/lit/ - Literature

>>17596919
>Islamic links, new additions at bottom including avoiding premarital sex, the ruling on freemasonry and interfaith/ecumenicism
Ah forgot the link
https://pastebin.com/CKbsaqE0

The strong emphasis on denying univocity of being has lead to groups like ISIS seeing humanism as necessarily theological in implication

>Resorting to what is called “international law” from the calls that are echoed by some politicians, is intended to mean resorting to man-made laws the West created in order to impose its political hegemony and intellectual vision on the peoples of the world.
https://peopleoftawhid.org/we-believe-solely-in-allah-and-disbelieve-in-international-law/

>“Human Rights” is as much an ideology and religion as Islam and Christianity. The anthropology of it need not concern us now, however. What does is its hegemonic desire; and it showcased that lust in a recent article by Humans Rights Watch.

https://peopleoftawhid.org/human-rights-crusaders-war-against-islam/

To understand why ISIS views human rights and humanism as religion we ha

>>17596960
*Have to keep in mind th strong distaste of the idea of man associated with or imitating Allah in function

>>17596919
>An example is fear, while it's not enough of shirk to take you out of Islam, fearing anything other than Allah is still a form of shirk, for example.
That's truly ridiculous, fear is an absolutely normal reaction in many circumstances. So a father who is afraid that his daughter might die of an illness is committing shirk? That's a pretty gross way to view people.

Also a reminder that Muslims believe the moon was cut in half and stuck back together again, but nobody in the world noticed except a handful of people in Arabia, it had no effect on the tides or the moon's orbit, and left absolutely no evidence of it happening.

>>17597004
This is a linguistic issue really, I'm talking about fear as in تقوى, you're referring to خوق. One is fearful as in a conscientious way, the other is a triggered instinct like hunger or arousal

>>17597032
خوف*

>>17596919
Christianity is monotheism, at worst they are "associators".

>>17597133
That's actually what mushrikeen means

>>17597004
Kek.

How long will it take this time before OP starts condoning the murder of civilians? It's the same every thread, he's not as smart as he tries to look.

>>17597004
OPiss and mudslimes in general obliterated

>>17597142
Being too (wilfully) dumb to understand the trinity does not invalidate Christianity.

>>17597152
Your own countrymen are converting en masse and will one day take care of people like you.

فَلْيَضْحَكُواْ قَلِيلاً وَلْيَبْكُواْ كَثِيراً جَزَاء بِمَا كَانُواْ يَكْسِبُونَ

>>17597153
This is a bit strange since the most common defense of the Trinity I see is that it's an incomprehensible mystery. Now it is plain and obvious?

>>17597168
That just shows you haven't read much about Christianity.

>>17597183
I have read several of the church fathers on the Trinity and I find that it's polytheism

>>17597199
>>17597133
Your findings are in disagreement with Islamic scholarly consensus.
Tell me, are you a convert or diaspora? It'd explain your arrogant intransigence on things that aren't islamic.

>>17597165
You’ll do nothing muddy

>>17597216
Mushrik literally means associator in Arabic. Someone who makes shirk. As for the consensus, it is that Christians are kuffar and in fact to deny this itself is considered kufr. You are actually probably going by some western scholar, possibly a modernist

>>17597229
Cope.

>>17597229
Seethe and cope
Dead religion

>>17596919
كس أمكم هههههههه

>>17597229
>doesn't know what "to associate'' means
Lmao

>>17597380
Within Islamic discourse, "associate" in relation to theology is terminology with precise meaning intended as equivalent to the Arabic. Similarly the term "hypocrite" refers very specifically to a munafiq, that is a kaffir who calls himself a Muslim, not just a Muslim who fails to practice what he proclaims

>>17597414
Op do you ever feel tired of being btfo in both /pol/ and here.

>>17598097
ESLs don't understand those subtleties. The muslim brain thinks it won when their opposition is quiet, hence them condoning murder is not a far fetch

>>17596919
Truth about the Quran

>>17598469

>>17598469
>>17598477
Cope

>>17598477
>>17598469
Where do you live?

Islamic arguments are so tiresome. I can't believe I wasted years studying Qur'anic Arabic in order to properly study the Qur'an only to find out what argumentative morons comprise the scope of Islamic scholarship.

I'll just go back to reading Sufi poetry instead of listening to this pedantic nonsense that passes for Islamic "scholarship." All the decent Islamic scholars have been dead for half a millennia at least.

At least the Qur'an is based and beautiful. Too bad it's fucked up by "Muslims."

>>17596919
>comments welcome
Inane ramblings of a savage.
Please go walk on a beach and get clocked randomly by a Frenchman.

>>17596919
Have you recovered from yesterday's thread OP? You were seething and coping hard huh. I guess that's what happens when people point out Islam is just judaism for the dumb masses, muslims are puppets of globo-zion, and muslims are deceitful.

>>17596919
Op, your image represents the one-ness of God using a three segmented finger. Should this be taken as an endorsement of the Trinity heresy?

>>17598650
1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 1

>>17598563
>argumentative morons comprise the scope of Islamic scholarship.
I can guarantee you haven't met a single muslim scholar

>>17598650
>Op, your image represents the one-ness of God using a three segmented finger
You're being facetious but the oneness is represented by the index finger. If you actually had tawheed you would feel it like that and others could as well.

>>17598734
>If you actually had tawheed you would feel it like that and others could as well.
This larp is getting embarassing, anon..

>>17598749
They've invested too much into it to change now, so instead of critically looking at their own beliefs they just shout them at others.

>>17598769
>so instead of critically looking at their own beliefs they just shout them at others.
Not sure what you mean by shouting. Also am willing to be critical assuming you're being reasonable and not trying to get a laugh

This debauchery is what happens when a tribal race of inbred 85-average-IQ people tries to engage in Reason, unironically reminds me of african nigger "scientists".

>>17599234
They had sanitation, medicine, funvtioning societies while you were dabbling in pig shit.

>>17599255
>dabbling in pig shit.
seething muslim lmao, I pity you you'll never get to taste delicious pork
>sanitation, medicine, funvtioning societies
So did we, retard, long before christianity even. Secondly, materialism is not the standard to go by, unless you're jewish?

