Hi, I'm Professor Kafir and welcome to our PhD course in Islam. Since lots of people liked my interventions in pic related, I've decided to expand on the subject. I'm gonna tripfag so that muslims can't pretend to be me to post false info.
Ever wondered what Islam actually says/thinks/orders about a certain matter? Why is it that muslims and infidels often say opposite things? What is the truth? More importantly: how do I DESTROY muslims with facts and citations from their own holy books when they lie about their religion?
Jow Forums has the right intentions, but without knowledge there is no powah. Unfortunately, reading books about islam and sharia is boring. Fortunately (for you), I'm autistic enough to have done the job for you. In this study course, we will examine the most eloquent passages in the islamic holy texts to really take a peek into the muslim mentality and find out their real beliefs and goals. Texts we'll use:
>The Quran. The eternal, perfect, immutable Word of Allah. Here in several translations: quran.com
>The hadiths. Millions of anecdotes (also contained in the Sunnah) about stuff Muhammad said/did. Many are considered as binding as the Quran. You'll be able to verify their validity on sunnah.com
>'Umdat as-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) A sunni manual of fiqh (islamic jurisprudence) from the 14th century. Still considered valid by the prestigious Al-Azhar university, the greatest of the sunni world, and given to american converts to learn sharia. It's a manual of the Shafi school of jurisprudence, but the other 3 sunni schools agree on pretty much everything but the tiniest details, and when there are disagreements, the manual specifies it. PDF: docdro.id/smiCPxn
The curriculum will be thus articulated (if there is interest, otherwise I won't bother):
>Lesson 1: Muslimspeak and Taqiyya (much more real and common than infidels think). >Lesson 2: Jihad (much more complex than you'd imagine). >Lesson 3: Muhammad (and why he was quite literally the anti-Christ). >Lesson 4: Quran and Sunnah (and why they're retarded). >Lesson 5: Science (what's that? is it halal to eat?). >Lesson 6: Dhimmis (a peek into your future). >Lesson 7: Pedophilia (and why it's endemic). >Lesson 8: Slavery (the most honored muslim tradition). >Lesson 9: Women (and how to clean their litter box). >Lesson 10: Honor killings (wife or kid pissing you off? Sharia is the solution). >Lesson 11: Faggots (and the best ways to murder them).
Lessons will be on this board whenever I happen to have time.
>In pic related the previous lesson about Taqiyya.
Let's now begin with lesson 2: Jihad (a much more complex threat than you imagine).
If you've ever been masochistic enough to discuss with muslims, you've surely heard a lot the following bullshit: «Jihad doesn't refer to violent conflict against the infidels. It's a spiritual struggle the believer wages against his sinful desires.»
This is a perfect example of Kitman (lying by omission). Jihad is divided in two parts: 1) The Greater Jihad: the spiritual struggle against one's own sinful impulses. 2) The Lesser Jihad: the war against the infidels. Forgetting to mention the second part of the definition is Kitman. Clearly stating that it doesn't exist is Taqiyya (overt lying about islam's principles and/or about being a muslim). Either way, they're bullshitting you.
The “lesser” jihad is so central to islam that it's minutely described and regulated in their fiqh (law) manuals:
>«Jihad means WAR AGAINST KUFFAR TO ESTABLISH ISLAM, and is etymologically derived from the word “mujahada”, signifying warfare to establish the religion.» – Reliance of the Traveller, paragraph o9.0.
>«The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim» – Reliance of the Traveller, paragraph o9.9.
Ibn Khaldun, the most influential muslim historians who ever lived, said:
>«In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam EITHER BY PERSUASION OR BY FORCE.» – Ibn Khaldun, "The Muqudimmah: An introduction to History", Princeton University Press, New York, 1958, vol. 1, p. 473.
Al-Risala, one of the most followed legal manual in the islamic world, describes jihad as such:
>«It is a technical term for the MUSLIM FIGHTING THE UNBELIEVERS who have no treaty with the intention of elevating the word of Allah or presenting Islam.» – Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, “Al-Risala”, paragraph 30.1. muwatta.com/ebooks/english/risala_ibn_abi_zayd_salutations.pdf
“A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence”, manual written in 2001, is even clearer:
>«Allah has ordained jihad (fighting in the Cause of Allah) in order to render His Word the highest, His Religion the victorious, His enemies the defeated, and to test the faith of His true servants. […] >«In Islam, jihad enjoys a great importance, as it is the highest level in religion and one of the best acts of worship to the extent that some scholars consider jihad the sixth pillar of Islam. […] >«Linguistically, jihad means fighting the enemy vigorously and jurisprudentially (without breaking the laws of Allah). It involves fighting the disbelievers and it also includes much more activities showing striving in the Cause of Allah, not only mere fighting. […] it can be by means of hand (fighting), money, tongue, and heart. […] Starting to see the real depth of the concept of jihad? It's not only about guns and swords. >«Jihad has been ordained in Islam for some noble objectives: To rid people of the worship of taghuts (false objects of worship) and idols, and to lead them to worship Allah, Alone […] To humiliate the disbelievers, take revenge on them, and weaken their power […]» – Saleh Al-Fawzan, "A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence", Al-Maiman Publishing House, Riyadh, 2005, Vol. 1, Part VI: "Jihad", pp. 471-474.
The hadiths make it clear that jihad is an essential part of islam:
>[Bukhari 2792] «The Prophet (pbuh) said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it."» (Principle repeated in: Bukhari 2793-4, 2796, 2892; Muslim 1882-3; Riyad as-Salihin 12,1288.)
>[Bukhari 26] «Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger (pbuh) was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle. The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause. The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca)."» (The Hajj is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Yet, here the jihad is defined as even more important.)
Many other hadiths of sahih (undeniable) level confirm the immense importance of the jihad in islam (Bukhari 2782, 2785, 2786, 2790, 2791, 2795, 2818. Sahih Muslim 1884). But maybe they're only talking about self-defense, you might be thinking. Nope. In this lesson we'll see a great number of quranic verses and hadiths which make it clear that jihad means attacking the infidels even when they haven't hurt muslims in any way.
