/lit/ - Literature

>>16960834
What was he going to say, that this poor dude's wife got blacked?

Best English translation? Can it really enjoyed translated?

>>16960853
It's not the same as the original Arabic but reading a translation with a proper set of annotations is alright. That being said, I am of the opinion that the Quran isn't necessarily a good starting place, no one would say that Capital is a good starting place for understanding Marxism for instance. Reading some of the philosophy generated by Muslims elaborating their understanding of the Quran would be a good starting place imo.

>>16960853
Many concepts lose their depth in English translation, and the beauty of the language in general is entirely lost, unfortunately. However, the spiritual force remains and it is more than enough to move its readers. But if you're trying to enjoy the aesthetic value, as you might with the Bible, you may feel disappointed. That's not to say the English is wholly prosaic, but that concise Arabic statements with various entendres don't translate as well as the wordier Greek of the NT.

I believe the Yusuf Ali translation is most popular in English, however, the Pickthall is an underrated gem as well.

>>16960877
Recommendations on where to start?


>>16960911
Yes this is what I was afraid of, but it is what it is I guess, ive been enjoying some youtube lectures on Islam and what not lately and have been curious to take a deeper dive.

>>16961062
Muhammad Man of Allah by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'án by Toshihiko Izutsu, Major Themes of the Qur'an by Fazlur Rahman, and Alone with the Alone by Henry Corbin (or really anything from Henry Corbin, just read everything he wrote bro).

Reading translations is pointless.
Unless you're actually proficient in classical Arabic you'll never truly understand the book.

>>16961634
You don’t need to understand the total nuances of the Qur’an to be moved by its Message. Don’t be so cynical.

Cringe religion for brainlets

the thing sbout the Quran is that it actually is from God. we can argue about most other things, but that is an unavoidable fact.

>>16961739
I heard recently in a lecture that obviously translations are different but that Allah would still want those who cant speak Arabic to be able to participate and read his word so theres still something to be taken away from a translation.

>>16961787
For sure. Of course a book intended for all of mankind to read for millennia would be presumed to undergo translation. All Muslims should learn Arabic at some point, but you can certainly be moved to conversion off of translation alone. Which is obvious given that it’s the fastest growing religion .

>>16961777
Exactly, but the depth of this statement is only comprehended by those with faith. To any onlooker it may seem absurd, and even the idea that we have the literal word of God written down may sound fantastical. But honestly, it is very difficult to hear the Qur’an, to know the message, the words themselves, and say that it is an inauthentic work. Just as He says in it “If you think this Qur’an is a fake, then make another one like it!” and of course, no one has.

>>16960826
>Torah 2.0 is soo magical
Wowzee

>>16960826
>be me in 1992
>go into a curio shop because i hear beautiful forigen music playing
>ask brown man in the dishdash what music this is
>IT'S NOT MUSIC IT'S THE NOBLE QUR'AN
>fuck these pretentious faggots

Thanks for telling me the foundation of your religion is subliminal brainwashing. You people are the truest of retards.

>>16962665
It doesn't sound fantastical, just wrong

>>16961777
Matthew 7:15
>Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

>>16963912
>my book vs your book
It's not a strong argument. Just worry about how you can worship God anon.

>>16964096
>says that the Quran is objectively God's word
>even though the Quran contradicts basic things about the NT which it claims to be its continuation
No.

>>16964186
NT was tampered with. Same with the OT. It is a continuation of what was sent down to Jesus Christ and Moses peace be upon them both.

>>16964208
lmao
When was it tampered?
Don't you have universities on the muslim world?
You can criticize a lot of things in christianity and judaism, but after the warlord that married kids went to preach his cult there was barely any modification on the canon!! The Septuagint is the same since the third century so...
Stop parroting whatever the "scholar" you listen says for you to talk and read the literature.
This is why I don't think the west needs to fear the spread of islam in the cultural level as every educated person realizes the flaws in these sort of arguments.
Gone are the times of muslim such as Averroes! Oh how your religion suffers from a lack of intellectuals, I wonder what happened frmo middle ages to now. (No I don't)

Muslims will never be able to recover from the satanic verses. You will have to accept that the Quran is actualy the work of Sheytan or that Muhammed was a false prophet scamming some reatrded arab nomads.

>>16964238
Anon, if you’re trying to assess religious value based on intellectual traditions I’m not sure if you get the “point” of religion. People come to Islam because it is powerful to them and they are happy to find God, it’s very simple. If you get wrapped up in cultural competition instead of the true crux of what religious experience is all about, then it’s nothing more than a self-disservice. I’m sorry if this comes off patronizing but I really do mean what I say. Save feistiness for arguing about philosophy.

>>16964454
>I’m sorry if this comes off patronizing
no it doesn't.

Do you think the capacity of reasoning was a gift from God?
If God exists and He made us and everything else and revealed himself then through the exercise of Reason we won't stray further from Him and His revelations.
Why through the exercise of Reason one can only conclude Islam to be deeply flawed? I pointed out that there was "no corruption" as the canon and the text is the same since before muhammad was born and you rise some bs about "mystical experience". Your arguments are weak and easily rebuttable.

There is a lot of mystery in christianity, which is more accentuated in the eastern tradition but everything that is left out to mystery do not challenge the Reasoning God gave us.