>>17599255
>this is what arabs actually believe
they were a marauding nomadic nation of barbarians that conquered roman provinces that had been ravaged by plague. To this day in Syria there exist massive cities in ruins from the days of Rome that the invading arabs abandoned to disrepair, converting immensely productive roman provinces into a desert. Everything these people touch becomes a desert as a matter of fact, like fucking locusts upon the face of the Earth, look at Egypt, look at Tunisia, look at Andalusia, bread baskets of prosperity turned into deserts by these animals

>>17598672
And this is why no one takes muslims seriously by applying math onto an all powerful being because their scholars from the past said so.

>>17599292
People often claim muslims are uncivilized until they look lile idiots when presented with their golden age past.
And nope, Islam was btfo'ing europe for centuries in a row.

>>17599525
Golden age is a myth based on the fading out of christian/persian culture. Early muslim were barbaric bedouins and they destroyed the middle east beyond redemption.

>>17599565
Destroyed it so much that it went toe to toe with European powers for centuries!

>>17599568
You mean it ceased to be forever.

>>17599600
Ottoman Empire made european powers its bitch.

>>17599568
>with European powers for centuries!
YA by getting your asses handed to them and by the polish winged huzzars you started taking nearly every L since then.

>>17599619
>Ottoman Empire made european powers its bitch.

>>17599636
>>17599628
t. Pole or balkanoid

Bitter truth for Europeans is that their rise to prominence was made possible only through discoveries of the Islamic golden age. Even the kuffar can't attain glory without Islam subhan'Allah.

>>17599636
How much of an islamophobe do you have to be in order to deny history and the fact that the Ottoman Empire was once the most powerful empire on earth?

>>17599619
European powers are responsible for mainting the Ottomeme empire well beyond its expiration date, it should have died mid xixth century.
Islam has been lucky the Turks converted, post 1000 they're the only relevant muslims.

>>17599649
stop larping as a muslim

>>17599666
Ok satan

>>17599665
>if, if....
No thanks lmao.
Yes the Turks were degenerates but they were still Muslim. The fact they were able to survive for so long is a token of their supreme diplolacy.

>>17599665
>Islam has been lucky the Turks converted, post 1000 they're the only relevant muslims.
This works both ways and if Turks didn't convert they would be relegated to history like their steppe cousins the Mongolians.

>>17599685
It would have worked just the same with any other religion, the Ottoman empire was fundamentally the rule of a dynasty. In fact islam has been a huge impediment for the Ottomans. Just think they suppressed the printing press due to some islamic scholar retardation. Islam caused them to lag behind european power while they were top tier during the XVIth cetnury and turned them into the sick man of Europe.

>>17599768
>It would have worked just the same with any other religion,
No it wouldn't. Islam uplifted the Turks from steppe hordes to prime example of civilization within a span of a century
>the Ottoman empire was fundamentally the rule of a dynasty.
This was at the beginning of the Empire, where the Sultan was an example of God-king, but later Islam came to be on top, and even the Sultans had to obey it.
>Islam caused them to lag behind european power while they were top tier during the XVIth cetnury and turned them into the sick man of Europe.
They were Muslims before they became the top dog, they were Muslim when they were the strongest empire and this was in no due credit to Islam, but once they started their freefall then and only then it's Islam's fault?

Islam has nothing to do with it, it has to do with the biology of the arab race. Islam is fine when all other peoples do it, see persian sufis, the ottomans etc. The religion will obviously always be barbaric since it started as an arab political movement, but still, ideas are absolutely inocuous, only humans can act upon the world and convert it into a wasteland, and that is exactly what the arab does, they turn the world into a desert.

>>17599817
>No it wouldn't. Islam uplifted the Turks from steppe hordes to prime example of civilization within a span of a century
They would have been uplifted as well with another religion or civilisation, as they have been in China.
>This was at the beginning of the Empire, where the Sultan was an example of God-king, but later Islam came to be on top, and even the Sultans had to obey it.
Words.
>They were Muslims before they became the top dog, they were Muslim when they were the strongest empire and this was in no due credit to Islam, but once they started their freefall then and only then it's Islam's fault?
Islam caused them to miss the technological and administrative progress and it caused their downfall indeed,. Also the fact the better part of their armies was composed of slaves taken among christians didn't help and that's somehow related to the islamic package (muslims rulers always trusted slave armies more than fellow muslims).

>>17599851
To add to this, just look at the typical reaction of the arab when confronted with what his inbred, half-black, cretin race HAS done and REMAINS doing viz. the desertification of the planet, thereby consuming all wealth for his own innate hedonic tendencies (caused by his low IQ and imbreeding) - one would think that the arab could stop at any time the impoverishment of his land (and therefore also of himself) by taking cues from literally all other peoples that surround them that have tamed Nature and made their homelands into beautiful gardens - but NO, as you would expect from a low IQ mutt, the arab rather dismisses this valuable source of knowledge, as to actually work to improve his life and his land would require agency (which they believe impossible to have).

Instead the low IQ arab lowbreed will refer to his idealization of a golden age, Wakanda if you will, to justify why he gets to not do one single thing to improve this world rather than consume it.

>>17599896
Well good thing we have modern agriculture then!

>>17599890
So every religion can uplift the Turks, but only Islam can be their downfall? What is then the explanation for every single empire in history that didn't change their religion yet still managed to fall? What about the British Empire, the French Empire, The Russian Empire, various Chinese dynasties, etc.?

>>17599906
Look at those countries now anon, and compare them to pakistan

>>17599933
>Look at those countries now anon, and compare them to pakistan
Interesting comparison, given the history of the colonial exploitation the British have done for 400 years or so of various countries including Pakistan. Look at this rich country which was stealing the resources from all these poor countries for hundreds of years. How is it possible they are so rich and those countries are so poor?

>>17599906
I gave you one example of islam severly hindering the Ottoman empire: the printing press. It would be like forbidding computers today. There are many more instances where islam proved a liability for the Ottomans.
I could also talk about how the wahabi reform undermined the Ottoman legitimacy among Arabs on the ground they were'nt muslim enough, and was part cause of the Arab uprising that ended the empire.

>>17599984
There was no "stealing" because you had no resources to begin with. if anything you profitered a lot from the British colonisation, they made you modernize and you wouldn't likely have computers without them.

>>17599984
>seethe
And how did they manage to get conquered?

>>17599649
>t. Pole or balkanoid
You can keep seething bro.
>e only through discoveries of the Islamic golden age.
You mean most of them became apostates or were already apostates in order to make the necessary discoveries and were killed for it?
>. Even the kuffar can't attain glory without Islam subhan'Allah.
Sure thing buddy so glorious in thinking pedophillia and slavery are still valid today.

