>A woman from Juhainah confessed before the Prophet ﷺ that she had committed adultery, and she said: 'I am pregnant.' So the Prophet ﷺ called for her guardian and said: 'Be good to her and if she gives birth to her child then tell me.' So he did so, and then he ﷺ gave the order that her clothes be bound tightly around her. Then he ordered her to be stoned and she was stoned. Then he performed (funeral) Salat for her. So 'Umar bin Al-Khattab said to him: 'O Messenger of Allah! You stoned her then you prayed for her?' He said: 'She has repented a repentance that, if distributed among seventy of the people of Al-Madinah, it would have sufficed them. Have you ever seen something more virtuous than her sacrificing herself for the sake of Allah?'
A woman from Juhainah confessed before the Prophet ﷺ that she had committed adultery, and she said: 'I am pregnant...
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
corpus.quran.com
twitter.com
The complete opposite of Jesus Christ, eh? Sounds very pagan.
>get lynched by a mob of religious fanatics
>lol thanks for your sacrifice bro
big think
Sounds more Abrahamic than pagan since he did it to men as well
>the death of a sinner is so virtuous that it could atone for the sins of 70 people
Sssssssssss
No he meant her repentance.
Prophet ﷺ sounds based and redpilled.
Yeah but how the fuck does that work?
He means she repented with the strength of 70
he probably did that for utility otherwise some people would have been angered at him because this was a very serious matter for them.
also isn't there a hadith that says there should be 4 witnesses and another hadith about a woman that birthed a black baby
>hadith
Renee Girard's theories apply so well to islam its scary
>taking ahadith serious
>2019
the world would be a better place without you
Just imagine how many social problems would be solved if these 'barbaric' punishments were used.
Has to be either four witnesses or four confessions under most circumstances. Pregnancy when the husband is absent and it couldn't be him is also however also firm in all schools. She could have gotten away with it by an abortion but she knew it would be wrong to kill the unborn so she said what happened, which impressed Muhammad who knew she had a good heart. This is why he gave Salat for her. Another Hadith talks about a man he stoned who turned himself in through four confessions, he spoke well of him afterward but he didn't give him Salat
Stoning a woman to death for cheating is a totally disproportionate punishment. I guess it's not as bad as Allah/God, who will literally send good people to eternal torment simply because they don't believe in him.
>implying this isn't exactly the kind of thing you find in the Septuagint
Islam uses 100 stripes of caning for just fornication (although it can only be done with the forearm and not hard enough to draw blood). Punishments here are not based on an eye for an eye, but gravity of violation of God's law. Eye for an eye cases can be forgiven by the victim, which the Qur'an says expires sin. Sexual crimes can't
>When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Messenger of Allah. When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, I am the man who did it to her. He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death. He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them.
Calling roasties "slut" is the modern age version of stoned
religion of peace
You should raise your standards then.
Goddammit, I hate Islam and Gulf Arabs.
God hath exposed the with digits.
>expires sin
That is if you forgive transgressions against you, God will overlook your own. Also being punished expiates sin
>Whoever among you dies, then this reward is with Allah, and whoever among you does some of this and then he is punished, it is atonement for him.
Muhammad never pardoned people who violated Hudud because he opposed favoritism. He once said if Fatima, his dearest daughter, stole, he'd cut off her hand, in order to illustrate that no one is above the law
I'm just telling you the truth. Actually there is a really sick spiritual practice where if a man even suspects his wife of unfaithfulness they make her drink some dirty water mixed with ash and if she's guilty then she is supposed to start rotting from the inside. Generally Christians don't pay much attention to their book.
Alhamdulilah
>waaaaaaah why muhammad do mean thing, this must mean islam false
Well whether it be Muhhamed or Moses, one would hope so.
The 4 witness thing is in the Qur'an. Though the verse for the punishment for stoning has famously been abrogated, and there is a hadith on Umar warning Muslims that they should never give it up.