>People come to Islam because it is powerful to them and they are happy to find God, it’s very simple.
What about satanism? And drugs? And alcoholism? And all the vices and sins?
Doing something because it makes you "happy" and is "powerful" is not byproduct of your God-given intellect but rather your animalistic instincts. This behavior is no different than animals, but I guess this is only fitting

>>16962665
>To any onlooker it may seem absurd, and even the idea that we have the literal word of God written down may sound fantastical

It is only "fantastical" to those unaware of God. His Word became flesh. Read John and convert, there is still time

>>16964208
>NT was tampered with. Same with the OT.
You can’t expect to say shit like this and not get laughed at. Are you 14 or something?

>>16964536
You’re overcomplicating it. God gives us Faith and it is through it that we experience His Truth. Through Islam many have been given Faith, myself included. It is a beautiful state of being which the Qur’an enriches upon being read, as does the Bible, however, the Qur’an is what’s for me. People end up on many paths, whether those you’ve mentioned or those that are better for them. God guides who He pleases to where He pleases, be it Islam, Christianity, or something else. Islam can be debunked and deconstructed by any scrutinizing mind, like all religion, and so what? What’s important is that people are given Faith through worship of God, and that they learned to worship through Islam. So long as one is guided to God and given Faith, and their religions calls them to righteousness, there isn’t much room to be concerned with refutations and rebuttals. I know that I did not engage your argument but I hope you can see the greater theme in this.

>>16960826
Can someone Qur'anpill me?
Where's the best place to start?

>>16964612
Don’t worry about me anon, I’ll be alright, but thank you if that was a sincere reply.

>>16964698

>Qur’an is what’s for me

Faith should come from a place of reasoning or else you are falling into delusion.

>Islam can be debunked and deconstructed by any scrutinizing mind

The same cannot be said from Christianity, for instance.
So what should I follow? Something that has no weight or something that has weight?
It seems to me your whole belief is based on blindess.

>people are given Faith through worship of God
Yeah... No!
Faith is byproduct of belief but belief has to stem from the rational mind.
I never understood how far into Dehellenization Islam was, but I guess there is a widespread rejection of the use of reason in your world.
I feel bad for a tradition that, albeit wrong, had great intellectual figures in the middle ages.
Such a shame

>>16964755
I think you project a bit too much. Ive chosen to not give you an intellectually challenging argument because I don’t think it’s beneficial here. I am quite versed in philosophy and all sorts of rhetoric but you are not interested in discourse, rather a sort of spiteful bickering, so what do you expect? I have my prayers, my book, my peace and joy in God, I’m grateful for that, you know? Do you think it makes sense for me to engage you in the manner you desire when your intentions are poor and I already have what I need? I made this thread solely with hopes that some people would find it interesting and look deeper into Islam. I know there will be people teasing and laughing and such but it’s good enough that even two people are sincerely interested. Do you think I wrote what I did without an intellectual background of my own? You could give me at least some credit anon!

>>16964809
Fuck that other retard, what you are doing here is great.

Thank you.

>>16964907
I’m very glad to be of service!

>>16960826
Is the Koran worth reading as a Christian?

>>16964907
>>16964917
oh my god.
1 minute of difference between the messages, you are fooling no one.
same fag

>>16964953
Seething

>>16964953
I’d say we have a bit of a different tone lol.
>>16964941
If you’re open to it then yes. I have Christian friends who have enjoyed parts of it. I enjoy the Bible from time to time myself. If you’re interested in what I’m describing then I think you will like it for sure.

>>16960834
>a bedouin came to Allah's apostle
bedouins don't understand much, probably was looking at the baby in the dark

>>16961062
Read a biography on the Prophet (saw). Personally I enjoyed Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings when I first became Muslim. I'd look at the historical works of Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari as well since they explain the events during the Prophet (saw)'s lifetime and after it.

>>16961185
>Corbin
>Nasr
Why don't you just tell him to read Guenon?

>>16964755
>Faith should come from a place of reasoning or else you are falling into delusion.
Is the faith you have in your own reasoning capacity from a place of reasoning as well?

>>16960826
There is no beauty in it honestly, unless you're a low-iq brainlet. It's incredibly simple and uninspired in every sense.

If this book had any beauty to it, then there wouldn't be so much negativity around it when observed from a completely neutral view.
Even though I am disheartened if this truly is gods word, it's just not good and god didn't care enough to make it appear good except for some sheeple. I pass...

