/lit/ - Literature

>>13279007
>Okay...so you believe that stoning is a just punishement. You need to seriously reconsider your moral values. Stoning is torture. Torture is oppression. Oppression is forbidden in the Quran.
This is sheer casuistry

Kuffar literally means "ingrates"

>Are you a legalistic court-worshipper ?

We are talking specifically about laws and courts here

>Dude. Have you even read 9:4 and 9:6 ? Or that there is no compulsion in religion ?

I am talking about treaty-breakers, not infidels in general

>Or that many sunni scholars believed that killing civilians, women, and children and elderly was ok ?

If any mufti ever asserted this, he was in dissent from the consensus of the Ulema

>>13278942
By fundie you mean Athari?

>>13278954
The Badvagita is excellent, but other than that I have read almost nothing about Hinduism

>>13278957
You steal someone's camel in the desert, it could easily kill him. Theft also makes commerce impossible. You would not deter incessent rustling without a draconian punishment, especially if thieves are very hard to catch

>>13278879
>did NOT know who was a hypocrite and who wasn't.
Until Allah, the Glorified and Most Exalted, told him.

>"Oppression is worse than murder"

How would go about charging someone with oppression? What is the legal definition?

>I'm currently debating whether he should receive 100 lashes before being executed or not.

The answer is mostly held that lashes are redundant with a stoning. Lashes are meant to function as a lessor punishment, you cannot draw blood or lift your harm far enough to reveal the armpit, it must be done with a long stick so as to control the motion--this is all Sunnah.

Conviction for rape according to pertinent hadiths does not require four witnesses, as with adultery and fornication

>I'm still not 100% sure I understand the intent of the question, but it's a Surah detailing how the kuffar kept breaking peace treaties and how the muslims were commanded to fight them, and it speaks of other things.

Yes, it says to kill them all. Of course this is not meant to include women and children and elderly, which the Islamic rules of war (detailed in hadiths on jihad) forbid killing.

And what about the multiple hadiths which say cruelty to animals is haram and kindness to them is a good deed?

>>13278791
>>13278767
Also, when cutting off a hand for theft: should there be any qualifaction to this? The hadith says it does not apply to stealing food to eat, should we throw this out and chop off someone's hand for picking a fruit?

>>13278767
>Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You claim to be able to know things the Prophet couldn't be able to know. You rise yourselves above his level.
No, it is just doing the best that can possibly be done with an historical source. High credibility Hadiths are probably among the most substantiated sources of history in pre modern times

>I've read enough to know they either are full of cruelty, vulgarity, useless teachings meant to waste your time, or merely repeat what the Quran say in different wordings, which has the effect of diluting its teachings.

What punishment should a rapist get and what should be required to convict him?

>The Surah ?

Yes

>>13278669
>They are taken on faith that those who transmitted them were trustworthy.
No, not at all. The character and credibility of each person in the chain of transmission is the primary criterion of an hadith's validity

>How many muslims believe all of Bukhari and Muslim are true ?

How many even read them all?

>I've read an entire shitty french interpretation of it once. And then I've studied a number of passages from it using islamawakened.com among other things. I'm slowly learning arabic. I know the alphabet.

What do you make of At-Taubah?

>>13278604
>For example, are they important in telling you that the Prophet actually knew who was a hypocrite and who wasn't ? 9:101
>Because only through the cancellation of that verse can you maintain that a human opinion about the trustworthiness of any hadith-transmitter can be valid.
If you are saying otherwise then we must throw out most of pre modern world history. No Hadiths taken on faith, it is examined along with similar Hadiths and scholarly analysis is used to determine what is probably the case. Hadiths are considered fallible like regular historical sources


Before we go any further, have you read the entire Qur'an?

>>13278554
Ibn Arabi mainly wrote for those initiated and partaking of revelation. Rumi even more so, he wrote poetry about how it felt, which is why it is extremely cringe to see kuffar distorting him to such a vulgar level like they did with yogic practices

>>13278478
I have read Ibn Arabi

>>13278485
No, I am talking about the sanctioned practices before and during his life. It takes Protestant or Thomas Paine levels of willful ignorance to believe religion or constitution is a sola scriptura affair

>>13277975
Hadiths are very important as a way to settle interpretation of the Quran and provide a comprehensive resolution to questions about unusual cases. Also they are the primary written source for the Sunnah, which includes the local practices inherited from Ishmael, which the Quran is revealed in the context of. The Sunnah cannot override the Qur'an, although the Qur'an does override the Sunnah

>>13277534
These were rejected by Ash'arites as well, not just the west, and to say rejecting Aristotle is utterly irrational, but have you ever engaged with Hobbes or Kant?