Cheating on your spouse is not something that should be punishable by death, much less a brutal death like stoning.
Islam is hypocritical as fuck on this point anyway, since a man can have up to four wives and an indefinite number of sex slaves while a woman can only have one husband and no sex slaves. So basically it's alright for a man to go around fucking 20 people in a day (and the hadiths brag about Muhhamad's sexual prowess) while a woman must remain faithful. Islam doesn't teach self-control or fidelity, it teaches licentiousness and promiscuity, as long as you have a cock and balls betwixt your thighs.
There is no verse for stoning in the Qur'an. The hadith about the goat eating the stoning verse is not accepted on account of multiple people in the chain of transmission being known for making things up. Stoning is Sunnah though. It isn't in the Qur'an because practices brought by Ishmael that are still in use merely remained, they were not added by the Qur'an. Sunnah includes all such practices
All of the OT is worthless as religious law for Christians (i.e. Catholics and Orthodox, proties arent Christians).
>Cheating on your spouse is not something that should be punishable by death, much less a brutal death like stoning.
Stoning is a reflection of the friend-enemy distinction. Someone who commits a crime that puts them on the enemy level is faced with three degrees: flogging and exile (prostitution for example), armed robbery (amputation and exile), adultery or treason or sodomy or murder (stoning), and warlordism (crucifixion)
>
Islam is hypocritical as fuck on this point anyway, since a man can have up to four wives and an indefinite number of sex slaves while a woman can only have one husband and no sex slaves.
The man has to give each wife her own house and is obligated by law to support her or else he can be charged. He also has to give each one a large dowry (paid again on divorce but not if she initiates). So maybe a little perspective? 99% of Muslim men can't afford multiple wives and women who marry into that wealth know what to expect. It is beneficial for widows and divorcee women as most men refuse to marry anyone but a virgin if they only have one wife. If a man has sex with a woman not his wife or slave, and he is married, he is also stoned for adultrry
>Cheating on your spouse is not something that should be punishable by death
Why?
Lol, even apostolics aren't gnostics. Fuck off.
>Stoning is a reflection of the friend-enemy distinction.
Saying fuck you is a reflection of the friend-enemy distinction. What the fuck is your point? Stoning is a brutal way of putting someone to death. The more humane methods are gunshot or hanging or injection.
>So maybe a little perspective? 99% of Muslim men can't afford multiple wives and women who marry into that wealth know what to expect. It is beneficial for widows and divorcee women as most men refuse to marry anyone but a virgin if they only have one wife.
Again I'm not understanding how this pertains to what I said. Saying "well it's only rich men who get to fuck 100 women in a day" isn't much of a justification. Rich women don't get 4 husbands and infinite sex slaves. Besides, warriors get to capture sex slaves and martyrs get 72 virgin sex slaves in heaven. This is clearly a licentious and promiscuous religion which only outwardly appears traditional and restrained. Unless you're a woman of course, then it really does live up to its prudish name.
Because I don't see it as a dire enough crime. It's wrong and obviously it's something that should be socially unacceptable but to murder somebody for it is too far. If my spouse cheated on me I would simply not talk to her again.
Anyway the only reason this law is in place in Islam is to subjugate women. If it was truly about being faithful and modest then men wouldn't be able to have four wives, infinite sex slaves, and martyrs wouldn't get 72 virgins in heaven. It's just there to reinforce patriarchal notions which say that women are men's property and as such they have to remain faithful lest his ego is peeved whereas he can sleep with whoever he wants.
>Stoning is a brutal way of putting someone to death.
Reflects the person is the enemy of The people
>The more humane methods are gunshot or hanging or injection.
Beheading and deathfall are considered permissible methods to punish sodomy depending on madhab
>Rich women don't get 4 husbands and infinite sex slaves.
Women supporting men is considered a disgrace in Islam
>Besides, warriors get to capture sex slaves and martyrs get 72 virgin sex slaves in heaven.