لَا يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ جَمِيعًا إِلَّا فِي قُرًى مُحَصَّنَةٍ أَوْ مِنْ وَرَاءِ جُدُرٍ بَأْسُهُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ شَدِيدٌ تَحْسَبُهُمْ جَمِيعًا وَقُلُوبُهُمْ شَتَّى ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ (14) كَمَثَلِ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ قَرِيبًا ذَاقُوا وَبَالَ أَمْرِهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (15) كَمَثَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ إِذْ قَالَ لِلْإِنْسَانِ اكْفُرْ فَلَمَّا كَفَرَ قَالَ إِنِّي بَرِيءٌ مِنْكَ إِنِّي أَخَافُ اللَّهَ رَبَّ الْعَالَمِينَ (16) فَكَانَ عَاقِبَتَهُمَا أَنَّهُمَا فِي النَّارِ خَالِدَيْنِ فِيهَا وَذَلِكَ جَزَاءُ الظَّالِمِينَ (17) يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَلْتَنْظُرْ نَفْسٌ مَا قَدَّمَتْ لِغَدٍ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ (18) وَلَا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ نَسُوا اللَّهَ فَأَنْسَاهُمْ أَنْفُسَهُمْ أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ (19) لَا يَسْتَوِي أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ وَأَصْحَابُ الْجَنَّةِ أَصْحَابُ الْجَنَّةِ هُمُ الْفَائِزُونَ (20) لَوْ أَنْزَلْنَا هَذَا الْقُرْآنَ عَلَى جَبَلٍ لَرَأَيْتَهُ خَاشِعًا مُتَصَدِّعًا مِنْ خَشْيَةِ اللَّهِ وَتِلْكَ الْأَمْثَالُ نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ (21)

>>16965409
>Why don't you just tell him to read Guenon?
I mean I haven't read Guenon so I wouldn't reccomend him to anyone and also based off of what I know about his work, Corbin and Nasr are less meme-y. But I think this sort of "Oh you like THAT writer" stuff goes no where, care to say why you disagree with Corbin and Nasr and spark an actual discussion?

>>16964700
In my opinion with Islanic philosophy on the book, it's history, and it's content. See my post here >>16961185.

>>16965626
Ive read a bunch of Guenon actually lmao

>>16965626
Well brother Corbin and Nasr are definitely more useful and serious writers than Guenon they are overly influenced by Greek philosophy. If I'm not mistaken Corbin is influenced by Illuminationism and I don't see what knowledge someone interested in Islam could get from that. Nasr is a traditionalist and I don't see traditionalism as a useful ideology for Muslims, it's a specifically Western reaction to modernity. I haven't read Nasr's work on traditionalism in Islam so I don't know if he provides any better arguments but this quote from an essay he wrote has a lot of problems.

>The traditionalist and the so-called ‘fundamentalist’ meet in their acceptance of the Quran and Hadíth, as well as in their emphasis upon the Sharí‘ah, but even here the differences remain profound. As already mentioned, tradition always emphasizes the sapiential commentaries and the long tradition of Quranic hermeneutics in understanding the meaning of the verses of the Sacred Text; whereas so many of the ‘fundamentalist’ movements simply pull out a verse from the Quran and give it a meaning in accordance with their goals and aims, often reading into it a meaning alien to the whole tradition of Quranic commentary, or tafsír. As for the Sharí‘ah, tradition always emphasizes, in contrast to so much of current ‘fundamentalism’, faith, inner attachment to the dicta of the Divine Law and the traditional ambience of lenient judgment based upon the imperfections of human society, rather than simply external coercion based on fear of some human authority other than God

For Nasr a profound difference is supposedly a lack of importance given to tafsir and lenience in judgement. Nasr and his likes might not be modernists but they are trying to adapt Islam to an infidel ideology nonetheless.

>>16965724
how much exactly?

>>16960826
>it does not rely on logical arguments in order to convince the reader of its truth. Instead, it employs primordial language in an appeal to the reader’s unconsciou
Wow biggest cope this month.

Quran is just terrible and you are an atheist.

>>16965764
About 6 of his books.

>>16965724
Well I wouldn't rec it to you either way.
>>16965750
>are overly influenced by Greek philosophy
Well I mean them and a good deal of Muslim philosophers as well. I take you you're opposed to the falsafa tradition?
>I don't see traditionalism as a useful ideology for Muslims
I don't either actually, I just think they're good as opposing opinions to the more Salafist/Wahabist type of fundamentalism, and they have interesting theological standpoints. I wss reccomending them because I think they're good as an entry point for westerners and people who have an overly essentialized view of Islam. People like the traditionalists will often make comparative comments on religious doctrines and I think that helps westerners understand Islam to a greater degree.
>For Nasr a profound difference is supposedly a lack of importance given to tafsir and lenience in judgement. Nasr and his likes might not be modernists but they are trying to adapt Islam to an infidel ideology nonetheless.
I don't think we'd agree on theology very much at all. I disagree with Nasr here and there, but he's no modernist and he's definently in line with the Islamic tradition, the quote you posted is not wrong in the slightest. For being supposed literalists, Salafis and Wahabists only apply their literalism when it suits them.

>>16965917
>I take you you're opposed to the falsafa tradition
For the most part yes, it's not the way the Sahaba reached conviction in Islam. Why ought we try to justify our beliefs through a platonic or aristotelian framework?
>he's definently in line with the Islamic tradition
Which Islamic tradition is he in line with, that of the Salaf or that of some philosopher?
>the quote you posted is not wrong in the slightest. For being supposed literalists, Salafis and Wahabists only apply their literalism when it suits them
Salafis aren't necessarily literalists, they accept verses and commands as they are explained by Allah and don't try to derive explanations which aren't contained in the scripture itself. Nasr is referring to this when he states that "tradition" always emphasizes sapiental commentaries and hermeneutics, the problem is he is limiting "traditional" Islam to a group of scholars influenced by Greek ideas and ignoring scholars like Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyya etc. Usually fundamentalists don't just "give a meaning" to the verses they use to justify their ideas, they bring the tafsir and quotes of earlier scholars. The difference between fundamentalists and traditionalists in Nasr's mind is just one of fundamentalists being more brutish and less inclined towards Western philosophy which makes the quote quite ridiculous.