Let's start with this fatwa. A muslim asks: >«I have a question about offensive Jihad. Does it mean that we are to attack even those non-Muslims which don't do anything against Islam just because we have to propagate Islam?» And the popular sunni mufti Ebrahim Desai replies: >«You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn't believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation. [...] If a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.» (askimam.org/public/question_detail/12128.html)
Allow us to proselityze, OR ELSE! Muslims are so nice. They care about our souls so much they're willing to slaughter us to save us. The Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, spiritual guide of Iran and still essentially worshipped by shia muslims, said:
>«The installation of a lay public power is equivalent to actively opposing the progress of Islamic order. Any nonreligious power, whatever form or shape it may take, is necessarily an atheistic power, the tool of Satan. Such Satanic power can engender nothing but corruption on earth, the supreme evil which must be pitilessly fought and rooted out. To achieve that end, we have no recourse other than to overthrow all governments that do not rest on pure Islamic principles […] That is not only our duty in Iran, but it is also the duty of all Muslims in the world, in all Muslim countries, to carry the Islamic political revolution to its final victory.» – Khomeini, "The Little Green Book", Bantam Books, 1985 (PDF edition), pp. 2-3.
>«Who is Obligated to Fight in Jihad: Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.» – Reliance of the Traveller, paragraph o9.4.
This fiqh manual also explains when jihad is a communal obligation (Fard al-kifaya) or an individual one (Fard al-ayn):
>«The Obligatory Character of Jihad. [...] >«There are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. >«The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation. (When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.) >«The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon (all) the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can.» – Reliance of the Traveller, paragraph o9.1.
So even when unbelievers don't invade or threaten muslims in any way, jihad is STILL obligatory. The only difference is that in this case, not every single muslim is forced to participate, but some jihad must always be waged. Infidels must always be attacked.
«B-but wait», you're probably saying now, clenching your anus around your comfort dildo. «I-islam says that nobody can be f-forced to convert!» You're referring to one of the most (mis)quoted verses in the entire quran:
>«There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.» (Surah 2, verse 256.)
Problem is, this peaceful verse is no longer valid because of a crucial islamic tenet: THE DOCTRINE OF ABROGATION (NASKH). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir) According to this doctrine, when two orders in a holy book contradict each other, the most recent one has the priority. And the second surah was one of the first to be written, back when Mohammed lived in Mecca and was still a weak preacher with no armies who needed to keep the powerful pagans around him at ease by convincing them that he wasn't planning to rob/kill/conquer them all. Then he moved to Medina, amassed armies of fanatical subjects and started to rob/kill/conquer them all. (More on that in the lesson about our favorite pedophile prophet.)
The old meccan surahs are the only peaceful ones. The more recent medinese ones are instead the ones filled with orders to kill, rape or enslave the infidels. And being the more recent ones, they're also the only valid ones. So «there shall be no compulsion in the religion» is overruled by adorable verses such as:
>«And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world).» (8:39) The tafsir (exegesis) by Ibn Kathir, possibly the most followed and respected one, clarifies the meaning: «So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.» – Tafsir Ibn Kathir 2:193. quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/2.193
>«Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe.» (8:55)
>«I shall put terror into the hearts of the disbelievers – strike above their necks and strike all their fingertips.» (8:12) This lovely passage is what justifies terrorism as a tactic to spread islam, btw, since Allah wants to “put terror into the hearts of the disbelievers”.
>«So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives).» (47:4) Notice the interjection: "in fight". Muslim translators always add this little detail so they can say "But this verse only talks about open battles". As we'll see, that's not the case, since jihad doesn't only refer to military fights but also to economic, cultural, linguistic and demographical measures to bring about the downfall of the infidels. Anything goes in love and jihad. Plus, since the infidels offend Allah with their mere existence, the muslims are in a costant state of war with them, anytime and any place. So even without formal declarations of war, they can and should always attack them. This is clearly commanded in the “Verse of the Sword” (9:5) we'll examine later. Notice also the use of the world “captives” instead of the more appropriate “slaves”. They try to make it sound like we're talking about prisoners of war protected by western wartime conventions. Not so. (Yes, these little mistranlations are part of taqiyya, which is itself part of jihad.)
>«Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah (infidel tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.» (9:29)
>«Believers! Fight against the unbelievers who live around you; and let them find in you sternness.» (9:123)
>«Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and run about trying to spread disorder on the earth, their punishment is no other than that they shall be killed, or be crucified, or their hands and legs be cut off from different sides» (5:33) Notice that "disorder" or "mischief" are very elastic words that islam uses to encompass any kind of refusal to submit to it. Even if you're simply choosing to not convert and not pay the infidel tax, you're considered someone that spreads disorder in the kingdom of Allah. Same is true if you point out islam's many flaws. Ibn Kathir's tafsir explains what it's intended for "wage war against Allah": >«'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief» – "Tafsir Ibn Kathir", 5:33. quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/5.33 You're a non-muslim? You must be crucified or have your limbs amputated. For Allah is merciful.
The Sunnah is also pretty clear:
>«Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.'» [Bukhari 1399-1400] (Concept repeated almost verbatim in many other hadiths that are either sahih (undeniable) or hasan (solid), and therefore legally binding: Tirmidhi 2606, 2607, 2608 and 5,44,3341; Bukhari 392, 2946, 6924-5, 7284-5; Nawawi 8; Sahih Muslim 1,31.)
Finally, we have the most damning verse in the entire quran, the "Verse of the Sword", which deserves particular attention:
>«Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free.» (9:5)
Muslims will tell you that this verse only refers to pagans and polytheists who have attacked islam first. In other words, it's only self-defense. Nope. First of all, the term "mushrikin" used in the original text refers to every non-believer, atheists included. Instead of translating it with "idolaters" or "pagans" they should say "non-muslim", since that's the actual meaning. But muslims do love their mistranslations. (A fatwa about the ACTUAL meaning of "mushrikin": IslamQA, fatwa #113901: "Atheism is a greater sin than shirk". islamqa.info/en/113901 ) Also, the tafsirs are very clear that the actual meaning of this verse isn't about self-defense at all:
>«Allah's statement next, "then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them", means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area […] >«Allah said here, "and capture them", executing some and keeping some as prisoners, "and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush", DO NOT WAIT UNTIL YOU FIND THEM. RATHER, SEEK AND BESIEGE THEM IN THEIR AREAS AND FORTS. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.» – "Tafsir Ibn Kathir" 9:5. quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/9.5
Get that? Muslims are ordered not just to defend themselves, but to go look for infidels IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES and attack them.