Men in general get many concubines in heaven (another cosmos in Islam). Women get whatever they want to, they get unlimited wardrobes and can dress provocatively and sexy in a way that is unacceptable in this life. There are feasts, servants, beautiful lands, everything God (be He Glorified and Exalted) knows will delight our heart!
Your eyes should be stoned out for even asking
But Islam is a religion of peace?
So women can get 72 boy sex slaves?
Well those who really want it. That isn't generally what they'd love though
Denial of Sunnah is kufr
If that's really true I'll concede you the heaven argument. But everything I said still stands about how they are treated in this life.
They aren't being treated poorly, in fact it actually is a very beneficial system for widows and the divorced (all of the Prophets wives except for Aisha were widows or divorced). A man goes off to war, he dies and leaves his wife and children behind. What man is going to accept such a situation for his only wife? Virtually none, but as a second wife men are more willing. Furthermore most Muslim women don't accept an offer to be a second or third wife without such circumstances.
it lacks the accuracy and legitimacy of quran.
it's ironic how many Sunnis mock Christians new testament for being changed and written by others while worshiping hadiths collected centuries after the death of muhammad
was guenon a muslim?
Read Jonathan Brown's Misquoting Muhammad. The early hadith scholars were much more accurate and rigorous in their authentication of traditions than the early Christians. Also, reminder that the Qur'an was transmitted in the same way as the hadith. There are chains of narration for each of the qira'at, all of which are mutawatir (narrated by so many that it is impossible they agreed upon a lie) and valid. And hadith are not "worshipped." The Qur'an is accepted wholesale, while certain hadith can be rejected by scholars on the basis of isnad (chain of transmission), or more rarely matn (the content).
Yes.
>a man can have up to four wives and an indefinite number of sex slaves while a woman can only have one husband
>the hadiths brag about Muhhamad's sexual prowess
is Islam literally the chad of religions?
that's how all scapegoating works
including jesus (pbuh) who is the scapegoat for sin in christianity
do you think they're married to the same muhamad?
question. in these super misogynistic societies, why didn't all the women get together and agree to slit their husband's throat in his sleep on the same night and thus liberate themselves? because i gotta say there's no way i'd put up with this shit.
>war
so what? they take you and rape you and make you a wife, just repeat the process there. keep the boychildren alive to breed with, and the next generation will be matriarchy. /ss/ gentle femdom is the answer. men are dogs and belong on a leash.
also if men can only cum once, doesn't it make more sense for one woman to have multiple husbands? like... boy i can cum 30 times in a row. you can get off once.
>thus liberate themselves
To starve or die of thirst? Men do all the labor in these societies and in Islam wives are paid large sums and given a house
>also if men can only cum once, doesn't it make more sense for one woman to have multiple husbands?
If you're a weakling. The Prophet could have sex with all of his wives in one night.
>in these super misogynistic societies,
Also why does this seem misogynistic to you? She was stoned for adultery, not being a woman, and Islamic law actually requires double the witnesses to convict a woman
Did you get that from the hadith?
>guenon
Why? Its stupid
No, I get it from Qur'an 33:21
He was a Muslim like Ibn Arabi was. Extremely misguided
Because it was more /trad/ duh.
>Ibn Arabi was misguided
t. Someone who hasn't read Ibn Arabi.
Its sad when genius submits to islam, which is a barbaric pedo religion
I have, he was a perenialist mystic who believed in the commonality of being
>barbaric pedo religion
Nope
Yes, I have read him, he talks about "Islamic astrology" he garnered from Ibn Arabi, which is like Islamic gambling or Islamic pork.
>perenialism
>un-Islamic
Islam (capital 'I') is the sophia perennis. The religion of Adam, Abraham, etc. was Islam (Qur'an 3:67).
>who believed in the commonality of being
What do you think wahdat al-wujud is?
>Islam (capital 'I') is the sophia perennis. The religion of Adam, Abraham, etc. was Islam (Qur'an 3:67).