>>16965975
>For the most part yes, it's not the way the Sahaba reached conviction in Islam
If it doesn't go against Islamic principles then it isn't something un-Islamic, there's a bunch of things the sahaba didn't do that most scholars don't think is morally wrong.
>Why ought we try to justify our beliefs through a platonic or aristotelian framework?
Why not? If it reaches satisfactory answers, that is logically consistant ones, I see no harm.
>Which Islamic tradition is he in line with, that of the Salaf or that of some philosopher?
And the philosophers are supposed to be not aligned with the Salad? Because they were.
>Salafis aren't necessarily literalists, they accept verses and commands as they are explained by Allah and don't try to derive explanations which aren't contained in the scripture itself
Unless you receive revelation frlm Allah you are using reason to examine the Quran, no Muslim believes that they are deriving things from the Quran that weren't there originally.
>Nasr is referring to this when he states that "tradition" always emphasizes sapiental commentaries and hermeneutics, the problem is he is limiting "traditional" Islam to a group of scholars influenced by Greek ideas and ignoring scholars like Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyya etc.
I actually agree somewhat, but I find the ones you mentioned lacking in accomplishments intellectually, especially in comparison to people like Malik ibn Anas or Abu Mansur al-Maturidi. Mainly because they deviated from Islamic orthodoxy and the path down which Islam was going.
>Usually fundamentalists don't just "give a meaning" to the verses they use to justify their ideas, they bring the tafsir and quotes of earlier scholars
Only the one's that can be twisted to agree with their nonsensical beliefs.
>The difference between fundamentalists and traditionalists in Nasr's mind is just one of fundamentalists being more brutish and less inclined towards Western philosophy which makes the quote quite ridiculous
I believe this to be a highly uncharitable reading of what he said, he means fundamentalists are themselves modernists, and they are. Modernism isn't when you say hooman rights and read Aristotle, it's a movement ment to create reform to deal with new trends, and the fundamentalism Nasr is talking about deviates from Islamic thiught as it has been since the time of the Prophet (PBUH) to deal with modernity, literally succumbing to modernity.

>>16966069
>If it doesn't go against Islamic principles then it isn't something un-Islamic
>If it reaches satisfactory answers, that is logically consistant ones, I see no harm.
>And the philosophers are supposed to be not aligned with the Salad? Because they were.
The problem here is Greek philosophy and Aristotelianism in particular does go against Islamic principles and its own principles are for the most part not logically tenable. An obvious example would be eternity of the earth, or aspects of natural law which are contrary to Islamic law. I don't know of any among the Salaf who believed the Quran was not eternal or the concepts specific to Illuminationism.
>no Muslim believes that they are deriving things from the Quran that weren't there originally
When Muslims say certain descriptions of Allah in the Quran for example his seating on the throne are metaphorical, is this not derived from outside the Quran?
>it's a movement ment to create reform to deal with new trends, and the fundamentalism Nasr is talking about deviates from Islamic thiught as it has been since the time of the Prophet (PBUH) to deal with modernity, literally succumbing to modernity
Do you think this description fits Salafis? Fundamentalism is precisely a rejection of those trends, a refusal to interact with them. The falasifa on the other hand became absorbed in these trends and created theologies in line with them. A rejection of those theologies is by no means a rejection of Islam.
>I find the ones you mentioned lacking in accomplishments intellectually, especially in comparison to people like Malik ibn Anas or Abu Mansur al-Maturidi
What would you consider an intellectual accomplishment? Ibn Taymiyya had quite a large influence during his life and after his death on both aqidah and attitudes towards politics.
>Mainly because they deviated from Islamic orthodoxy and the path down which Islam was going
I have a problem with the last part of your statement. Islamic orthodoxy is not a path which Islam will follow over time, Islam has set doctrines which don't change and don't require metaphysical justification. When faith relies on non-divine metaphysics it is quite easily shattered.

>>16960844
Yeah he did the kindest thing

>>16960826
All of this post can also easily be attributed to the stuffs that Islam hates, they also use the same thing, if not loftier.

>>16966126
>When Muslims say certain descriptions of Allah in the Quran for example his seating on the throne are metaphorical, is this not derived from outside the Quran?
If deriving a metaphorical understanding from sometuing is going outaide the permimeters of the text then so is deriving a literal one. Or any understanding. Unless you speak to God, you cab not understand God's revelation outside of your human facilities.
>The problem here is Greek philosophy and Aristotelianism in particular does go against Islamic principles and its own principles are for the most part not logically tenable
That's why a good deal of the falsafa tradition was about hoe the greeks were wrong here and there but had a few great ideas, ehich didn't contradict Islamic principles.
>An obvious example would be eternity of the earth, or aspects of natural law which are contrary to Islamic law
I agree, Ibn Sina and his ilk were incorrect on this issue.
>Do you think this description fits Salafis? Fundamentalism is precisely a rejection of those trends, a refusal to interact with them. The falasifa on the other hand became absorbed in these trends and created theologies in line with them. A rejection of those theologies is by no means a rejection of Islam.
I disagree, as these fundamentalist trends have certain views that were seen a deviant ones for most of Islam's history.
>What would you consider an intellectual accomplishment? Ibn Taymiyya had quite a large influence during his life and after his death on both aqidah and attitudes towards politics.
I dont think he had no worthwhile ideas but he was influencial because so many people viewed him as someone who, through his anthropomorphic views on God, didn't properly adhere to Islamic principles. He was well knwon because everyone didn't agree with him essentially.
>I have a problem with the last part of your statement. Islamic orthodoxy is not a path which Islam will follow over time, Islam has set doctrines which don't change and don't require metaphysical justification. When faith relies on non-divine metaphysics it is quite easily shattered.
For this to be the case that would require history to stop and humans to become static creatures, this is a world of multiplicity which directly contrasts the oneness of God, so obviously there are expections and specifics that must be considered when applying Islamic principles. The principles don't change, the context does.

