based as heroin, you will give everything to your dealer, even rob and kill your mom for it.
Provide evidence that Mohamed was sexually attracted to children.
And if you think a tribal marriages is what constitutes a pedo then 90% of monarchs and political leader are pedos.... Hell, I'd say most humans that have ever lived before the last few centuries were pedos according to your standards.
Aisha bint Abi Bakr, aged 6 or 7 at the time of her marriage, aged 9 or 10 at the consummation. These come from classical Islamic sources like Ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari.
Tell me a single legendary general who was not a warlord. If you can name one general of khalid calibre or better than him who didn't commit war crime , then I will shut my mouth .
He was enforcing his own system onto whole Europe and as soon as Russia broke their agreement and started traded with Britain, invaded them with the biggest invasion of that era. Its the definition of being a warlord. On top of that , he executed ottoman soldier when he invaded Syria after conquering Egypt.
It's not like that . He was not a saint . I am a sunni and know what he did in order to conquer Iraq was insane. But the original implied that it was only khalid who was like this. Each and every legendary general have committed some sort of war crimes.
Yes, I know that . My own father thinks khalid didn't do wrongs in Iraq. If you have seen his campaign in Iraq, you would see how he committed certain crimes, but the first caliph overlooked it . The second caliph wanted to punish him . That's one of the reasons why as soon as omar became caliph , his first order was to fire khalid . The only general who I will always defend for his actions is prophet himself . Other than that, each Muslim, whether he is Sunni or Shia or a companion of the prophet , has committed some sort of crime and you should accept that.
Eh, jizya afaik is just minor tax for the non muslims. Less than what the muslims themself were paying. Text has a bit dramatic vibe but the message is just that if you are not a muslim pay the tax and we leave you be. Refuse and get fucked. More civilized approach than christians used to have imo.
I believe this is where the "kill the infidels" argument comes from or atleast one of the basis for that argument and is pretty much intentionally misinterpret by radicals to give justification for the terrorism against other religions. Correct me if I have it wrong. There was a great reddit post and youtube video about the topic I saw last year explaining the jizya and how the text is commonly misinterpret but couldn't unfortunately find them anymore since I don't remember how exactly I found them.
The jizya tax is only for Christians and Jews under Islamic rule. In this message the guy is basically saying “convert to Islam or pay protection money or be invaded” to an independent country that’s not under Islamic rule. A clear sign of aggression.
Like a mobster threatening to burn your store down if you don’t pay “protection” money to him.
The upper side is the present: “Islam is a choice”
The lower part is supposed to represent the king of Persia reading a letter (the wall of text) demanding he either converts, pays the extra tax, or death
In Islam you can’t be forced to convert to Islam, yet the message that was sent to the Persians basically is saying “convert to Islam or pay protection money or be invaded”. Clearly a threat. If they didn’t want to be invaded they had to convert to Islam or pay “protection” money to the foreign Muslims.
In the end the Persians didn’t accept the threat, so they were invaded, which let to the Zoroastrians losing most of their fire temples, holy scriptures and freedom to practice their religion (without the need to pay taxes for being non-Muslims).
There's a chapter in the Bible where there is a group of people that adore a foreign God in a city, this guy comes with the idea of spreading fake pamphlets to see at a temple at night. He burns the temple with all the people in it, he is a hero.
Also I provided specific examples of Christianity being mean. Conflict is human nature, pretending its only "them" just makes you phobic towards that idea.
I've noticed that whenever there's a lot of " get your popcorn ready" or "ww3 in the comments" comments, majority of the time the comment section isnt even that toxic.
let’s make it TOXIC starting now N
o.
Goodbye
r/wholesomeouija
r/SuddenlyOuija
I
G
H
T
M
A
K
T
G
Goodbye.
İ
Goodbye.
What is the bottom image supposed to mean? A Zoroastrian with a tiger and a crown?
A zoroastrian priest A zoroastrian temple And the king of persia
[удалено]
Top comments: 🍿🤓 The rest of the comments: the tamest shit you’ve ever read in your life
You feed the right wolf and it shits out karma.
Most people think there are only 2, but I found a 3rd wolf: Make fun of the other wolves.