By perrenialism I mean indifferentism
>What do you think wahdat al-wujud is?
Bid'ah
'Ilm al-nujum is not haram.
>disapproves of pisslam because it doesn't meet your arbitrary and fleeting liberal moral standards you learned from cat ladies in school and not because it's the ethnoreligion of 80 IQ animals who should be exterminated out of principle
How are liberals able to make literally anything seem really fucking gay? god damn
>proties arent Christians
oh boy it's another episode of jew worshipers arguing over who's the best jew worshiper, my favorite
>indifferentism
Neither of them advocated it.
>Bid'ah
Calling everything that isn't explicitly in the text a bid'ah is a bid'ah.
Yes, I cut myself everyday for Husayn.
>Neither of them advocated it.
Say what
>Calling everything that isn't explicitly in the text a bid'ah is a bid'ah.
It's explicitly AGAIST the text which continually stresses that Allah (be He Glorified and Exalted) is apart and all by Himself and has no partner or kinship with anything created
>Yes, I cut myself everyday for Husayn.
This is Christian tier behavior, I feel sorry for you
>mutilated quote
Is looking at quote images the only research you did on Ibn Arabi?
This is what he says:
>"Do not attach yourself to any particular creed exclusively, so that you disbelieve all the rest; otherwise you will lose much good, nay, you will fail to recognize the real truth of the matter. Let your soul be capable of embracing all forms of belief. God, the omnipresent and omnipotent, is not limited by any one creed, for He says, 'Wheresoever ye turn, there is the face of Allah;' and the face of a thing is its reality ... Everyone praises what he believes; his god is his own creature, and in praising it he praises himself. Consequently he blames the beliefs of others, which he would not do if he were just, but his dislike is based on ignorance. If he knew Junayd's saying—'the water takes its colour from the vessel containing it'—he would not interfere with the beliefs of others, but would perceive God in every form and in every belief ... Those who worship God in the sun behold a sun, and those who worship Him in living things see a living thing, and those who worship Him in inanimate objects see an inanimate object, AND THOSE WHO WORSHIP HIM AS A BEING UNIQUE AND UNPARALLELED SEE THAT WHICH HAS NO LIKE."
What exactly is wrong with this?
The Qur'an teaches that everything besides Islam is either false or corrupted and any truth of other creeds are wholly contained by Islam. He might as well say, "Don't get so attached to truth."
>he would not interfere with the belief of others
Except every single prophet was sent to do just that
>The Qur'an teaches that everything besides Islam is either false or corrupted and any truth of other creeds are wholly contained by Islam.
Refer to >Except every single prophet was sent to do just that
The people they were sent to were polytheists who did terrible things.
What does that mean? That because Musa (be upon him Allah's peace and blessings) was a prophet we must not disregard lies told in his name?
>The people they were sent to were polytheists who did terrible things
Isa (be upon him Allah's peace and blessings) was sent to the Jews
>Isa (be upon him Allah's peace and blessings) was sent to the Jews
Because he was their messiah. Also:
>The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah" ... That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
corpus.quran.com
>Because he was their messiah
He is everyone's Messiah and his purpose there will be fulfilled when he returns. His mission then was the same mission as all other prophets and rejecting him yielded the same results
The Jews say they all are the children of Allah (be He Glorified and Exalted).
Kill ALL woman
sounds pretty based desu
>proties take bible literally
>real christians, ie Catholics and orthodox do not
“Lol bro why you mad”
>muslims will never not be retarded
>abrogated
no
>Jonathan Brown
this guy is the most glow in the dark motherfucker out there
>it lacks the accuracy and legitimacy of quran.
>exact same group of people narrate the ahadeeth as narrated the Quran
>their love and care with regard to their religion was the same when they narrated each
>somehow, we can trust them with regard to the Quran, but not the authentic and mutawatir ahadeeth
This is why you hadeeth deniers are seen as kuffar by some scholars. Your lack of knowledge and intellect causes corruption, and makes ignorant Muslims doubt. You are a modern pest to the ummah.
