Jow Forums gets a PhD in Islam. Lesson 4: the Quran and the Sunnah

>Most of Surah al-Ahzab (the 33rd) was lost.
According to an hadith, this surah was much longer in the past:
>«Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said to me: How long is Soorat al-Ahzaab when you read it? Or how many verses do you think it is? I said to him: Seventy-three verses. He said: Only? There was a time when it was as long as Soorat al-Baqarah» (Musnad Ahmad 21245)
This hadith was graded by al-Tabari, ibn Hazm and al-Albani as sahih (undeniable) and as hasan (solid) by ibn Kathir and ibn Hajar. More info: islamqa.info/en/answers/197942/soorat-al-ahzaab-was-as-long-as-soorat-al-baqarah-then-most-of-it-was-abrogated
The tafsir (exegesis) of al-Qurtubi confirms the drastic reduction of this surah in his introduction on the 33rd Surah:
>«Surah Ahzab contained 200 verses during the lifetime of Prophet (pbuh) but when the Quran was collected we only found the amount that can be found in the present Quran.»
Needless to say, this cut of the perfect word of Allah is of great embarassment to muslims. Their scholars claimed that since those 127 verses weren't included in the "definitive" version of the Quran, that means they were abrogated. Problems: 1) Muhammad never said that they were abrogated. 2) What about the countless quranic verses that were abrogated but still included in the Quran? Clearly abrogation doesn't imply deletion.

>It's not clear if Surah al-Hafd (the Haste) and Surah al-khal' (the Separation) are part of the Quran.
The main muslim scholars couldn't decide if these were just du'as (prayers) or parts of the Quran. Some important figures (Ubay ibn Ka'b, ibn Masud and ibn 'Abbas) recorded them in their Quran mashaf (codices), but others (Uthman, Umaya bin Abdullah and Umar) omitted them. Al-Suyuti chose a compromise: they were removed from the Quran and are now used as simple prayers.
More info: islamqa.info/en/answers/195880/was-duaa-al-qunoot-part-of-the-quran-then-abrogated-from-the-text

Attached: 2aa350a5518b223e7a5804a300b342f57c780531.jpg (1600x1200, 1.11M)

>Two more missing surahs, one of which very long and important.
According to Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, one of the main authorities on the Quran and venerable Sahaba (companion of the Prophet), a pretty long and important surah was almost completely forgotten:
>«We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I HAVE, HOWEVER, FORGOTTEN IT with the exception of this which I remember out of it:" If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I HAVE FORGOTTEN IT, but remember (this much) out of it:" Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise" and "that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection".» (Sahih Muslim 1050. quranx.com/Hadith/Muslim/USC-MSA/Book-5/Hadith-2286/)
Surah Bara'at (also called at-Tawba) counts 129 verses. It's the infamous ninth surah, which contains some of the most brutal commands to slaughter the infidels and even the notorious Verse of the Sword (9:5) which we've examined in our second lesson. If the missing surah was really of comparable length and severity, this is an extremely significant loss.
Transmitting the Quran orally for decades obviously caused a lot of confusion. Ibn Abbas (another Sahaba) said, regarding the above quoted verse about the two valleys:
>«I do not know whether this saying was quoted from the Qur'an or not.» (Sahih Bukhari 6437. quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-8/Book-76/Hadith-445/)

Attached: 1002683_1385748338383979_8002258686444496252_n.jpg (480x320, 37K)

>Taqiyya
>e.g. there is such thing as "moderate muslims"

>The brutal ninth surah was even longer.
Narrations recorded by Al-Suyuti say that surah Bara'at was originally as long as al-Baqara:
>«Malik says that several verses from chapter 9 (Sura of Repentance) have been dropped [...] because it was proven that the length of Sura of Repentance was equal to the length of the Sura of the Cow.» ("The Itqan" by al-Suyuti, Part 3, Page 184.)
Al-Qurtubi agrees:
>«It has also been narrated from Ibn Ajlan that he heard that Surat Bara'at was equal to the length of Surat Al Baqarah or approximately equal to it» (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, comment on the ninth surah.)
Surah al-Baqara (The Cow) is 286 verses long, while the current version of surah Bara'at is only 129 verses long. That's 157 more missing verses.

For an unchangeable book, it sure changed quite a bit since Muhammad revealed it. After all, Muhammad revealed it in the span of 23 years and after his death his followers took 19 more years to start organizing it. That's 42 years of faulty oral transmission. Obviously the end result was going to be a mess.

Attached: apostasypunishment.jpg (500x500, 66K)

But that's not all. The version of the Quran we have today IS NOT EVEN THE “PURE” UTHMAN'S VERSION. Remember general al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf, the guy who added vowels? Well, he didn't stop there. Here are a few of the changes he made to the Word of Allah:

> In 10:22 he changed yanshorokom ("spread you") to yousayerokom ("makes you to go on").

