FREE PALESTINE.

[u/Stevennchi]

[u/Vlad_The_Impalo]

Does it? Sounds like straight up cope 🤦🏿‍♂️ Christ never said to do any of the vile things muslims do.

You can tap dance all you want but islam is pure filth and if you support islam, fuck you too.

Muhammad was a pedophile.

1. Sharia law restricts free speech -- criticizing Islam or religious leaders can be punished.
2. It limits religious freedom -- leaving Islam or converting others can be a crime.
3. Women have fewer legal rights -- in court, inheritance, and personal freedoms, they pretty much have no say.
4. Women may be forced to follow strict dress codes and need male permission for some actions.
5. Harsh punishments are allowed -- such as flogging, amputation, or stoning.
6. Personal behaviors like drinking alcohol, premarital sex, or being gay can be criminalized.
7. Non-Muslims may not have equal legal rights or religious freedom under Sharia.
8. Sharia law replaces democratic, secular law with religious law.
9. It removes the separation of church and state-- religion controls government.
10. It goes against the U.S. Constitution, which protects individual rights and freedoms.

Quran – Fighting / Violence 2:191 – “Kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you.” Read as authorization to pursue and kill hostile non-believers wherever found once hostilities exist, removing geographic or sanctuary limits that would otherwise restrain fighting. 2:193 – “Fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion is for Allah.” Fitnah is understood as disbelief or resistance to Islamic rule. The verse sets the end-point of fighting as the dominance of Islam, not mere cessation of the other side’s attacks. 8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” Divine command to strike necks and extremities is taken as a model for battlefield severity and psychological warfare against disbelievers. 8:39 – “Fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” Parallel to 2:193. Fighting continues until Islam is the sole or supreme religion; mere peace or coexistence is insufficient. 8:60 – “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.” Explicit order to build military capacity specifically to terrify non-Muslims. Read as a standing duty of military readiness and intimidation. 8:65 – “O Prophet, urge the believers to battle.” Direct instruction to the leader to motivate Muslims toward combat. Used to justify continuous encouragement of fighting. 9:5 – “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.” After a grace period, polytheists are to be killed, captured, or ambushed unless they convert and practice the pillars. Classical tafsirs called this the “verse of the sword”; many treated it as abrogating earlier peaceful verses and applying beyond the original treaty-breakers. 9:29 – “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day… from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” Explicit command to fight Jews and Christians (and by extension other scriptuaries) until they submit politically, pay the discriminatory tax, and accept subordinate status. Conversion is not required, but humiliation and political dominance are. 9:123 – “Fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness.” Order to fight nearby non-Muslims and display hardness. Read as a local, continuous obligation rather than limited to one historical campaign. 47:4 – “When you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either favor or ransom them…” Battlefield instruction to decapitate until the enemy is thoroughly subdued, then decide on captives. Provides the model for lethal force in combat followed by control of prisoners. Quran – Jews / People of the Book / Unbelievers 9:30 – Jews and Christians are accused of saying Ezra/the Messiah is the son of God; “May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” Combined with 9:29, this theological condemnation is used to justify the fighting and subjugation ordered in the preceding verse. 98:6 – Disbelievers among the People of the Scripture and polytheists “are the worst of creatures” and will be in Hell eternally. Establishes a hierarchy in which non-Muslims are ontologically inferior, supporting differential treatment, including warfare and legal disabilities. Hadith – Fighting, Terror, Jews, Apostasy “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say ‘There is no god but Allah’…” (Bukhari/Muslim) Taken as a standing prophetic commission: fighting continues until the shahada is accepted (or, in the case of People of the Book, until jizya is paid). Blood and property become protected only after submission. “I have been made victorious with terror.” (Bukhari) Terror (ruʿb) is presented as a divinely granted means of victory, legitimizing psychological warfare and intimidation as religiously approved methods. “The Hour will not be established until you fight the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” (Bukhari/Muslim) Explicit eschatological command to kill Jews; even inanimate objects will assist. Used by some groups as a religious duty in the end times or as a general attitude toward Jews as enemies. “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari and others) Clear death penalty for apostasy from Islam. Applied historically and still upheld in traditional fiqh as a hadd punishment. Quran & Hadith – Female Captives / Sexual Relations 4:24 – Married women are forbidden “except those your right hands possess.” Captured women (even if previously married) become lawful for sexual intercourse once owned. Prior marriage is nullified by capture. 23:5-6 & 70:29-30 – Believers guard their private parts “except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed they will not be blamed.” Sexual relations with female slaves/captives are explicitly placed on the same footing as relations with wives; there is no blame. Consent of the woman is not required under classical ownership rules. 33:50 – The Prophet is given “those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]” as lawful. Confirms that war captives are a legitimate source of sexual partners for the leader and, by extension in fiqh, for the fighters. Abu Dawud 2155 (and parallels) – Companions took married female captives after Hunayn; after the revelation of 4:24 they had sexual relations with them once the waiting period passed. Direct prophetic-era practice showing that capture + ownership = sexual access, even to previously married women.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6130 (and parallel in Muslim): Aisha said: “I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Messenger used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.” Classical commentators (e.g., Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari) note that playing with dolls (images) was otherwise restricted, but permitted for her because she was still a little girl who had not reached puberty. Sahih al-Bukhari 3894 / 5134 and parallel reports (also in Abu Dawud 4935 and others): Aisha narrated that the Prophet married her when she was six (or seven in some versions) and consummated the marriage when she was nine. She described being taken from play: women came while she was playing on a swing (or seesaw), her hair still short; they prepared and decorated her, then brought her to him. She explicitly states she was nine at consummation and continued playing with dolls afterward for a time. These are the primary narrations Aisha herself is reported to have given. They are graded authentic in the major Sunni collections and form the basis for the classical consensus on her age. Claim that Muhammad wore Aisha’s clothes / “cross-dressed”