>>17599933
Speaking of pakistan.

>>17599997
>I gave you one example of islam severly hindering the Ottoman empire: the printing press. It would be like forbidding computers today. There are many more instances where islam proved a liability for the Ottomans.
I will grant you the printing press, but the argument I am trying to make is that there's two sides to everything. Islam also gave the Turks incredible social cohesion that managed to hold their empire together for such a long time. The other replies are literally so far below my radar of relevance that I won't even bother replying to them

>>17599997
There is no Islamic basis for saying the printing press is haram, no basis according to the methodology of any of the schools, and in fact Islam prohibits incorporating unbelievers in your army, slave or free.

how do you understand

"then He shaped him, and breathed His spirit in him. And He appointed for you hearing, and sight, and hearts; little thanks you show."
32:9, Arberry

"His spirit". I have seen translations that interject "His [created] spirit", but many if not most english translators seem to think that the spirit is "His".

>tfw heart is sick with uncertainty
may Allah guide me to what is best.

>>17600517
Islam doesn't believe that Isa was divine.

>>17600730
I'm aware, but I'm very curious about what opinions there are about this.

>>17600772
>>17600730
because it would seem that something is said about metaphysics here. I don't know if you know this but in Lings seerah there is a story that when the prophet (pbuh) comes back from the mi'raj he says that he has learned that "I was a prophet when Adam was still between water and clay". Speaking on metaphysics of spirit (I think, Allahu alem). It could be fake though, afaik the demands on authenticity are lower in seerah.

>>17600517
The Spirit is His. Gabriel is also referred to as His spirit. So is 'Isa. Created is understood based on other verses talking about how 'Isa is just a created being like Adam whom Allah gave life

>>17600725
Ameen

>>17600822
Lings Seerah, it should be noted, makes no distinction over material with isnad and material without it. The demands of authenticity, as you said, are much lower in Seerah although generally there is still some selectiveness. Ibn Kathir for example in his history that's not strong enough for jurisprudence, still lists extensive chains, it's just sometimes the chain is missing a narrator or includes someone unknown, but he relies on these mainly to cover gaps in history that are otherwise inexplicable. A good example would be Umar's conversion to Islam, which is covered by narrations but narrations not strong enough for jurisprudence yet they're the only ones available on what is a pretty important event and so scholars always use them. However even weaker narrations here have chains strong enough to make them far stronger than, say, most of what Plutarch wrote, but Lings uses Hadiths with absolutely no chain whatsoever. This practice for spiritual teaching is approved of by Sufis but it's very unusual for Muslim historiography

>>17601024
>The Spirit is His
but not in the sense, then, that He is that spirit, or that it is an attribute of His? Because why qualify "His" if it is as created as everything else?

>>17601050
Adam is created but it is qualified in authentic narrations that he is created in the image of Allah. Both that and him being a spirit of Allah reflect his special position in creation

>>17601070
how do you personally understand that metaphysically? I think it's perfectly viable and fine to say "God knows best", I just mean if you do have a particular understanding or opinion

>>17601128
I understand that to mean, as did Muhammad's ﷺ companions, that Allah gave man the faculty of powerful reason that allows him to gain dominion over creation as the viceroy (khilafah) of Allah

>>17601174
>Allah gave man the faculty of powerful reason that allows him to gain dominion over creation as the viceroy (khilafah) of Allah
and this is an ability in some way comparable to Gods own ability? I mean if it is the Spirit, and if it can function as viceroy?

>>17601233
It's not comparable so much as meant to be excercised in the name of God. The sovereign's seal. Man is given the ability and injunction to represent Allah's authority on earth. This doesn't mean man's extraordinary power is comparable to Allah's, because you can hardly compare even the most advanced reasoning to omnipotence and omniscience as a quality

what would you recommend for someone who can't get over the feeling that the hadith are not precise enough to be legislation in Gods name? Having a tradition be put on paper 200+ years after the prophet died, and building that tradition on estimates of the characters of people who have long been dead is something that can very reasonably be questioned. There is a lot of human, non-prophetic room for error involved here.

>>17601024
>Ameen
Thank you brother

>>17601432
The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence

>>17601809
>New methods of analysis are developed and tested in order to date the material contained in the earliest compilations of legal traditions more properly. As a result the origins of Islamic jurisprudence can be dated much earlier than claimed by Schacht and his school.
assuming you've read it, could you go into this a little bit? Is it a new analysis of sources that were already known, and if so is it some kind of carbon dating or something linguistic or something else? This
>This volume uses one of these sources to reconstruct the development of jurisprudence at Mecca, virtually unknown until now
sounds odd

quotes from what I believe is the publisher, but either way amazon used the same description text too
https://brill.com/view/title/7333

>>17601893
Hadiths are not a matter of carbon dating, they were primarily oral, in fact some companions of Muhammad ﷺ refused to write them and believed they should be strictly orally memorized in order to ensure the chains were memorized with them. It was long presumed that Hadiths were gathered in written volumes hundreds of years later and then introduced into jurisprudence whereas as it turns out they were used within in the first generation just orally but there are records of the methodology and application of them and their significant role in jurisprudence.

>>17602077
so it is about re-evaluating some form of written record?

LARPing as a muslim on 4chan is haram.

its worse than pretending to be a buddhist or christian chantard

>>17602172
>posting a nigger
Even more haram

>>17602146
Yes for example it actually shows false ascription of certain rulings and narrations to early jurists, and once these are filtered out a much clearer development is found and plain different in date. Narrations or rulings based on later development can be distinguished from much older ones based on a variety of factors such and language development and interpolation. Basically one of the biggest factors in leading scholars to see Hadiths as a later development is the admixture of later material, whereas it is now possible to filter out that material leaving a clear picture of early jurisprudence

>>17602217
but isn't it odd that it takes an orientalist in the year 2000 to figure this out? And how does it really relate to the question of the cridibilities of isnads?

>>17602253
There are holes in the narrative, anon. Watch their religion slowly die as more things come to light.

Variantquran and islamicclarity are good starters

>>17602253
He's responding to Orientalists

Are you saying a particular isnad isn't reliable, or (according to the old Orientalist thesis) isnads are fabricated?

