Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[Free Rhenish States]

Do you wonder why? Because it existed in the first century, if there is no Bible earlier than from the 4th century, then how can they prove something like that?
Nohow. And this goes both way, you don't have a proof that it existed, but you don't have a proof that it didn't exist, either. We Muslims have the Quran and believe it existed, regardless.

Now, I hope you know that while there was no Bible (as in the compiled Gospels and the Old Testament), it's an historical fact that said Gospels were all individually written from the 1st to the 2nd century so I really fail to see how that's proving anything there.
And while I have no problem with the Devil's proof in general, this particular use seems very dubious to me. If you have no further proof of the existence of a Gospel than a claim in a book that was written six century later by a source of another religion living far away and without access to any documentation on the subject while it was never mentionned even once in all the others direct christians sources neither before nor after that said claim was made, then I hope that you see no problems with me dismissing this claim of a Gospel of Jesus existing as baseless.

Exactly. You got no gospels from anything earlier than from the third century, so you can't neither dismiss nor prove the fact that it existed. You simply can't, whereas we our religion is definite proof for us.
"Me"? Aelex, did you forget something? We're not trying to prove anything to you, we never did, so either you are proving that the Gospel of Jesus didn't exist to us Muslims, or the argument we have now is pointless, because again, you can't prove the fact that it didn't exist simply because you don't have the original gospels.

If we accept that Islam has nothing to do with Christianity and Judaism, that don't lead us at all to think that Mahomet didn't wrote the Coran (I really don't see where this non-sequitur come from) and even less to think that God might have had anything to do with writing it.

Rather, if we follow this train of thought, that lead us to think that since Islam has no link with God's revealed religions that are Christianity and Judaism and in fact is completely contradictory of them despite reclaiming itself as being their "successor", then Mahomet was a false prophet, Allah is not God and Islam is an heresy at best and a sect at worst.

If Muhammad (saw) wrote the Quran and based it off the Bible (which I disproved many times here), it shouldn't contradict Christianity and Judaism at the very least. One simply rules out the other, therefor God wrote it.

What makes you think Islam has to have links with the religions we never recognized? We recognize all the Prophets and we preach the true monotheism and we restored the law, we just couldn't care less Christianity and Judaism have another opinion.

[Aelex]

Exactly. You got no gospels from anything earlier than from the third century, so you can't neither dismiss nor prove the fact that it existed. You simply can't, whereas we our religion is definite proof for us.
"Me"? Aelex, did you forget something? We're not trying to prove anything to you, we never did, so either you are proving that the Gospel of Jesus didn't exist to us Muslims, or the argument we have now is pointless, because again, you can't prove the fact that it didn't exist simply because you don't have the original gospels.

Did you even read what I wrote? Because having no compilation of the gospel before the third century is in no way the same thing as having no gospel before the third century and, while the former is true, the later is demonstrably false as every historical and archeological accounts we have prove that the original gospel has been transmitted untouched since they were written.
And I'm in no way trying to "prove" to you that this alleged Gospel of Jesus didn't exist. You're the one that claiming that it exist in the first place and since you have no arguments in favor of this claim and I have several proving the contrary, I therefore have no reason to accept as true this unproven claim of your.

If Muhammad (saw) wrote the Quran and based it off the Bible (which I disproved many times here), it shouldn't contradict Christianity and Judaism at the very least. One simply rules out the other, therefor God wrote it.

What makes you think Islam has to have links with the religions we never recognized? We recognize all the Prophets and we preach the true monotheism and we restored the law, we just couldn't care less Christianity and Judaism have another opinion.

I never said anything of the kind in the first place but this still don't make sense. Firstly, it's not because something is based of something else that it won't contradict it, anyone who've ever watched a T.V adaptation of a book know that , and secondly your point that "if the Coran contradict Christianity and Judaism, it therefore mean that God wrote it" is very illogical. If the Coran contradict the two Religions that were revealed by God, it would induce that not only the Coran was wrote by an human but also that its teachings are false, not that it is true and was wrote by God.

You yourself recognized that Islam has no links with Christianity and Judaism. From this what I concluded is only following the logical train of thought.
But fair enough, us Christians upheld Jesus' teachings and recognize the True Nature of God and we therefore couldn't care less if Islam has another opinion so I guess that makes two of us.

