10 Memes That Defined The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
+1
4chan - Anons discuss what happens if the US gets attac/k/ed | /r/4chan
| ◄ Previous | View Gallery Random Image | Next ► |
-
-
.jpg "The Weekly Meme Roundup: Peanut The Squirrel, Knee Surgery, Election Memes And More")
The Weekly Meme Roundup: Peanut The Squirrel, Knee Surgery, Election Memes And More -
Pocketpair Reveals 'Patents' Subject To Nintendo's 'Palworld' Lawsuit, And Indeed One Of Them Is The 'Aiming' Patent -
Where Did 'Captain, It's Wednesday' Come From? The 'What A Week, Huh?' Comic And Meme Explained -
Musician 'Matt Farley' Explains The 'Your Name + Poop Song' TikTok Trend And Why He's Written So Many Songs About Poop
![A wild Taqiyya appears: Anonymous 09/12/17 (Tue)02:39:29 No.10011589 ► >>10011627 >>10011369 >>10011371 >Taqiyya End this /pol/ meme, taqiyya is only a concept in Shia Islam Anonymous 09/12/17(Tue)02:53:54 No. 10011627 ► File: taqyyia infibulation.jpg (130 KB, 872x433) e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.) Clear example of Taqyyia from 'Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), a sunni manual of sharia. Misleading translation confirmed by Mark John Durie, professor of linguistic, during a trial (case n° A392/2002). Google it. >>10011589 >taqiyya is only a concept in Shia Islam Complete f------ b-------. In 'Umdat al-Salik, which is a SUNNI sharia manual (shafi school) there is a blatant taqyyia attempt in the paragraph about infibulation. Pic related. While the english translation says only to cut the prepuce of the clitoris and not the clitoris itself, the arab texts says clearly to cut the clitoris. The misleading translation was confirmed in a courtroom during a trial (case n° A392/2002) by professor of linguistic Mark John Durie. Here's his very interesting testimony (page 50): >http://www.saltshakers.org.au/images/stories/attachments/284 313278 VCAT - DOCUMENTS RELATIN.pdf Sunnis use taqyyia just like shia. Claiming they don't is just part of taqyyia. Anonymous 09/12/17 (Tue)12:34:02 No.10013174 ► >>10012997 >muslims don't lie about their religion. I suggest you read this excellent book about the practice of Taqiyya: "Al Taqiyya fil Islam", by Sami Makarem. Quote: Anonymous 09/12/17 (Tue)03:32:10 No.10011760 ► >>10011668 >tell us more. >"Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream... Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era." (p. 7) > the fact is the word "Infidel" isn't even mentioned in the Quran once. Clearly shows you haven't read the quran and are only copying from websites. Who the f--- do you think you're talking too, mudshit? I know perfectly well that the quran doesn't say precisely "infidel" but "mushrikun", but the thing is that that word means "guilty of shirk", and that includes not only polytheists but also christians, jews and even atheists. Source: >"Atheism is a greater sin than shirk", october 2009. https://islamqa.info/en/113901 So even though translators just translate "mushrikun" with "polytheists" in an attempt to make it look as if the quran is only talking about the arab pagans that Muhammed was fighting at the time, THE REAL MEANING is that every non-muslim, every infidel, must be killed. Unless he becomes a dhimmi. On paragraph a7.2, Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat al-Salik) says clearly that all our scientific disciplines are unlawful, thereby destroying any hope of coexistence between science and islam: Part 2 >(a7.2) «Unlawful Knowledge. Unlawful knowledge includes: -1- learning sorcery (dis: p3), since according to the most reliable position, it is unlawful, as the vast majority of scholars have decisively stated; -2- philosophy (dis: w10); magic (Sha badha, meaning sleight hand, etc.); -4- astrology (dis: p41); -5- the sciences of the materialists (dis: w11). -6- and anything that is a means to create doubts (n: in eternal truths), Such things vary in their degree of unlawfulness.>> Get that? Our sciences and anything that might create doubts in the quran or the sunna is forbidden. Muslims love to repeat that islam teaches to think freely and to "seek knowledge even in China". What they never tell you is that islam with "knowledge" means only the sacred books. Everything else is considered as flawed, temporary theories and ideas made up by infidels. Wrong in the best cases, unlawful in the worst. 