Islam Brainwash?

[haughty lily]

literally what I just said

I condem the actions

yet you deify him

and refuse to acknowledge his flaws

you treat mohammad the same way we treat Jesus

as without flaw

and an extension of god

the entire argument for islam falls apart when you realize that mohammad can be flawed

because he is not god

because now

the book can be wrong to

because the Quran is a mans word

about god

and men have flaws

[lunar oracle]

We treat Jesus pbuh the same way, without flaw however we do not worship him at all so that already disproves what you are trying to make. You know we don’t worship him at all

[haughty lily]

thats blasphemy

[lunar oracle]

How

[haughty lily]

no humans are without flaw

thats literally in the Quran

only god is perfect

[lunar oracle]

Prophets are without sin

[haughty lily]

So killing people is not sinful?

[lunar oracle]

Prophets are human however they are a little more special

[lunar oracle]

Depending on the context

Self defense it’s not sinful but if it’s just for fun it’s obviously sinful

[lunar oracle]

You can’t prove that like I can’t prove the Bible is corrupted

However there are errors in the Bible

Which is ahaziah’s age

[haughty lily]

i can prove that

watch

who wrote the Quran

[lunar oracle]

God, Muhammad had the messages passed down orally where he recited them and his companions wrote it down

[haughty lily]

who WROTE the Quran

not who heard gods word

who wrote it

do you know there names?

[lunar oracle]

Companions of prophet Muhammad pbuh technically

[haughty lily]

were they sinless

[lunar oracle]

Nope I don’t really study them

[haughty lily]

all of them prophets?

[lunar oracle]

They weren’t prophets

And so?

[haughty lily]

so they were men who sinned yes?

so then its mans word

[lunar oracle]

Are u ok

[haughty lily]

same as the bible

man writes the words of god

therefore its mans word

[lunar oracle]

That doesn’t make it man’s word

[haughty lily]

thats by defnition does

[lunar oracle]

No

[haughty lily]

if men wrote it then its mans word

if god wrote it then its his word

Jesus did not pen the bible himself

therfore

it the apostles works not his

hence why

they are attributed as such

[lunar oracle]

So the Bible and every other religious book is a man’s word, so if I literally copy someone else’s book word by word then it’s now my word?

[haughty lily]

Skitles

be honest

if I told you to tell me every conversation you have for the 4 hours word for word could you do it?

[lunar oracle]

A man’s word is someone who has literally came up with that word in my definition

[lunar oracle]

No

So?

[haughty lily]

andyou think mohammad could?

and man who could neither read nor write

so he could not even verify it was written down correctly

[lunar oracle]

He didn’t write it, he’s the flaw in your argument. He was passed (the message) through angel gabriel and he uttered it for his companions to write it down. The prophets were literally made to be passing down messages for the people

[haughty lily]

he is my argument

what you saying is they played telephone

which shows the problem

[lunar oracle]

There were multiple companions who had written it down, and there are many ways to verify that what he had spoken was written down correctly

[haughty lily]

He cant READ

[lunar oracle]

There are many other ways to verify

[haughty lily]

he cant verify it

[lunar oracle]

Is it hard to have someone else read it for him?

[haughty lily]

how can you verify the authenticity of text if you cant read

[haughty lily]

sinful being

who could lie

[lunar oracle]

You can have many other people read it for them

[lunar oracle]

Someone random and many random people reading something do u think they would lie

[haughty lily]

they aren't random

they were HIS followers

[lunar oracle]

Also everyone else memorized it too

[haughty lily]

on top of this

[lunar oracle]

I’m talking about other people who could read, he could’ve just asked them as well

[haughty lily]

many of prophets you call prophets sinned

[lunar oracle]

Anyway bye I got school

[haughty lily]

such as david

I dont get the whole prophets dont sin argument

it contradicts literally every crux of both the old and new testament

either Jesus is not a prophet

cause he sins

or he is

and he is god

like the bible claims

you cant say prophets are without sin

[silk hazel]

Prophets definitely sin, no one is without sin except God.