[Free Rhenish States]

Exactly. You got no gospels from anything earlier than from the third century, so you can't neither dismiss nor prove the fact that it existed. You simply can't, whereas we our religion is definite proof for us.
"Me"? Aelex, did you forget something? We're not trying to prove anything to you, we never did, so either you are proving that the Gospel of Jesus didn't exist to us Muslims, or the argument we have now is pointless, because again, you can't prove the fact that it didn't exist simply because you don't have the original gospels.

Did you even read what I wrote? Because having no compilation of the gospel before the third century is in no way the same thing as having no gospel before the third century and, while the former is true, the later is demonstrably false as every historical and archeological accounts we have prove that the original gospel has been transmitted untouched since they were written.
And I'm in no way trying to "prove" to you that this alleged Gospel of Jesus didn't exist. You're the one that claiming that it exist in the first place and since you have no arguments in favor of this claim and I have several proving the contrary, I therefore have no reason to accept as true this unproven claim of your.

Oh, really? Do you have any of the original gospels to back up that claim? Of course, you don't.
I think you are the one who has to read what I wrote, because Jamzania tries to prove that the Bible is recognized in the Quran, thus we're arguing in the light of the Muslim point of view, whereas you're claiming that I'm trying to prove it to him, which is utterly false. Therefor, who cares what do you want to accept? There's a dilemma now, you need to either assert your position as trying to disprove its existence for us, or admit your position has been wrong to begin with. What option do you go with?
UPD: Got to thinking, there's also a third option. You may act as a true Frenchman and commit a French leave.

If Muhammad (saw) wrote the Quran and based it off the Bible (which I disproved many times here), it shouldn't contradict Christianity and Judaism at the very least. One simply rules out the other, therefor God wrote it.

What makes you think Islam has to have links with the religions we never recognized? We recognize all the Prophets and we preach the true monotheism and we restored the law, we just couldn't care less Christianity and Judaism have another opinion.

I never said anything of the kind in the first place but this still don't make sense. Firstly, it's not because something is based of something else that it won't contradict it, anyone who've ever watched a T.V adaptation of a book know that , and secondly your point that "if the Coran contradict Christianity and Judaism, it therefore mean that God wrote it" is very illogical. If the Coran contradict the two Religions that were revealed by God, it would induce that not only the Coran was wrote by an human but also that its teachings are false, not that it is true and was wrote by God.

You yourself recognized that Islam has no links with Christianity and Judaism. From this what I concluded is only following the logical train of thought.
But fair enough, us Christians upheld Jesus' teachings and recognize the True Nature of God and we therefore couldn't care less if Islam has another opinion so I guess that makes two of us.

Are you sure you read what I say carefully? Because I don't think you even understand what I'm talking about. Islam doesn't have to originate from Christianity and Judaism simply because these religions derived from Islam of Jesus and Moses respectively, and if we originated from these (false) religions, then we ourselves would have been false. So following this line of thought, Muslims don't need to worry about Christians and Jews claiming our Prophet is false. At least, we recognize all Prophets, regardless of their ethnicity. And yes, when you try to base something off something, you try to make it as similar to the source as possible, so against this bacgkround, such extreme difference between Islam and Christianity and Judaism prove the other.
(and what the hell is a T.V adaptation of a book?)
Oh, and the last time "the True Nature of God" was disputed here, well, it didn't go well for you. So I suggest you stop with your demagogy, every Muslim here who remembers what happened to the former crusaders simply won't take it seriously.

[Aelex]

Oh, really? Do you have any of the original gospels to back up that claim? Of course, you don't.
I think you are the one who has to read what I wrote, because Jamzania tries to prove that the Bible is recognized in the Quran, thus we're arguing in the light of the Muslim point of view, whereas you're claiming that I'm trying to prove it to him, which is utterly false. Therefor, who cares what do you want to accept? There's a dilemma now, you need to either assert your position as trying to disprove its existence for us, or admit your position has been wrong to begin with. What option do you go with?