4.3 ويجب على كل من الـذكـر والأنثى) الختـان (وهـو قطع الجلدة التي على حشفة الذكر وأما ختان الأنثى نهو قطع البظر [ويسمى خفاضاً)) . Want more? Reliance of the Traveller also says not only that Jihad is also a MILITARY war, and not just a "spiritual struggle against sin" like muslims say, but it also clarifies that it's ALWAYS mandatory, even when the infidels stay in their own countries without attacking muslims: Anonymous 09/12/17 (Tue)04:10:53 No.10011877 ► >>10012848 >(09.1) «The Obligatory Character of Jihad: Jihad is a communal obligation (def. c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others >>10011815 Sources on a few statements: [...] <<there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is WHEN THEY ARE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES, in which case jihad (def. 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. <<The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def. c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).>> >He can have all the wives and female slaves he wants. As stated clearly in Quran 33:50. https://quran.com/33/50-60 A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence confirmed it in 2001. It also added that muslims can break truces whenever they want simply by claiming that they fear infidels might break them first (Vol. 1, Part VI: "Jihad", p. 477). قطع البظر qate albazar: cutting the clitoris. >His followers were ordered to always obey him, even when he's not "revealing" the quran. Quran 53:3-4 (https://quran.com/53) is the sura taken as the basis for this doctrine, called "ismah". Google it for more. essentially, Muhammad was infallible, so every word or action of his was automatically right. According to a closely related doctrine, "uswa hasana", Muhammad is the best possible role model for any muslim in any era or place. Which is a problem, considering what an a------ he was. >Allah forbade poetry, songs and drawings of people because poets, singers and painters were mocking Muhammad. "Reliance of the Traveller" forbids music, songs, picture making and sculpting in paragraphs r40.1, r40.2, r40.3, r40.4, p44.1, w50.1, and several hadiths (Bukhari 5960 and 6109 for example). About the fact that poets and singers were mocking the poor Muhammad, here's a list of people he assassinated for this: 1) Al-Nadr bin al-Harith (Ibn Ishaq, "The Life of Muhammad", translated by A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, 2004, p. 136), 2) Uqba bin Abu Muayt (Ibn Ishaq, ivi, p. 308; [Bukhari 520 e 2934]; [Muslim 1794]), 3) Asma bint Marwan (female poet stabbed in her sleep while pregnant: Ibn Ishaq, ivi, pp. 675-6), 4) Abu Afak (blind, 100 years old poet killed for his verses: Ibn Ishaq, ivi, p. 675), >>10012848 5) Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (Ibn Ishaq, ivi, pp. 364-9; [Bukhari 4037]; [Abu Dawud 3000]). Muhammad had Ka'b killed in a particularly cowardly way: >[Bukhari 4037] «Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b)." The Prophet said, "You may say it.">> □ Anonymous 09/12/17(Tue)09:42:54 No.10012848 ► >>10013161 Ka'b was stabbed by a group of muslims and beheaded. All self-defense, claimed Muhammad, because Ka'b had "persecuted" him by mocking and criticizing him. Same logic current muslims still apply. Other sources I already quoted here: >>10011598 >>10011877 Do you have more stuff on Islam and science? Anonymous 09/12/17(Tue)12:28:24 No.10013161 >>10013164 >>10013180 >>10013274>>10013320 >>10013334>>10013392 >>10013635 Science is completely antithetic to Islam. The muslim conception of the universe is that of a chaotic thing that doesn't works according to stable natural laws that you can understand, but only to the whims of Allah. Allah can do anything, even produce an effect without a cause and a cause without an effect. This means that for our limited human minds, understanding nature is ultimately impossible. Not only it's impossible, but it's actually blasphemous. "Reliance of the Traveller" in this long paragraph explains how incredibly easy it is to be considered an apostate. Look at point n° 17. Anonymous 09/12/17 (Tue)12:30:27 No.10013164>>10013196 >>10013229 >(08.7) <<Acts that Entail Leaving Islam: [...] >4) to revile Allah or His messenger, >5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him, >6) to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His inderdiction, His promise, or His threat, >7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does [not] belong to it; >8) to mockingly say, "I don't know what faith is"; [...] >14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma', def. B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def. u2.4); >15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent; >16) to