> In 26:116 he changed Al-Mukhrageen ("the cast out") to Al-Margoomeen ("those who are to be stoned to death").

> In 26:167 he changed Min Al-Margoomeen ("those who are to be stoned to death") to Al-Mukhrageen ("those who will assuredly be cast out").

> In 47:15 he changed yasen, which is poor Arabic, to Asen, which means "unpolluted."

> In 57:7 he changed wataqu ("feared Allah") to Wa-anfaqu ("spend in charity").

Some tafsirs (such as al-Jalalayn, one of the most famous) report different words in the commentaries of these and more verses, proving the contamination.

Attached: 11111.jpg (843x631, 100K)

From a literary standpoint, the Quran is borderline unreadable. Arab-speaking muslims swear that in arabic the text flows like divine poetry (and that's supposed to prove its holy origin). Maybe, but all we non-arab speakers can see for ourselves is that the text is a mess: stories ripped off almost verbatim from the Torah, misunderstanding of christian theology (Muhammad thought the Holy Trinity was made by God, Jesus and Mary), episodes who start in the middle without a clear beginning or end, mind-numbing repetitions, monotonous rhytm, and a feeling that Allah was a schizo off his meds. So many sentences start with “slaughter and drown them in their own blood” and end with “because Allah is the most merciful”.
It's a slow, confusing, sometimes unintentionally hilarious clusterfuck. Exactly what you'd expect from a book put together by decades-old fragments and memories.
In the words of the islamist Theodor Nöldeke:

>«Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted, so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who heard them first, because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a good deal of superfluous verbiage; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. [...]
>«The connexion of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anacolutha [when the latter part of a sentence does not grammatically fit the earlier] are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a “when” or “on the day when” which seems to hover in the air, so that commentators are driven to supply a “think of this” or some such ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases. Mahomet is not in any sense a master of style.» (Noldeke T., “Koran”, in EB, 11th ed., vol. 15, pp. 898-906.)

Attached: koranpaper1_2.jpg (200x246, 18K)

These stylistic flaws don't just make the reading unpleasant, they're also a strong indicator that the text has been manipulated by several hands:

>«There are indeed many roughnesses of this kind, and these, it is here claimed, are fundamental evidence for revision. Besides the points already noticed—hidden rhymes, and rhyme-phrases not woven into the texture of the passage—there are the following: abrupt changes of rhyme; repetition of the same rhyme word or rhyme phrase in adjoining verses; the intrusion of an extraneous subject into a passage otherwise homogeneous; a differing treatment of the same subject in neighbouring verses, often with repetition of words and phrases; breaks in grammatical construction which raise difficulties in exegesis; abrupt changes in the length of verses; sudden changes of the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third person, and so on; the juxtaposition of apparently contrary statements...» (Bell R. and W. M. Watt, "Introduction to the Quran", Edinburgh, 1977, p. 93.)

There's simply no way to know how many people changed the text, and in which ways, in the decades following Muhammad's death and even after Uthman's final version. There is countless evidence that many translators and copiers added or changed some words in crucial points in order to cover for discrepances and contradictions.
Many paragraphs, for instance, are clearly spoken by Muhammad and not by Allah, even though the Quran is supposed to be a revelation directly from the mind of Allah. Some copiers have solved the problem by adding the word “Say:” before those paragraphs (like in 27:91) to make it seem like Allah is commanding Muhammad to say those things, but that word is NOT present in the original arabic.
(For a much more detailed analysis, see Ibn Warraq, “Why I am not a muslim”, chapter 5: conflicts.rem33.com/images/books/Ibn Warraq - Why I Am Not a Muslim.pdf )

Attached: 4E98wlm.jpg (480x480, 35K)

But if an awful style and hundreds of verses modified or lost forever were the only problem with the Quran, I wouldn't be writing this. You could even consider their loss a virtue (at least now it's shorter).
It's much more difficult to explain blatant, sometimes hilarious scientific inaccuracies that muslim scholars keep defending (or pretending not to see with embarassment) to this day. Here's a short list:

>Allah is the one who keeps the sky from crashing on the Earth. (22:65)

>Mountains were created to keep the Earth still under their weight. (21:31)

>The Earth is also flat. (2:22. 50:7. 51:47-48. 71:15-20. 88:17-20. 79:30)
The tafsir Al-Jalalayn, one of the most illustrious ones written by Al-Suyuti, explains 79:30 in very clear terms: «and after that He spread out the earth: He made it flat, for it had been created before the heaven, but without having been spread out» (quranx.com/Tafsir/Jalal/79.30)

>The Moon follows the Sun. (91:2)

>Sperm is produced "from between the backbone and the ribs" (86:5-7)
Apologists have tried EVERYTHING to excuse this obvious anatomic mistake. Some claim that when the Quran speaks of backbone and ribs it refers to the “hard parts” of men, therefore his erection. Others claim that the liquid in question is not sperm but the aortic blood, which “brings life” to the body. Others say that this verse refers to the testicles during the embryo stage (even though not even then they're between the backbone and the ribs). Still others use the most flexible excuse in the world: it's a METAPHOR because the backbone is the symbol of man's strength and so sperm, which is the essence of a man, is metaphorically said to be produced there... yeah...