I think there is some mistake that Orientalist means sympathetic to Islam. The vast majority of Orientalists sought to undermine the foundations of Islam and paint it as basically vapid depravity. But then vapid depravity became vogue among romanticists and especially the decadent movement so they actually thought the Orientalist depiction would make a cool larp in the sense of the Shriners and also because they were edgy contrarins who praised Satan. "whoa Islam is about opium dens and strip clubs, so cool" so people thought Orientalist meant someone who thought Islam was cool when in fact Orientalism was about portraying Islam as barbaric foolishness to justify colonialism. If you use the term Orientalism with Muslims they will assume you mean western critics of Islam

>>17596919
Muhammad was a false prophet.

>>17601070
>image of Allah
So Allah has an image? Is it a metaphorical image, or a metaphysical and literal image based on Allah’s ontological being?

I am not a Muslim, however I think the Christian worldview resolves Adam being in the image of God quite nicely. Christ is the image of the Invisible God (Colossians 1:15,) who exists in the form of God, and has equality with God (Philippians 2:6,) who makes God the Father known as God the Son (John 1:18,) eternally existing as the radiance of God the Father’s glory and the exact representation of His Hypostasis as expressed in the Son’s distinct person (Hebrews 1:3).

Any other resolution is insufficient I think. There’s mystical ideas in the Jewish tradition that God created an image (Adam Kadmon), in which He expressed the fleshly Adam into being - however I think that is not sufficient at all considering being in the image of God implies that God Himself has a metaphysical representation of His being, not just some uncreated portrait that God used to create copies of said portrait.

Also, since I’m in a thread talking about Tawhid, I myself am a Trinitarian. Just putting that out there before anyone accuses me of something I think is heresy.

>>17602921
Known through Himself (Christ,) God the Son* I should say.

>>17602921
created portait*

Jews believe Adam Kadmon is created, I mistyped.

>>17602921
Allah has an image and there is no reason to think it is either metaphorical, or that it resembles Him. Images do not necessarily at all resemble what they are an image of.

>>17603048
>Images do not necessarily at all resemble what they are an image of.
So then in what way is Adam an ‘image’ of Allah?

>>17603081
This is not elaborated but we do know there are practical implications, for example it is forbidden to hit a man in the face

>>17603097
Very interesting to say the least.

>>17603097
>do know there are practical implications, for example it is forbidden to hit a man in the face
Bullshit it says try your best not to hit them in the face not really a clear demand.

>>17603223
It's prohibited to hit men or women in the face, even slaves, and this is agreed upon by every school. Hitting someone in the face while you're at war is a little different if it's not intentional

>>17603275
>It's prohibited to hit men or women in the face, even slaves, and this is agreed upon by every school. Hitting someone in the face while you're at war is a little different if it's not intentional
No it isn't (even though that's not true and people that have been hit directly in the face)
it is more recommended or not trying to hit them in the face.

>>17603338
>Boxing is based on allowing punches to the face of one's opponent using the maximum force that one possesses. Blows to the face earn more points than blows to any other part of the body. This clearly goes against the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as narrated by Abu Hurayrah: “When any one of you fights, let him avoid (striking) the face.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, 5/215).

>Al-Haafiz said: “This prohibition also includes all those who are struck for the purpose of hadd or ta’zeer punishments or discipline. According to the hadeeth narrated by Abu Bakrah and others, which was recorded by Abu Dawood and others, about the woman who had committed adultery, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded that she should be stoned to death, and said, ‘Stone her, but avoid the face.’ (Narrated by Abu Dawood, 4/152). If that is the command in the case of one who is being punished and is going to die anyway, then the rule is even more applicable in cases of lesser severity.” See al-Fath, 5/216

>Al-Nawawi said: “The scholars said: it is forbidden to strike the face because it is soft and all of a person's beauty and most of his senses are located there. If the face is hit, there is the fear that all or some of them may be destroyed or disfigured. Any defect in the face is a terrible thing because it is so prominent and obvious, and usually the person who is hit in the face will not be spared some disfigurement.” (al-Fath, 5/216).

>In al-Fath, he says concerning the specific prohibition narrated in the hadeeth:

>“Al-Nawawi did not discuss the details of this prohibition. It is clear that it is haraam, and this is supported by the hadeeth of Suwayd ibn Maqran al-Sahaabi, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw a man slap a slave (or a boy) in the face, and he said, “Do you not know that the face is inviolate?” (Muslim, 3/1280.

>>17598563
You a Muslim Anon? Why do you think scholars are morons?

>>17603360
Hey you forgot this.

Source: Ihya Ulum-id-din by Imam Ghazali, Volume 2 page 36, Chapter "The secrets of marriage", English translation by Maulana Fazlul Karim

>>17603360
Once there was an altercation between the Prophet and Hazrat Ayesha when they found Hazrat Abu Bakr as judge. Hazrat Ayesha said to the Prophet: You speak but don't speak except truth. At once Hazrat Abu Bakr gave her such a slap that blood began to ooze out from her mouth".

>>17603510
This version a verbatim Hadith (obviously the use of hazrat should tell you). I don't recall if he hit her in the face but I do remember he hit her and Muhammad ﷺ disapproved and he left and regretted it.

>>17603592
Version isn't* a verbatim

>>17603592
> Muhammad ﷺ disapproved and he left and regretted it.
I don't think he said much else when she got hit whether be in the mouth or neck.

>>17603620
Hitting a disrespectful child or wife the neck isn't haram (it would be for your mother though) if it's not done so hard to cause injury or serious mark. He just thought it was a bit rough.

>>17603592
> I don't recall if he hit her in the face but I do remember he hit her and Muhammad ﷺ disapproved and he left and regretted it.
Is another source that are useful along with the sirats.

>>17603749
>if it's not done so hard to cause injury or serious mark. He just thought it was a bit rough.
Except there has been cases aisha or other wives being hit and feeling pain or looking green but probably not enough until blood comes out, also you realize how barbarous you are making your own religion out to be by admitting this correct or you don't care? Because we are all anonymous?

>>17603815
The intention of hitting someone as a form of discipline, even spanking, is to cause pain. Obviously there's some.

>by admitting

The Qur'an specifically says to beat disobedient wives if all else fails. If necessary a switch is permissible so long as it is not used on bare flesh. But physical injury is not permitted,or hitting the face

>>17603833
>he intention of hitting someone as a form of discipline, even spanking, is to cause pain. Obviously there's some.

Except you treat women almost as if they were children.

> necessary a switch is permissible so long as it is not used on bare flesh. But physical injury is not permitted,or hitting the face
What happens if your wife is caught in adultery?