But wait, maybe Ibn Kathir was just a crazy fanatic. Let's read the tafsir by Al-Suyuti, another one of the most respected in muslim theology:
>«slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful (period) or a sacred (one), and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except (being put to) death or (acceptance of) Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, (at every) route that they use.» – Al-Suyuti, "Tafsir Al-Jalalayn", 9:5. quranx.com/Tafsir/Jalal/9.5
"Confine them to castles and forts" means to put us under siege until we're ready to accept the wonderful Word of Allah. Or die. Well, ok, but maybe the later scholars misunderstood the original meaning. Maybe Ibn Abbas, one of the first followers of Mohammed, can show us the actual peaceful meaning of the verse:
>«(slay the idolaters wherever ye find them) whether in the Sacred Precinct or outside it, during the sacred months or at any other time, (and take them (captive)) imprison them, (and besiege them) in their homes, (and prepare for them each ambush) on every road they tread for trade.» – Ibn Abbas, "Tanwir al-Miqbas", 9:5. quranx.com/Tafsir/Abbas/9.5
Well, shit. Seems like every muslim scholar agrees on this not-so-peaceful verse. As a contemporary sheikh said in this fatwa about the "no compulsion" issue: >«This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.» (Source: IslamQA, fatwa #34770: "There is no compulsion to accept Islam". islamqa.info/en/34770 )
What if some muslim doesn't want to leave his home, family and/or business to go fight the infidels? Then they're labeled as hypocrites, people who pose as devout muslims but don't actually respect all of Allah's prescriptions. As stated in this comprehensive fatwa, any muslim who refuses to obey even the smallest command from Allah is a hypocrite: islamqa.info/en/12387 And as Allah said in his political manifesto, hypocrites need to be killed, with particular attention to those who refuse to participate in jihad:
>«Then once the order came to fight, a group of them feared those hostile people as Allah should be feared—or even more. They said, “Our Lord! Why have You ordered us to fight?” […] >«Why are you believers divided into two groups regarding the hypocrites while Allah allowed them to regress to disbelief because of their misdeeds? Do you wish to guide those left by Allah to stray? And whoever Allah leaves to stray, you will never find for them a way. They wish you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you may all be alike. So do not take them as allies unless they emigrate in the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then SEIZE THEM AND KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers» (Quran 4:77-89)
>«If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts there is a sickness, and the scandal mongers in Madinah do not desist from their vile acts, We shall urge you to take action against them, and then they will hardly be able to stay in the city with you. They shall be cursed from all around and THEY SHALL BE RUTHLESSLY KILLED wherever they are seized.» (Quran 33:60-61)
So the issue is pretty straightforward, despite all the muslims' smoke and mirrors. Muslims are ordered to wage the lesser jihad against the infidels wherever and whenever they find them and keep besieging/killing/enslaving them until they accept islam, die or become dhimmis (second class citizens forced to pay money and sometimes give their children to their muslim overlords – more on that in another lesson). And if there are no infidels around, muslims have to GO LOOK FOR THEM in their own countries. This might explain why islam invaded Persia, India, North Africa, Spain and France at a time when all those countries didn't even know islam existed. Not even the staunchiest muslim apologist can seriously claim that islam invaded fucking India in self-defense.
But at least it's a honorable war, right? No women, no children, no old men can be attacked, right? No breach of treaties, no lies, right? Muslims always brag about fighting in a “noble” way, differently from the brutal massacres of us infidels. Well... achthually, muslims can break their word anytime they damn please, because treaties with infidels don't really have value for them:
>«If the ruler fears that the disbelievers may breach the truce, he is permitted to terminate the truce, provided that he informs them thereof before fighting.» – Saleh Al-Fawzan, "A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence", Al-Maiman Publishing House, Riyadh, 2005, Vol. 1, Part VI: "Jihad", p. 477.
So muslims can break any truce simply by claiming that they "feared" the infidels would break it first. Plus, there's no minimum warning period before the attack. Even telling the infidels two minutes before is completely halal.
After all, the quran says repeatedly that muslims can and should disavow any treaty with the filthy unbelievers at the first chance:
>«This is a declaration of disavowal by Allah and His Messenger to those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity (mushrikin: unbelievers) and with whom you have made treaties» (9:1)
>«And if you fear treachery from any people (with whom you have a covenant) then publicly throw their covenant at them.» (8:58)
This hadith by Sahih Bukhari makes clear what trustworthy fella Mohammed was:
>[Bukhari 7146] «Narrated `Abdur-Rahman bin Samura: The Prophet (pbuh) said, "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath (break it and do penitence for breaking it) and do what is better."»
What a paragon of integrity. The perfect man, everybody. The ultimate role model for 1,7 billion muslims.
But all that is nothing compared to the time Mohammed said that killing women and children is fine, as long as they're infidels:
>[Sahih Muslim 1812b] «The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.»
Get that? If they're the children of unbelievers you can assume they'll grow up to be unbelievers as well, so you're allowed to kill them. The "Khadir" quoted in this hadith is the fella in quran 18:74-80, a weird guy who while taking a stroll with Moses, nonchalantly kills a kid. Moses is outraged, but Khadir explains that the kid was an unbeliever, so he did his parents a favor by killing him:
>«So they set out, until when they met a boy, Khadir killed him. [Moses] said, "Have you killed a pure soul for reason other than [having killed] a soul? You have certainly done a deplorable thing." [...] [Khadir later explained:] As for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief.» (18:74-80)
Other hadiths confirm that killing infidel kids is fine:
>[Sahih Muslim 1745a] «The Prophet of Allah (pbuh) when asked about the women and children of the mushrikun being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.» (Repeated in Sahih Muslim 1745b and 1745c.)
>[Sahih Bukhari 3012] «The Prophet (pbuh) was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet (pbuh) replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."»
They're "from them", from infidel peoples, so it's fine to kill them.
The fiqh manual “At-Tibyān Fī Istihdāf An-Nisā’i Was-Sibyān” (The Clarification Regarding Intentionally Targeting Women and Children), at page 17, confirms once and for all that slaughtering our women and kids is fine:
>«So in the Hadīth there is the permissibility of using the offspring and the women as a means of putting pressure upon the Mushrikīn to weaken their matter and to divide their unity, because the Prophet (pbuh) wanted to attack the women and the offspring so as to divide the allied clans away from Quraysh.” >And thus it can be derived from this Hadīth- which was after the general prohibition against killing women and children- that it is permissible to target the women and children in certain situations- when a greater benefit is in killing them, rather than keeping them alive [and enslaving them].» (“The Clarification Regarding Intentionally Targeting Women and Children”, p. 17. archive.org/details/IntentionalityTargetingWomenAndChildren )
If it's more convenient to kill our children, it's better to kill them, otherwise it's better to “just” enslave them. And this is why ISIS and other muslims who interpret their scriptures in a literal way (the only correct way to interpret them, according to quran 33:36 and 3:7) feel free to kill our children. Because they're not "innocent kids", they're unbeliever kids, and therefore guilty of insulting Allah with their disbelief and deserving of death. Next time a muslim tries to use the “but jihad is a noble war while you infidels fight dirty” card, show them these hadiths and point out that they're of sahih (undeniable) level, and therefore legally binding.