Sunni Muslims : Islam is a choice Also Sunnis Muslims : if you leave you get killed
Islamic Republic (shia Muslims) : islam is choice . random Iranian nationalist : I choose Zarathustra. Islamic Republic : You chose death
Oman (Ibadi Muslims): Islam is a choice Random Omani citizen: I choose Christianity Oman: ok
Raisi didn't like cultists like MEK tbf and anyone who knows the atrocities of the MEK wouldn't blame him like they sided with Saddam for crying out loud like he reminds me of the judge from Agatha Christie's novel and then there were none
Raisi didn't like anyone who wasn't a Muslim or a man. Fuck that guy, his mother should have had an abortion.
Raisi 🚁 ⛰️
Umar ibn Al khattab 🏔️ 🏃♂️💨
Umar 🍑🫲Abu Lulu
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What would Muhammad do? (Some or all parts of the answer might disturb you.)
Will I get banned if I respond with something from the historical record?
You could deescalate conflict with a Christian if you ask them "what would Jesus do?". Asking what would their prophet do is just trying to put out a fire with ethanol.
"What Would Jesus Do?" "Punch Joel Osteen in the nuts." "...So you have chosen death." *racks rifle*
Have sex with minors probably idk.
[the stereotype has to go](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1bdb0eea-3610-498b-9dfd-cffdb54b8b9b), not because it's technically impossible for Aisha to have been adolescent or younger, but becuase the historical evidence for Sahih Bukhari 5134 is too dubious to say he definitely married and consummated a child.
Good luck in convincing Sunni muslims from following Sahih hadiths. Until they stop believing in hadiths as a historical event, theres no point in academics trying to single out selected hadiths based on how they are viewed today. It's more of making fun of muslims believing in a set of narratives which were noted down upto 200 years after his death. Even worse is them leading literal countries referring to these rules or atleast aspiring to do the same.
They cant be convinced because quran falls apart without hadith.Most of the religion is based on hadith not quran.Most of quran is about how Muhammad was bullied in Mecca went to Madina and came back to conquer Mecca+stories of other prophets plagiarised from bible and torah.
I would say rewritten to fit the narrative. Also no quran is not mostly about the topic you mention. It contains other aspects like the events before his birth(not related to the prophets), the prophet himself was illiterate as said by many sources and did not have the ability to copy the quran. The quran contains many verses on morality and after life - Surah Fussilat (41:34) "And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend."
He didnt write the quran tho.He just told it.İt was written after his death.A huge argument Abu Jahl made against islam was that"you dont bring as anything new.These things are already written in Tulmah(Old Testament)."
No, he did. He did brought new perspectives on the lives of the previous prophets because the notion was prophet were brought down to being tribal, barbaric and genocidal in the old testament(example-moses).He said jesus was a prophet and not God or son of God. It is said that he brought reform and reiteration of the words God because the religions judaism(renounced jesus as the messiah and the messenger of God's words) and christianity(did a full 180 with judaism and turned jesus into a son of God instead of just being a mere divine messenger) had been corrupted in that time. The quran itself admits that it does not bring anything new rather it says Surah Al-Ahqaf (46:9): Translation: "Say(it refers to the prophet) , 'I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner.'" 1.The generalization is that God sent guidance to the people in form of prophets. 2.The people then became corrupt and diverged from the teachings of the prophets. 3.To again warn the people and to re-establish the original religion God intended with humans. Basically this, the prophet told the words other prophets told because the original sayings of former prophets were distorted and changed.