Neither. I do not care what Jam argument was, your claim is and remain that a gospel of Jesus existed. You have nothing to back-up this claim and therefore no one need to accept it.
Anyway, your position itself on the supposed corruption of the Gospel is a very funny one because it can very easily be reversed against you.
Following your logic, I could very much argue that Mahomet was a true Christian (but in no way a prophet as he would have never dared to call himself so) who evangelized Arabia and was a fervent Chalcedonian who believed in the Trinity but whose original message was then corrupted by his followers who twisted his words to make him support an unholy strict monophysitism he would never had agreed with.
How would said corrupting have been possible you say? Well, I can follow the same reasoning as you and say that the Coran remained oral for very long allowing for Christianity to prosper in Arabia (we will call that the "Christianity of Mahomet") thanks to Mahomet teaching of the life of Jesus and his evangelical works (that were known as the Gospel of Mahomet) up until one of the first Caliph Uthman then decided to co-opt the religion to fit his own views of Mahomet(just like you think Paul did with Jesus) and to order to compil in a written form the Coran so that it would fit said views of his while in the same time destroying the true message Mahomet delivered to Arabia by burning all the already written copies of this Gospel of Mahomet.
That thus make your whole holy book caduc because it thus never was true to begin with and let me very easily put you in the very same situation as the one you hold Christians too.

Are you sure you read what I say carefully? Because I don't think you even understand what I'm talking about. Islam doesn't have to originate from Christianity and Judaism simply because these religions derived from Islam of Jesus and Moses respectively, and if we originated from these (false) religions, then we ourselves would have been false. So following this line of thought, Muslims don't need to worry about Christians and Jews claiming our Prophet is false. At least, we recognize all Prophets, regardless of their ethnicity. And yes, when you try to base something off something, you try to make it as similar to the source as possible, so against this bacgkround, such extreme difference between Islam and Christianity and Judaism prove the other.
(and what the hell is a T.V adaptation of a book?)
Oh, and the last time "the True Nature of God" was disputed here, well, it didn't go well for you. So I suggest you stop with your demagogy, every Muslim here who remembers what happened to the former crusaders simply won't take it seriously.

I very much understand what you're saying but it still don't make any sense and does induce the conclusion that I made from it which is that the Coran isn't the word of God and thus Mahomet was a false prophet.
As for T.V adaptation of a book, that's it.
And apart from the fact that this accusation of demagogy come from nowhere, don't take it bad but you declaring yourself the victor of a debate don't actually make you the victor of said debate.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Oh, really? Do you have any of the original gospels to back up that claim? Of course, you don't.
I think you are the one who has to read what I wrote, because Jamzania tries to prove that the Bible is recognized in the Quran, thus we're arguing in the light of the Muslim point of view, whereas you're claiming that I'm trying to prove it to him, which is utterly false. Therefor, who cares what do you want to accept? There's a dilemma now, you need to either assert your position as trying to disprove its existence for us, or admit your position has been wrong to begin with. What option do you go with?

Neither. I do not care what Jam argument was, your claim is and remain that a gospel of Jesus existed. You have nothing to back-up this claim and therefore no one need to accept it.
Anyway, your position itself on the supposed corruption of the Gospel is a very funny one because it can very easily be reversed against you.
Following your logic, I could very much argue that Mahomet was a true Christian (but in no way a prophet as he would have never dared to call himself so) who evangelized Arabia and was a fervent Chalcedonian who believed in the Trinity but whose original message was then corrupted by his followers who twisted his words to make him support an unholy strict monophysitism he would never had agreed with.
How would said corrupting have been possible you say? Well, I can follow the same reasoning as you and say that the Coran remained oral for very long allowing for Christianity to prosper in Arabia (we will call that the "Christianity of Mahomet") thanks to Mahomet teaching of the life of Jesus and his evangelical works (that were known as the Gospel of Mahomet) up until one of the first Caliph Uthman then decided to co-opt the religion to fit his own views of Mahomet(just like you think Paul did with Jesus) and to order to compil in a written form the Coran so that it would fit said views of his while in the same time destroying the true message Mahomet delivered to Arabia by burning all the already written copies of this Gospel of Mahomet.
That thus make your whole holy book caduc because it thus never was true to begin with and let me very easily put you in the very same situation as the one you hold Christians too.

This wouldn't work at all.

[Free Rhenish States]

Oh, really? Do you have any of the original gospels to back up that claim? Of course, you don't.
I think you are the one who has to read what I wrote, because Jamzania tries to prove that the Bible is recognized in the Quran, thus we're arguing in the light of the Muslim point of view, whereas you're claiming that I'm trying to prove it to him, which is utterly false. Therefor, who cares what do you want to accept? There's a dilemma now, you need to either assert your position as trying to disprove its existence for us, or admit your position has been wrong to begin with. What option do you go with?