As we said, anything goes in jihad. >Financing associations and festivals that show islam in a good light and proselityze in infidel countries? Cultural jihad. >Mistranslating the holy texts to trick the infidels? Propaganda jihad. >Pushing for positive muslim stereotipes to fill infidel media? Propaganda jihad of the media variety. >Using a double language that means one thing to muslims and another to infidels? Linguistic jihad. >Suing anybody who dares to criticize islam or Mohammed until everybody is too scared to do it? Legal jihad. >Using their billions of petrodollars to blackmail infidel governments into spreading their asscheeks to islam or else? Economic jihad. >Filling our cities with muslim shops where only muslims are allowed to work and that attract even more muslims? Economic and demographic jihad. >Attacking us with guns and bombs? Military jihad. >Treating infidel women and children like fuckholes to be sold and rented to other muslims? Sexual jihad. And of course, immigrating in infidel countries and having 5+ children while on the infidels' dime is demographic jihad. After all, the quran says:
>«Indeed, those who have believed and those who have emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah – those expect the mercy of Allah.» (2:218)
According to the muslim mentality, anything that furthers the islamic commandment to «fight the unbelievers until only Allah is worshipped» (8:39) is part of jihad, and therefore a sacred duty.
Even marriage is clearly described by islamic law textbooks as an act of aggression against the infidels:
>«Among the glorious virtues of marriage are the following: Marriage involves keeping the existence of the human race, increasing the number of Muslims, causing annoyance to the disbelievers through the procreation of those striving in the cause of Allah as well as those defending His religion, Islam.» – Saleh Al-Fawzan, "A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence", Al-Maiman Publishing House, Riyadh, 2005, Vol. 2, Part VI: "Marriage", chapter 1, p. 350.
Yes, they're mentally ill to this extent. Malicious to this extent.
Muslims after all understand that demography is destiny. Their wombs are even more dangerous than their bombs. They're waging jihad against us from every possible angle, keeping us largely unaware of it, but the demographic one is probably the most dangerous of them all.
And whit this, we're finished for today. I hope this lesson has been harrowing and eye-opening.
Maybe now when you walk around your city and see clothing stores that sell hijabs, halal butcher shops, kebab shops pretty much all named after Istanbul (make no mistake, it's not a coincidence: it's to mock us with what they consider their greatest victory), schools with more muslim than white children, and you see in movies, comics and tv shows muslim character portrayed as kind, smart, peaceful people (as opposed to stupid, brutal whites), you'll realize that what you're really seeing is not simple naivete and the suicidal desire of liberals to feel morally superior to their fellow whites, but the result of a precise multi-level plan implemented by very rich, very powerful people.
HOW MANY SHEKELS YOU GET PAYED TO SHILL AGAINST ISLAM???? EVERYTIME YOU SHILL AGAINST SOMETHING THIS HARD EVERYONE KNOWS WHATS UP WHEN WILL YOU FAGGOTS LEARN JESUS (PBUH) WHEN ARE YOU COMING WE ARE WAITING.............................
Brody Miller
I get paid in mudshits' tears.
Zachary Jones
based OP
Hunter Taylor
Op you are mentally ill. Do you hear voices? What is it like to experience auditory hallucinations? This subject genuinely interests me (what it like to be schizo).
Pretty sure Satan has a special place for people like (((you)))
Daniel Johnson
>exposing muslims' bullshit means being a schizo Canada truly is lost.
Not a jew, mudshit. Just a concerned european.
In fact, the only thing worse than the mudshits invading our countries is the jew encouraging them to do so because his natural instinct is to wreck any goy country.
Charles Perry
OP a) not being a faggot b) delivering.
Jeremiah Myers
>Not a jew Well sorry to break it to you user but youre playing into (((their))) hands. Hate wont solve anything. You have any right to be concerned but islam will always oppose degeneracy. Also its the arabs not muslims in general itakafag. As long as you hate, you help (((them))) you faggot. You got literally outjewed nigger.
While I agree with the sentiment of kill a traitor before an enemy you should gas yourself if you don't believe they ALL have to go. Thanks OP I'll be on the lookout for your future threads, best of luck to you.
>youre playing into (((their))) hands. What a brilliant and new propaganda tactic. I'm convinced. From now on I'll defend pisslam.
>islam will always oppose degeneracy You roaches will never understand that raping little girls and rejecting the scientific method in favor of a retarded book written by an inbred mongoloid pedophile IS DEGENERACY.
Islam rots the mind and any society it controls.
>p-pls stop exposing us or t-the jews will be happy They can be happy in the oven with you roaches. Nowhere does it say that the choice is only between being infested by rats or roaches. We can get rid of both.
Save and spread, brother. Save like we'll save Europe, spread like we'll spread this guy's mom's asscheeks when the crusade will finally start:
Alexander King
lebanese catholic here. can confirm islam is most of what OP is saying. the only places islam is even tolerable is where most of the muslims are secular (lebanon, tunisia) or where the muslims know that they can't chimp out without christian response (lebanon, russia, poland, most of east europe, phillipines, central/western africa). I don't hate muslims at all, theyre usually some ok people who are brainwashed by a pyscotic ideology. lebanese muslims learned their lesson and its one of the few places we all co-exist, not because we're peaceful and tolerant, but because the muslims know that if they attack the maronites, they'll get a civil war with geagea's catholic bois thirsting for muslim blood since the 80s. this is the only way muslims can ever be tolerable, through force and fear/respect. OP is right in his pic related, islam preaches tolerance and peace when they know they can't completely overrun their enemy. > but what about secular turkey! I actually hate turkey more than saudi arabia or iran combined. turkey starved precisely half of mount lebanon, with bodies piling up in the streets and people resorting to cannabalism. even isis isnt as bad in comparison. "secular" muslim governments are still muslim governments. if islamism isnt found in religious dedication, it will creep into unholy asiatic nationalism
Indeed. Muslims are at best tolerable, and even that only when they're not really muslims anymore (like in Albania, where they're completely secular and just ignore quranic laws), or when they know they'd get assblasted if they tried any funny shit.
But make them a sizable minority in a kuffar country, show generosity, tolerance or other moral qualities they see as weakness because they're brutal apes, and be prepared to go the way of the dodo.
They understand only violence.
Benjamin Morris
We learned our lesson. Again if anybody missed it; the lesson is that they need to be treated with respect and fear. They don't respect secular western europe, so they do whatever they want there. But not in Russia, or Poland, or anywhere else. In lebanon last year a Druze family hung a sunni by his balls and told the cops to pick him up because he tried dating their daughter. The muslims get along with us, but only because of this fear. They know if they push us too far in Lebanon, we'll repeat Sabra & Shatila, where palestinians were slaughtered like dogs and had the catholic cross carved into their bodies. I personally don't ever want this to come to pass, but if it does, I will fly back home and do it personally without hesitations. Every catholic/orthodox in lebanon carries guns. Also, Italy is one of my favorite countries in terms of history and culture. Most italians I talk to on twitter and outside are usually very based.
