Exmuslim

I was reading one tafsir and the guy was saying it under the commentary of last 3 verses of Quran Chapter 2 that it is impossible that it is the words of Muhammad himself because when he was hurted in Taaif and came away from Taaif, he recited this dua in picture. Meanwhile, in the last 3 verses, there is no mention of hardships that he and his followers faced, instead it is praising God and humble request to get help upon the disbelievers. What do you guys say and how to respond to that claim?

whenever you argue with a Muslim and bring up the state of islam and it's followers, you get met with the same answer almost every single time

"that is normal, we were strong in the past and the west was weak, now it just happens that they are ahead of us, just you wait until it is our turn to rise"

so, I decided to look into this whole thing a little deeper, first we will discuss the state of the world from the 8th century to the 12th century, when muslims were at their peak (in science and innovation), and the west was in a so-called dark age.

the Islamic world: Muslims were at their peak, countless scientific discoveries and innovations were made, they were more tolerant of others, were the center of learning, and were overall much better places to live than the west

the west: we cant really lump together all the western world, so I will talk about two states here, the byzantine empire, the Carolingian Empire (later the franks and hre)

byzantine empire: contrary to popular belief, it wasn't that bad, they managed to hold onto their heartland very well against the muslims, their navy was equal (if not better) than the muslim one, while they weren't flourishing by any means, they still had enough strength to resist the muslims and retain their independence.

Carolingian Empire: im mostly talking about charlemagnes reign here (ion know what his successors did), anyways his reign saw the carolignian renaissance, he established a system of schools in his empire, and his empire was very successful in war, conquering many many states and beating the muslims in Al-Andalus (keep in mind though Al-Andalus was very far away from the muslims' center of power)

conclusion: I will make a second part to this, it will be about the time between the 20th and 16th century this time, I will go more in depth in way their argument is faulty, but basically, even in the west's dark age, they were still relevant on the world stage, unlike muslim countries nowadays, yes, the muslims were ahead, but they weren't as ahead as western countries are now, plus, the whole civilizations fall and others arise argument (which I agree with to some extent) can only be applied on individual states, not massive regions of the world like the Islamic world.

for example, in the west, when the spanish declined, the french and british took their place as naval powers, in the case of the muslim world, the ENTIRE region is defunct, not on a state to state basis, no, the whole foundation is fucked up.

the incoherence of the Muslims #1

whenever you argue with a Muslim and bring up the state of islam and it's followers, you get met with the same answer almost every single time

"that is normal, we were strong in the past and the west was weak, now it just happens that they are ahead of us, just you wait until it is our turn to rise"

so, I decided to look into this whole thing a little deeper, first we will discuss the state of the world from the 8th century to the 12th century, when muslims were at their peak (in science and innovation), and the west was in a so-called dark age.

the Islamic world: Muslims were at their peak, countless scientific discoveries and innovations were made, they were more tolerant of others, were the center of learning, and were overall much better places to live than the west

the west: we cant really lump together all the western world, so I will talk about two states here, the byzantine empire, the Carolingian Empire (later the franks and hre)

byzantine empire: contrary to popular belief, it wasn't that bad, they managed to hold onto their heartland very well against the muslims, their navy was equal (if not better) than the muslim one, while they weren't flourishing by any means, they still had enough strength to resist the muslims and retain their independence.

Carolingian Empire: im mostly talking about charlemagnes reign here (ion know what his successors did), anyways his reign saw the carolignian renaissance, he established a system of schools in his empire, and his empire was very successful in war, conquering many many states and beating the muslims in Al-Andalus (keep in mind though Al-Andalus was very far away from the muslims' center of power) conclusion: I will make a second part to this, it will be about the time between the 20th and 16th century this time, I will go more in depth in way their argument is faulty, but basically, even in the west's dark age, they were still relevant on the world stage, unlike muslim countries nowadays, yes, the muslims were ahead, but they weren't as ahead as western countries are now, plus, the whole civilizations fall and others arise argument (which I agree with to some extent) can only be applied on individual states, not massive regions of the world like the Islamic world.

for example, in the west, when the spanish declined, the french and british took their place as naval powers, in the case of the muslim world, the ENTIRE region is defunct, not on a state to state basis, no, the whole foundation is fucked up.

YouTube

While Queers For Palestine has been compared Chickens For KFC world-wide, what does Muhammad himself have to say? Listen in to this EXPLOSIVE new interview with GAYvid and GayP in Muhammad's Boom Boom Room!

cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/10581132

Rights groups say proposed rollback of 2015 law will overturn women’s rights across the region as a whole.

You remember all the German civilians who ended up being massacred by the Jews who survived the camps, don't you? Of course you don't, because no such massacres took place. The comparison is as odious as they come. When will Jaffer Ladak take the oath as prime minister of the United Kingdom? "Muslim preacher reported...

cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/10037431

She argues that Prophet Muhammad did s€x slavery only to release the slaves but there is not even a single hadith to prove that he had any intention to release the slaves.

(This post was mirrored by a bot. The original post can be found here)

(This post was mirrored by a bot. The original post can be found here)

(This post was mirrored by a bot. The original post can be found here)

(This post was mirrored by a bot. The original post can be found here)

(This post was mirrored by a bot. The original post can be found here)

(This post was mirrored by a bot. The original post can be found here)

(This post was mirrored by a bot. The original post can be found here)