I am muslim but the quran is super boring. Even while reading tafsir I fall asleep. Some cute girls at my local mosque are reading tafsir together with the imam though, maybe I can participate.

>>16966259
>If deriving a metaphorical understanding from sometuing is going outaide the permimeters of the text then so is deriving a literal one. Or any understanding.
That is not true, you can confirm a statement without fully understanding the meaning of it. When Allah says he is seated on the throne, we know that Allah's action cannot be similar to our own actions in any way. We do not know what exactly He means by being seated so we accept the verse as it's been revealed.
>the greeks were wrong here and there but had a few great ideas, ehich didn't contradict Islamic principles
Plato and Aristotle had philosophical systems, isn't it illogical to accept the bases of these systems then deny their ramifications?
>He was well knwon because everyone didn't agree with him essentially.
Facing opposition from the scholars of his time doesn't invalidate his points, the scholars who criticized him were further from the views of the early muslims than ibn taymiyya.
>The principles don't change, the context does.
If the basis of our principles changes will the principles themselves not change as well? The importance given to Greek philosophy in the Muslim world brought forward conflicts that didn't exist in the time of the Sahaba such as that of the eternity of the Quran. This was only possible because the conclusions of Greek philosophy regarding the attributes of God was viewed as hujjah for Muslims in their creed. If there is no command from Allah and his Prophet to believe in the conclusions of these philosophies, can we use them to derive aspects of our creed, for example divine simplicity?

>>16960826
Kill yourself

>>16966346
please use kind words while in the masjid

>>16966351

>>16966365
reddit is that way

>>16960826
Jazakallahu Khayran brother. Alhamdulilah for Islam. Truly it is a gift, it is guidance, and it is the light to free us from the dark. I feel sorry for those who are misguided.

>>16965506
>unironically using the word sheeple

I was about to argue with you with some points but then I realized you're hopeless and retarded

I don't like the arabian aesthetic, not my thing. Therefore it doesn't resonate with me.

>>16966568
>I don't like the arabian aesthetic
1500 years of crusade propaganda will do that to you. Even those adamant atheists, who so despise their Christian world they are born in, hate Islam, not knowing that hate is the same product of the dogma they despise.

>>16966599
No that's not it, I just don't like it, I find it aesthetically displeasing at worst, or am indifferent to it at best. You're making assumptions.

>>16966607
>You're making assumptions.
Not assumptions, history.

>>16966617
Good job dodging the point. Why are you so conceited that you can't fathom someone might dislike something you like?

>>16966628
>Why are you so conceited
Now who's making assumptions?

>>16966631
>Good job dodging the point

>>16966637
Nice try.

>>16966647
What did I try exactly?
>say I don't like the quranic aesthetic
>"actually that's just evil christian conditioning, kuffar"
>say that's a baseless assumption and that I simply don't enjoy it
>he spergs out

>>16966660
>kuffar
Your true colors are showing. I never used such a derogatory term.

>>16966667
>still not addressing the point and focusing on details to avoid making an argument
Your true colors are showing.

>>16966568
whatchu just say about the arabian aesthetic amerimutt?

>"I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet (ﷺ) and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible)."
>t. Aisha
The beauty of this primordial language is beyond words

>>16966688
>Sex isn't primordial
Spoken like a true virgin.

>>16966686
Not a burger, try again.
The arabian aesthetic strikes me as one of the least pleasing among all oriental cultures.

>>16966688
that's not from the quran and was not even said by the prophet (ﷺ), try again

>>16966696
what dont you like about it?

>>16966694
>>16966701
cope and seethe harder

>>16966701
>ﷺ
Based

>>16966708
Be a virgin harder

>>16966707
Describing what you don't like about an aesthetic is difficult. It's a personal feeling, not a list of criteria.

>>16966696
>Not a burger
Lel even worse a yuro cuck

>>16966717
I'm not a virgin
you might be however since goats don't count

>>16966718
that's fair, though the Quran is written in Arabic it managed to resonate with a lot of non-Arabs as well both inside Arabia and across the world after the conquests

>>16966720
How could a mere comment about the aesthetic of the arabian world cause such rage?
I don't see other abrahamists or dharmists get offended when they're told the particular cultural and aesthetic components of their religions are not everyone's cup of tea.

>>16966734
>How could a mere comment about the aesthetic of the arabian world cause such rage?
Well, that's your failure to understand other cultures. Pretty much confirms you're European as that is inherent to you.

>>16966754
>if you don't like my culture that means you don't understand it
How prideful and petty.