Cameron Johnson
Why don't you return to your homeland?
Benjamin James
Yeah, most of our population is definitely against islam, mass immigrations from the Third World, and other jewish shit.
Problem is, our institutions, universities and courtrooms have been communists for 70+ years. Only last year we've started doing something to change that, by electing Salvini.
One of our red ex-premiers, Aldo Moro, even had a deal with the Palestinian Liberation Front: Italy would let them smuggle weapons (even fucking missiles) in Europe through our country, and in exchange they would not make their terrorist attacks here. Maybe that's why Italy still hasn't been attacked by snackbars.
Dominic Jenkins
That's pathetic, the last part. We don't need to negotiate and beg them not to do anything. Anyway, I think Italy was on the cusp of danger, but will be saved and reclaimed, much like Greece. France, Spain and Germany, and UK seem completely lost. Is Catholicism at least moderate in Italy? The second-holiest Christian place is the Vatican, so you would think so.
>That's pathetic, the last part. Believe me, I concur. If Moro hadn't already been killed by other commies even worse than him, he'd deserve to be tried for treason.
Catholicism is of the light variety here. Still lots of people go to Sunday mass, but very few live their lives according to christian principles.
But we're quite tribal. When someone attacks christianity, even the most apathetic among us gets pissed. Especially when the attacker is a backward mudshit.
Robert Butler
>tl;dr I use selected interpretations of Islam and the Quran as I please that conveniently fit my negative perceptions of Islam, despite Sunni Islam alone consisting of four different, well reputed schools of laws (fiqh) contributing a vast wealth scholarly content.
>i.e. references 'Umdat as-Salik >Shafi‘i mahdab book >not even the most followed fiqh of Sunnis (which is Hanafi mahdab)
There's multiple tafsir written by authors who follow different schools of thought, and the wikipedia link is just for Sunni Islam alone. Your tafsir references are most likely an inconsistent mishmash of different schools of thought or even denomination. It's like cherrypicking different views and practices from Protestantism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy etc and trying to generalize these cherrypicked items as how Islam works as a whole. Simply incorrect.
Also 60% of your posts are interpretation of Quranic verses of your own. Obviously your understanding of Islam is very limited, and in a scholarly sense your interpretations are largely invalid.
Also your references to select Islamic 'historians' (in which there are many) are no more valid as a secondary source of information, for the most primary sources of historical information is unquestionably the hadith and the Quran as far as understanding Islamic theology is concerned.
It's not wise to confidently speak on matters you know nothing about, "Professor Kafir"
Ayden Price
>I use selected interpretations of Islam and the Quran as I please that conveniently fit my negative perceptions of Islam, Bullshit. None of the passage or rules I mentioned are interpreted in any other way by any fiqh manual or madhhab (law school). If you want to say I cherry-picked, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVE IT.
>despite Sunni Islam alone consisting of four different, well reputed schools of laws (fiqh) contributing a vast wealth scholarly content. Lol, look at this guy, filling his sentences with big-sounding words to hide the truth. You think I've only read Shafi fiqh manuals? I've read (and quoted) Shafi, Maliki, Hanbali and Hanafi, and you know what? THEY ALL AGREE ON EVERY SINGLE QURANIC OBLIGATION OR PROHIBITION I MENTIONED.
The differences between different madahibs are ridiculously small. One thinks women should cover only their faces, another says they should cover her hands as well. One says gays should be killed by throwing them off the roof, another says they should be beheaded. Insignificant shit like that.
Find a single madhaab, a single fiqh manual who says that jihad is NOT an obligation even when unbelievers don't attack muslims first. Or that the caliph doesn't have the OBLIGATION to wage jihad against the unbelievers. Or that jihad is ONLY a spiritual struggle and not a physical one as well. Then, explain all the sahih hadiths, the quranic verses, the tafsirs and the laws from fiqh manuals I've quoted. Good luck.
>There's multiple tafsir written by authors who follow different schools of thought FIRST: the tafsirs I quoted are unanimously recognized by every single madhhab as the most reliable in the entire islamic theology. Dismissing Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir or Al-Suyuti because you don't like how they expose the true face of islam is ridiculous. Ibn Abbas was even a Sahaba (companion of the Prophet), for fuck's sake!
SECOND: show me a single tafsir who disagrees on the interpretations I've quoted. Go on. I'll wait.
Austin Johnson
>It's not wise to confidently speak on matters you know nothing about, "Professor Kafir" Muhammad sure didnt have the compulsion since he seemed to know little less than nothing when he talks about god.
Also do you believe that Muhammad split the moon in twain and ascended into heaven on a fucking pegasus.
If you do, doesnt matter what you say about interpretations, you are largely an idiot who is following something he is used to following since he was a child.
Also can you justify why muslims are so virulently anti-kafir given the opportunity? Why are they so savage in dealing with others with a lack of decency?
Also the fact that Jihad is in the misbegotten Qur'an (May it be forever forgotten and ignored) as a duty to all the deluded converts. I mean even the kike on a stick worshippers had to invent the word and purpose Crusade to justify their expeditions in ME and then they AGREED that Crusades were bad.
No Muslim has yet said that they were wrong in the past or apologized for the genocidal wars they launched between the 7th and 18th centuries.
It is the cultural arrogance of teh arabs passed on through this terrible religion.
The death of you and your people along with your flawed faith will come.
In times of darkness, ignorance is the cause of the weak, that is your religion.
Chase Jones
t. butthurt exposed mohammedan
Charles Anderson
>Bullshit. None of the passage or rules I mentioned are interpreted in any other way by any fiqh manual or madhhab (law school). >no sources k >Lol, look at this guy, filling his sentences with big-sounding words to hide the truth >I've read (and quoted) Shafi, Maliki, Hanbali and Hanafi, and you know what? THEY ALL AGREE ON EVERY SINGLE QURANIC OBLIGATION >no sources k >the tafsirs I quoted are unanimously recognized by every single madhhab as the most reliable in the entire islamic theology. >no sources
Forgive if I don't take your word on it. Kek
Owen Peterson
Keep up the good work, Professor. Jow Forums needs things like this, all backed with references, to truly wake people the fuck up. Thanks for taking the time.
Aiden Jackson
>Also 60% of your posts are interpretation of Quranic verses of your own. LIES. I read the most followed tafsirs for every single verse I quoted, just to make sure I wasn't committing mistakes. You want to say the opposite? PROVE IT.