>>17603815

>>17603896
The punishment is the same for both sexes

>>17604135
>The punishment is the same for both sexes
Are you going to give a clear punishment?

>>17604213
The penalty for adultery is death for both sexes

>>17604238
So basically what
o12.2 says here right

o12.2 If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death
(def: o12.6), someone with the capacity to remain chaste meaning anyone who has had sexual
intercourse (A: at least once) with their spouse in a valid marriage, and is free, of age, and sane. A
person is not considered to have the capacity to remain chaste if he or she has only had intercourse in a
marriage that is invalid, or is prepubescent at the time of material intercourse, or is someone insane at
the time of marital intercourse who subsequently regains their sanity prior to committing adultery.
If the offender is not someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then the penalty consists of being
scourged (def: o12.5) one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50 mi. for one
year.

You'd realize how this sounds to people who aren't muslims correct?

>>17604254
I honestly don't care, Islam is submission to Allah and is about pleasing Allah, not about pleasing disbelievers

>>17604263
>Islam is submission to Allah and is about pleasing Allah,

So since you believe in that there is no immoral act and orders and sayings muhammad did right?

Which means you are in agreement with everything he did up to the end of his life?

Also since the majority of people here had insulted islam or muhammad by calling him pig fucker what is the rulings or punishment on each on here?

Also lets say a relative left islam and commits apostasy would you honor kill your relative or by a mob?

>>17604263
Damn your religion is incompatible with our societies.

>>17604316
They must be convicted and given three days to repent

>>17604401
Your societies are incompatible with godliness and there is no place for dispute on this count

>>17604783
What godliness your civlizations are in absolute shambles or complete shitholes and the forbid or ban some things that would other wise cause your religion doubt that means no critical thinking no scientific method(by using the same technology that was the result of scientific method and progress) and then going to kiss a stone in a desert in the rock vagina or what ever and praising what is the most obvious fake god made up by a man that wanted power and the ability to do what ever the fuck he wants.
I bet you would allow your self to get cucked if muhammad demanded he wants your wife.

>>17604783
Still doesn't answer my other question what happens to at least a good 99% of shitposters that shat on muhammad.

Anyway if they don't repent for having have apostated would you honor kill relative if given the chance to or let other people do it?

>>17604959
Given the choice I think these shitposters would opt for Islam, which would pardon their ill-considered words

>>17604988
>Given the choice I think these shitposters would opt for Islam, which would pardon their ill-considered words

No it wouldn't at least in the majority of sects.
Would they die simply because they insulted or criticized muhammad?

You still haven't answered this.

>Anyway if they don't repent for having have apostated would you honor kill relative if given the chance to or let other people do it?

>>17605012
>No it wouldn't at least in the majority of sects.
No it would, and this is precedent established with clear proof and accepted by all schools

>You still haven't answered this.
Yes, I stop talking when someone starts questioning me about a personal homicide policy. Of course

>>17605040
>No it would, and this is precedent established with clear proof and accepted by all schools


If they insult muhammad they are to die period.

>Yes, I stop talking when someone starts questioning me about a personal homicide policy. Of course

Well would you or you would the leaders or someone else do it?
Fiqh's are pretty clear on people who apostate and refuse to repent or if a certain time has pass.

>>17605119
Someone who a kaffir and insults Muhammad ﷺ but then accepted Islam, he is pardoned. Indeed accepting Islam pardons all sins, even having killed Muslims as a kaffir, if one accepts Islam then he must be pardoned. Acception Islam works like Christians conceive of baptism. Now, if someone reviles Muhammad ﷺ after accepting Islam, this is treated as apostasy unless he repents and apologizes, in which case scholars are of two opinions, one that he is pardoned, the other that he is flogged.

>>17596919
>The first principle is that there is no univocity of being in Islam. The Qur'an completely rejects univocity of being repeatedly. Because of this anthropomorphism is agreed to be a form of denying the Qur'an. However certain characteristics of Allah are sometimes regarded as figurative by Sufi theologians. Ibn Taymiyyah and Salafi thought in general affirms things like Allah having a shin though, because they stress that there is no univocity of being; in other words, they say to regard it as anthropomorphism presumes univocity of being, and it is in fact negated and seen as figurative because of a crypto univocity of being. Some sufi thinkers did in fact hold to univocity of being, Ibn Arabi for example said those who don't are fools or rogues. Obviously within the framework of univocity of being then to say Allah has a shin would be anthropomorphism, and there is no difference of opinion. Wahhabi/Salafi thought says someone who affirms such a thing while denying univocity of being is an apostate. So univocity of being is stressed in Wahhabi theology to the utmost and this is really what primarily distinguishes it.
This is gay bullshit. Doesn't matter.

Didn't read the rest fuck Islam and brown people.

>>17605178
>, if one accepts Islam then he must be pardoned. Acception Islam works like Christians conceive of baptism. Now, if someone reviles Muhammad ﷺ after accepting Islam, this is treated as apostasy unless he repents and apologizes, in which case scholars are of two opinions, one that he is pardoned, the other that he is flogged.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/150989/will-the-repentance-of-one-who-impugns-the-prophet-blessings-and-peace-of-allah-be-upon-him-be-accepted-and-is-it-better-to-admit-it-to-the-qaadi-judge

It clearly states they will be executed for even criticizing or insulting the prophet.

Doesn't matter if you are a dhimmi, non muslim or muslim.

>>17605193
And nowhere did I differ. I refer to someone who insulted him as a kaffir and then accepted Islam afterward. This pardons all sins. If he doesn't accept Islam, there is no pardon or accepted repentance, and as I have said if he is already a Muslim then it's regarded as apostasy

>>17605212
>And nowhere did I differ. I refer to someone who insulted him as a kaffir and then accepted Islam afterward. This pardons all sins. If he doesn't accept Islam, there is no pardon or accepted repentance, and as I have said if he is already a Muslim then it's regarded as apostasy

>es, in which case scholars are of two opinions, one that he is pardoned, the other that he is flogged.

Not what it says.

>) repents and regrets what he did, and he comes back to Islam, that repentance will benefit him in his relationship with Allah. So before Allah he will be a believing Muslim. But with regard to his execution, the obligation of executing him will not be waived.

If he insults or criticizes the prophet he is dead period, allah is how ever an exception for some strange reason.

>>17598563
Please expatiate!