[haughty lily]

precisely

hence my issue with Islam

its also why they have to say having sex with a 12 year old is okay

cause Mohammad had sex with Aisha at 12

[lunar oracle]

Ok so I was half wrong, Prophets are sinless in the sense that they are protected from major sins/errors by god. However because they are still human they may make small mistakes or errors, which does not contradict their role as messengers of god

This view is widely accepted among most scholars ^

[lunar oracle]

This however is your issue, the problem is that you are more modernized on this view because I think eventually having sex with an 18 year old won’t be okay

It’s the differences In time

He wasn’t a pedophile either, because by definition pedophiles are exclusively attracted sexually to prepubescent children. Prophet Muhammad pbuh married someone 2 decades ahead of him I believe and married other women who were also pretty old. Aisha being the exception

Also the claim that the Quran is man’s word is completely false because if you simply write down what god passed down to you, it doesn’t make it man’s word

If it does in your definition then the Bible is also man’s word and so is the torah

They are gods word passed down and written

Also prophet Muhammad pbuh recited the Quran publicly for many to memorize (including his companions) and also had multiple scribes and other people who wrote it down. He had trust that they wouldn’t change anything and it’s really hard to lie and change the Quran over a span over 23 years and have prophet Muhammad pbuh not notice anything

Comparing this to your Bible that was written down and fully compiled MANY centuries after they were revealed

They not only had enough time to be corrupted but also lost

[sick talon]

genuine question to a muslim, not trying to start anything and i know youve already answered this half a hundred times probably

but what do you say about Muhammad who consumated his marriage with a 9 year old

[lunar oracle]

Well first off he isn’t a pedophile, many people say he is but by definition he isn’t even close, he married much older women at some point he married someone 20 years older than him. Now prophet Muhammad pbuh married Aisha for various of reasons, such as passing down knowledge, married for alliance/bonding with her father Abu bakr, possibly divine revelation and consummated the marriage with consent and once puberty has been reached like with his other wives who were older though

Times were different as well ^

[dusk mason]

The Nazis heavily favored atheism and didn't allow free practice of Christianity. Pretending they were Christian is just dishonest.

[lunar oracle]

They didnt favor atheism, they identified as Christians and Hitler literally made public statements of himself alligning with christians and saying god is on his side, saying hes an atheist is just dishonest.

[dusk mason]

That really depends on the justification people are offering. If you're quoting the quran and supported by leading Muslim scholars, at some point you get to point out that religion is involved. If you're following the example of your extremely violent Prophet Muhammad and the various mandates in the Quran to spread religion violently where necessary, then that's not unrelated to religion.

[lunar oracle]

Religion is involved in wars a lot of the time theres no denial however you cannot deny the fact that even if the nation follows a certain religion that you can blame the religion for that

[lunar oracle]

Prophet muhammad pbuh had some violent hadith however a lot of these are in self defence (with context provded) and are literally from 1600 years ago where wars happend everywhere constantly with no breaks, the bible also has some violent teachings dont forget about that

[dusk mason]

Lol, yes you do. Why else would you end every mention with pbuh? Why else would any image of Muhammad cause the newspaper who printed the image to be bombed. There's a law against graven images of God. You transferred that to Muhammad. You can't just pretend that people don't worship him, that's ridiculous.

[dusk mason]

That's a pretty extreme take, considering all the prophets up until Jesus clearly had lots of failures and faults. Sounds like you're justifying deifying Muhammad rather than actually understanding how your religion treats prophets.

[lunar oracle]

Pbuh means (peace be upon him), its my way of showing respect for a Prophet, I try to say pbuh after every prophet's name I mention

[dusk mason]

His companions didn't even write it down until years later. It wasn't even compiled until years after that, and there was great debate amongst the companions about what should or shouldn't be included, because the differences were significant.