revile the religion of Islam; >17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah; >18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens; >19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; >20) to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message to be the religion followed by the entire world. Not only denying even the smallest rule prescribed in the Quran (and even being sarcastic about it) is enough to be an apostate (and therefore killed) but the same holds true for "believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah". If you think that the universe respects stable natural laws independent of the whims of Allah, you're an apostate, and therefore must be executed. >>10013164 >Then what of the so called golden age Oh, brace yourself. This, added to the belief that past generations were wiser than current ones (the generation of the Prophet is called "the best that ever existed") and that Muhammad could do no wrong and should be imitated instead of corrected (ismah) make science and innovation in Islam IMPOSSIBLE. >>10013161 Then what of the so called golden age and the great thinkers, philosophers and mathameticians ect? Every muslim apologist always babbles about this "Islamic Golden Age". Then when pressed, they either admit they don't know any muslim thinker/scientist/philosopher, or name these ones: >Avicenna: His progresses in medicine and logic were derived from the works of Aristotle and Hippocrates. His theology was a fusion of Plotino's ideas and Islam, he denied physical resurrection and thought the prophets were simply "inspired philosophers". Also, he said that Allah only knew the universal principles of the universe, but not the smallest day-to-day events in our lives, which denied his omniscience. For this, he was accused of blasphemy by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Abu al-Ghazali and other scholars. You can clearly see that according to Islam's rules, he was NOT a muslim. >Averroes: Strongly influenced by greek philosophy as well, he dared to say that truth could be discovered using reason and logic and not only the holy texts. He was accused of blasphemy, persecuted and forced in exile in Marrakesh. He wasn't considered a muslim either. >Al-Razi: Called the best muslim thinker ever, he called himself "a disciple of Socrates and Plato", he denied that the world was created from nothing, that Faith is superior to Reason, that Muhammad told only the truth, and that revealed religions in general are very useful. He considered them needlessly nitpicky and irrational. He had the balls to write 3 books on the subject: "The Prophet's Fraudulent Tricks", "The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets" and "On the Refutation of Revealed Religions". He also called the Quran "a collection of absurd fables". Was obv. accused of apostasy. Was not a muslim. >Ibn al-Haytham: Made some advancements in optics, but his most important contribution was the formulation of the scientific method: he claimed that every hypothesis must be supported by empirical data and experiments, not only by holy texts. Oddly enough, it seems he wasn't accused of apostasy despite this obviously heretical view, but the intellectual sterility of Islam is evident in the fact that his ideas were completely IGNORED, and continue to be ignored. They were instead immediately and enthusiastically received in the West. >Al-Sarakhsi Philosopher. Studied the greeks and dared to apply rationality to the study of the holy books. Was executed in 899 d.C. for apostasy. >Al-Farabi. Philosopher. Thought that reason was superior to faith and that the body could not resurrect. Was accused of apostasy. Starting to see a trend? Basically all the "great muslim thinkers" WERE NOT MUSLIMS AT ALL. They could only do good work because they rejected Islam and its intellectually crippling views. The exceptions are really few: Ibn Khaldun (historian), Al-Tusi (polymath) and maybe a couple of others that made some contribution in algebra or geometry. But that's it. The "Islamic Golden Age" should actually be called the greek-dhimmi-golden-age, since it depended entirely on the translation of the greeks by the conquered populations. Yes, they started with the greeks. EVERY accomplishment muslims claim was actually a greek or indian one, like the so called "arab" numerals, invented in India around the 700 d.C., and the number zero, invented by Brahmagupta in 628 d.C., and so on. Caliph Al-Mamun in the 9th century ordered