Attached: B76TCqyIUAEINlS.jpg (490x463, 51K)

I'd like to know more

Then there is verse 21:30, one of the most twisted ones by apologists the world over:
>«the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing.»
Apologists claim that this verse is talking about the Pangea, even though the supercontinent didn't include the heavens, and some translations even change the wording to make it seem like Allah was talking about the theory of evolution. The official italian translation (the one by Hamza Piccardo recognized by the saudi government), for instance, says “We extracted every living thing from the oceans”, even though every other translation simply claims that living being are MADE OF water, which is something even ancient greek philosophers knew. Using this mistranslation, Piccardo claims that the Quran “revealed” the theory of evolution 1400 years ago.

Furthermore, the Quran, despite its ambition to be a timeless, eternal book valid in every place and time, very often refers to very specific situations and even single individuals. The entire Surah 111 is dedicated to insulting a political opponent of Muhammad, Abu Lahab, and his wife:
>«May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he. His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. He will (enter to) burn in a Fire of (blazing) flame. And his wife (as well) – the carrier of firewood. Around her neck is a rope of (twisted) fiber.»
Oh snap, “the carrier of firewood”. Apply cold water to the burn.
The 111th surah is one of the shortest ones, but we still have an entire chapter of the Word of Allah dedicated to insulting this random guy and his wife. For all eternity.

Attached: before-after-problem-solved-fuck-you-islam-i-will-never-21043219.png (500x566, 143K)

In the lesson on Muhammad we've quoted some verses which have the sole function of giving Muhammad special privileges, sometimes very petty ones:

>Only Muhammad can have as many wives as he wants. (33:50)

>Nobody can marry Muhammad's wives after his death. (33:53)

>Nobody should bother Muhammad with small talk. (Again 33:53, The Autistic Verse.)

>Muhammad can marry his adoptive son Zayd's hot ex-wife, even though by the laws of the time it would've been considered incest. (33:37)

>Once his wives got pissed because they caught Muhammad in bed with a hot christian slave, Mariya, when it was not her turn. To make them stop nagging him, Allah revealed 66:5 to threaten them with repudiation.

And when the loli wife Aisha was accused of having cheated on Muhammad by THREE WITNESSES, Allah decided to reveal verse 24:13 in order to save his prophet from being publicly known as a cuck. In that verse, Allah decided that to prove guilt in the case of cheating or rape, you need FOUR witnesses. So Aisha was cleared of all accusations.
By the way, thanks to this verse it's still pretty much impossible for muslim women to prove they've been raped, since they need to bring forward the testimony of four men (women's testimony is not admitted in sexual matters). And fiqh codes specify that the men need to be of good reputation and “strong islam”, and to have seen with their own eyes the penis enter the vagina. Only then a woman can prove she's been raped. (More on that in the lesson about women in islam.)

Attached: aisha.jpg (1000x938, 207K)

Muhammad's tendency to use the Word of Allah for his own personal convenience is also evident in the issue of the Satanic Verses, which have procured Salman Rushdie a death fatwa simply for mentioning them in passing. Muslims REALLY don't like this story, beause it casts doubt not only on Muhammad's character, but on the truthfulness of his divine revelation as well.

The story is simple: during the years when Muhammad and the pagans in Mecca were quarreling because Muhammad insulted their gods and wanted to turn them into muslims, the pagans made him a tempting offer: Muhammad would accept to worship their 3 main goddesses (al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat), and they in return would accept islam.

Muhammad reflected. On the one hand, this meant going back on his word about the central tenet of his new religion, its uncompromising monotheism. On the other hand... power. His most dangerous enemies would turn into allies immediately. Muhammad struggled, meditated and in the end accepted, revealing that Allah allowed the 3 goddesses to be worshipped by muslims:

>«these are the exalted Gharaniq [females] whose intercession is approved.»

This verse was present only in the oldest version of the Quran and has long since been deleted. Fortunately, the Sirat narrates the entire incident in detail in paragraph 239.

Attached: satanic-verses.jpg (324x499, 41K)

The pagans were «delighted and greatly pleased» by this compromise, but Muhammad soon started to have doubts, possibly because some of his followers didn't like his backpedaling for obvious political convenience. So he claimed that an angry Gabriel appeared to him and scolded him for believing a verse whispered by Satan instead of Allah:

>«What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what He did not say to you.» (Sirat 239)

And indeed, the Sirat states clearly that «Satan put upon his tongue» (Sirat 239) the incriminated verse. The modern version of the Quran still states that Allah annulled what Satan has suggested to Muhammad because «when he spoke, Satan threw into it some misunderstanding.» (Quran 22:52)
So that Muhammad believed Satan's words and mistook them for God's revelation is NOT a filthy kuffar lie. It's orthodox islamic theology clearly written in the Sirat.

