I can take a 9-inch dildo up my butt, because I'm an adult and I solve my own problems

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

2. the Quran can't be disassociated fr... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

3. Love how 1.5 billion people worship... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

4. Man, it's hard for a lot Muslims. A... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

5. The entire argument against Islam i... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

6. it's just too damn easy to read the... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

I hate people who purposely look to quote some holy text out of context (Quaran, Bible, whatever) and then demand that they are right, after one cursory glance, compared to the people who actually practice it.

Yeah it's not like there's tons of ass hats who actually believe that shit and act it out. I mean yeah most Muslims are normal law abiding people, but some are fucking crazy terrorists. Religion plays apart in that. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of supposed "progressives".

The entire argument against Islam is citing the Quran directly, but if we cite the bible directly, we shouldn't be doing most of the things we do. things we do.

Direct Quran interpretation IS the primary source of legislation in Islamic laws. Muslims must believe that every single word written in Quran is god's word and therefore must follow it to the letter. Islam critics should be citing it and quote-mine the fuck out of it.

Yeah, to me it's actually an interesting approach because it's also very different from the different ways Christianity and Judaism work.

For example, there was an Islam vs Socialism drama linked from here recently, and the Muslim guy said that if God wanted poverty to be eliminated, He wouldn't have Muhammad (pbuh) give a bunch of rules about donating to the poor.

Like, get this, it's pretty mind blowing, it's way above any literalist Bible interpretations, because those just say that you literally have to do such and such thing because it's in the Bible. Not doing a different and obviously beneficial thing, such as having the government eliminate poverty, because it would render some commandments obsolete, and no commandments were intended to be obsoleted ever, is a whole different approach to Biblical literalism.

Not doing a different and obviously beneficial thing, such as having the government eliminate poverty, because it would render some commandments obsolete, and no commandments were intended to be obsoleted ever, is a whole different approach to Biblical literalism.

What's curious is that Islam actually does make certain verses obsolete. It's called abrogation, where contradiction between two verses is harmonized by choosing the verse that was revealed the last. Even when I was a Muslim, i thought it was really weird that Muhammad Allah would even need abrogation, because He's supposedly all-knowing and perfect.

So it's like Calvin Ball?

It is. Aisha even called Muhammad out on it:

I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

Hypocritical cult leader, news at 11.

DIE INFIDEL

There's that violent schizo we all know and love.

(banter aside, I genuinely enjoy your posts about Islam, no a little homo)

tbh most of my fascination is based on seeing that a lot of religious stuff actually makes sense if the Creator of our world was not all the way ineffable but some superintelligence (probably an edgy teenager one as superintelligences go), so it tried to do "The Minimum Necessary Change" (as per Asimov's "The End of Eternity"). Like, did you see that shit about wheels inside of wheels in the Apocalypse? I couldn't make that thing feel more like a Sci-Fi account of high-tech alien visitation if I tried!

Also, Google is officially Islamophobic, when I google bible verses it somehow understands the format, but not so for "Q:87:6-7" (which, by the way, is interesting as fuck, as well as the others from the wikipedia list of "Yet verses Q.17:86, Q.18:24, and Q.87:6–7 may seem to endorse its feasibility.").

Well, anyways, here's a silly idea that I entertain sometimes: you know how Jesus made many miracles and then promised to return in the lifetime of many of the disciples, and the miracles happened but the return did not and we had no more miracles since then?

Now imagine a superintelligence figuring out how to breed a bunch of consciousnesses, maybe to incorporate into itself, or to have fun watching them, but with some goal in mind, like them being willing to "believe because absurd". And it has qualitatively more computational resources than we do in this world.

Question: how does "divine omniscience" work, actually? Like, if God wants to know how you would react to some stimulus, is there any other way, logically, than to simulate you reacting to that stimulus, perfectly in any way? And then, what's the difference between that simulation and the "real thing", if both are perfect and all in Allah's mind?

Even Allah can't bend the rules of logic that say that to precisely predict how some situation will unfold, He has to imagine perfectly real people acting out in that situation, and those people would be just as conscious as "real" people because "the real world" is in Allah's imagination as well.

This says that God can't have omniscience regarding the future, in a way that He could see that the outcome of some Divine Intervention sucks while skipping the part where there are people consciously experiencing the suck.

Finally, imagine a God that's not concerned about that, a God that actually has His favorite world and the property of being His favorite world is what makes that world different from all other worlds that were run to the heat death of the Universe after attempted or not attempted Divine Interventions, to see if they were any good.