God says it should, do you think you are above God?
That is it. As of today, I accept the Islamic religion as the truth from God. There is no other explanation for thots being this utterly put in their place, it can only be from the All Mighty and All Knowing Creator.
This.
Islam is not misogynistic. :3
>>Because he was their messiah
>He is everyone's Messiah and his purpose there will be fulfilled when he returns.
Technically, he was not, akhi. Isa was the Messiah - the anointed one, the king - of the Jews. He was not sent as a king for any other people than the tribes of Israel. He is given Messiah (Masih) as a kind of nickname in the Quran, but that does not mean he was the king of everyone
>The complete opposite of Jesus Christ, eh? Sounds very pagan.
>believe that Jesus is God
>believe that God legislated death by stoning for adultery
>believe that God legislated similar punishments for thousands of years
>another religion, which claims to follow the same God, implements the same laws God ordained
>"wtf, paganism?"
I swear, Christians are cucked to hell and back
Might does not make right. Even if God existed I wouldn't have to agree with his morality.
Actually, Jesus Christ said for the adulterous woman not be stoned to death because he was living under pagan Roman law which had no such law and he knew the Romans would retaliate if his people practiced their own law. If a Christian ruler decreed the death penalty for adultery, there would be no sin in such a law. And frankly I think it should be a criminal offense served with prison time.
>Might does not make right. Even if God existed I wouldn't have to agree with his morality.
Simpleton. You understand that your views of morals are nothing more than a product of your society, right? If you lived a few hundred years ago, or if you lived in another part of the world, you would find things morally reprehensible that you today are fine with. Your ideas of good and bad are completely worthless - you did not choose them, you did not make them, you were simply indoctrinated by your circumstances. What makes your random moral sensibilities right, and the commands of the Creator of the universe wrong?
No it isn't. Adultery represents the breaking of the marriage bond, one of the bonds that holds a society together. Society had the right to defend itself against that.
>Actually, Jesus Christ said for the adulterous woman not be stoned to death because he was living under pagan Roman law which had no such law and he knew the Romans would retaliate if his people practiced their own law.
It is actually even worse than that, dude. None of the earliest manuscripts of the testaments mention this incident about "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". It is entirely absent from the earliest manuscripts, and many scholars of the Bible believe it to be an addition by some later scribe. This is further proof of the corruption of the so called Christian faith. Core tenets of their morality and world view are fabricated by unknown authors who never met or saw Jesus.
>Muslims take "till death do us part" seriously
Good for them.
My earliest posts didn't mention that you're a faggot, yet you are. If I or anyone could go back an amend them to comport with that fact it would still be reflective of the truth that you are indeed a faggot.
>My earliest posts didn't mention that you're a faggot, yet you are. If I or anyone could go back an amend them to comport with that fact it would still be reflective of the truth that you are indeed a faggot.
Is this your best defense, polytheist? You are free to take your religion from unknown and unnamed people with no references or legitimacy, go right ahead. Strange that you believe the same God who razed cities and destroyed nations for idolatry and immorality, is somehow also this lenient and careless with regard to how His message is delivered to people.
Simply untrue. There are plenty of moral realist philosophers who are secularists. I'm not a philosopher or a moral realist but to deny their existence is absurd.
As for me, I hold the personal moral axiom that we should arrange society in a way that minimises suffering and administers proportional punishments for crimes. I don't feel like stoning is a proportional punishment for adultery, and much less do I believe that ETERNAL torment is a proportional punishment for any crime. On my system, anybody that sends someone to eternal torment is abjectly evil. So it doesn't matter to me whether god created the universe or is all-powerful and all-knowing. There are plenty of people smarter than me and more powerful than me, that doesn't mean I'm going to roll over and accept their morality. The argument you're making is literally "might makes right", and I reject that.