Muslims really hate this story because it makes their perfect prophet appear fallible at best and a liar at worst. Make sure to keep it a secret, ok?

In conclusion, the Quran is a chaotic, borderline unreadable, pretentious, incoherent book written with the clear intent of allowing a certain pedophile thief to do whatever the fuck he wanted. As the christian commentator Al-Kindy said, is this what a divine revelation is supposed to look like?
And the Sunnah manages to be just as retarded.

Attached: circularity.jpg (300x300, 21K)

The Sunnah is the second holy book of islam. It's composed by two parts:
>1) the Sirat, the biography of the Prophet, and
>2) the hadiths, which are simply anecdotes about stuff Muhammad said or did that muslims have to study and take as example for their own lives.

The Sirat has the same problems of the Quran: it's impossible to know how accurate it is because the author, Ibn Ishaq, wrote it 120-130 years after Muhammad's death and based it on fourth hand accounts, legends and rumors.
What we do know is that, as we've seen in the lesson about Muhammad, the Sirat describes the prophet of islam as a lying, bloodthirsty murderer, thief and rapist, and this is the personality traits muslims are taught to admire and imitate. Regardless of hystorical accuracy, this is a problem for non-muslims.

Here we'll focus on the hadiths.
As we've said, thanks to the doctrine of the “ismah”, whatever Muhammad said or did is undeniably perfect because Allah “protects” his prophets from committing sins. In the centuries after Muhammad's death, MILLIONS of hadiths have been collected. Only some of them are considered undeniable (sahih) or solid (hasan), specifically:
the collection by Sahih Al-Bukhari,
the collection by Sahih Muslim,
These two are considered as legally binding as the Quran. Its authors are called “sahih” to show that the validity of their hadiths is beyond question.
Four more collections are considered almost as undeniable:
the collection by Abu Dawud,
the one by al-Tirmidhi,
the one by Ibn Majah,
the one by al-Nasa'i.
These six collections together are called “Kutub al-Sittah”, the Six Books. There are many other collections, but these six are the ones who, together with the Quran, compose the backbone of the sharia. The hadiths in these six books are quoted in every page of every fiqh manual to justify pretty much every islamic law and rule.

Attached: islam-is-peace.jpg (600x400, 69K)

Now. The problem with basing your laws on goddamn anecdotes is obvious to anyone who's not a 25th generation inbred. How did Bukhari and the other venerable muslim scholars decide which anecdotes were divine and which were weak or even fabricated?
They used their PERSONAL JUDGMENT.
That's it.

Every hadith has an “isnad”, a chain of people who transmitted it from the time of Muhammad by telling it to their kids, friends, etc. If the compilers of the Sunnah heard a story told by someone with the reputation of being a good muslim, that hadith was accepted as valid. If they heard the same story from MULTIPLE people they considered trustworthy, that anecdote was granted the rank of “sahih mutawatir”, and it was as undeniable as the Quran.
(It's a good moment to remember that according to islam, a “good muslim” is a person who lies to the kuffar, attacks them by surprise, breaks treaties, steals from them, rapes their women, enslaves them and their children, and if it's convenient, has no qualms about killing women and kids.)

This is how the Sunnah was compiled. By gathering rumors, legends and episodes that some “good muslim” swore it was a true story bro.

Attached: mommy.jpg (241x316, 23K)

This is why now millions of muslims study in all seriousness stories like the following:

>Satan tries to interrupt Muhammad's prayers. Muhammad strangles him with his bear hands.
(Sahih Bukhari 1210. quranx.com/hadith/Bukhari/DarusSalam/Hadith-1210/)

>A bunch of monkeys STONE TO DEATH another monkey for committing adultery.
(Sahih Bukhari 3849. quranx.com/hadith/Bukhari/DarusSalam/Hadith-3849/)

>A tree which literally “cries like a child” because Muhammad stopped preaching the Quran where the tree could hear him. Muhammad, the original hippie, hugs it to console it.
(Sahih Bukhari 3584. quranx.com/hadith/Bukhari/DarusSalam/Hadith-3584/)

>Muhammad splits the moon. Twice.
(Sahih Muslim 2802. sunnah.com/muslim/52/32 Also: Bukhari 3869, 3871, 3638.)

>Muslim genetics: «If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.» (Sahih Bukhari 3329)

Next to the innocuous retardation, we have these dangerous pearls of wisdom:

>«The people asked the Messenger of Allah (pbuh): Can we perform ablution out of the well of Buda'ah, which is a well into which menstrual clothes, dead dogs and stinking things were thrown? He replied: Water is pure and is not defiled by anything.» [Sunan Abu Dawud 66] Level: sahih. (sunnah.com/abudawud/1/66)
Yeah, cholera and dysentery are just kuffar lies.