We are not living in that world. We used to, but are living in a world that didn't have the Second Coming, because God had to see if Second Coming was necessary. And then He saw that it was indeed, and proceeded to work on that other world where it happened and many wondrous miracles after that, but it was not our world, we are the chaff expelled from the Divine Machinery, found out to be unworthy of His attention and doomed to proceed to our pointless end.

You've been sniffing gnosticism, haven't you?

1. No way you read all that in 1 minute.

2. Yea I've been wwebsiting on the internet sniffing gnosticism since before you were a twinkle in your father's balls or something. I have about 300 listens to Current 93 - I Have A Special Plan For This World on last.fm (no, seriously, 270 right now).

I never was in my dad's balls. I was created by the Demiurg himself.

btw, do you read http://killsixbilliondemons.com/comic/kill-six-billion-demons-chapter-1/ ? You should, I was reminded of it by your "I was created by the Demiurg himself", because the protagonists of the comic are currently confronting himself, the final enemy.

Not created through alchemy

kys

not coming into existence as a tulpa and taking control of your creator's body

Commit egocide.

No wonder he's so sad

i didnt know anyone still used last.fm

tbh most of my fascination is based on seeing that a lot of religious stuff actually makes sense if the Creator of our world was not all the way ineffable

Or as the old joke about how to make the Abrahamic religions make sense goes:

Perfectly wise

Perfectly powerful

Perfectly good

. . . Pick any TWO.

God can easily have omniscience if his creations lack free will. If determinism is true then of course an all knowing god would know the future.

However you can make this a bit more complicated and try and reconcile free will with an all knowing God by saying that since we will only ever interact with a finite amount of things in a finite amount of combinations, an all knowing God could know every possible outcome and therefore know the future since he would know ever possible result from every possible action we could create.

So it's either one of the two above or God doesn't exist, at least in the sense the Abrahamic interpretations claim he does.

God can easily have omniscience if his creations lack free will. If determinism is true then of course an all knowing god would know the future.

I was making a more complicated point: that you can assume determinism and then of course God can predict the outcome of any intervention or lack of it, but there's no fundamental difference between that "prediction" and "reality", as required by the prediction being infallible.

So while it's entirely possible for God to predict that a misplaced pack of cigarettes would result in an industrial accident killing hundreds of people, it's impossible to make such prediction without having those people experience suffering and death in a subjectively 100% real way.

Also, God can't predict that misplacing that pack of cigarettes would result in some very beneficial outcome a thousand years later without making that thousand years pass in a perfect simulation (and then He just points at that world and says that yeah, this is the real one, because there's no difference).

What I'm trying to point out is that the meaning of the word "prediction" radically changes when you assume infallibility. When you predict that throwing piss jugs at your mom and demanding tendies would result in her driving for 30 minutes to acquire tendies, you have a very coarse model of her in your head that isn't independently conscious and can't really feel and is fundamentally different from reality, and you are also not infallible in your predictions. Now remove the latter and the former changes as well.

Ritalin or coke?

beer, actually

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophilia

Oh boy, islam-apologist kuffar, my favorite type of liberals.

It claims (and this is the mainstream consensus opinion in Islam) that that verse, based on historical context (among the context of other verses which explicitly say dont harm innocents) is referring to the specific group of non-believers which the Muslims are currently fighting.

/u/Hazachu the consensus on verses such as 9:5 and 9:29 does not imply anything about pacifism. Because it was one of the last surahs to be revealed, most scholars took it as the final message regarding war and peace to the Dar al-Harb (non-Muslim world); to wage war until there is no religion but Islam. Muhammad also had a very lenient definition of 'innocent', which often does not include non-Muslims. In fact, when a fellow Muslim asked him about pagan women and children that were murdered during a night raid, he said "they are of them".

And what do the scholars say?

Averroes:

Scholars agree that all polytheists should be fought. This is founded on [K 8:39]: "Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is entirely Allah's." ...

Abu Yusuf:

It seems that the most satisfactory suggestion we have heard in this connection is that there is no objection to the use of any kind of arms against the polytheists, smothering and burning their homes, cutting down their trees and date groves, and using catapults, without, however, deliberately attacking women, children, or elderly people; that one can yet pursue those that run away, finish off the wounded, kill prisoners who might prove dangerous to the Muslims, but this is only applicable to those on the chin of whom a razor has passed, for the others are children who must not be executed.