>this whole fucking thread
Yet another proof that muslims are literal human vermin and should be eradicated asap

>>16966754
im not enraged bro but arabian culture has little to do with the quran
>>16966764
have fun with your tranny sons and whore daughters crusader dogs

>>16966774
The quran is steeped in arabian culture.

>>16966783
You've got that wrong. Arab culture is shaped by Quran.

>>16966786
If you're a muslim then obviously that's how you'll interpret it, yes. The point is that both are related, which is what the other guy denied.

>>16966774
>implying islam is the only possible answer against the degeneration of values
>implying muslim societies are preferable to western ones
Name one (1) country with an overwhelmingly muslim population that isn't a nasty shithole, I'm waiting

>>16966783
>>16966786
Both wrong, the Quran accepts parts of Arab culture as permissible, adopts parts (fasting during Ramadan for example) and prohibits some (killing children). The style of the Quran itself is distinct from any other Arab prose.

>>16966757
ummm islamophobic much??

>>16966806
Iran, parts of Saudi Arabia, rural Yemen before the war

>>16966757
>prideful
How Christian of you. Laying your forehead on the ground to worship a God is something you wouldn't dream of doing, yet you speak about pride.

>>16966819
lmao
I sure hope this post is satire, but since you're muslim I'm afraid you're actually being serious

>>16966806
>Name one (1) country with an overwhelmingly muslim population that isn't a nasty shithole, I'm waiting

>>16966821
Not Christian.
Still dodging the point. Why?
Are you seriously implying that it isn't extremely conceited to assume anyone who dislikes your culture simply doesn't understand it? Are you this removed from reality?

>>16966827
what problems are there with the areas i mentioned? Iran and Saudi Arabia have better quality of life than Chicago. The former has trannies but they are ostracized from society, the latter is becoming a shithole due to liberalization

>>16966829
>shiny soulless skyscraper good
it's almost endearing how muslim cluelessness regarding actual cultural finesse leads to naive conceptions of what constitutes a good standard of living

>>16966833
>Are you this removed from reality?
No, I am not allowing you to warp it to win an argument, there's a difference.

>>16966844
Still dodging the point. If you're not going to address it and keep up with the boring word games, just say so, it'll spare us both wasted time.

>>16966839
>cultural finesse
>Shit hole
Still trying to warp reality, I see. Skyscrapers may not be culturally refined but they are far removed from a "shit hole" as the other anon seemed to imply

>>16966837
>>16966849
>n-no don't call it a shithole please

>>16960826
okumadım kardeş durumumuz yoktu

>>16966844
>>16966847
Nothing then? I was really hoping to understand how distaste for a culture necessarily implied a lack of understanding.

>>16966860
ne diyorsun kardeşim

>>16966854
>there are earthquakes therefore it is a shithole

>>16966908
>j-just earthquakes bro haha I swear

>>16966897
nice google translate kardeşim

i meant i didnt read because we didnt have the situation

>>16960844
Maybe that sandniggers really are niggers

>>16966916
kek

>>16966925
what situation? also im genuinely trying to learn turkish kek
>>16966916
>first picture from iran
>second picture from iraq
you're embarrassing yourself

>>16960834
Not gonna lie this is pretty based. Shows the wisdom of The Prophet (s.a.w.s)

>>16966947
its a joke that only a real turkish can understand

why turkish? go learn something useful instead

>>16966947
iran, iraq, same shit tbqh, stay in your filthy shitholes if you like them so much but don't come shit up our own nations, thanks

>>16966947
>conveniently looking past the Khomeini badge
Those are iranian troops, brainlet.

>>16966952
>why turkish? go learn something useful instead
Kek

>>16966960
>Khomeini
You mean Santa Claus? Those are obviously Murricam troops who pledge allegiance to S.C

>>16966952
>why turkish? go learn something useful instead
i probably should, i have to travel through turkey frequently so i figure it would be nice to learn the language and go outside of istanbul. are the arap areas safe? i speak that language
>>16966960
>Those are iranian troops, brainlet.
That isn't Khomeini, that's Ali al-Sistani. The flags are Iraqi and nobody in the pic looks Persian.

>>16966954
>stay in your filthy shitholes if you like them so much but don't come shit up our own nations
you invited us

>>16960826
I used to be very Islamophobic but I see them in a totally different light now. I'd rather my country all be Muslim than be atheists. The way America has waged war on desert tribes and destroyed countries like Libya in a decade is disgusting. America should be given back to the natives and England should become a Muslim country. I see my fellow countrymen having dirty sex and shoving drugs up their noses and I see the Muslims in pristine white clothes and nice beards with a belief in God. Muslim women are sweet and subservient. They don't look me in the eye they are so modest and virtuous. I would convert but my degenerate family would rather me be gay instead.

>>16966962

>>16966984
>I see the Muslims in pristine white clothes and nice beards with a belief in God
You got the nice ones then, muslims in my country smell like garlic, are loud as shit and generally an eyesore

>>16966986
I've heard ETI snake are pretty based

>>16966979
>are the arap areas safe?
nope. stay away for your life

>>16966984
>I see the Muslims in pristine white clothes and nice beards with a belief in God
Obviously a b8 but Allah wouldn't accept someone so very obviously homosexual.