>>17605239
Yes they're counting primarily textualist opinions, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Wahhabiand Salafis. This side of the aisle is very strict (failing to pray is also seen as apostasy by then, missing even one intentionally is according to Ibn Taymiyyah). The other side is more lenient based on classifying the determining factor as apostasy and going by apostasy can be repented of, with flogging considered because they can be classified as a seperate crime of slander which cannot be abrogated without forgiveness of the offended party. Staunch tectualists however do not regard the blasphemy and slander here as distinct offenses but the same crime, and since the offended party is not present it cannot be pardoned.

>>17599300
I'm not sure this makes any sense considering what we know about the glorious centuries of Muslim occupation in Spain compared to the funereal decadent that came after. Roman Spain ended not with the caliphate, but with the "Christian" reconquest, which was more barbarous than it was Christian. Portugal, in contrast, was somewhat exempt this fate in its culture and art.

>>17605272
>m not sure this makes any sense considering what we know about the glorious centuries of Muslim occupation in Spain
That's a myth.

>>17599300
Sad that you're such an illiterate that you couldn't even come up with something on your own. No less a paragon of the West than M. Houellebecq has stated that Europe is well nigh doomed to succumb to the social and religious virility and potency of the Arabic Path. For inherent in such a Path is an order based on natural law, which quiets the troubles of the Western malaise known as liberalism, i.e. the tyranny of the self under the hypnotism of a profane capitalism, and in its place restores the splendour & the glory that is the temple of the two sexes in the union of procreation and multiplication: for truly the greatest power that man can wield is the power of passing on his genes to as many nubile women as possible. Islam, and Islam alone, sanctions such an endeavor as the cornerstone of both a masculine and a feminine sexual understanding. And it is precisely this institutionalization, to its most brilliant degree, of natural law that permitted the greatest civilizational conquest the world has ever seen: I speak of course of the Islamic.

>>17605289
Sure it is (provides no proof).

>>17605270
Clarifying, Hanbali jurisprudence dislikes addressing a juridical matter as compound. For example if a testimony is given in court in Hanbali fiqh, the entire testimony must be accepted, or thrown out.

>>17605270
It says they can repent, but they would still be executed.


>>17605298
https://legiochristi.com/the-truth-about-progressive-islamic-spain/
Probably just as bullshit than islamic golden age.

>>17605303
Yes but that site is very committed to Salafi jurisprudence

>>17605303
That's a neo-falangist source, how bout something that isn't so insulting to one's intelligence.

>>17605314
For example, look up on it if it's permissible to pray sadl. This was considered preferable by Imam Malik and permissible by Imam Shafi'i, however they will not regard it as either

>>17605318
>Mudslime denies the source which contains many or refrences sources
>Calling him self intelligent.

Typical.

>>17605314
>Yes but that site is very committed to Salafi jurisprudence
Yes, but the majority hold a similar view with at least one differing and that is if they even repent.

>>17605291
>muzzie
>calling any other illiterate
>calling islamic countries a great conquest.
Lmao

>>17605334
When they say majority they mean of their fiqh as I haven't encountered the opinion before. In fact using the term "majority" to describe a position is, afaik, used only in two ways, the majority of a school of thought, or the majority of schools. Not just majority across the board as that is extremely vague in quantification unless you're talking about a particular time and place

>>17605323
The angry barbarian must perforce result to insults, as he has no actual intellectual argument at hand. QED.

>>17605352
>When they say majority they mean of their fiqh as I haven't encountered the opinion before.
In terms of different schools, but commonly if you insult the prophet you are pretty much screwed.

>>17605353
Your right muslim are unintelligent barbarians as this thread has showned.

>>17597147
Lol he already did.

>>17605360
There is no differece of opinion that if someone reviles the Prophet ﷺ his life is forfeit, all things being equal

>>17605300
What makes someone a Muslim OP?

>Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
No child is born but upon Fitra. He then said. Recite: The nature made by Allah in which He created man, there is no altering of Allah's nature; that is the right
religion." [Sahih Muslim 6423 ]

>>17605376
>ere is no differece of opinion that if someone reviles the Prophet ﷺ his life is forfeit, all things being equal
Alright you agreed with the ruling, those were the questions I wanted to see answered specially except about if the relative were to apostate and refuses to return.

>>17605377
Anyone who dies before reaching the age of reason is considered saved. All beings are Muslims. Although as Ibn Taymiyyah notes Islam as a belief isn't something you are born with but if raised purely it will seem very natural if introduced later to it

>>17605386
When Abdullah Azzam went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets he saw a woman cut her son's throat for apostacizing. He said he knew then that this would be the land and the war from which jihad would be reborn and spread over the world.

>>17605402
> to fight the Soviets he saw a woman cut her son's throat for apostacizing.
There you have it everybody.

>>17605402
I dont know if you are LARPing and admitting this to a lot of anon that hates islam and only to make it look bad or you people are indeed savages.

>>17605424
And I suppose your idea of civilized is rather killing your son within the womb so it can be freed up for further promiscuity?

>>17605442
>using tu qouque fallacies
Both are fucked up one fucked up happening thing doesn't make some other fucked up thing any less good.

>>17605451
Just to note anon muslims usually use what aboutism.

>>17605451
If you do not have a society which is so religious it is capable of teleological suspension of the ethical, then it is going to eventually sway toward what you got

>>17605457
Just a note: if you're going to say Islam is barbaric because it doesn't subscribe to your values but then admit your values are barbaric filth, then your criticism is worthless

>>17605459
>trying to justify his savagery behaivour
Everyone laugh at op.

>>17605468
>f you're going to say Islam is barbaric because it doesn't subscribe to your values

Islam is barbaric since you are still following a prophet as a moral example that is for all time specifically.

>but then admit your values are barbaric filth, then your criticism is worthless
Looks like you are unable to understand the concept both wrongs don't make a right and they don't deal with it, you have clearly shown everybody islam as an ideology that it truly is and was criticized as.

>>17605394
>d. All beings are Muslims.
Wrong or else they wouldn't be a detail on how allah calls non believers the worst of creatures already making a distinct between both groups.

>>17605477
Yes reciting the Shahada makes someone a Muslim although they can nullify it by other actions.

According to Muhammad ﷺ people will eventually forget most of Islam, the entire Qur'an will actually have no more reciters or copies. Some people will say la ilaha il Allah because their parents used to and that will save them because they will have nothing else to go on

What makes someone a Muslim? The shahada alone?
I remember a hadith where it says that anyone who recites the shahada at the end of times will be saved from jahhanam.