>Obviously your understanding of Islam is very limited, PROVE IT.
>and in a scholarly sense your interpretations are largely invalid. PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
>the most primary sources of historical information is unquestionably the hadith and the Quran as far as understanding Islamic theology is concerned. No shit. Which maybe is the reason why I've quoted from them so extensively.
That however doesn't mean the tafsirs should be ignored. They're part of the IJMA (the consensus of the top muslim scholars), which is one of the four sources of sharia law: 1) the quran 2) the sunnah 3) the ijma 4) the qiyas (reasoning by induction)
You can't dismiss the tafsirs just because you don't like what they show about your pedophilic death cult.
>k, k, k Woah... so that's the power of mudshit arguments...
>Forgive if I don't take your word on it. Kek You don't have to take my word for it. Kek. This is why I've minutely sourced every statement. Kek. And now you're this butthurt. Kek. Kek. Kek.
You're the typical muslim. No argument whatsoever, only smoke and taqiyya. "W-we already d-debunked everything s-so we don't need to d-do it again... and a-all the s-scholars agree with m-me, not you... I'm not crying!" Choke on a pig's dick, worthless coward liar subhuman.
Asher King
Don't worry, I'm not going to stop assblasting inbred mudshits anytime soon.
Robert King
>>no sources Nigger you're the one who has to provide sources if you want to say that some madhhab disagrees with the interpretations of the madhahib I quoted.
I know it's hard to understand for a mudshit after 20 generations of inbreeding, but there is this thing called "burden of proof", and in this case it's on you.
Jason Cruz
>If you want to say I cherry-picked, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVE IT.
Nice burden of proof fallacy btw. You're the one who's saying that, in a religion whose scholarly vastness would take more than one lifetime to understand, that I'M THE ONE who needs to contradict YOUR otherwise bold claims.
You don't even grasp fundamental logic, or ignore it for you convenience. Nobody who isn't autistic would entrust you with the ability to be an accurate conveyor of information, especially in the realm of something as incredibly complex as Islamic jurisprudence.
No need to provide sources when your technical ability in parsing information is blatantly flawed alone.
That would be like you making a paper plane and then insisting on having an unironic conversation about aeronautics.
>in a religion whose scholarly vastness would take more than one lifetime to understand This is why islam has no rules and no obligations whatsoever, right? Because its "scholarly vastness" (kek) is too immense to understand.
>burden of proof fallacy You mudshits are so adorable when you try to use white people concepts. Let's try again: you want to claim some madhhab disagrees with the excerpts I quoted? YOU MUST PROVE IT BY QUOTING FIQH MANUALS OF THAT MADHHAB. You. Must. Prove. It. Not me. Not anyone else. You. Now calm down, breathe and read it again until you understand it.
Still no arguments whatsoever. I take it as definite evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
>something as incredibly complex as Islamic jurisprudence. At this point I'm half sure you're just pretending to be a mudshit to subtly insult their retarded death cult. Compared to any civilized nation's jurisprudence, fiqh is downright childish.
>No need to provide sources Sure, I'm just gonna take your word for it. You must actually be trolling.
Serious question: why are you doing it? Why waste time responding to someone who is obviously destroying you with undeniable facts? Not even your inbred cousins would think you're winning this argument. Surely not a single person still undecided about islam is going to. So why? Is it simply your programming?
Lincoln Bennett
It was an honor to contribute something to this, albeit sloppy screenshot. Continue the holy work prof.
Thank you, and I certainly will. There are still 1,7 billion inbred goatfuckers to shit on.
Easton Wilson
You should be running this thread
"""Professor""" Kafir BTFO
Carter Baker
How can you post this much shit without saying anything at all? At least your fellow goat fuckers have the decency to avoid the thread like wild fire. Just fucking contradict him if you have the ability to do so, otherwise just eat humble crow.
Parker Cox
Yeah, slay mudshit slaaaaay!
Sad thing is, you're probably not even a mudshit. Just a white swede roleplaying as a mudshit, both here and in real life.
Gabriel Rogers
>Nigger you're the one who has to provide sources if you want to say that some madhhab disagrees with the interpretations of the madhahib I quoted
I never said that mahdab disagreed. I said you're fundamentally relying on Islamic scholarly texts belonging to various schools of thought and attempting to pass off these cherrypicked texts as the conclusive state of Islam entirely.
You referenced Umdat as-Salik as a source of reference which is literally a book belonging to not even the most followed school of thought for Sunni muslims >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_of_the_Traveller >a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence. >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi‘i >The Shafi‘i (Arabic: شافعي Shāfiʿī, alternative spelling Shafei) madhhab is one of the four schools of Islamic law in Sunni Islam. >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi >The Hanafi (Arabic: حنفي Ḥanafī) school is one of the four religious Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence (fiqh). >Hanafi is the fiqh with the largest number of followers among Sunni Muslims.
You rely overwhelmingly on use of fawta as sources of information. Technically I can buy a remote island, designate it an Islam state, and issue my own fatwa in accordance to my respective school of thought.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa#Issuer_qualifications >in order for a scholar to be qualified to issue a fatwā, it was required that he obtained an ijazat attadris wa'l-ifta ("license to teach and issue legal opinions") from a Madrasah in the medieval Islamic legal education system, which was developed by the 9th century during the formation of the Madh'hab legal schools >l e g a l o p i n i o n
Hell, even ISIS can issue their own fatwa. I can make an online post and it can be considered fatwa if I larp as a mufti (issuer of fatwa) >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa#Online_fatwa
>Ibn Abbas was even a Sahaba >only 4 references to him
Alexander Gomez
This is, mudshits are mostly literal NPCs. They just can't think, they only REACT to any criticism of their religion by regurgitating the same 5-6 pre-programmed answers. If they get debunked, they just can't find a logical argument to save their life. Case in point:
>I never said that there are madhahib who disagree. >Only that you're cherrypicking your quotes ignoring the interpretations that disagree. >But I'm not saying these interpretations exist. The mudshit NPC really doesn't see the contradiction in these statements. It's amazing. And there's 1,7 billion of them. Most of them this stubborn, idiotic, ignorant, arrogant and retarded.
>Obviously your understanding of Islam is very limited, >PROVE IT. Just did. >and in a scholarly sense your interpretations are largely invalid. >PROVE IT. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir#Conditions >An author of tafsir is a mufassir (Arabic: مُفسّر; plural: Arabic: مفسّرون, translit. mufassirūn). According to Sunni Islamic scholar Al-Suyuti, mufassirs are required to master 15 fields from different disciplines such as linguistics, rhetoric, theology and jurisprudence before one can authoritatively interpret the Qur'an.