Neither. I do not care what Jam argument was, your claim is and remain that a gospel of Jesus existed. You have nothing to back-up this claim and therefore no one need to accept it.
Anyway, your position itself on the supposed corruption of the Gospel is a very funny one because it can very easily be reversed against you.
Following your logic, I could very much argue that Mahomet was a true Christian (but in no way a prophet as he would have never dared to call himself so) who evangelized Arabia and was a fervent Chalcedonian who believed in the Trinity but whose original message was then corrupted by his followers who twisted his words to make him support an unholy strict monophysitism he would never had agreed with.
How would said corrupting have been possible you say? Well, I can follow the same reasoning as you and say that the Coran remained oral for very long allowing for Christianity to prosper in Arabia (we will call that the "Christianity of Mahomet") thanks to Mahomet teaching of the life of Jesus and his evangelical works (that were known as the Gospel of Mahomet) up until one of the first Caliph Uthman then decided to co-opt the religion to fit his own views of Mahomet(just like you think Paul did with Jesus) and to order to compil in a written form the Coran so that it would fit said views of his while in the same time destroying the true message Mahomet delivered to Arabia by burning all the already written copies of this Gospel of Mahomet.
That thus make your whole holy book caduc because it thus never was true to begin with and let me very easily put you in the very same situation as the one you hold Christians too.

Woah, this is getting funnier than I thought it would be. So tell me (and preferably quote it), when did I ever claim that the Gospel of Jesus existed to a Christian? I said a fact true for the Muslim point of view as I was asked to, not really bothering as for what Christians think about it. Just do it, because simply as you don't care what my and Jam's argument was, we don't care what your position is, because all of this is a massive strawman, so unless you are willing to provide a justification for this threadjack, I'm not going to go further in to this idle talk.
But anyways, you don't have any proof to deny its existence (while we have the Quran), so you're just beating about the bush by trying to present this as if this was initiated by me, which it wasn't.

I very much understand what you're saying but it still don't make any sense and does induce the conclusion that I made from it which is that the Coran isn't the word of God and thus Mahomet was a false prophet.
As for T.V adaptation of a book, that's it.
And apart from the fact that this accusation of demagogy come from nowhere, don't take it bad but you declaring yourself the victor of a debate don't actually make you the victor of said debate.

It makes sense for a Muslim, and when did I ever say I'm trying to convince you, buddy? I'm explaining everything from the Muslim point of view. It has simply never, ever been otherwise in this topic.
And I honestly don't get what this T.V adaptation is, I read the holy scriptures, I don't watch them on T.V, if that's what you mean.
The demagogy from your side stems from you saying "Christians don't care about what others think", implying we ever tried to make Christians think otherwise. Every argument we had here with Christians was initiated by the Christians and by the Christians only.
Speaking of a debate, I don't even know what are we debating here. You made an assumption that I made a claim to a Christian that the Gospel of Jesus existed and their Gospels are false, and while I believe that this is true, this wasn't a claim, but rather an explanation required from me by Jam as required in the light of arguing in the Muslim point of view. Do you honestly want me to win in

[Implacable Death]

What do you guys think of the fact that people say isis is not islamic when they follow islam to the letter?

[Free Rhenish States]

What do you guys think of the fact that people say isis is not islamic when they follow islam to the letter?

They don't, trust me, they don't. I've been reading about this group even before they became popular in the media. Before becoming "IS", this group called "ISIS" was infamous for robbing the common people and commiting mass-executions of the same common people. They had problems with all other group and they killed a Shaikh there, I don't remember his name, but they were hated for it. They were also hated for not fighting Assad. Once they gained power, they couldn't ignore Assad or the other fighting groups there, so they just simply declared a caliphate, which was unjustified (I had read a long fatwa for it) and illegal in its core, then again, they go against Islam by burning people alive and killing everyone who opposes them. Al-Baghdadi an American journalist woman, not to mention the sexual passions of his officers. Adultery is a mortal sin, and rape is an even bigger sin. They also want, to their admission, burn the Kaaba, which is something every true Muslim would oppose.Zou will find no competent scholar that has ever recognized their caliphate. ISIS is just a bunch of bandits, the closest analogon to which would be the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics. This is far from everything, but I swear to you, and I never swore to anybody else here, this is true.