>Everyone is born a Muslim[sahih muslim 6423]. Outside influences(iblis)makes him a Zoroastrian, Christian, Jew etc.

>the soul knows Allah (“Am I not your Lord?” [al-A‘raaf 7:172], the soul responds yes)

>>17605481
If the alternative you offer to Islam is obviously worse then it's not tenable

>>17605488
All beings except humans and jinn who are kuffar. I meant animals etc

>>17605499
>>17605491

>>17605491
>ccording to Muhammad ﷺ people will eventually forget most of Islam, the entire Qur'an will actually have no more reciters or copies. Some people will say la ilaha il Allah because their parents used to and that will save them because they will have nothing else to go on

False islam didn't exist until 1400 years ago.

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

98:6 it already states muslims are the best of people, the
>Whole world was muslim
Doesn't work and you have to be real retarded to believe it.

>>17605503
Thanks

>>17605501
>If the alternative you offer to Islam is obviously worse then it's not tenable

They are multiple alternatives and far better alternatives to islam that doesn't thrive under ignorance stupidity and laws to keep it's self afloat.

>>17605521
>They are multiple alternatives and far better alternatives to islam
There is no alternative

>>17605503
>and equal to Him is not any one[surah ikhlas 111 :4]

Does Allah exist? Existing=limitation.

>>17605549
>Does Allah exist? Existing=limitation.
The two right arm abomination that can't enter creation?
No

>>17605521
>They are multiple alternatives and far better alternative
Name one

>>17605539
>There is no alternative
Always has been any other ideology that doesn't require the mass to be ignorant is a far better alternative.

>>17605549
Word games

>>17605570
They continually change their values and truths, hard to talk about ignorance under such a system

>>17605576
>hey continually change their values and truths, hard to talk about ignorance under such a system
The truth doesn't change only laws over time do.
>hard to talk about ignorance under such a system
Ya mean while there are unlawful knowledges in islam because it denies either one of allah's attributes to an extent and or simply because it causes doubt there is no truth in islam.

a7.2 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);
(3) magic (Sha`badha, meaning sleight of 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.

>>17605585
I don't think there are many forms of unlawful knowledge, there is some like magic. There is however a lot of knowledge considered to be of no benefit

Philosophy here falsafah and signifies very rationalists theology

Science of the materialist obviously means in the sense when this was written, which is the philosophy of materialism. It doesn't mean natural philosophy or sciences since as you might have noticed both Al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah regard those as important, Qutb would too. Ibn Taymiyyah though like others warn seeing them as omnicompetent is extreme, they have a place but not a substitute for religion

>>17605626
Read
>6) and anything that is a means to create doubts (n: in eternal truths), Such things vary in their
degree of unlawfulness.

Also if you want to rant about philosophy than what are you even doing on /lit/?

>>17605626
>philosophy of materialism
Wanna know how I know you are lying?

>>17605645
Philosophy in Islam is a lot narrower than philosophy as the west understands it which is extremely broad. Philosophy in Islam means saying the universe always existed, all the points of revelation can be discovered through reason alone, etc

>>17605656
No, I'm perfectly aware you are not familiar with what science meant then or what science of the materialists would be universally understood to mean in the Middle Ages. There is no need for you to elaborate on your ignorance

>>17605701
>hilosophy in Islam is a lot narrower than philosophy as the west understands it which is extremely broad. Philosophy in Islam means saying the universe always existed, all the points of revelation can be discovered through reason alone, etc
MMHMMMM

>No, I'm perfectly aware you are not familiar with what science meant then or what science of the materialists would be universally understood to mean in the Middle Ages. There is no need for you to elaborate on your ignorance
It has been perfectly stated if it causes doubts that means absolutely zero critical thinking or scientific method and then combining the fact you are denying allah's divine attribute.

>>17605724
Yes these are questions of revelation. Definately not questions most philosophy of the west is concerned with

>It has been perfectly stated if it causes doubts that means absolutely zero critical thinking or scientific method
Those don't cause doubts for most Muslims

>fact you are denying allah's divine attribute.

Come again?

>>17605747
>Those don't cause doubts for most Muslims
Scientific method critical thinking that causes doubts? In fact you have other people being killed for said discoveries and looked down upon and simply not recommended.
Yes it does.

>. Definately not questions most philosophy of the west is concerned with

It literally states that philosophy is unlawful it contradicts the tenets of islam.

o8.7
17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

>>17605770
>In fact you have other people being killed for said discoveries
I don't think so

It does not. If anything Muslims imo are too eager to incorporate the latest findings of science in their beliefs and reading of the Qur'an

No Muslim thinks anything acts independent of Allah, although many, or in fact most, still believe in efficient causation. Ibn Taymiyyah says denying efficient causation is extreme because the Qur'an specifically says things like Allah sends the rain causing growth, so the idea efficient causation doesn't exist is actually rooted in independent reasoning, not Quran. We do however unanimously affirm nothing happens outside Qadr

>>17605770
>It literally states that philosophy is unlawful it contradicts the tenets of islam.
This isn't talking about philosophy like Discipline and Punish or something, it's already been covered and says itself it refers to trying to answer questions of revelation by reason alone

>>17605770
Is belief in Allah irrational?
>the soul knows Allah (“Am I not your Lord?” [al-A‘raaf 7:172], the soul responds yes)

>>17605780
>I don't think so
So your denying history because it already has happened before.
http://www.bakkah.net/en/shaykh-abdul-azeez-ar-raajihee-on-those-who-consider-ibn-sina-to-be-a-musilm.htm

>Ibn Taymiyyah
Even he criticized people for their own discoviers and were considered apostates and died.

>anything Muslims imo are too eager to incorporate the latest findings of science in their beliefs and reading of the Qur'an
Even that's not allowed and not even permissible because of the simple fact it can cause doubt.

"No Muslim thinks anything acts independent of Allah, although many, or in fact most, still believe in efficient causation. Ibn Taymiyyah says denying efficient causation is extreme because the Qur'an specifically says things like Allah sends the rain causing growth, so the idea efficient causation doesn't exist is actually rooted in independent reasoning, not Quran. We do however unanimously affirm nothing happens outside Qadr"
Your sharia made a specific ruling on this denying allah's attribute of any casual influence from him is clearly an apostate.

>This isn't talking about philosophy like Discipline and Punish or something, it's already been covered and says itself it refers to trying to answer questions of revelation by reason alone
It says any philosophy that is independent from the sunnah or quran is unlawful.

