(Original post by Perseveranze)
Are you having a laugh LOL? I read the first page, and the author uses "Ibn Hashim" as a source? Lmao.
Ibn Hashim is considered by all Academia as an extremely weak source, with around 90% of his narrations considered fabricated. He doesn't even provide chains.
The whole first part about the persians and women and so on has been proven completely fabricated without even a chain -
…this isnad (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it - Ibn ‘Adiyy, Al-Kamel, Vol. 6, p. 145
The author himself is not an "imam", any imam would have known this basic authentication fact. I'm well aware of the ex-Muslim circle, and hardly anyone has tried to publicise this book, for a good reason I assume (only fake Ali Sina tried to promote it lol).
There's also no Academic review or references of this book. Oh wait, there is one on Amazon (it's not academic though), but...
LOL. Well, I guess that's one up compared to the Christians who say "the Qur'an is beautiful because it is the trick of the devil so don't listen to it" lmao.
You're a complete liar, that's the best you could come up with. No wonder you have so much hate, your IQ reflects where you get your information on Islam from.
Thankfully IQ's can change, a person can smarten up. I would suggest you do just that before you go into your grave with major regrets.
You argued "homosexuals can't control their sexual urges, just like a mental man (interesting comparison)", and as soon as you got destroyed with the examples of pedophilia and incest, you've suddenly switched lanes to "but they consent".
Stick to the topic. Incest also "consent", yet that's deemed "morally wrong". You also think it's ok to have sex with animals, what more should I possibly say to something as sick as that?
You can think whatever you like, but your argument is completely weak. This is what you're saying; "people who do something that they have no control over (mental person), should be killed for it".
At least mine is based on objectivity that if you are literally in no control of your actions, you cannot be accountable for it - so killing someone because they did something they had no control over is pure barbarism. Whereas your case of barbarism is subjective based on what you deem right or wrong regardless of the fact that they have full control.
This is pathetic, you're like some closet Christian, who gets refuted even by your "fellow atheists" whenever you try to make apologetic implications on "how peaceful christianity is". I'm guessing your parents are Christian or something, so you have a natural error based bias, but you claim to be an Atheist yourself.
Anyways, only Christians who like "self interpret" the bible believe (at best) that "God decides if homo's go to hell or heaven", otherwise the majority, both today and historically, based on all evidences believe homosexuals are "denied God's kindom".
Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Think you've given more then enough connotations you're a bigot. Actually, more proof of how in denial you are aswell.