>>16966992
Yeah in my city they are very clean and respectful. Growing up I always went to this Islamic gallery that was also a cafe and restaurant and it was stunning. Marble and arches and all. Not cheap either.

OP here, I didn’t expect this thread to take off so I will try to clear up some questions and concerns.

>>16966221
What are you referring to? What uses “the same thing if not loftier”? It’s no secret that great poets use primordial language, however, it’s quite bold to claim it’s in a matter which rivals the Qur’an.
>>16965807
In response to this post I mean to reply to anyone who misunderstands the function of what I’m describing. Trust that I would never have written this or been moved to write it without experiencing God and having the gift of Faith in my heart. If you think I am lying then please ask yourself at least, what would I gain from deceiving people in a post that is glorifying how good it feels for the heart to know God? I understand if you yourself do not like the religion, but to project insincerity onto me, or intellectual deficiency, is not a well reasoned assumption.
>>16965449
>simplicity is bad
Don’t fall for this meme. Notice how the greatest poets in English, Keats, Yeats, Blake, Dickinson, Shakespeare, etc. are generally concise and, although difficult at times, much less opaque than lesser poets such as Wallace Stevens, Hart Crane, or even T.S Eliot. Conciseness with the right would can be truly sublime, and while Western literary traditions are overall more erudite than the Arabic, the principle remains across borders. The conciseness of the Qur’an is intentional and more than effective. And remember that the Arabic is charged with various entendres amidst this tenseness, which is sadly lost in translation. I would understand if you said that it was less aesthetically pleasing than the NT because Greek poetics are closer to the Western mind than Arab, but your claim is poorly reasoned.


There are a lot of vitriolic arguments here that, although expected, I can’t really jump in on, so if anyone needs something clarified by myself directly feel free to ask. But please do not come to me with bad faith questions and expect to be engaged in a serious manner. Thank you.

>>16966993
>ETI snake
whats that?

>>16966998
thanks for the heads up

>>16967003
It's not bait and I'm not homosexual that is my point. If my country turned Muslim there would be no more homosexuals or transgenders because there would be no jews to subvert us.

>>16967006
*conciseness with the right words

>>16966983
No, the jews that infiltrated our sovereign leadership invited you
Nobody actually wants you here

>>16967006
Also I meant terseness not tenseness.

>>16967016
yeah i know, i'll leave when you start shooting us just please don't shoot me i'm a good guy

>>16967021
Seeing how things are going I doubt that's what's going to happen

>>16967010
anytime mate

>>16967008
ETI snacks, autocorrected. ETI is the company that makes the snack in the picture and many other famous Turkish snacks.

Allahu Ackbar. Don't give up Muslims because we are desperate for God and some tradition. Women are desperate to be kept in check. White people are senile now like Alzheimer's it's time to pass on the baton to you. I thank you for our numbers, I thank you for astrology. I am learning about Saladin The Great.

>>16967029
>autocorrected
ah alright

yea i know ETİ. its a big company. based? if you wanna get diabetic, sure. but sure its tasty af

>>16967016
>No, the jews that infiltrated our sovereign leadership invited you
[4.46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.

>>16967043
[4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.

>>16967055
[4.161] And their(Jews) taking usury though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.

>>16967035
Thanks my european friend. I assure you it could be worse, the baton could be in the hands of the Indians or Russians or Chinese.

>>16965516
Based and truthpilled.
May god have mercy on all of us anons.

>>16967072
Ameen

>>16960834
Muhammad’s pretty based for walking him through it and slowly redpilling him that his wife is a whore and that he’s a cuck

>>16966286
May Allah bless you and all of us.

>>16966806
>>16966854
The lands of Islam are the richest in the world.

>>16967337
>literally desertic wastelands as far as the eye can see

>>16967343
Perhaps. But they have Islam.

>>16967390
Bro, how based can you be?

>>16960826
Kek, great bait

>>16960834
based BLACKED connoisseur

>>16967390
True, at least they get to rape kids

>>16967343
>>literally desertic wastelands as far as the eye can see

>>16967585
>what are cold deserts

>>16967604
>desert with trees and mountains and snow

Reminder that Muhammad's marriage with Aisha has only been considered controversial in recent times. Christians have been trying their hardest to discredit Islam since its inception with the most ridiculous arguments like the fact that 632 when he died is dangerously close to 666 yet they didn't care about his marriage with Aisha because it was considered normal and nothing out of the ordinary. For thousands of years Christians and Hindus and skeptics from all around the world have thrown doubt at the religion of God but its only until the 20th century that people seem to have a problem with child marriage because the feminist movement and their fervent advocation for higher age of consent laws in recent years.

>>16967768
Only followers of islam are this belligerent and can't stop seething about their inferiority complex
Calm the fuck down, faggot

>>16967777
>Only followers of islam are this belligerent and can't stop seething about their inferiority complex Calm the fuck down, faggot

>>16967794
>>16967777

>>16967716
New England is my favorite desert

>>16967797
>>16967794

>>16967777
>Only followers of islam are this belligerent
you bomb us to try and make us embrace global homosexuality

>>16968294
>you bomb us
I'm not a drone operator

>>16960826
The last line is great.
Where are you from?

>>16960826
get out, fideist

>>16966992
Where is this place

>>16968499
Any big european city

>>16968483
Thank you, I'm from the U.S.