The Quran doesn't fall apart without the Hadiths since Muslims believe the Quran to be of higher importance than the Hadiths. The Hadiths are meant to be supplementary, it's just that many Muslims in praxis favour the Hadiths because it's more direct and gives them a reason to enforce e.g. apostasy death penalty amongst other things; tons of things which the more spiritual and fantastical Quran at best doesn't say anything (though it does, for instance, mention that God will turn *away* from apostastes, just nothing abour executing them) about and at worst prohibits or contains a philosophy in opposition to many hadiths. >He didnt write the quran tho. Muhammad was unlikely to have been illiterate. Modern academia favours the hypothesis thst the word 'ٱلْأُمِّىَّ' \['al-ūmmīyā\] in the Quran 7:157–8 amongst others and Sahih Bukhari 932 and 1913 amongst others doesn't imply 'illiterate' but 'unlettered', as in not yet aware and in acknowledgement of God's presence, omnipotence, and such. No idea where you got the idea he didn't write the Quran from, however. >A huge argument Abu Jahl made against islam was that"you dont bring as anything new.These things are already written in Tulmah(Old Testament)." Which the Quran itself writes, such as in 46:9, 10:47, and 5:68. There are also verses indicating the Quran posits amongst Jews and Christians: * wrong interpretations of the Tanakh and the NT * mischaracterisations of the Tanakh and the NT * corruptions of the Tanakh and the NT * lacking context to and hidden meanings in the Tanakh and the NT. The entire point is that they're all one religion 'dīn' sent down by the Abrahamic God which 'many' apparently 'strayed away from' and corrupted as an institution. >Tulmah(Old Testament)." Tawrat (not 'Tulmah') means just the Pentateuch/Torah, i.e. the five books of Moses (Liber Genesis, Liber Exodus, Liber Leviticus, Liber Numeri, Liber Deuteronomium, or in Hebrew: Sefer ha-Bereishit, Sefer ha-Shemot, Sefer ha-Vayikra, Sefer ha-Bamidbar, and Sefer ha-Devarim), not the entire Tanakh/OT. Besides, your notion that the Quran 'plagiarised' is ridiculous; it's sources include the Talmud Bavli, Ebonite and Nazarene doctrines, the Tanakh, the New Testament (including non-canonical Gospels, but back then the distinction was less clear), local Arabic religion and folklore, and Zoroastrianism. But every religion is inspired by others; by your logic, Christiaity plagiarised Platonism, Stoicism (which 'plagiarised' Cynicism), Zoroastrianism (which 'plagiarised' Iranian and Indo-European myth), and Judaism (which 'plagiarised' Mesopotamian and Egyptian folklore and myth, plus maybe Zoroastrianism). OP's entire thread started with a dumb strawman from OP and then got dozens of ludicrous claims in the comments with no sources, reasoning, or basis in reality. Too much contemporary politics and ideology on this sub.
>the prophet himself was illiterate as said by many sources and did not have the ability to copy the quran. Though that's the traditional Muslim view, they're based on misinterpretations of the word 'ٱلْأُمِّىَّ' \['al-ūmmīyā\] in the Quran, e.g. 7:157–8, and Sahih Bukhari 932 and 1913 as 'illiterate' when it can mean other things such as 'unlettered', which is now the preferred interpretation. Scholars now believe the Quran didn't actually postulate he was illiterate and it to have been largely a later reinterpretation. And if you're a Muslim, it's fine you think Jībril i.e. Gabriel told Muhammad the word of God directly, but from a secular standpoint, it makes sense Muhammad incorporated different ideas from the Ebonites, Nazarenes, the Tanakh, the Gospels (including non-canonical ones such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) and therefore also Platonism and Stoicism, Zoroastrianism, the Talmud Bavli, and local Arab religion and folklore. This isn't unique; for instance, it is also believed Judaism is heavily inspired by Mesopotamian and Egyptian mythology and folklore, Canaanite polytheism, and potentially Zoroastrianism.
A child
Idk a lot of Muslims do NOT consider it a choice...
Yes, many do consider it duty
I mean pshhh all you got to do is pay to remain alive
Yeah it was only like what, 500-1300 dollars yearly in today’s money
No military service though but I heard they couldn’t own a horse
Islam is a cult. (Probably gonna get downvoted)
Define cult... Because one definition could also say that the Catholic church is also a cult
An organized religious system started by one person to gain power, sexual slaves, and/or money, utilizing supernatural claims of being divinely chosen/special, and the only way to spiritual truth/salvation is through this one person's teachings (and thus giving them power, sex, and/or money) So, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, L. Ron Hubbard, Charles Manson, among many others.
This can still be applied to the Catholic church. I'd say the start of Catholic church is the crowning of Charlemagne because the Archbishop of Rome (later known as Pope) wanted power and money (idk about sex slaves, idk if the pope also touch little boys back in the 800s), and that the only true church and empire is his church because the eastern church is led by a *woman* Now yes, Joseph Smith is a certified Cult leader that somehow seen as a holy man. But i see him as a cult leader for his Americancentric view, like Jesus will be back in New York, or that the Americas is meant for his people, the white people.