>>13277471
Considering it impacts not just practice but law, it is a very serious subject

I disagree with Enlightenment thinking but there is nothing more annoying and smug than the I-reject-the-Enlightenment sorts who see themselves as superior to the poor fools who are not smart enough to think past the Enlightenment while these annoying and smug radtrads often never bothered to engage with its texts and are clueless enough to think Aristotleanism or its derivatives obviously has all the answers but plebs won't listen when in fact the west and Islam were both dominated by Aristotle for an entire era but there is a reason why Aristotleanism was found inadequate and it took quite a lot of reasearch and controversy to arrive even at even that let alone alternatives

>>13276988
>Muslim scholars establish rulings based on a thousad years of extensive study and debate of classical Arabic and scrupulous examination of accoints, opinions and examples of the Prophet, his wives, his companions and his community and other scholars

>kaffir says hol up, I just read this translation of a verse and hahahaha you guys are totally wrong!

>>13276386
>all I've gotten so far from it is that to reach absolute truth you have to find the middle ground (synthesis) between two supposedly contradictory positions (thesis & antithesis)
He doesn't suggest that, he just describes phenomenology. The fact is just that we tend to get ahead of ourselves upon first discovering something, then we adjust our perspective upon experience or careful examination

>>13276369
I am not violating Sharia in any way

>>13276333
I am not a Guénon fan and he plays no role in my religion, although he is greatly respected by some Muslims.

>>13275741
>You just pick one line to reply to. I don't know why I even bother debating you
Well I am not going to bother replying to statements like "esotric knowledge can be gained autodidactically" because it shows such profound ignorance of what esoteric even means and bastardizes it completely to mean "abstruse", which is the vulgar way it the term is used to criticize difficult writings, nothing at all like spiritual esoterism, that's a new age fancy which says spirituality is about the self and doesn't require a master. Guénon, I can assure, did not go through the very demanding trials and requirements of being initiated into a Sufi order to learn what he already knew

>Catholicism according to Guenon's own viewpoint was initially esoteric was initiatic in character.

No, just stop. Catholicism according to Guénon was both exoteric and esoteric, the idea of an esoteric without and exoteric for him doesn't work. You mean it was originally a mystery cult


>I have not seen you site a book once.

I overtly cited his essay on Sharia and Haqiqa

>He surely was critical of it, but you are mistaking his criticism to be a full blown denial of it. He had no way of investigating Monasticism because he was married and therefor that path was not open to him. If he was so against Catholicism, it would make no sense for him to have sited Aquinas and other scholastics so often in books of his like the Reign of Quantity.

Aquinas himself made use of Averreoes of Aristotle, that does not mean he saw Islam and pagaism and spiritually comprehensive

>I am aware of it and never have argued in favor of Mysticism, rather always esoterism as I have stated in the previous paragraph.

Reaching revelations through your own efforts is by and large mysticism

>>13275632
Allah: 1
Infidels: 0

>>13275569
>wman. i don't care if X spiritual leader was. I am saying the vast majority of Muslims have no esoteric understand and that is fine. You do not need it.

It shape Islamic theology which in turn shapes fiqh which in turn determines practice. What you're saying is like, "Most people who use a computers have no understanding of their principles, therefore people with such understanding are not required for functioning computers."

Esoterism is something you are initiated into, this is why Guénon did not consider mysticism to be esoteric. Haqiqa was a pure example of esoterism To him

>>13275511
Its *exoteric representation

>>13275488
>This isn't even clear what you are writing
*All people

>I am arguing however that you do not need esoteric orders.

Guénon believed otherwise

>This should be obvious to you consider you are Muslim I presume and the vast majority of Muslims have no contact with anything esoteric either.

No, nonetheless it has (and Guénon is right on this) been absolutely essential to Islam, al-Ghazali was a Sufi and considered Sufism to be crucial to the nature of Islam

Esoterism (you seem to not understand it) is secretely taught prayers which are used to unlock a different state of consciousness. The exoteric in Guénon work is a reflection of the truth encountered in that esoteric state, but if no one ia being initiated into that state, its esoteric representation ceases to have any connection to it and begins to diverge from even representing it

>>13275392
Guénon absolutelty doesn't see esoterism as for people, but since he sees exoterism as depending firmly upon an esoteric basis, it is neccessary to have. The fact is there are no more esoteric orders in Catholicism