Are we going to larp as if you could possibly meet even one of these qualifications?
>I've quoted [tafsir] so extensively. You've quoted predominantly only from ONE tafsir author (kathir). >That however doesn't mean the tafsirs should be ignored. They're part of the IJMA >part >uses mostly only one tafsir from one author I suppose you really didn't expect someone to call out your bullshit?
>Sure, I'm just gonna take your word for it.
An obviously valid point. Meanwhile you claim >Bullshit. None of the passage or rules I mentioned are interpreted in any other way by any fiqh manual or madhhab (law school).
Now autistic shitlord, do prove your empty claims.
Dominic Barnes
>they only REACT to any criticism of their religion
At least you're realizing that your "information" is nothing more than mere criticism. There isn't an inch of validity to it, however.
>The mudshit NPC really doesn't see the contradiction in these statements. It's amazing. And there's 1,7 billion of them. Most of them this stubborn, idiotic, ignorant, arrogant and retarded
t. ad hominems. t. no sources >inb4 more burden of proof
Aiden Reyes
Can i get a lesson 1 link?
Christopher Perez
You are just repeating what he typed and not refuting any of his points thereby proving his point.
You fucking retarded mudshit.
Owen Gutierrez
>which is literally a book belonging to not even the most followed school of thought for Sunni muslims Wow, "literally"? It's "literally" not followed by most muslims? Wow then this changes everything.
You keep missing the point: the 4 madhahib agree on the virtual totality of islamic rules. They certainly agree on ALL the ones relevant to this discussion, since the rules about jihad are exposed in the quran and the hadiths, so they cannot be ignored or changed. They all say the same thing about jihad, so hammering on this point is retarded. Open any Hanafi, Hanbali or Maliki fiqh manual, and you'll find the exact same rules. IF EVEN A SINGLE ONE OF THE LAWS I'VE QUOTED IS CONTRADICTED BY ONE OF THE 4 MADHAHIB, PROVE IT. POST SOME EXCERPT.
Plus, you're trying to make it look like I only quoted from a single manual who nobody really cares about. Not so. "Reliance" is still considered an excellent fiqh manual, it's even given to american converts to familiarize them with sharia, and I've also quoted from Hanbali and Maliki manuals. Which all agreed on every subject. Why are you ignoring this? Oh, right. Mudshit liar.
>You rely overwhelmingly on use of fawta as sources of information. FIRST: this is simply false. Look at my posts and you'll see that I use fatwas only sparingly. SECOND: those fatwas are all minutely sourced with the ayat and the hadiths they're based on. Those ayat and hadiths don't stop being valid because they're in a fatwa.
Once again, no real arguments. Only smoke, lies and bad NPC programming.
The most hilarious part:
>Ibn Abbas was even a Sahaba >only 4 references to him
And If I had quoted him 200 times, you'd have said >only 200 references to him. You mudshits are hilarious once we stop considering you human adults capable of thought.
>You are just repeating what he typed and not refuting any of his points thereby proving his point.
see: This retard is basically larping as a scholar on Islamic jurisprudence despite his otherwise terrible methodology in compiling information.
He effectively only relies on limited, questionable, or largely unrelated sources of information to create a general picture of something that is far more complex than he's depicting it to be.
When called out on the inconsistencies of his information, he result to ad hominems and burden of proof arguments.
He knows people like you are idiots who wouldn't take the time to actually read or do any effortful research or are intellectually incapable of remotely grasping any of the concepts discussed, and is effectively attempting to indoctrinate you.
Henry Bailey
>>PROVE IT. >Just did. Must've missed that particular post.
>as if you could possibly meet even one of these qualifications? Nigger, those qualifications are required to WRITE tafsirs. Not to read them. Otherwise, what would be the point of writing exegesis to explain the holy books to the masses, if every single reader needs to be as educated as the author? Think for a second, ffs.
>your "information" is nothing more than mere criticism. Stop changing the meaning of words. "Criticism" doesn't mean "invalid arguments". Criticisms can be valid, if it's supported by facts and logic. And mine are. (Otherwise I can call your replies "criticism" of my arguments and therefore invalid.)
>You've quoted predominantly only from ONE tafsir author (kathir). Why are you ignoring all the other quotes from other tafsirs who confirm Kathir's interpretations?
>you really didn't expect someone to call out your bullshit? Oh yeah, brave paladin of islam, you really foiled my plan! Just a curiosity: where is this bullshit you're referencing? Tafsirs ARE in fact part of the ijma. And I quoted 3 of them during my lesson, not one. And they all agreed on those points (and pretty much every other point, as you'd known if you had read them.)
>autistic shitlord "If I cram in my posts enough of their slang, m-maybe they'll consider me cool..."
>do prove your empty claims. I did. All the evidence is in my first 12 or so posts. Now, you prove your claims, i.e. that the interpretations I quoted are contradicted by other law schools. Go on. Prove it. Post some excerpt from a fiqh manual who doesn't command muslims to fight jihad against the infidels, or who says the caliph doesn't need to wage war against kafirs. Can't do it? Maybe because they don't exist.
Nathaniel Ward
The first lesson is screenshotted here:
Jeremiah Morales
Sssh, let him keep bumping the thread so more people will read it.
The power of mudshit intelligence is fearsome indeed...
Leo King
Thanks proffesor, do you think after the islam lessons are through you could take on judiasm and christianity?
Ryan Butler
Hatred of islam is not unique to jews, everybody hates your filthy death cult.
Julian Wood
You don't actually believe that there isn't a special corner of hell for scumbags who worship the demon allah?
Colton Clark
dont fall for his larping m8. doubt he can even write aleph
Gavin Green
I'm larping as someone who can read islam's holy texts and the manuals written to minutely explain their meaning, so that even the most ignorant believer can understand and follow allah's laws.
Also, I'm larping as someone who destroyed your retarded npc answers. Every last one.
Gotta say, it's not difficult.
>Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir and Al-Suyuti's tafsirs. >texts that are crucial to the ijma. >some of the most important theological works ever produced in islamic history. >limited, questionable, or largely unrelated sources of information. Careful, mudshit. Lots of ulema would consider this enough to accuse you of apostasy.
>people like you are idiots who wouldn't take the time to actually read or do any effortful research Oh by all means, enlighten us. Quote some amazing islamic text that disproves any of my points.
>intellectually incapable of remotely grasping any of the concepts discussed This repressed faggot is actually trying to make us believe islamic jurisprudence is amazingly complex. Holy shit. Most of the time it's not only retardedly simple laws like "cut the right hand on the first theft, then the left on the second", but they even give examples so that even the most ignorant muslim can understand. Such intellect. Very complexity.