Al Ghazali:

One must go on jihad (i.e. razzias or raids) at least once a year ... one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them. ... If a person of the ahl al-kitab [i.e. People of the Book] is enslaved, his marriage is revoked. ... One may cut down their trees. ... One must destroy their useless books. The Mujahid may take as booty whatever they decide ... they may steal as much food as they need...

Some modern day scholars, such as Qutb:

As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impede its efforts to liberate mankind from submission to anyone other than God. That submission is translated in following the religion of truth, provided that every human being is given free choice. There must be no pressure either from the religion itself or from those forces putting up the physical obstacles. The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax. When this happens, the process of liberating mankind is completed by giving every individual the freedom of choice based on conviction. Anyone who is not convinced may continue to follow his faith. However, he has to pay the submission tax to fulfill a number of objectives...by paying this tax, known as jizyah, he declares that he will not stand in physical opposition to the efforts advocating the true Divine faith.

Khomeini (First Shiite on the list)

Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against was. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

Bassam Tibi

The Western distinction between just and unjust wars linked to specific grounds for war is unknown in Islam. Any war against unbelievers, whatever its immediate ground, is morally justified. Only in this sense can one distinguish just and unjust wars in Islamic tradition. When Muslims wage war for the dissemination of Islam, it is a just war (futuhat, literally "opening," in the sense of opening the world, through the use of force, to the call to Islam); when non-Muslims attack Muslims, it is an unjust war ('idwan).

tl;dr Time to die, kafir!

/u/ Falsevillain and /u/Bibbity-boppity

Non-muslims that defend Islam are among the most dangerously ignorant people alive.

/u/Falsevillain and /u/Bibbity-boppity

Non-muslims that defend Islam are among the most dangerously ignorant people alive.

What you imagine when you say "Islam" is a total caricature. Go meet some Muslim people bro. They're humans like us.

I've been a Muslim for 20 years. I know Islam sounds like a caricature of a cult, but that's practically what it is.

They just don't view us infidels as human

Hes an exmuslim lol

Yes and there's a difference between Islam and Muslims. Someone can be a good person and be a Muslim but if someone were the perfect Muslim they would not be a good person

Just like in all large religions, there is no generally agreed upon definition of a perfect Muslim in Islam. You view Islam as monolithic and singular when it's a vast grouping of sects and cultural adaptations with a billion adherents practicing in drastically different ways.

I don't view it as a monolith because i was raised in a Muslim household and still live in one. I am not talking about individual views of Muslims but rather the "party lines" if you will. While there may be cultural differences in how some aspects of Islam are practiced around the world, I guarantee that a Malaysian could go to an Indian mosque and not feel out of place. Millions of Muslims make the hajj every year and everyone there is on the same page, there are no cultural differences on how to perform tawaaf of the ka'aba or throw stones at the pillars

Is it true that creation exists only through the constant effort of Allah? Like each second it goes boom and He recreates it again?

Are you banned from srd? Just post this and see how it goes.

posting in srd

ewwwww

There are sacrifices that need to be made. Look at me posting on /r/drama for example.

You think this is bad check the thread in /r/unitedkingdom. You'd think someone just nuked Mecca.

That shithole is cucked to hell and back. If every poster there got beheaded the world would be a far better place.

I'm telling you guys there's no link between Nazism and violent antisemitism. Sure Mein Kampf tells them to kill Jews, but most Nazis never hurt anyone. You can't judge them all based on the few violent extremists. Besides let's not forget the history of allied persecution of the German people through reparations for WW1. In that context it's only natural that they would be angry. When Nazis kill people it's not really because they're Nazis, they're just subconsciously channeling this righteous rage against Anglo-American imperialists. I know all the murderers say they're embarked on a quest to rid the world of Jews, but that's not really what they mean, trust me. The fact that they kill innocent people in countries like Poland that had nothing to do with reparations isn't relevant either.

they're just subconsciously channeling this righteous rage against Anglo-American imperialists

Nazis where the original mayociders

Horseshoe theory in action.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/6f796f/argument_about_islam_goes_down_in_rcringeanarchy/digjizq/

/u/windowsupdate, thankfully SRD didn't ban bullying people, amirite?

/u/windows_update, thankfully SRD didn't ban bullying people, amirite?

What do you expect from a subreddit literally created because /r/cringe banned bullying people?

The entire argument against Islam is citing the Quran directly, but if we cite the bible directly, we shouldn't be doing most of the things we do.

What if you're not christian or catholic tho