[lunar oracle]

We dont draw images of ANY prophet, this is to avoid idolatry (the opposite of your claim), and honor and other reasons

[dusk mason]

Except you destroyed all versions but one. So you can't even cross reference between different versions to verify accuracy.

[lunar oracle]

His companions or scrabs wrote down certain parts of the Quran, the entire Quran wasnt compiled in 1 whole book untill only 20 years later

[dusk mason]

Not 12. She was 9 years old when the marriage was consummated.

[dusk mason]

Half wrong on this particular point is entirely wrong.

[lunar oracle]

The entire Quran was compiled with the memorization of it orally which was written down and references to some text that was also written down, after its completion they burnt all the other text that wasnt in 1 whole Quran to avoid confusion

[dusk mason]

Except he was already dead when they compiled it...

[lunar oracle]

Well they are protected from Major sins/errors but not from the small ones

[lunar oracle]

They memorized it however, your bible was compiled HUNDREDS of years later so whats your point

[dusk mason]

Yeah you're just lying here. First, I said the Nazis, not Hitler. There were many, many very important Nazi figures who absolutely hated all religion and were explicitly atheist. Hitler wasn't a Christian at all. Calling yourself one doesn't make it true, and I doubt he even did that very much.

[lunar oracle]

Nazis also identified as christians, many of them and its because the entire country was practically christian

[dusk mason]

You don't blame the religion of a nation for the wars of the nation, you blame religion for the religious justification offered by the nation, and the failure of the religion to stand against it if it's a wrong justification.

[lunar oracle]

You dont blame religion for any war even if it was "religious" wars 😂, I can also blame the crusades

[dusk mason]

The Bible didn't teach that people should be violent, and it didn't hold up violence as an example to be followed. The character held up as the example to be followed was a man of peace, who told people to love their enemies, not run them through with a sword.

[dusk mason]

And others bomb you if you create an image of Muhammad, because they worship him.

[dusk mason]

You can absolutely discuss the crusades in the context of Christianity. Nothing wrong with that. Those were actually religious wars, not just political ones.

[dusk mason]

There's no way you're arguing that you treat all prophets equally, because you definitely don't. You put Muhammad above all others.

[lunar oracle]

Psalm 137:9, Isaiah 13:16, Matthew 5:38-39, Luke 22:36 etc

[lunar oracle]

Well its not supposed to be that serious, some do however you blame the religion for what people did? I can pull up many incidences where someone made fun of Jesus pbuh and they did sum shit

[lunar oracle]

Crusades isnt what Christianity teaches is it? I dont blame christianity for Crusades because its not the religions idea or fault, its the peoples. <- This also applies to islam and maybe judaism (however I dont know too much about judaism)

[lunar oracle]

Muhammad pbuh is the last prophet, he isnt any more special really however he did reveal the Quran to us and he is more brought up

You cant say that we worship a Prophet, thats literally the opposite of what we learn

[sick talon]

so you think it was okay for him to have sex with a 9 year old because times were different?

even in those times that age was not okay

[lunar oracle]

Actually no it kind of was

[lunar oracle]

To a certain extent, as in its justified

However that doesnt make him a pedophile

People claim him as a pedophile

he isnt even close

[dusk mason]

When religious people defend such actions, saying, "Well, they shouldn't have made the images" instead of condemning those who did the bombing, then yes, I can absolutely condemn the religion for that.

[dusk mason]

Please, name an instance, and let's see how the Christian community reacted to it.

[lunar oracle]

Dang why are you so Obstinate, you cannot accept the fact that its not logical to blame a religion for something people did like DAMN its actually pointless to argue with you

[lunar oracle]

Jerry Springer: The Opera
^ Christians reported to have sent death threats

The Last Temptation of Christ
^ In france a Christian fundamentalist group set fire to Saint Michel cinema in Paris, which was showing the film, resulting in injuries to 13 people. The attack was meant to protest the blasphemous depiction of Jesus.