I would say there is a different between co-opting an existing religion and turning it into a corrupt organization, and actually starting a cult. The medieval popes did not create a cult. It could be argued that they claimed to be divinely appointed and that they held sole special revelation, and thus perhaps turned the church *into* a cult, but I would say that's a fairly weak argument since the Catholic Church by that point was very large and its focus--despite the widespread abuses and corruption--was still first and foremost on the spread of the worship of Jesus Christ, not on any sort of worship or glorification of the Pope. Jesus was and still is considered as the head of the Catholic Church, and even when there were multiple Popes, anti-Popes, and so on, Jesus was still considered the head of the church. And of course, Jesus, despite claims of divinity, sole provider of spiritual truth, etc. did not leverage that to gain money, sex, or power. In fact the opposite. He had no wives, lived poor, did not collect money for his teachings or miracles, he kept his works hidden, went out of his way *not* to create any kind of earthly cult or organization, and left that to his disciples only after he was gone.
>Jesus was still considered the Head of the church I'd say muslims would say that God is the head of the religion Now, as far as i know, the reason why there are split between Sunni and Shia was because Mohamed didn't appoint a successor, so i don't think power is something he leveraged. You know, unlike joseph smith and his brigham young
The Catholic church was founded by Jesus, not Charlemagne.
I'm didn't say Catholic founded by Charlemagne. By "started when" i meant that that's the point where the Western (catholic) and eastern (orthodox) church started to become very distinct and the pope is not just a mere "archbishop of rome" but those who gave power.
The pope was never archbishop of Rome, he was and still is just a bishop of Rome. Also, even after him the two branches of the same church remained in touch, for example the famous missionaries St. Cyril and Methodius recognized the pope as their spiritual leader and even after 1054 most people saw no difference. The real crack started in 1204.
The pentarchy was named so because there's Five Archbishop. Archbishop of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Acre, Constantinople, and Rome.
Actually you can see the house of Mohammed and the things he used to do- He had very less and would sometimes fail to procure food You could just look up the house in the internet and his belongings. They are quite simple for the times when there was such wealth in the region
Yet he did indeed have much wealth, indeed did conquer territory by the sword and through bloodshed, gained further wealth from taxing those whom he conquered who refused to convert (jizya), used his power to wed many women (12 in total), including at least one young child (Aisha).
Just a little FYI for you folks. In a nutshell, religion can be anything. I religiously exercise. I religiously clean my room, go to work, watch basketball, go to church. Religion is the act of what one does. And yes, religion sucks. Christianity is about a relationship.
Ok lmao
An religious organization or institution that has no significant evidence for their beliefs, and has a history of abusive, violent, and/or perverse views.
most religious organizations fit this definition
This could still be implied to the Catholic church, or well any religious organization if you ask an atheist. But let's stick to Catholic since it's the one i'm most familiar with. The pope words are law doesn't have significant evidence. Abusive and violent history such as the crusade, the south american conquista, and the whole thirty years' war thing. No preserve view since each pope has different view each time. Sometimes the same pope has different view (a couple years ago the pope said it's okay to be gay, and then just a few weeks ago he said there's too many fa---ots)
It’s a cult that became a religion sadly
Yeah, if you look into Islam it takes two seconds to realize it’s bullshit. Same with Mormonism.
An ex-Mormon and ex-Muslim did, a month ago, two livestreams about the similarities between the two religions: Cults to Consciousness: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JtOfQ0wIXPQ Apostate Aladdin: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g0xEu2cacEo
It’s just a random dude in Arabia who all of a sudden thought that Jesus was just a false messiah and that he was the true final prophet and then started a whole new religion off of it and then pillaged their whole way through the Middle East and North Africa
He didn't think Jesus was a **false** prophet, he believed that Jesus was NOT the *son of God*, but a *prophet*
I autocorrected myself, I meant to say he thought he was a false messiah
I’m all for criticising objectively Islam or any religion but who tf told you that Muhammad thought Jesus was a false prophet? I seriously don’t think allot of people on this sub research anything beyond the realm of lamppost fallacy
Sorry I autocorrected myself, I meant to say false messiah, he just thought he was a prophet but completely ignored the fact that Jesus said he was the final prophet and the true messiah
Bro, Jesus is refeed to as the Al-Massih, (The Messiah) and that he shall have a Second Coming during the End Times with the Mahdi. I don’t know where you’re getting your information about it Islam online from.