>«The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: "One of the best kinds of kohl that you use is Ithmid (antimony); it brightens the vision and makes the hair (eye-lashes) grow."» [Sunan an-Nasa'i 5113. Repeated in Ibn Majah 31,3626 and 7,1748; Muwatta Malik 29,1271] Level: hasan, solid. (sunnah.com/nasai/48/74)
Too bad antimony is toxic and if absorbed by the eyes can cause a poisoning similar to the one from arsenic.

Attached: bear_hands.png (750x546, 74K)

>«Some people from Urainah arrived in AlMadinah, and they were uncomfortable (with the climate). So the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) sent them some camels from charity. He told them: 'Drink from their milk and Urine'.”» [at-Tirmidhi 28,2177. Repeated and elaborated in at-Tirmidhi 72; Bukhari 5686 e 6802; Muslim 1671a; Sunan an-Nasa'i 4024 e 4027.] Level: sahih. (sunnah.com/urn/673450)

To this day, camel urine is drank by countless muslims as a medicine.
A typical muslim online shop: alwanoh.net/EN_Shop/Product-Details.aspx?p=24)
Brave woman using the miracolous medicine the kuffar don't want you to know about: youtube.com/watch?v=-XUVcmIv0pU

(Btw, the men in the story after a while did feel better. Then they apostatized, killed the guardian and stole the camels. Muhammad the merciful cut off their hands and their feet, burned their eyes with hot irons and left them to die of thirst.)

To conclude, the islamic holy texts are a brutal, contradictory, sometimes comical clusterfuck that no one with a shred of critical ability would ever take seriously. But muslims don't have that critical ability, because one of the central tenets of their faith is that divine revelation is superior to logic or experimental evidence, and they're conditioned from infancy to not think or question, only to obey and repeat. If something seems to contradict islam, that something is surely Satan's lie and needs to be ignored or destroyed. This is at the root of islam's uncanny ability to remain identical to itself through the ages, despite the amazing discoveries of the infidel cultures around them.

We'll examine the schizophrenic relationship between islam and science in the next lesson. Until then, please remember to show none of this to any muslim. Their delicate feelings need to be protected.

Attached: camel-urine.png (272x386, 129K)

bump

Bump

And remember who pushed for the islamization of the West since the old times.

Attached: Jews_welcomed_the_Islamization_of_Spain_Jewish_Encyclopedia_1906.png (726x295, 35K)

Attached: Migration_Israel_USA_Hypocrisy.jpg (1256x1304, 221K)

Indeed. The mere notion of "moderate" muslims is a form of Taqiyya. A very subtle one.

Also very effective, because the average westerner is lazy and only wants an excuse to avoid recognizing that there is a problem and to not appear "extremist". Blaming every shitty aspect of islam on a few "bad apples" and defending the "moderate muslims" allow him to feel smarter than "those racist right wingers" and also to not do absolutely anything about islam.

>The eternal, perfect, immutable Word of Allah
fucking lol

Attached: Quran_Surah_5_116.png (900x1171, 782K)

youtube.com/watch?v=wb_4U2UJucE

Attached: 1500_Rabbis.png (1750x2280, 1.73M)

Are you implying that a book recited by an epileptic illiterate pedophile and written down only decades after his death and manipulated by anyone who wanted power can be anything else than perfect?

Watch that islamophobia m8.

Attached: Jew_Muslim_Alliance_Sourced.png (507x446, 262K)

Lol

Attached: Jews_Advocate_Demographic_Change_Europe.png (967x784, 421K)

Yeah, the chosen cunts should really stop telling us how to run our countries while they reject or sterilize immigrants to keep their ethnostate pure.

so whats the easiest way to archive this entire thread. My uncle loves religious stuff and would find this very fascinating and I wanna send him but I'm too lazy to take like 15 manual screen shots. Thanks in advance.

Yep.

Attached: Jews_Push_For_Muslim_Migration_The_Leave.jpg (2486x3062, 1.83M)

It's already archived: archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/196163288/

Attached: Jew_Hypocrisy_3.jpg (1000x638, 172K)

Attached: 1497895477778.jpg (600x385, 20K)

And a reminder that the EU was always a jewish supremacist project.

Attached: Cabal_29_LU_17_07_18.png (4784x4064, 3.74M)

Attached: Jews_In_EU_Loxism.jpg (1940x1190, 334K)

good posts. my personal view is that muhammad was not an outright fake, he actually believed that the 'revelations' were from god, but it was just the same as artistic inspiration where ideas seem to appear out of nowhere, but are really emerging from a deep well of your entire lifetime's experience etc. in muhammad's case, he must have been deeply interested in thoughts relating to judaism, christianity, etc and had his own devout belief in god, so when he began to experience 'revelations' he naturally attributed them to god and rolled with it.

imo to say he was a fake, that he consciously forged the entire book, etc is to miss the point that the qur'an does induce in people a very strong belief in god. a skillful reciter can transform what in translations appear like dry, dull verses into mystical awe inspiring art.