[Implacable Death]

What do you guys think of the fact that people say isis is not islamic when they follow islam to the letter?

They don't, trust me, they don't. I've been reading about this group even before they became popular in the media. Before becoming "IS", this group called "ISIS" was infamous for robbing the common people and commiting mass-executions of the same common people. They had problems with all other group and they killed a Shaikh there, I don't remember his name, but they were hated for it. They were also hated for not fighting Assad. Once they gained power, they couldn't ignore Assad or the other fighting groups there, so they just simply declared a caliphate, which was unjustified (I had read a long fatwa for it) and illegal in its core, then again, they go against Islam by burning people alive and killing everyone who opposes them. Al-Baghdadi an American journalist woman, not to mention the sexual passions of his officers. Adultery is a mortal sin, and rape is an even bigger sin. They also want, to their admission, burn the Kaaba, which is something every true Muslim would oppose.Zou will find no competent scholar that has ever recognized their caliphate. ISIS is just a bunch of bandits, the closest analogon to which would be the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics. This is far from everything, but I swear to you, and I never swore to anybody else here, this is true.

Oh, really?

Qu'ran 65:4
Rape, marry, divorce of pre-pubescent girls.

Enslave for sex and work.
4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30.

Beating said slaves
4:34

Kill those who won't convert and pay jizya.
9:29

Sex for death
9:111

Apostates must die
2:217, 4:89

Beheadings are fun
8:12, 47:4

Kill for allah
9:5

Terrorize people not of the ummah
8:12, 8:60

Taqiyya!
3:26, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28.

Now tell me, these add up pretty nicely. Still want to deny they have anything to do with islam?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

What do you guys think of the fact that people say isis is not islamic when they follow islam to the letter?

Well I'd argue that they're not 'Islamic' solely on the grounds that their ruling ideology is just a convenient cover for the cadre of Baathist ex-Mukhabarat officers that form the core of Daesh's security state. To that end, they're just recreating the old Arab pan-nationalism in a new millenarian packaging. Same political goals - unification of all Arab-speaking populations, rejection of the colonial imposition of seperate nation-states on the Arabs and of their exploitation by the West, same opposition to ethnic and religious minorities, same support for a vast totalitarian state controlled by a group of elites who drive the 'revolution' forward in a Leninist vanguardist sense.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Oh, really?

Qu'ran 65:4
Rape, marry, divorce of pre-pubescent girls.

Enslave for sex and work.
4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30.

Beating said slaves
4:34

Kill those who won't convert and pay jizya.
9:29

Sex for death
9:111

Apostates must die
2:217, 4:89

Beheadings are fun
8:12, 47:4

Kill for allah
9:5

Terrorize people not of the ummah
8:12, 8:60

Taqiyya!
3:26, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28.

Now tell me, these add up pretty nicely. Still want to deny they have anything to do with islam?

You really need to stop jumping to conclusions. But I can see why you didn't put the verse's words; it'd be easier for us to refute that - not that it is already. Anyways:
65:4 has nothing to do with girls
What you say about enslavement is laughable.
Dang, you haven't read what Islamic scholars have said, also, it talks about wives, not slaves
Duh, of course
Well you've misinterpreted.
Of course
lol
?

[Implacable Death]

Oh, really?

Qu'ran 65:4
Rape, marry, divorce of pre-pubescent girls.

Enslave for sex and work.
4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30.

Beating said slaves
4:34

Kill those who won't convert and pay jizya.
9:29

Sex for death
9:111

Apostates must die
2:217, 4:89

Beheadings are fun
8:12, 47:4

Kill for allah
9:5

Terrorize people not of the ummah
8:12, 8:60

Taqiyya!
3:26, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28.

Now tell me, these add up pretty nicely. Still want to deny they have anything to do with islam?

You really need to stop jumping to conclusions. But I can see why you didn't put the verse's words; it'd be easier for us to refute that - not that it is already. Anyways:
65:4 has nothing to do with girls
What you say about enslavement is laughable.
Dang, you haven't read what Islamic scholars have said, also, it talks about wives, not slaves
Duh, of course
Well you've misinterpreted.
Of course
lol
?