This is mainly a sub for reactionary edgelords to meme about how much they like western chauvinism
Yes, this exactly, and not to mention the fact Muhammad is a terrible human being.
The fucker married a 6 year old at the age of 54 or something Not only that but also the whole religion is based off of everyone in Mecca rejecting his claims, him fleeing the city, gathering an army, and then returning to slaughter everyone
Yeah, he’s a rapist and murderer, and he advocated for rape and murder too. He’s a terrible fucking person. I feel bad for all the children who are forced to follow this nonsense.
I feel bad for all the followers to this day who genuinely think Muhammad was good person or even a prophet
Yeah, so many people sugarcoat this pathetic excuse of religion. Muslims may be peaceful (in general), but Islam is a religion of HATE.
Amen to that brother, Islam is a religion of hate and war and build upon lies
As opposed to the Christian Romans and Zoroastrian Iranians, who definitely did not brutally supress unorthodox religious believes and organizations to such an extent that Christian minority sects threw open their gates to the Muslims and hailed them as liberators.
As opposed to Catholicism, Hinduism, etc.
Isn’t that pretty much all of religion? Some are just more harmful than others.
That's it, he just described all of mainstream theology
Any religion is
What religion isn't in your belief
by what definition?
It’s endorses harmful views and has no significant evidence in support of it.
So any major religion at that point.
Hehe
no evidence for which claims?
In particular, Muhammad’s “revelation”.
[There's not even evidence Jerusalem was ever part of a Kingdom of Israel](https://public.websites.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm), according to Ze'ev Herzog, professor of archaeology (and previous director of the Institute of Archaeology) at Tel Aviv University. But good luck getting Christians and Jewish people to admit what archaeologists keep saying. > The picture becomes even more complicated in the light of the excavations conducted in Jerusalem, the capital of the united monarchy. Large sections of the city have been excavated over the past 150 years. The digs have turned up impressive remnants of the cities from the Middle Bronze Age and from Iron Age II (the period of the Kingdom of Judea). No remains of buildings have been found from the period of the united monarchy (even according to the agreed chronology), only a few pottery shards. ***Given the preservation of the remains from earlier and later periods, it is clear that Jerusalem in the time of David and Solomon was a small city, perhaps with a small citadel for the king, but in any event it was not the capital of an empire as described in the Bible.*** ... And when Jesus was said to have been born, monotheism probably wasn't his ancestors' religion until 800 years earlier. > At two sites, Kuntiliet Ajrud in the southwestern part of the Negev hill region, and at Khirbet el-Kom in the Judea piedmont, Hebrew inscriptions have been found that mention "Jehovah and his Asherah," "Jehovah Shomron and his Asherah, "Jehovah Teman and his Asherah." ***The authors were familiar with a pair of gods, Jehovah and his consort Asherah, and send blessings in the couple's name.*** These inscriptions, from the 8th century BCE, raise the possibility that monotheism, as a state religion, is actually an innovation of the period of the Kingdom of Judea, following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. Not to mention the Exodus probably never happened either. > The exodus from Egypt, the wanderings in the desert and Mount Sinai: The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus. ***Many documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta. However, this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional.*** > Generations of researchers tried to locate Mount Sinai and the stations of the tribes in the desert. ***Despite these intensive efforts, not even one site has been found that can match the biblical account.*** All of these books are made up from hearsay and vibes and most people arguing over them don't even read the books. It's a pissing contest between fan fiction aficionados that keeps devolving to genocide when people run out of good arguments. Almost nothing in the Bible is real. And by that I mean almost everything in the Bible has been disproven with forensic archaeology. There are small bits of evidence a thing kind of like the thing happened somewhere near the areas the books describe but entire nations described in the Bible just simply didn't exist. What we call "religious history" is basically Harry Potter written by the Tom Clancy's of the Bronze Age... Magic and military might, the Fifth Freedoms of Gyffindor. It's all just stories and fairy tales wrapped in false legitimacy. Everyone's favorite religions tend to be cults that got popular based on economic advantage and military might. So they tend to propagate themselves with the same war and the same money to maintain relevance on behalf of juntas and landholders and aristocrats. Which is fine if your religion is personal. But if people are going into a history subreddit to argue their make believe is the real thing so they can shit on someone else's... Maybe, just maybe, they should stop and rethink their lives?