>Prevailing Hanafi jurisprudence, as applied in Afghanistan, prescribes the death penalty for the crime of apostasy.[3] A person charged with apostasy can avoid prosecution and/or punishment if he recants.[4]

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/index.php

Death for apostasy isn't beautiful. It's Old Testament. You're still living in the blood of the old covenant. No more sacrifices. No more blood. Jesus Christ gave it all for free already. He is the Truth. Accept the good news of the new testament covenant.
צמח צדק
אהבה משל
יהוה צדקנ
עלעליון
זכריה אברהם
אהיה אשר אהיה
אוֹר

>>16960826

1) The lyricism of the Quran is only felt when you know Arabic. How are the ones who don't know Arabic will feel the same effect? None of the translations I've read retains the same lyricism

2) Isn't it subjective what appeals to the soul? Just like not all poetry resonates with everyone, what if Quran's poetry doesn't resonate with someone in the same way?

>>16968596
Excellent questions. First, it is true that the lyricism is absent in translation, however, the nouns themselves, or at least the parallels such as the English "sun" to the Arabic شمس for example, remain. And it's the Message of the Qur'an that ultimately moves the reader, and this is present regardless of language. The depth of aesthetic value is certainly lost but the kernel itself retains its splendor. Now, the significance of nouns remaining unchanged speaks to your second question. Primordial language would not be primordial if it were subjective, the words "sun", "moon", "star", "bird", and "flower" for example, are ever present in poetry across the globe due to their archetypal or "cosmic" charge. Gaston Bachelard speaks about this in depth in his "Poetics of Reverie" if you would like to learn more of this phenomenon. And it's true that the soul prefers what it will in terms of aesthetic pleasure, but it will always recognize the cosmic weight of certain words and concepts regardless of how they're used. The trick of writing great poetry is to use them adroitly of course, and the Qur'an apotheosizes this technique. So more often than not, if one is open to the Qur'an's message, they will be moved. But Allah chooses who He pleases to be open to His Message, hence the gulf of disparaging opinions seen in this thread. When it's understood it is the most sublime and clear Truth, but otherwise it's, well, as the Qur'an notes disbelievers saying "evident sorcery!".

>>16968596
>How are the ones who don't know Arabic will feel the same effect?
Once you believe in Allah, it makes sense in any language. Conversly it's true for the Bible that once you believe in God Bible makes a whole lot sense, while most atheists make fun of it, or like it for "the beauty" or whatever, but they don't truly feel it, like a Christian would.

>>16968808
>Poetics of Reverie
Good rec. How did you find this?

>>16960834
Life really is just one long denial of the woman you love being a whore

>>16969230
That's why you get virgins in heaven, bro

There aren't actually retards who fell for the torah fanfic, right? Even just the satanic verses should give anyone a red flag on how twisted this story is.

>>16968808
Major part of the Quran isn't spent on peddling the core message though. Major part is spent referencing incidents that requires context and additional books to get the whole picture.
I understand that it had to be this way due to the nature of the revelation, but this often results in someone not so familiar with the religion sitting with the Quran out of curiosity, getting bored a few chapters in and ultimately abandoning it. The embedded core message might be appealing, but the book itself is not systemically structured invitingly for non-Arabic individuals and people unfamiliar with the religion: in other words, the world's majority. How could a book that is meant for the whole humanity be non-inviting to the major factions of the world?

>>16969201
Was recommended Bachelard on here months ago in regard to some post I made about poetry. He’s excellent.
>>16969461
I disagree, and the book itself repeatedly emphasizes that it’s a Mercy for “all mankind”. I don’t think any scholar would agree that Islam is not a universal religion or the Qur’an not a universal text. The nuances in reference are important but many are moved without understanding them as such. I’m curious to how you’ve come to this opinion because it’s quite rare to my knowledge. Many converts are elated by the simplicity and palpability of the text, especially contrasted with the Bible’s more puzzling chapters. The historical context is indispensable but the overarching Message is much more prominent. Hence Muhammad saw said that “1/3 of the Qur’an is contained in Surah Al-Ikhlas” whose central message is simply that Allah is One, Eternal, and Unique.

>>16969546
I don't remember entirely cause I read some initial parts a few years ago, but doesn't it say 'remember...' after every few lines and starts referencing incidents which we're supposed to draw moral conclusions from?

>>16969603
When it says “remember” it is usually in reference to OT stories like Moses and Pharaoh, or previous societies being destroyed for transgression. Both of which contain morals that can be derived without any prior knowledge. Historical context is particularly good for understanding things like the chapters on violence and why people called Muhammad saw “a poet possessed”. But as far as stories and incidents called to remembrance, the whole point is that they give clear guides on right and wrong behavior. For the most part the Qur’an is anything but opaque given its use of simple language and how often its main themes are repeated throughout. Context answers the “why was this said” but the “what it means” can be decently surmised upon deep reflection. Of course the greater depth requires greater context but the main ideas are clear for all to see.

>>16969435
satanic verses story has an untrustworthy and disconnected chain of narration and is not included in any canonical hadith books because it is literally just a tall-tale.
>b-b-but muslims could be hiding it and lying about its chain just to protect islam
there are so many embarrassing hadith out there that proves that this statement is retarded