[dusk mason]

Near as I can tell, response to the Jerry Springer Opera involved threats of prosecution from a small portion of the Christian community. I don't see much about death threats, so that's nonsense. There certainly weren't any Christian groups getting behind any calls for violence or defending any calls for violence.

[dusk mason]

"The Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Lustiger, had previously condemned the film without having seen it; he also condemned the attack, calling the perpetrators "enemies of Christ"."

This is the common reaction in the Christian world to such attacks, because Christians do not tend to be fans of violence.

[dusk mason]

I simply disagree with you. What you are stating is not at all a fact. If a groups members do something, then it's logical to hold the group accountable for it. It would absolutely say something about Christianity if Christians were big fans of violence. It absolutely says something about Islam when people cheer in the streets in response to violence.

This is how it's always been done. You judge groups by the actions of their members, and by how the group holds their own accountable.

[silk hazel]

I think Muslims should come out more against violence committed by people who claim to be Muslims, or really any sin in Islam that is against Islam. Surah 2:190 says to Fight for the cause of Allah only against those who wage war against you and do not exceed the limits.

[silk hazel]

I do agree with this though, unless they are doing something their religious text tell them to do, then you cannot blame the religion. If the religion teaches against an action, it is not that religions fault when that person commits said action.

[dusk mason]

Yes, right up until all the members of the religion start to cheer when they hear that it has happened...

I would be super pissed at any Christian who cheered when they heard about any kind of terrorist bombing. I don't want Christianity associated with people who commit such actions.

Ultimately, you don't just judge a group by their religious texts, but rather also by the actions of the group's members and their effect on the world.

[silk hazel]

Are they truly members of that religion if they cheer at things which their religion condemns?

[dusk mason]

Does their religion condemn it? That's exactly my point.

[silk hazel]

I would too, but the reality is that the "Christian" in that case likely isn't a real Christian.

[silk hazel]

That's what I'm not sure about, I've heard the Quran calls for killing of Non-Muslims, and in some specific cases Jews, but I haven't seen anything yet.

[dusk mason]

Well exactly. Actual Christians would be quick and decisive about cutting off any association with the guy and would strongly state that this doesn't represent Christians and they don't agree with his actions.

[silk hazel]

I think I get what you're saying, if the majority of a religion is supporting something agaisnt their religion, it most likely is because of that religion?

[dusk mason]

So when it's ambiguous, then a good metric is looking what the most fervent followers believe, what they allow, what they cheer. Not those who barely know the Quran, but rather those who claim to live and breathe it. How do they act? How do they respond?

[dusk mason]

Yes, pretty much. I mean, if their religion is truly against it, then adherents to that religion should be against it too. You can judge a religion by its fruit.

[silk hazel]

I guess I'd agree, but it'd have to be a big majority. As for Islam specifically I'm not too sure on the widespread beleifs of most Muslims, but I do know they have plenty of extremist organizations founded on their principles.

[dusk mason]

I mean if members of the religion are getting into theological arguments with each other and talking about how people shouldn't be doing certain things, then that's already something. But where's that happening? The US just collectively lost its mind in support of Hamas, with a bunch of students chanting Death to America and Death to Israel in the streets. You've got people celebrating armed resistance, calling for it to be globalizedand taking up common Hamas war chants. In all of that, where are the calls saying that Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians goes against Islam? Those voices are basically non-existent, instead replaced by all those who justify violence. That says something about the religion.

[lunar oracle]

Well do you really think Islam teaches to bomb anyone who draws pictures of prophet Muhammad pbuh

99.9% of Muslims simply see this as disrespectful however there will be extremist groups anywhere

There’s no reason to blame Islam and you have been doing that your entire life for some reason

I mean all your other conversations are just built upon hating Islam

I think you are a hypocrite on some points that you make about Islam

[dusk mason]

I blame the fact that Muslims allow it and don't particularly condemn such bombings when they occur, choosing instead to blame the news station for publishing the images.