P.S.

I forgot to add one of the most retarded things about the Quran that lots of non-muslims dont' know:

>The Quran is not organized in chronological order. The surahs go from longest to shortest.

It's the kind of method a child might think of. It makes no sense whatsoever and makes the Quran even more unreadable than it already was.
Here's a table with the surahs in chronological order:

>wikiislam.net/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Qur'an

You'll be able to verify that the most peaceful ones are also the first ones, revealed when Muhammad was powerless. The more powerful he got, the more violent the surahs became.

The ninth one, arguably the most violent, was the second to last to be revealed. According to the doctrine of naskh (abrogation), his commands to "slaughter the infidels wherever you find them" abrogates all the previous peaceful verses.

(In pic related an ancient persian picture where Muhammad splits the moon.)

Attached: Mohammed_Splits_the_Moon.jpg (556x741, 87K)

That's why the Professor's the greatest.

Attached: Thanks Professor.png (964x576, 470K)

Thank you, very interesting

Thank you, guys. Remember to study for the final sol... exam.

Here's the screenshot.

Attached: Lesson 4 - The Quran and the Sunnah.png (1312x8870, 2.51M)

>We'll examine the schizophrenic relationship between islam and science in the next lesson.

Bump for moar

We all should know that islam is 100% pure cancer. However these threads are excellent so i would like to bump and maybe someone learns something.

In a perfect world I wouldn't have to write a single word about islam. But we live in a very different one, so thanks for the bump.

What are your thoughts on Christianity and Talmudism?

Apologies for the meme flag some people not free.

You post some links to primary sources in english, if you have more I am sure they are useful. The reliance of the traveler is an excellent source.

Someone save this thread

Christianity: excellent life philosophy (especially for women) in a society with the proper cultural (and ethnic) composition. Deadly masochism otherwise.

Talmudism: suprematist cancer on par with islam.

I fully understand. In Europe you can be arrested for questioning certain narratives or religions of peace.

It's archived: archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/196163288/

You are a good guy and I'm glad I was able to catch the thread. The actual knowledge, coupled with the ability to burn down a "islam is the only way!" thread in the space of four posts, is a fine example that more should follow.

Thank you, professor, and keep up the good work.

Attached: 1464826447111.jpg (2244x2859, 563K)

Thank you, it's pretty much what I think myself.

Thank you. I will.

Thanks for your thread. Very interesting and relevant

Besides "Reliance of the Traveller" (Shafi school of law) and "A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence" (Hanbali school), whose links I've posted in the OP, there is this other fiqh manual:

>Al-Risala (Maliki school of law)
>kalamullah.com/Books/The Risala - A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh.pdf

Very useful are also the tafsirs, which were written precisely to clarify the holy texts and eliminate ambiguities (which makes them very useful in debates as well). You can find them in PDF on the internet or read them online here:

>quranx.com/Tafsirs

I recommend:
>Tafsir ibn Kathir (probably the most influential of the bunch),

>Tafsir Ibn Abbas (the oldest, written by a Sahaba of the Prophet himself),

>Tafsir al-Jalalayn (famous for its great clarity),

>the tafsir of Maududi (very recent, mid-XX century, to verify that islamic theology has remained the same for the past 1300 years).

Everytime you have some doubt about the real meaning of a verse, just read the relative explanation in a couple of these tafsirs.

Plus, the books of Bill Warner are very useful. He also draws directly from muslim sources to show the real face of islam:

>Sharia law for the non-muslim
>politicalislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/PDF-Look-Inside/Sharia_Non-Muslim_look_inside.pdf

>The life of Muhammad commented.
>cspipublishing.com/pdfs/TheLifeOfMohammed-TheSira.pdf

This will give you more than enough ammo against any apologist.

I have the bill warner books as well as major stephen coughlins book as well. Just tis always nice to have primary sources.

I'm aware of what pbuh stands for but I see several references to a "s.a.w." in your evidence. What does this mean?

SAW or SAWS stand for the Arabic words "sallallahu alayhi wa salaam" (may God's prayers and peace be with him).

I figured it would be roughly the same. Muslims sure love to repeat themselves. Thanks for the answer.

>implying anybody gives a flying fuck about another kiked religion practiced by stone age savages.

Worship their pedophile god but LOVE them a Mercedes or BMW here in white mans reality

You're welcome, random crusader.

Yeah, muslims have traced a distinction between ideological innovations (bad) and technological ones (good). So they can steal all our technology without committing sin.

thanks professor

Obviously Christians have perverted their religion and forgotten that Mary was a member of the Holy Trinity.
But Islam remembers.