dhimmis (all jews and christians) to translate the greeks because he wanted to use their knowledge. But, as Islam always does, he wanted ONLY the useful trinkets, not the scientific method, which was always rejected. Conclusion: no real progress possible. As soon as they exausted the greek well, their "progress" stopped. An obscurantist, totalitarian ideology like Islam can never be fertile ground for scientific or intellectual research. S---, some of his most basic laws expressely forbid to question and to research the Holy Books. Anonymous 09/12/17 (Tue)13:45:23 No.10013334 >>10013274 >According to Imam Ghazali, the material universe is: >- perfectly ordered >- completely knowable through reason Another example of giving different meanings to the same words. Islam says that the world is "perfectly ordered" because Allah made it, not because it obeys inviolable natural laws. And it's "completely knowable" by applying "reason" to the holy scriptures (meaning: studying them and understanding them). Anonymous 09/12/17(Tue)01:04:46 No.10011330 ► >>10011343 We must keep in mind that Islam traces a clear (albeit fictitious) distinction between "rational thought" and "critical thought": the second cannot be used to question/debunk the holy texts, you can only use rational thought to study and better understand Allah's orders. This essay explains it well: >Muhammadullah Muhammad Khalili Qasmi, "Does Islam permit critical thinking?", Markazul Maarif Education & research Centre, Mumbai, India. >http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles 351 400/does islam permit critical think.htm The mere fact that it's forbidden to look for "causal influences outside of Allah's will" for the workings of the universe is enough to destroy any hope to do science. Unless you want to say that Umdat al-Salik is lying here: >>10013161 >He's told me Islam literally means peace Aaand he's a liar using Taqiyya. Islam means submission. Literally. >>10011320 >do people just radicalize? "Radicalizing" is one of those politically correct words that have no real meaning, like "islamism". Muslims don't radicalize, they grow up with beliefs incompatible with liberal societies all their life, and one day they simply act on them. Saying that they "radicalize" shifts the blame onto the a------ doing the radicalizing, corrupting innocent muslims and all that b-------. The reality is that if you follow islam, you are NOT compatible with any western country. Also, islam and islamism are the same thing. Anonymous 09/12/17(Tue)15:38:50 No.10013584 ► Anonymous 09/12/17 (Tue)01:16:42 No.10011355>>10011361 >>10011369 >>10011343 >My driving instructor, for instance, is a muslim He's either one of those people that call themselves muslims without even knowing what islam orders, or a liar using Taqiyya (sacred deceit) on a gullible infidel. >I can imagine him taking, let's call it 'extreme action' if he had to decide between Turkey and my country of origin. Wouldn't you at that point say that he had been radicalized No. I would say he always was a savage p------------. He >>10013546 >Mass rapes of MUH STABLE POPULATIONS = basically every f------ nation that ever existed N----- there's only recently demonstrated it with actions, but he didn't become one recently. Anonymous 09/12/17 (Tue)01:27:02 No.10011380 ► >>10011390 Anonymous 09/12/17 (Tue)01:25:37 No.10011375 >>10011380 >>10011278 >>10011219 These are very interesting anon. I appreciate you taking the time to type the good words out a difference bewteen occasional wars and a culture like that of nomadic arab tribes that was BUILT AROUND THE CONCEPT OF RAIDING STABLE VILLAGES to steal food, money, products, women and slaves. This is NOT something every nation has done, inbred lying p------------. Also, it's worth pointing out that the reason Islam is so brutal and retarded is that ARABS WERE LIKE THAT, and Muhammad when he had to invent a religion had to speak to them in a language they understood. This is why after he became a bandit, he started getting tens of thousands of converts. Islam is barbarous because arabs have always been barbarous. A peaceful religion would have never appealed to them. I am angry. Angry about islam. >>10011375 You're welcome. The more I learn about this medieval faith, the more p----- I get. It's fun to let off steam every once in a while. I am angry. Angry about islam.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/002/524/272/3d7.jpg "I Am Angry. Angry About Islam Part 2")
There are no comments currently available.
Display Comments