Their study of Islam has made them think such things are justified, even if they would be unwilling to do such things themselves.

What they should do is be horrified and say that such acts are against Islam, but they don't, and that's my problem.

[lunar oracle]

And you blame the religion?

[lunar oracle]

Well many do but you don’t usually find those things

The problem is in your logic is that you can hate all the people of a religion, and the religion itself because of a certain group of people

Also you tend to believe in a religion that is decided in so many sects that you don’t know which to believe

A religion that is also dying in terms of faith

Christianity wouldn’t be #1 right now if it wasn’t for the people who identify as a Christian but don’t even know what the trinity is

Islam has 70% of its converts coming from Christianity and you should watch those documentaries on why, it’s interesting to see however I think you still are full of hatred towards Islam and it’s ironic because that’s not what Christianity teaches

[icy crater]

I don't think this man has ever heard about the process of radicalisation

I have many muslim friends and none of them accept radical religious fundamentalists as muslim

Like, the fundamentalists can claim they are muslim, but if they don't adhere to the teachings of the quran, then they are not.

Like, fundamentalist groups often misinterpret and selectively use religious texts to justify their actions, but then the whole world points out at the fact that these fundamentalists call themselves muslim, therefore all muslims are bad.

Do we all remember the christchurch mosque shooting? The guy claimed to be christian, so following the same logic we could say that all christians are bad and that christianity is a dangerous religion. But we all agree that the terrost attack in Christchurch was done by a fundamentalist and would not be considered acceptable within the larger Christian community

But why can we rationalise that for christianity, but not for islam?

LIke, there is never a right way to believe in a religion, but there are definately wrong ways to believe in a religion

not to say that being faithful to a religion is bad, but moreso saying that is is normal and good for a religion if followers of that religion can peacefully disagree about parts of the doctrine

Like i would say there is no right way to believe in christianity, as there are many branches that disagree with eachother to some extent, but all are (to me as an outsider) as valid as the next

But saying 'catholisism is the only correct way to practice christianity and all other branches are wrong'', that is wrong in my opinion

but whatever, i am not really here to discuss, just to add some nuance

[dusk mason]

Can you name a Muslim majority country with decent human rights?

[lunar oracle]

Kazakhstan is a 2nd world country, I’m from there and I found it pretty fine. Also the country is fucked up because of Russia/ Soviet Union so like without that the country would’ve been in a much better state. Also a lot of countries are left in ruins because of war, example being Israel and USA or just dumbass terrorist groups.

Azerbaijan

Turkey is pretty decent

[icy crater]

I can name multiple, but i doubt that falcon will accept them so why would i even bother naming

You will just deny the statistics and claim i am wrong anyways

Also i don't see how that changes anything i've said

The way you are making the arguments just points forward that you are quite biased against anything muslim related, which is a observation i make based on posts in this forum as well as other threads

[lunar oracle]

Yeah falcon is odd

I personally don’t hold any grudge towards anyone or anything however I think he has experienced something personally

[icy crater]

I don't hold a grudge against him as a person, but I do against his way of ''arguing''

[lunar oracle]

I think all people are cool in some sense

Also Saudi Arabia is pretty peaceful because they punish severely those who break laws, for example amputation for theft on certain occasions, human rights organizations think this is too severe however I think it’s right and bad crimes should be punished at the same level

Because in America some people falsely accuse another of rape and get away with it

I think that’s fucked up because you can put someone in jail for the rest of their life

These people should burn in hell

[icy crater]

But that is a flaw of the judicial system

it should be innocent until proven guilty

instead of guilty until proven innocent

[lunar oracle]

Both are bad

[icy crater]

Sure but i dont see another option

And my personal belief is that innocent until proven guilty is way better

[lunar oracle]

I agree

However

I think if falsely accused of rape specifically and it wasn’t clearly not an accident then the person should face the punishment that the other would have received

[icy crater]

Surely, but i did not contradict that

i fully agree

since falsely accusing anyone of a crime, is a crime in itself

so if it can be proven that it was intentional

than a crime was commited

[lunar oracle]

Yeah you didnt

[dusk mason]

Why even join a discussion to say that you're not joining the discussion?