Bump and thank you

You're welcome guys.
Jow Forums is such a kind board.

reminder that even muslims say jesus is their messiah. one thing they got right

>even muslims say jesus is their messiah
The fuck are you saying? Muslims believe Jesus was just a regular man, not the son of God or the Messiah. Just one of the many prophets Allah tried to use to communicate his "real" religion. A failed prophet at that.

They also believe he wasn't really crucified.

They reject him as Son of God, and they reject the crucification and resurrection.

they deny his divinity, his resurrection and i believe crucifiction as well, but he is still their messiah

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam
>In Islam, ʿĪsā ibn Maryam (Arabic: عيسى بن مريم, lit. 'Jesus, son of Mary'), or Jesus, is understood to be the penultimate prophet and messenger of God (Allah) and al-Masih, the Arabic term for Messiah (Christ), sent to guide the Children of Israel with a new revelation: al-Injīl (Arabic for "the gospel").[1][2][3

>Ever wondered what Islam actually says/thinks/orders about a certain matter?

No. It's foreign and alien to my land and I don't want anything to do with it.

>they deny his divinity, his resurrection and i believe crucifiction as well,
Oh well, nothing much then.

>but he is still their messiah
At this point I wonder what you mean by "messiah".

How are you gonna defeat them if you don't know them?

That quote says clearly that Jesus is the messiah OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (= jews). Not of muslims. Muslims do NOT consider Jesus the Messiah.

>At this point I wonder what you mean by "messiah".
the one that will lead their people to salvation.

Israel is the people, the seed of promise, which the muslims believe they are through the line of ishmael, the halfbrother of isaac who actually got (most) of the blessing. also funfact, whites are the real israelites >The angel declares the son is to be named Jesus, the Messiah, proclaiming he will be called a great prophet, and is the Spirit of God and Word of God, who will receive al-Injīl (Arabic for the Gospel). The angel tells Mary that Jesus will speak in infancy, and when mature, will be a companion to the most righteous. Mary, asking how she could conceive and have a child when no man had touched her, was answered by the angel that God can decree what He wills, and it shall come to pass
Jesus is the muslim messiah, its just barely any muslim knows about this.

Funfact, when casted out ishmael got in the bible the blessing that he will become many people, like the stars in the sky, and look how many muslims we have now almost as if the blessing is real.

Useless info. Fuck Muslims, remove jews and then remove everything else, including muslims.

>Israel is the people, the seed of promise, which the muslims believe they are
No they don't. "Children of Israel" in the quran is always interpreted to mean "jews", not "muslims".

Even if your evidence was actually valid (huge if), since no muslim considers himself an israelite, it wouldn't change anything. Muslims don't consider Jesus their messiah.

This kind of conspiracy theories are marvelously useless.

>interpreted
maybe thats where the problem is. interpret correctly

>At-Tabari (d. 923), a Persian scholar and historian, contributed to the Jesus birth narrative by mentioning envoys arriving from the king of Persia with gifts (similar to the Magi from the east) for the Messiah; the command to a man called Joseph (not specifically Mary's husband) to take her and the child to Egypt and later return to Nazareth.[29]

>According to Islamic tradition which describes this graphically, Jesus' descent will be in the midst of wars fought by al-Mahdi (lit. "the rightly guided one"), known in Islamic eschatology as the redeemer of Islam, against al-Masih ad-Dajjal (the Antichrist "false messiah") and his followers.[85] Jesus will descend at the point of a white arcade, east of Damascus, dressed in yellow robes—his head anointed. He will say prayer behind al-Mahdi then join him in his war against the Dajjal. Jesus, considered as a Muslim, will abide by the Islamic teachings. Eventually, Jesus will slay the Antichrist, and then everyone who is one of the People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb, referring to Jews and Christians) will believe in him. Thus, there will be one community, that of Islam

>‘Muslims do not worship Jesus, who is known as Isa in Arabic, nor do they consider him divine, but they do believe that he was a prophet or messenger of God and he is called the Messiah in the Qu’ran.

>A frequent title of Jesus mentioned is al-Masīḥ, which translates to "the Messiah", as well as Christ. Although the Quran is silent on its significance,[97] scholars[who?] disagree with the Christian concepts of the term, and lean towards a Jewish understanding.

Just wondering if you also consider the bible(especially new testament) to be as useless and stupid as the quran?

>he is called the Messiah in the Qu’ran.
Yes, the messiah OF JEWS. Not of muslims.

No muslim considers Jesus his messiah. Your theories ignore islamic theology and are never going to be accepted by muslims, so what's the point?

>Jesus' descent will be in the midst of wars fought by al-Mahdi (lit. "the rightly guided one")
Al-Mahdi is going to be the islamic messiah (at least according to the shia). Not Jesus.