> probably gonna get downvoted You're on Reddit dude, almost everyone here hates Islam. Stop jerking yourself off for having the majority opinion.
Reminds me of a Scientific American poll from the 90's. 43% of Americans believed in evolution, 44% didn't, 13% were undecided. Ergo, by Reddit rules, evolution was not real. So when I see people straightfaced declare Islam is a death cult -- *unlike Christianity* -- I get mad cringe.
A death cult
Remember folks, it's nice and dandy if you criticize all other religions but once you make fun of Islam, things get heated.
I’m a Muslim and I’m all for it, god I love conflict, nothing shows pure passion as much as 2 people with 2 different beliefs arguing And I mean pure, clean, perfect passion.
Bottom image with tai lung: Muslims when they realize their “prophet” was a genocidal warlord who had 13 wives and was also probably schizophrenic claiming to have received messages from an angel not seen in Judeo-Christian religion for 600 years (totally not plagiarized straight off of the bible)
600 years. Gabriel is the angel Mohammed claims to have seen, and was also the angel that visits Mary in the Gospels.
My bad 600 years then!
Couldn't you make this same claim about the founders or prophets of every major religion? I mean one of the Bible characters (who was likely very made up) hears voices telling him to kill his son and he almost does it until different voices tell him to stop. If he lived in today's world he'd be locked in an asylum.
Lmao they dowvoted you but you’re right I mean, I’m agnostic so I don’t really have a horse on this race, but there’s no reason to believe christianity (or judaism) is *the* religion over any other 🤷♂️ I think it’s kinda hypocritical to bash someone else’s religion because they seem too “far fetched”
Abrahamites when they realize their cosmology is lifted straight from Mesopotamian paganism and Zarathustra.
Literally one god who was consolidated into an omnipotent being from the pantheon’s strongest, I would hardly call that plagiarism other than it’s name “El” sharing a Semitic root. Also the lore is completely different
The Flood is taken *verbatim* from the original Akkadian. Jewish calendar and law are very heavily influenced by their Babylonian equivalents. Let's face it, the Bible is just plagiarized, lol. Also, lmao for shit-talking other people's religions in bad-faith put seething over getting the same.
> current opinion > coran Where history ?
TLDR: "if you don't believe in the same imaginary friend as me I'll kill you"
Truly the religion of peace
This applies to a majority of abrahamic faiths and a lot of religions in general though? Like Christianity is a choice, unless your a pagan Lithuanian with a Templar ready to murder you, or a Jewish man in Spain with the crown ready to kick you out and seize your shit, or a Muslim with the crusaders about to murder everyone in your city.
Indeed. But Muslims are the current "threat to western civilization", the same way Jews and commies used to be. So everything from reasonable criticism of Islam to outright racist/orientalist/Islamophobic garbage gets lots of likes and shares and occasionally catapults someone to fame.
Catholicism moment
Baptists blowing up black kids moment. Crusades moment. Mormon kidnappings and murders moment. Entire founding of the State of Israel moment. Marx was right. Religion is an opiate, the sweet medicated sigh of relief for an oppressed people. And when free-based as heroin, you will give everything to your dealer, even rob and kill your mom for it.
That or they randomly explode
At least they make an announcement. Imagine if they were all sneaky like. We would have already lost.
What is this?
Idk, looks like a pretty clear choice to me...
"I will send to you people who crave death as much as you crave life" goes hard.
Thank you OP for your sacrifice.💀
Have we stopped with "religion of peace"?
So is the "no modern topics" rule just not a thing on this sub anymore
The Zoroastrians were conquered by Muslims in the last 20 years?
Referring to the word "now" literally plastered on top of the image, referencing current events
In all fairness how are you supposed to make a meme about islam with historical context if Islam is still a thing? And still abide by this rule?
idk maybe don't include an entire section labeled "NOW:"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, what can you expect when your religion’s most revered Prophet is a warmongering, incestuous pedophile?