[olive hedge]

They're joining in, people just don't really enjoy discussing things with you.

[dusk mason]

No one is forcing people to be part of a discussion they're not enjoying.

[olive hedge]

And that's why he's not discussing with you anymore. You can clearly see him continue to talk with Skitles though.

[dusk mason]

Except for the part where he's calling out my name. If you want to stop hearing from me, that's not an appropriate strategy.

[olive hedge]

It's pretty clear from his last messages toward you that he was making the observation that you make your bias obvious in most conversations. Afterward he stopped talking to you correct? That's him saying "I am done speaking with you."

[dusk mason]

You mean the part with pretending to use my logic and lying about what I might say about something? Yeah, what part of that is a good strategy to get me to not respond?

If you say "falcon," then you shouldn't be surprised when "falcon" decides to respond.

[olive hedge]

Whatever man. There's a reason people consistently choose to stop engaging with you. I'm done too.

[dusk mason]

Saying my name is not choosing to stop engaging.

[olive hedge]

Womp womp

[lunar oracle]

People typically do not want to have a conversation with someone that is very biased towards something or someone. Almost everyone agrees that your way of arguing is very bad, even some of the people who agree with you realize this too

[silk hazel]

Every side is biased. Just because the minority argues doens't mean the minority is biased any more than the majority.

[olive hedge]

You'd have to read his chats. It's less about him having bias, which we all do to some extent, and more about him being disingenuous and an overall bad faith debater.

I agree with him on stuff in this specific chat, but even I had to be like dude you're clearly having double standards and twisting words.

[dusk mason]

"Disingenuous."

I don't think that word means what you think it means, and PvtDan has been part of plenty of the debates. You generally treat him rather poorly and ignore the points he makes.

Where have I pretended to know less about something than I really know, as you're arguing with your use of the word disingenuous?

[olive hedge]

Womp womp

[dusk mason]

Fascinating how I'm so thoroughly stuck inside your head, but you're pretending to be unwilling to engage with me.

[olive hedge]

Womp womp

[dusk mason]

You're literally just trolling with every post, but you're complaining about someone else's behavior. Okay.

[olive hedge]

Womp womp

[lunar oracle]

Well you are falling for his trolls, or rather getting offended I don’t really know. The funny part is that he agrees with you in this conversation but still finds Huge flaws in your conversation, he is also discussing about you with someone else entirely and clearly makes it seem that he doesn’t want to talk to you despite talking about you

[dusk mason]

I'm not particularly offended. It's just odd for someone to complain so much, but then explicitly act in a rude manner. It's not like it's harming me, but it's certainly shutting down any discussion on the actual topic.

[lunar oracle]

However he isn’t directly talking to you, rather talking about you with others at this point

[dusk mason]

Right. Refusing to respond to a person while talking about them is pretty rude.

[lunar oracle]

Well I mean you act like you arent rude?

[dusk mason]

Am I being rude right now?

[lunar oracle]

Not really, however you are a lot more rude when considering all the time rather than just now

[dusk mason]

If you want to tell me specifically where you thought I was being rude in the past, I'm happy to take a look so that I can adjust my manner of speaking in the future.

[lunar oracle]

So you are going to forget about every time you simply called my points "dumbass" or stupid and simply calling others "dumbass"

I pointed one thats a good example

[dusk mason]

I agree that such a thing is rude, but if I have a specific example, I can scroll back and review where I went wrong in order to prevent it.