>you're just doing what society tells you
To an extent, sure. But there are also a lot of moral positions I hold that put me in the minority. I'm a vegan, for example.
>Simply untrue. There are plenty of moral realist philosophers who are secularists. I'm not a philosopher or a moral realist but to deny their existence is absurd.
Good argument against something I never said.
>As for me, I hold the personal moral axiom that we should arrange society in a way that minimises suffering and administers proportional punishments for crimes.
And someone else holds the personal moral axiom that that is bull, and the strongest should rule however they want. Why should your personal beliefs have any more weight than theirs? Why should yours, or theirs, have more weight than God?
>I don't feel like stoning is a proportional punishment for adultery
I think it is perfectly appropriate, in certain, select situations, as stipulated in the Islamic legal code.
>and much less do I believe that ETERNAL torment is a proportional punishment for any crime. On my system, anybody that sends someone to eternal torment is abjectly evil. So it doesn't matter to me whether god created the universe or is all-powerful and all-knowing.
Not all Muslims believe that Hell is eternal. God punishes according to the severity of a particular crime, and His judgements are His own.
>There are plenty of people smarter than me and more powerful than me, that doesn't mean I'm going to roll over and accept their morality.
If someone is demonstrably far more intelligent than you are, you would be a fool not to accept what they say. If they are literally all knowing, you would be a greater fool.
>The argument you're making is literally "might makes right", and I reject that.
And I reject your rejection. Why should your rejection, or mine, have any more weight in the Eyes of God than other considerations He might have?
>>you're just doing what society tells you
>To an extent, sure. But there are also a lot of moral positions I hold that put me in the minority. I'm a vegan, for example.
Kek, I guess I fell for the bait. Did not even realize that you were shitposting until now
There's no objective scale to weigh my morality against gods. I believe what I believe about morality because it resonates with me on a deep intuitive/emotional level. I do not claim to believe in moral realism; I'm a moral subjectivist. You're not going to get me to change my belief simply because somebody who's more powerful than me holds a different belief. Especially when that person is fine with torturing people for eternity because he's buttmad that they didn't suck his cock.
What's so outrageous about being a vegan?
The OT sets up a solid system for trials and evidence, and then instructs frequent thought on its laws, it even includes specifications that encourage more lenient or harsh punishments wothin some laws. The biggest problem is people assume the existence of a scary law means that the whole trial system outlined earlier in the text doesn’t exist.
>hadith about a woman that birthed a black baby
Hot
He is not wrong in his conclusion about sacrificing yourself for God, but stoning a woman for God is quite different.
I do not quite understand you. On the one hand, you are a relativist, and believe everyone should decide for themselves. On the other, you claim that God is wrong in doing this or that. By what measure do you disagree with Him? What gives you a right to tell even other human beings that they are wrong, if you do not believe in objective morality?
>What's so outrageous about being a vegan?
I assumed you were shitposting, but I see now that you are actually sincere. Apologies. The reason I thought you were joking is because your being vegan is still a moral position that society taught you. If you lived 1000 years ago, you, along with 99,99% of humanity, would not be vegan. The only exception would be if you lived in a culture where veganism was prevalent, like India, in which case, it would still be a moral value taught to you by society. The vast, vast majority of humankind do not make themselves - they are taught and made by others. This leads to a problem for a moral relativist: you might personally disagree with others and their values, but you have no measure by which you can say they are wrong. God could decide to put all women in Hell forever, and all men in Heaven, and you would have no way to intellectually disagree with Him in doing so. That is the whole point of subjectivity, as opposed to objectivity.
>Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that a Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) who had committed adultery. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came to the Jews and said:
What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery? They said: We darken their faces and make them ride on the donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and their backs touching each other), and then they are taken round (the city). He said: Bring Torah if you are truthful. They brought it and recited it until when they came to the verse pertaining to stoning, the person who was reading placed his hand on the verse pertaining to stoning, and read (only that which was) between his hands and what was subsequent to that. Abdullah b. Salim who was at that time with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Command him (the reciter) to lift his hand. He lifted it and there was, underneath that, the verse pertaining to stoning. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) pronounced judgment about both of them and they were stoned.