Stupid? The New Testament is a philosophy, it doesn't state ridiculous pseudoscientific facts like the quran. So it's way less stupid.

Useless? In what sense? In the right conditions (a society culturally and ethnically homogeneous) christianity can thrive and make society thrive as well, since it's not fundamentally opposed to science the way islam is.
If you mean "useless to fight islam" then unfortunately yes. At least christianity as it's intended nowadays by virtually all christians.

>Yes, the messiah OF JEWS. Not of muslims.
it clearly gives him the title of messiah in the quran, even detached from the jews.

>No muslim considers Jesus his messiah. Your theories ignore islamic theology and are never going to be accepted by muslims, so what's the point?
what muslims consider is irrelevant, what matters is scripture and this says jesus is the messiah.
most christian wont consider kikes the spawn of satan, yet thats what scripture tells us. same for jesus being the islamic messiahs.

>what muslims consider is irrelevant
It' actually the only thing that matters, since their belief decide their actions.

>what matters is scripture and this says jesus is the messiah.
You keep twisting the scriptures as you please while ignoring that ISLAM NEVER SAYS THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH OF MUSLIMS.

Jesus is N-O-T the islamic messiah in any sense of the word. Nothing allows us to suppose that. The islamic messiah is that guy named al-Mahdi your quote mentioned.

You're just misinterpreting the islamic texts on purpose for your own agenda.

>It' actually the only thing that matters, since their belief decide their actions.
i thought the point of the thread is to be able to debate a muslim based on the scipture. well, scripture says jesus is the messiah, use that to debate.

>You keep twisting the scriptures as you please while ignoring that ISLAM NEVER SAYS THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH OF MUSLIMS.
no, it calls him messiah multiple times. full stop.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Islam
>The Quran identifies Jesus (Isa)[46] as the messiah (Masih), who will one day return to earth. At the time of the second coming, "according to Islamic tradition, Jesus will come again and exercise his power of healing. He will forever destroy falsehood, as embodied in the Daj-jal, the great falsifier, the anti-Christ. Then God will reign forever."[47]

Why do you guys believe in suicide bombing?

The professor isn't a muslim ameribro. Plus I think that was covered in the Jihad lesson

Grazie mi amici. Viva Italia!!!

Attached: 8098080.jpg (1024x877, 312K)

Where does scripture say "kikes are the spawn of satan"? Jesus was a jew. I personally think there are good Jews and bad Jews. Just like there were pharisees back then that were bad Jews that killed jesus and then good Jews like Peter. Today I think the catholic priesthood is modern day phariseeism.

By your own logic it's the scripture that matters or they're apostates

the jidf are out to "debunk" their greatest enemy

do the opposite of what the rats say so I guess its time to convert

Is Obama a fucking nigger

>jesus was a jew
wrong already
There are those from the tribe of Judeah, Judah descendents, Jesus was such a one, and I believe germanics to be these.
There are those from the tribe of Jacob/Israel, the Israelites, Jesus, as a Judean, obviously was one of these as well and most europeans are too.
Then there are those from the kingdom of Judah in which at the ends only edomites lived, Jesus wasnt such a one, he was born in Galilee. These are the kikes claiming to be of judean descent.
Then there are those from the faith of "Judaism", which Jesus also was not but the kikes are.
Around the 12th Century all those were lumped together under the term "Jew"

Kikes I believe to be just niggers (Canaanites, can go into that) that mixed enough to get an above 100 IQ to be able to hide their sheming and degeneracy where niggers do it in the open and get whiter skin, mainly the phoenicians who are always interwined with the canaanites.
Now the people Essau mixed with are the Amalek, a canaanite tribe. and look who those guys resemble, pic related.
They were the Pharisee that claimed to be of jewish descend followed some headcanon of Judaism which is the Judaism that the kikes follow now and was rebuked by Jesus.

>Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
which people would make you want to do that to them?
IIRC it says that amalek are even below the goyim, so thats the real position of the kikes.
Also kikes claimed that hitler and the Nazis were amalek as they are said to be the ever returning and reborn nemesis of the israelites. turns out that was projection once again.

Attached: canaanite jew.jpg (464x211, 31K)

>Where does scripture say "kikes are the spawn of satan"
Revelation 2:9
>9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9
>9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

John 8:44
>44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

if only people would read their scripture

Attached: Children of satan.png (500x456, 112K)

>scripture says jesus is the messiah
Not THEIR messiah. You're just misinterpreting on purpose. Even muslims can out-debate shit like that.
Your theories are preposterous, flatly wrong and worse of all, useless, since no muslim on the planet will ever be convinced by them. So what's the point of sperging out in countless tinfoil hat tier threads?

Nice try ahmed. Fuck you and fuck jews. Different kinds of rats.

>there are good Jews and bad Jews
By this logic we might as well let islam do as it pleases, since somewhere there surely is some nice muslim fellow.
What matters is what the powerful chosen cunts are doing.