Oh, I wasn't aware there was a difference between wife and slave in islamic society beyond a semantic meaning.
You know, what with the whole women need to walk behind men not next to a man, must ask men for permission, must cover themselves up, are basically property.

[Kubumba Tribe]

You really need to stop jumping to conclusions. But I can see why you didn't put the verse's words; it'd be easier for us to refute that - not that it is already. Anyways:
65:4 has nothing to do with girls
What you say about enslavement is laughable.
Dang, you haven't read what Islamic scholars have said, also, it talks about wives, not slaves
Duh, of course
Well you've misinterpreted.
Of course
lol
?

Oh, I wasn't aware there was a difference between wife and slave in islamic society beyond a semantic meaning.
You know, what with the whole women need to walk behind men not next to a man, must ask men for permission, must cover themselves up, are basically property.

Have any verses to prove this?

[Free Rhenish States]

Oh, really?

Qu'ran 65:4
Rape, marry, divorce of pre-pubescent girls.

Enslave for sex and work.
4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30.

Beating said slaves
4:34

Kill those who won't convert and pay jizya.
9:29

Sex for death
9:111

Apostates must die
2:217, 4:89

Beheadings are fun
8:12, 47:4

Kill for allah
9:5

Terrorize people not of the ummah
8:12, 8:60

Taqiyya!
3:26, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28.

Now tell me, these add up pretty nicely. Still want to deny they have anything to do with islam?

And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.

No rape mentioned. Self-explanatory.

And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].

Self-explanatory.

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

Self-explanatory.

Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave. But whoever cannot find [or afford it] - then a fast of three days [is required]. That is the expiation for oaths when you have sworn. But guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be grateful.

Self-explanatory.

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

Islam allowed a person to have captives out of men if they were taken prisoners at war (So what happened in the palaces of "caliphs", emirs and the rich who bought captives on slave markets was illegal)

Only the person who owned the captives can have sex with her, sometimes people married their captives if they wanted it, children born to the captives are considered free and not slaves, and as Islam allowed a person to have captive women, Islam oblied them to feed them, provide clothes for them and protect them against criminal activities. By pleasing them, the master was pleased himself.
The captives can also marry each other, if their master allows it. Once again, their children would be considered free men. If a woman was captured together with her husband, then one can´t tore them apart. This is illegal, but if the woman was the only one captured, then her previous marriage is canceled.
Once the master dies, the slaves are free.
No enslaving for work was mentioned.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

No "said slaves" were mentioned.

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

A war verse. This is simply nullified by the previous verses of the same chapter:

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

You simply can't hurt anyone if you're not at war with them. The rest is self-explanatory. I explained Jizya in the Christian topic, by the way, Jizya existed in Christianity as well as Judaism, so if you want to criticize Islam for it, you will have to criticize your own religion as well. You can't have it both ways.

Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

Sex for deaht?

They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah . And fitnah is greater than killing." And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally.

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

This is the only thing I agree with. I will give you an example, so you were shown a giraffe that you have never seen and never known about the existence of such an animal, and you were explained that this is in fact giraffe, using scientifical arguments, everyone nearby proved you that all people on the planet call this creature a giraffe, you touched it and you made sure that this is not a mirage. And after all the evidence, your mind itself tells you to accept the truth, that it is a giraffe. Would you claim something else afterwards, that you doubt that this is a giraffe? If you do, will the society treat you as a normal, rational person?
Islam is also a religion of truth, but unlike the giraffe, Islam is not a joke, and after you were convinced that this religion is the truth, how can you once again, claim that it isn´t and leave it just like that? No matter how brutal it sounds, it is absolutely correct to punish the fool this way. Allah created us and created everything, there is nobody that is as wise as God and you understand it as a Christian, and Allah knows better how His creatures should be punished. Besides, a person that leaves their religion betrays their country, their friends, their family and everything else. In every country, a punishment for state-treason is the highest. It is a mechanism that simply works in every society. There is nothing unjust about it.

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

Beheadings?
This is self-explanatory.

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

I explained this above.

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.

War verse.

Taqiya is a term for precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution. This concept exists only within the Shia sect. I'm a Sunni.

Most of your verses are simply incorrect and others are self-explanatory if you read Quran. I already told you in the Dutch thread, maybe you should check your "facts" before posting them?

Nevertheless, they don't have anything to do with Islam. I already said why.