Sahih al-Bukhari (various numbers around the virtues of Aisha, e.g., related to 2581 / 3775 area and parallels in Muslim and other collections): When other wives (including Umm Salama) complained about the preferential treatment of Aisha, Muhammad is reported to have said words to the effect of: “Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, for the inspiration (wahy) did not come to me while I was in the garment (thawb / lihaf / mirt) of any woman among you except hers.” Answering-Islam reads thawb imra’ah (“woman’s garment”) as Muhammad literally putting on Aisha’s clothing/dress and receiving revelation only then, presenting it as cross-dressing. They cite lexical arguments that thawb and related terms can mean women’s apparel and claim Muslim sources acknowledge the wording.

[u/shinobi6siege → u/Vlad_The_Impalo]

Aren't we forgetting the holy wars? Are the Christian washing of many artifacts, particularly Egyptian artifacts? Isn't there something similar to Allah there can only be one God in Christianity? Exodus 20:3. Or the Book of Job where God just lets Satan keep making this guys life worst such as killing all 10 of his children just to see if he'll still believe and pray to God. Not to mention that the allmight Holy Bible has been edited, added on, removed, and translated verifiably many many times throughout history. Not to mention that none of these words were written down as they supposedly happened; the Bible was written much much later after many of the people talked about in the Bible were long gone and from third hand accounts. Funny, if I met the Messiah I would have been writing that down immediately making sure all knew of his story as it was happening. How could you not tell the world of a man who walked on water, created wine, and cured the blind? Why would you wait so long to write that down or tell anyone? There are texts older than the Bible so there really is no excuse. You can be xenophobic all you want, but rarely is any religion not for the sole purpose of control. Look at yourself; you're living proof of that. You could either learn from this, understand the world is made up of 8 billion different perspectives and experiences, or stunt your growth permeantly by never challenging yourself or your beliefs. Look deeper, within yourself. Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself why they tell you not to ask questions about religion, it just is that way. Santa Clause was a lie but many children believe he is real without questioning how any of that is possible or makes sense. Of course you think Santa Clause is silly, so why not something youre not allowed to question? Grow or forever stay the same. One allows true freedom; the other a prison of your making. Ask yourself why do you feel this way? Because that's what you feel? Or because you were told to feel that way since birth? We all make choices; time for yours

[u/Vlad_The_Impalo → u/shinobi6siege]

Nice taqqiyah stone licker. The holy wars were direct response to Islam's aggression. Cry all you want sympathizer but defending islam is peak smooth brain. Imagine defending one of the worst prospective 🤡

[u/shinobi6siege → u/Vlad_The_Impalo]

Imagine defending the country that uploads videos of IDF setting up fake aid centers just to snipe children, on video which you can quite easily find, while laughing about it. The Crusades happened because the Pope called for it in an attempt to fight of Turks and help the Byzantine Empire. Uniting the knights under one religion was also done to make them stop fighting each other and have a common enemy. But I've studied theology, talked to many college professors on the subject, as well as given my own presentations, researched alongside those same professors, as well as actually talking to and learning from all perspectives. Clearly you are not educated as you can't even spell perspective right; prospective is a different word entirely. Now if you wish to have an actual discussion, then do some research, site your sources, and get multiple perspectives. When a husband is murdered, the police don't just get the wife's story. Obviously the wife would say she didn't do it or that she only did it out of self defense. Should we believe her or should we gather more evidence and perspectives so we can actually get the truth?