[lunar oracle]

I showed you one in the other chatg

[dusk mason]

Ah, I see. That was in response to your comment, "But the simple fact that you think its ok that they killed tens of thousands of civilians already gives me dodgy vibes."

That's a rather rude comment that I was responding to.

We don't need to debate whether or not what you said was rude. I recognize that when I perceive others to be rude, I respond by being rude.

[lunar oracle]

I never said I wasnt rude, but I think I can say I am less rude than you and also you called me a Hamas supporter when I dont support either but rather the Palestinians, I also said that you support tens of thousands of civilians dead which is an exaggeration I can agree however you did say that it was justifiable and I thought that it was pretty crazy

[dusk mason]

So I'll work on improving that.

[lunar oracle]

Also I didnt start being rude if we include every other time we had a conversation, considering that aint even that rude

[dusk mason]

I think it's extremely rude, but again, whether it was rude doesn't matter as much as my perception that it was rude.

So I'll work on responding better even if I perceive someone else being rude.

Whether correctly or not

[lunar oracle]

saying that you are dodgy for justifying tens of thousands dead was not unreasonable and simply rude

[dusk mason]

You didn't say I was justifying it, you said I was okay with tens of thousands of civilians dying. I'm not.

Pursuing Hamas is justified. Civilians killed is not okay. That's why it's necessary to remove Hamas.

I'm against civilians dying. That's why I'm against Hamas. I'm against civilians being targeted. That's why I'm against Hamas.

[lunar oracle]

At this point its pointless to have a conversation with you, since you seem to be "living in your own world", wether or not you percieve that as rude I dont care however it truly does seem that you live in your own world where everything is the way you percieve it to be and thats sad but I think one day you might change hopefully 🙏

[dusk mason]

Dude, you're misquoting your own words.

Amazingly enough, it matters.

[lunar oracle]

whatever you say buddy 😂

[dusk mason]

You get super upset when I misquote you or claim you support Hamas, but you've got a pretty strong double standard for yourself.

Regardless, we've established why I was rude. It didn't come from nowhere.

[lunar oracle]

I mean we all live in your world right? 😂

[dusk mason]

It's not "living in your own world" to point out that someone's perception is going to influence how they react.

Your perception of my words caused you to be rude to me, even though I wasn't saying the things you accused me of saying.

What you are doing right now is also quite rude, when I'm trying to be reasonable.

[olive hedge]

Final message and then tbh I'm done opening this chat because it's not even about Islam anymore.

First off, I haven't even really spoken to PvtDan so saying I've treated him poorly is laughable. Find a message or be quiet.

Secondly, you are disingenuous. Unless you're saying you can't deduce that slavery was meant to be ended in the Quran just as it was the Bible you are being disingenuous. Every exchange there was people trying to explain that it was good to free slaves in the text and you flat out ignored it. Like the exchange about the story of his wife freeing a slave and Muhammad saying it would've been better to give them away instead. Instead of saying why is this the case, you jumped on "Muhammad says slaves are okay!!!" An ounce of digging would have revealed many people believe its becuase the slave would have been in danger if freed with nothing and not because Muhammad thought freeing slaves was bad. You're just a very uncharitable person to debate things with and it's why nobody wants to talk to you.

@lunar oracle you're on your own dealing with him from now on cause I'm out. It was good talking to you though and I hope school goes well.

[dusk mason]

Right, so at the end of the day, I'm "disingenuous" because I disagree with you. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[lunar oracle]

Honestly either you are being disingenuous right here or you are actually just trolling now LOL

He literally provided you evidence, or maybe you are actually less knowledgeable on this topic - I cant tell wether you are disingenuous or you are simply mad idk

[dusk mason]

This is what I'm talking about. That's not what that word means. What you presented goes against your case rather than supporting it. The fact that you failed to convince someone doesn't make them disingenuous.

It would be great if you could actually try to present a better case instead of just arguing that people who disagree with you are ignorant and hate Islam. That's not a case.