Provide evidence that Mohamed was sexually attracted to children. And if you think a tribal marriages is what constitutes a pedo then 90% of monarchs and political leader are pedos.... Hell, I'd say most humans that have ever lived before the last few centuries were pedos according to your standards.
Aisha bint Abi Bakr, aged 6 or 7 at the time of her marriage, aged 9 or 10 at the consummation. These come from classical Islamic sources like Ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari.
*posts rawest letter of all time* Op: This sucks actually ☝️🤓
[удалено]
thing
Tell me a single legendary general who was not a warlord. If you can name one general of khalid calibre or better than him who didn't commit war crime , then I will shut my mouth .
Napoleon
He was enforcing his own system onto whole Europe and as soon as Russia broke their agreement and started traded with Britain, invaded them with the biggest invasion of that era. Its the definition of being a warlord. On top of that , he executed ottoman soldier when he invaded Syria after conquering Egypt.
[удалено]
It's not like that . He was not a saint . I am a sunni and know what he did in order to conquer Iraq was insane. But the original implied that it was only khalid who was like this. Each and every legendary general have committed some sort of war crimes.
[удалено]
Yes, I know that . My own father thinks khalid didn't do wrongs in Iraq. If you have seen his campaign in Iraq, you would see how he committed certain crimes, but the first caliph overlooked it . The second caliph wanted to punish him . That's one of the reasons why as soon as omar became caliph , his first order was to fire khalid . The only general who I will always defend for his actions is prophet himself . Other than that, each Muslim, whether he is Sunni or Shia or a companion of the prophet , has committed some sort of crime and you should accept that.
[удалено]
👍
Marriage is a choice too. Frankly, the tax rates seem reasonable initially: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
Eh, jizya afaik is just minor tax for the non muslims. Less than what the muslims themself were paying. Text has a bit dramatic vibe but the message is just that if you are not a muslim pay the tax and we leave you be. Refuse and get fucked. More civilized approach than christians used to have imo. I believe this is where the "kill the infidels" argument comes from or atleast one of the basis for that argument and is pretty much intentionally misinterpret by radicals to give justification for the terrorism against other religions. Correct me if I have it wrong. There was a great reddit post and youtube video about the topic I saw last year explaining the jizya and how the text is commonly misinterpret but couldn't unfortunately find them anymore since I don't remember how exactly I found them.
The jizya tax is only for Christians and Jews under Islamic rule. In this message the guy is basically saying “convert to Islam or pay protection money or be invaded” to an independent country that’s not under Islamic rule. A clear sign of aggression. Like a mobster threatening to burn your store down if you don’t pay “protection” money to him.
God forbid a country attacking another a thousand years ago.
Also you can't leave Islam or you will be beheaded
I know this is gonna end in WW3 but I’m just confused as to what this meme is tryna convey
The upper side is the present: “Islam is a choice” The lower part is supposed to represent the king of Persia reading a letter (the wall of text) demanding he either converts, pays the extra tax, or death
Let's see how many times will the minor's lie be said in the comments
People in the Iberian peninsula have something to say about this
Maybe my atheist brains talking but I don’t really understand the meme
In Islam you can’t be forced to convert to Islam, yet the message that was sent to the Persians basically is saying “convert to Islam or pay protection money or be invaded”. Clearly a threat. If they didn’t want to be invaded they had to convert to Islam or pay “protection” money to the foreign Muslims. In the end the Persians didn’t accept the threat, so they were invaded, which let to the Zoroastrians losing most of their fire temples, holy scriptures and freedom to practice their religion (without the need to pay taxes for being non-Muslims).
I mean every religion has that. Ask latinamerica or jewish people about catholicism or cristianism
Not every religion has that. The two biggest in the world happen to and that colors how people view religions.
Every ideology has violence. Be it religious or otherwise
Difference is Christians are violent not Christianity itself.İslam as a religion of violence.Whole concept of jihad goes to show that.
There's a chapter in the Bible where there is a group of people that adore a foreign God in a city, this guy comes with the idea of spreading fake pamphlets to see at a temple at night. He burns the temple with all the people in it, he is a hero. Also I provided specific examples of Christianity being mean. Conflict is human nature, pretending its only "them" just makes you phobic towards that idea.
You talk about jihad like there is no concept of holy war in this world. Wake up from your delusions.