[Implacable Death]

Oh, I wasn't aware there was a difference between wife and slave in islamic society beyond a semantic meaning.
You know, what with the whole women need to walk behind men not next to a man, must ask men for permission, must cover themselves up, are basically property.

Have any verses to prove this?

How about the entire goddamn thing?

[Implacable Death]

Oh, really?

Qu'ran 65:4
Rape, marry, divorce of pre-pubescent girls.

Enslave for sex and work.
4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30.

Beating said slaves
4:34

Kill those who won't convert and pay jizya.
9:29

Sex for death
9:111

Apostates must die
2:217, 4:89

Beheadings are fun
8:12, 47:4

Kill for allah
9:5

Terrorize people not of the ummah
8:12, 8:60

Taqiyya!
3:26, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28.

Now tell me, these add up pretty nicely. Still want to deny they have anything to do with islam?

And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.

No rape mentioned. Self-explanatory.

And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].

Self-explanatory.

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

Self-explanatory.

Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave. But whoever cannot find [or afford it] - then a fast of three days [is required]. That is the expiation for oaths when you have sworn. But guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be grateful.

Self-explanatory.

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

Islam allowed a person to have captives out of men if they were taken prisoners at war (So what happened in the palaces of "caliphs", emirs and the rich who bought captives on slave markets was illegal)

Only the person who owned the captives can have sex with her, sometimes people married their captives if they wanted it, children born to the captives are considered free and not slaves, and as Islam allowed a person to have captive women, Islam oblied them to feed them, provide clothes for them and protect them against criminal activities. By pleasing them, the master was pleased himself.
The captives can also marry each other, if their master allows it. Once again, their children would be considered free men. If a woman was captured together with her husband, then one can´t tore them apart. This is illegal, but if the woman was the only one captured, then her previous marriage is canceled.
Once the master dies, the slaves are free.
No enslaving for work was mentioned.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

No "said slaves" were mentioned.

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

A war verse. This is simply nullified by the previous verses of the same chapter:

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

You simply can't hurt anyone if you're not at war with them. The rest is self-explanatory. I explained Jizya in the Christian topic, by the way, Jizya existed in Christianity as well as Judaism, so if you want to criticize Islam for it, you will have to criticize your own religion as well. You can't have it both ways.

Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

Sex for deaht?

They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah . And fitnah is greater than killing." And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally.

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

This is the only thing I agree with. I will give you an example, so you were shown a giraffe that you have never seen and never known about the existence of such an animal, and you were explained that this is in fact giraffe, using scientifical arguments, everyone nearby proved you that all people on the planet call this creature a giraffe, you touched it and you made sure that this is not a mirage. And after all the evidence, your mind itself tells you to accept the truth, that it is a giraffe. Would you claim something else afterwards, that you doubt that this is a giraffe? If you do, will the society treat you as a normal, rational person?
Islam is also a religion of truth, but unlike the giraffe, Islam is not a joke, and after you were convinced that this religion is the truth, how can you once again, claim that it isn´t and leave it just like that? No matter how brutal it sounds, it is absolutely correct to punish the fool this way. Allah created us and created everything, there is nobody that is as wise as God and you understand it as a Christian, and Allah knows better how His creatures should be punished. Besides, a person that leaves their religion betrays their country, their friends, their family and everything else. In every country, a punishment for state-treason is the highest. It is a mechanism that simply works in every society. There is nothing unjust about it.

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

Beheadings?
This is self-explanatory.

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

I explained this above.

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.

War verse.

Taqiya is a term for precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution. This concept exists only within the Shia sect. I'm a Sunni.

Most of your verses are simply incorrect and others are self-explanatory if you read Quran. I already told you in the Dutch thread, maybe you should check your "facts" before posting them?

Nevertheless, they don't have anything to do with Islam. I already said why.

I don't get you. At all.

[Free Rhenish States]

No rape mentioned. Self-explanatory.

Self-explanatory.

Self-explanatory.

Self-explanatory.