>Abdullah b. 'Umar said: I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him (the Jew) protecting her (the Jewess) with his body.
>Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came to the Jews and said:
>What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery?
He judged them by their own laws? Seems pretty fair to me. Kinda based, even
In fact he is, when he returns he will be Khalifa, which will trigger both the rafida and the Jews
This set a precedent in Islam that each religious people is to be ruled according to the laws of their own faith, Sharia applying to Muslims, everyone else being ruled by the laws of their Holy Books or those set by their clergy. Non Muslims are given a poll tax, jizya, which women, the poor and elderly are exempt from, and Muslims are given an asset tax, Zakat, ranging from 2.5-20%
Kill all women and all Muslims. Gay sex empire now.
FUCK WOMEN
FUCK NIGGERS
FUCK KIKES
AND FUCK MUSLIMS
Well no I don't believe anyone should choose for themselves. If in the future Muslims/Christians created a technology to fulfill their gods wishes and transfer children's consciousness onto a device where they will be eternally tortured I wouldn't say "everything's relative bro just let them do what they want". The fact that it violates my morality and causes me to suffer (other people's suffering is my suffering, other people's joy is my joy), would cause me to go to war with them; just like I'd go to war with people who torture children in this life which, by the way, is less extreme than what your god wants to do.
Just because I don't believe morality to have any objective truth-value doesn't mean I'm not going to beat up kiddie fiddlers and lock up murderers. Humans are emotional animals.
>society taught you to be vegan
Society is pro-carnism. I had to do my own research into vegan health benefits and moral problems with the meat industry before I turned vegan. Less than 1% of the population of my country is vegan.
Children can't go to help in Islam because Allah (be He Glorified and Exalted) doesn't hold them accountable and hell is a temporary condition.
We'll at least Allah isn't as psychopathic as the Christian god then.
I'm surprised and impressed that that elaborate Arabic caligraphic phrase is a unicode character
Allah is not a man and His actions are not driven by human morality, and by human morality I mean the morality He established and ordered for humanity. Every order of being has a justice, hedgehog, tree, even tick. Just as a tick has a form of leg and man does but they are obviously very different. Trying to understand Allah as a dysfunctional or psychotic human is like trying to see man as a dysfunctional or psychotic tick, or vice versa. And even ticks are Muslims, but in their own way. Every living being is a part of a community, a people (Qur'an 6:38). We can harm other communities within parameters of the justice established for us, although wanton killing or hurting is a sin even against insects and against larger animals we will be confronted about it by our victims on the day of judgement, this is why hunting for sport or things like bullfighting were always haram. Allah does not wantonly punish people or hurt but punishes them only as much as serves a purpose. He does derive satisfaction from it because it is impossible to sin against Him (only against oneself or others) so He has nothing to satisfy.
This at least is the Athari (fundamentalist school) understanding. The Ashari believe somewhat differently, so do the Maturidi.
>He doesn't derive
>the prophet is a good man
Equals believe the hadith? That section reads more like believe the Qu'ran.
The hadith may not contain evil but it would be absurd to consider it the laws of God. What would be the point of the Qur'an then?
>Equals believe the hadith?
I said the Sunnah, not the Hadith. Sunnah means "wont" in Arabic, most commonly the wont of Muhammad (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The Hadith is a record of the Sunnah
I don't see the distinction. Hadith would be useful for understanding the Qur'an, but not making necessities independently.
why the fuck are you reading quran
Qur'an says heed the wont of Muhammad as Allah provided him to us for that. Saying the wont of Muhammad is independent of the Qur'an would be incorrect as even though it is recorded very little by the Qur'an, the Qur'an says to follow it.
Ok I'll bite. What's his theory?