>ad hominem Common misconception. You see, an "ad hominem" fallacy is a personal attack used to avoid having to reply to an argument. But in this case, I FIRST destroyed all your arguments, and THEN I insulted you like you deserve. So they were simple insults.
I don't need to pray for god to send you directly to the lake of fire, you're already guaranteed a seat just for being muslim.
Joshua Johnson
best thread ive come across in a while. Much respect to you op. Look forward to the remaining lessons.
Dominic Miller
I can kinda relate with mohammad a little bit tbqh
Dylan Harris
Thanks, faithful reader.
Yeah, it's annoying when my 9 year old wife cries as I rape her. Snot everywhere... Thankfully I can beat her.
Daniel Rogers
>tl;dr
All that text and no sources you dumb nigger.
You keep asking me to provide sources and I just did by providing links to wiki articles that effectively prove your compilation of information is largely cherry-picked on the basis that you provide a blatantly linear narrative on issues that are extremely complex.
This 2001 "sunni manual of Islamic jurisprudence" by Saleh al-Fawzan yours alone can safely be questioned in the midst of thousands of years of scholarly texts.
Saleh al-Fawzan doesn't even follow halafi OR Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence. Yet you larp it a a representative of 90% sunni muslim majority that is mostly halafi cross-read with shafi'i text? lmao
You (still) fail to provide instances of multiple fiqh manuals and tafsir from multiple madhhabs sharing similar views to the ones you conveniently referenced.
Jayden Thomas
Thanks mate, i admire your autism, mine is sorely lacking.
Carson Wright
teach me about the dirty ways of the jews user-kun
Jaxson Perez
Taqiya is strong with you? Here in Japan we have cool many god religion and better at cutting heads than you weak bug people. Islam is watched and hated here thankfully.
Dog hating monster
Colton Harris
The sources are in my first posts, inbred mongoloid piece of shit.
>You keep asking me to provide sources and I just did by providing links to wiki articles that effectively prove your compilation of information is largely cherry-picked What?? Did you smoke camel shit again? Those articles proved NO SUCH THING.
Serious question: can you even read? At this point, I'm starting to doubt it.
Once again: if some fiqh school disagrees with any of my points, post some excerpt from their codes and textbooks.
>Saleh al-Fawzan doesn't even follow halafi OR Shafi'i school Yeah, he's Hanbali. So? What exactly do you think you proved? How does that disproves anything I've said? The Hanbali school exists, so I quoted from that as well.
>muslim majority that is mostly halafi You keep implying that the Hanafi school disagrees with something I've said. Ok. THEN PROVE IT. Post some quote from some Hanafi fiqh manual that disproves me. Go on.
>You (still) fail to provide instances of multiple fiqh manuals and tafsir from multiple madhhabs sharing similar views to the ones you conveniently referenced. Really? Because I would think that 3 different tafsirs from wildly different times and yet all in accordance, plus the fiqh manuals of 3 madhahib, would constitute "instances of multiple fiqh manuals and tafsir from multiple madhhabs sharing similar views".
Can't read, can't write, can't think, can't admit he lost the argument 20 posts ago.
>Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir and Al-Suyuti's tafsirs. >only references a tafsir from Ibn Abbas once >only references a tafsir from Al-Suyuti once
Mind you on the issue of Jihad, maybe if America and its allies didn't invade multiple Muslim countries in the name of stealing their oil, uprooting their secular societies, stealing their land (i.e. Israel) or try to gain a general sphere of western influence in the form capitalist self-righteous crusade, there wouldn't be any terror attacks or bombings. :^)
It's almost as if you expect Muslims to lie down and take it, like Europe currently is for Muslim refugees. :^)
Xavier Gray
Based nippon steel
Dylan Rogers
>muh poor persecuted mudslimes like clockwork kek
Christian Morgan
you are amazing.
Cooper Baker
>only referenced X once or twice or thrice or... Go read them, find where they disprove something I said, and then POST IT HERE.
Can't do it? Sorry, your insinuation that I cherrypicked only the interpretations convenient to me while ignoring all the others is only that, an UNPROVEN INSINUATION, and therefore discarded.
>maybe if America and its allies didn't invade multiple Muslim countries Which muslim country did India invade to deserve jihad a millennia ago? And North Africa? And Persia? And Spain? And France? And the baltic countries?
Mmm... how odd... it's almost like the fiqh manuals who command to wage UNPROVOKED war on infidels simply because they're infidels are what islam actually says...
>capitalist self-righteous crusade You're delusional (and not just because you worship a schizophrenic pedophile). No such crusade exists. Unfortunately. Yet.
>It's almost as if you expect Muslims to lie down and take it I expect muslims to be recognized as the vile, slimy, lying, clinically retarded, inbred pieces of shit that you all are, and be finally exterminated like you deserve, with all your bullshit about your mongoloid god and your pedophile prophet following you in the shitter.
Keep provoking us, inbred. History showed us what happens when mudshits annoy westerners one time too many. Clearly, you like taking it up the ass and can't wait to repeat the experience.
>you are amazing. Just doing my part.
John Reyes
Please continue!
Jackson Cruz
>Yeah, he's Hanbali. So? What exactly do you think you proved? Everything, you shitlord. Once again, you're cherry picking your "information" even if it is widely inconsistent with the "90% of [hanafi] Muslims" you claimed to be focusing on.
>What?? Did you smoke camel shit again? Those articles proved NO SUCH THING. >Once again: if some fiqh school disagrees with any of my points, post some excerpt from their codes and textbooks. >You keep implying that the Hanafi school disagrees with something I've said. Ok. THEN PROVE IT. >Post some quote from some Hanafi fiqh manual that disproves me.
tl;dr burden of proof fallacies once again you butthurt nigger. You're the one who stated that different tafsir from different schools share the same thoughts, not me
>Really? Because I would think that 3 different tafsirs from wildly different times and yet all in accordance, plus the fiqh manuals of 3 madhahib, would constitute "instances of multiple fiqh manuals and tafsir from multiple madhhabs sharing similar views".
>all in accordance >implying different matters discussed in different tafsirs following widely different schools of thought are "all in accordance"
It's not as if the interpretations from your sources are consistently similar interpretations on a particular matter. You just merely referenced different issues as discussed by completely different tafsirs following completely different schools of thoughts, to inadequately portray Islam the way you wish to.
Give it up butthurt nigger. I'm not a retarded Jow Forumslack susceptible to your autism.
Matthew Morales
I remember when we used to have "Religion of Pieces" threads and drop redpills about Islam and Judaism. Bumping for 2014 nostalgia.