Islam allowed a person to have captives out of men if they were taken prisoners at war (So what happened in the palaces of "caliphs", emirs and the rich who bought captives on slave markets was illegal)

Only the person who owned the captives can have sex with her, sometimes people married their captives if they wanted it, children born to the captives are considered free and not slaves, and as Islam allowed a person to have captive women, Islam oblied them to feed them, provide clothes for them and protect them against criminal activities. By pleasing them, the master was pleased himself.
The captives can also marry each other, if their master allows it. Once again, their children would be considered free men. If a woman was captured together with her husband, then one can´t tore them apart. This is illegal, but if the woman was the only one captured, then her previous marriage is canceled.
Once the master dies, the slaves are free.
No enslaving for work was mentioned.


No "said slaves" were mentioned.


A war verse. This is simply nullified by the previous verses of the same chapter:


You simply can't hurt anyone if you're not at war with them. The rest is self-explanatory. I explained Jizya in the Christian topic, by the way, Jizya existed in Christianity as well as Judaism, so if you want to criticize Islam for it, you will have to criticize your own religion as well. You can't have it both ways.


Sex for deaht?



This is the only thing I agree with. I will give you an example, so you were shown a giraffe that you have never seen and never known about the existence of such an animal, and you were explained that this is in fact giraffe, using scientifical arguments, everyone nearby proved you that all people on the planet call this creature a giraffe, you touched it and you made sure that this is not a mirage. And after all the evidence, your mind itself tells you to accept the truth, that it is a giraffe. Would you claim something else afterwards, that you doubt that this is a giraffe? If you do, will the society treat you as a normal, rational person?
Islam is also a religion of truth, but unlike the giraffe, Islam is not a joke, and after you were convinced that this religion is the truth, how can you once again, claim that it isn´t and leave it just like that? No matter how brutal it sounds, it is absolutely correct to punish the fool this way. Allah created us and created everything, there is nobody that is as wise as God and you understand it as a Christian, and Allah knows better how His creatures should be punished. Besides, a person that leaves their religion betrays their country, their friends, their family and everything else. In every country, a punishment for state-treason is the highest. It is a mechanism that simply works in every society. There is nothing unjust about it.



Beheadings?
This is self-explanatory.


I explained this above.


War verse.

Taqiya is a term for precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution. This concept exists only within the Shia sect. I'm a Sunni.

Most of your verses are simply incorrect and others are self-explanatory if you read Quran. I already told you in the Dutch thread, maybe you should check your "facts" before posting them?

Nevertheless, they don't have anything to do with Islam. I already said why.

I don't get you. At all.

To sum up:
90% of the verses you mentioned did not match with your claims
the rest, 10% does not make ISIS Muslim, either.

[Implacable Death]

Actually, I don't intend to read much more of the qu'ran because I've read more than enough of that crap. In comparison, Mein Kampf is like My Little Pony.

[Free Rhenish States]

Actually, I don't intend to read much more of the qu'ran because I've read more than enough of that crap. In comparison, Mein Kampf is like My Little Pony.

So you're fine with staying ignorant.
Your choice, I guess.

[Camaalbakrius]

Actually, I don't intend to read much more of the qu'ran because I've read more than enough of that crap. In comparison, Mein Kampf is like My Little Pony.

So you're fine with staying ignorant.
Your choice, I guess.

Just ignore him, Rhen. He's just flamebaiting you.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Actually, I don't intend to read much more of the qu'ran because I've read more than enough of that crap. In comparison, Mein Kampf is like My Little Pony.

So you're fine with staying ignorant.
Your choice, I guess.

Inorite.
Allah (SWT) must've put a really big, greatly strong seal on his/her heart.

[Free Rhenish States]

So you're fine with staying ignorant.
Your choice, I guess.

Just ignore him, Rhen. He's just flamebaiting you.

Don't worry about me, friend. I'm emotionless when it comes to arguments. ^^
On the other hand, how are you doing?

[Camaalbakrius]

So you're fine with staying ignorant.
Your choice, I guess.

Inorite.
Allah (SWT) must've put a really big, greatly strong seal on his/her heart.

Did you just assume their gender?
Nah, just kidding. I'm joking.

[Camaalbakrius]

Just ignore him, Rhen. He's just flamebaiting you.

Don't worry about me, friend. I'm emotionless when it comes to arguments. ^^
On the other hand, how are you doing?

I'm fine, thank you dear sir. How about you?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Inorite.
Allah (SWT) must've put a really big, greatly strong seal on his/her heart.

Did you just assume their gender?
Nah, just kidding. I'm joking.

I hear that all the time at school.
How are ya?