>>17605809
Not sure what "discovery" this pertains to killing someone over

You never read Ibn Taymiyyah

Almost every mosque especially the Saudi funded ones have little pamphlets about Science and using it to interpret Qur'an, hopefully it falls out of vogue

My Shari'ah? You don't even know the difference between Shari'ah and fiqh,much less enough to say Ash'ars consider Maturidis and Salafis to be apostates. This is referring to the Mutazilla position which denies Qadr

Philosophy is a subjective term, it therefore gives a working definition here which you choose to ignore

Why are christians so salty any time islam is mentioned? don't they know their countries are being destroyed by jews, their women subverted and tainted in the name of freedom and reason? why has Allah forsaken you people to such a degree?

>>17602392
I'm saying that fabricated or not they are questionable, and I don't believe God would legislate through something questionable

>>17605844
They're questionable to you but why?

>>17605831
>You never read Ibn Taymiyyah

I read his summary of the unseathed sword to anyone who insults the messenger the link I sent bakkah isn't even a kuffar link either

http://www.bakkah.net/en/the-reality-of-ibn-sina-avicenna-famous-scientist-and-philosopher.htm

People like avicenna and other discoveries and the amount of denying any islamic laws in order to pursue what they pursue were considered apostates.

>Almost every mosque especially the Saudi funded ones have little pamphlets about Science and using it to interpret Qur'an, hopefully it falls out of vogue
You cannot interpet the quran your own way the only interpreter is basically allah.

>My Shari'ah?
Yes I am quoting your sharia.

>even know the difference between Shari'ah and fiqh,much less enough to say Ash'ars consider Maturidis and Salafis to be apostates. This is referring to the Mutazilla position which denies Qadr

I just find it hilarious that you were honest earlier ago, but now lying.

>Philosophy is a subjective term, it therefore gives a working definition here which you choose to ignore
See
>>17605585
>(2) philosophy (dis:w10);
>DIS:W10
Which was also shown here which speaks to why philosophy is considered unlawful.

>>17605724

>>17605841

>>17605853
first of all the reason I put them to such scrutiny is because Islam is a political religion, and a far-reaching one. If the hadith constituted advice there wouldn't be an issue, but they constitute law.

I just woke up but I'll write what I remember of what I usually consider questionable
1. it is a known fact that there have been very large numbers of false hadiths. The idea that they would all have been successfully weeded out is absurd, and the idea that we should just accept this from God is absurd.
2. the idea that you can post-mortem make a solid estimate on who would and who would not relay a matn accurately is- regardless of methodology- clearly suspect at best, and it's at the center
3. one clearly suspect thing is how the same event can have several narrations with siginficantly different matns
4. the carriers of the hadith-tradition (the madhhabs) were in my view clearly compromised quite early, as all madhhabs accepted naskh of all peace-verses by all sword-verses. This shows they compromised with political, temporal power.
(generally speaking: I believe that with the victory of the ahl as sunna there arises a de-facto priestly class who take a role very similar to the rabbis in being gatekeepers of the Truth, and who similarily take freedoms in how to handle that Truth)
5. as, then, in the above, I believe the real reason the ahl as sunnah win is "preservation of the deen", but that means they set themselves up as the eternal definers of the deen. In reality I think the deen that was preserved should be viewed as a political compromise (see the naskh mentioned above) where the religious class and political leadership/necessity of the time culminate in a particular corpus being accepted along with a particular practice. This is not prophetic, it is political, and politics is dirty.

>>17605922
6. I have what I can only call disdain for the culture that exists where even da'if hadiths continue to circulate and be used even by the learned. If I knowingly make a claim about the Prophet (saws) that is doubtful at best, does the hadith not then say that the hell-fire is my abode? And I'm under the impression that this culture exists because if it did not then there wouldn't be much to say on some matters, such as seerah, but that is to me a catastrophically awful argument. This speaks to me of a culture less interested in Truth and more interested in control. The idea that a weak hadith is better than human reason is completely absurd, because human reason can reasonably be questioned, but if we set a standard for Gods Truth, and this Truth is enforced by a priestly class backed by political force, then this is de facto not questionable. We are supposed to accept taqlid with teachers who refuse to argue, but where their arguments are not solid. Even the shafi'is, the most rigorous, accept that God would make it so that for us to even know what is and is not shariah, we have to play a guessing game as to who was credible and who was not, when, as I said above, we have the same hadith be saheeh with different matns, when anyone can understand that the task of establishing credibility post-mortem, with all the human factors involved in both the dead and those who scrutinize them. But with difference in matn, clearly the transmission IS NOT perfect, even when these supposedly pristine witnesses-in-their-graves are called.

I believe it is in the interest of the 'ulama to maintain their position, and that a large part of how they do this is they define the shariah as being so enormous that only they can have a real idea about it. This because the religion is political. A similar thing could not arise in budhism, for instance, as it is not political, and there is no power or position to be won.

>>17605856
>I read his summary of the unseathed sword to
Obviously not related

>People like avicenna
He was controversial because of heresies, not discoveries. Enperical enquiry wasn't an issue

>You cannot interpet the quran your own way the only interpreter is basically allah
Unsure of your point

>Yes I am quoting your sharia
No you're not. Shari'ah is contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah. You're quoting fiqh and interpreting it to suit your own agenda when it is an objective fact that Ash'aris don't make takfir of Maturidis or Salafis

>I just find it hilarious that you were honest earlier ago, but now lying.
I find it hilarious you think Ash'aris make takfir of Maturidis and that fiqh is "the Shari'ah"

Calling something philosophy doesn't make it unlawful or else I could say "I think happiness is important" is a philosophy and therefore unlawful. For something to be unlawful, haram, it has to qualify as illegal based on evidence and it methodology of one of the four schools. I have made it very clear

>>17605940
>Obviously not related
You said I never read ibn taymaiyah well there you go.

>He was controversial because of heresies, not discoveries. Enperical enquiry wasn't an issue

Oh trust me he wasn't the only one, but case in point islam does not support either scientific method or the empirical data nor thinking for your self because of the fact it contradicts islam and it having the potential to cause doubt.

>Unsure of your point
You cannot interpret it with your opinion or distort it that isn't allowed/

>No you're not. Shari'ah is contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH Quit lying your ass off.
I am quoting the reliance of the traveler which is considered to be one if not one of the most popular sharia's that are being used to this day.

>Calling something philosophy doesn't make it unlawful or else I could say "I think happiness is important" is a philosophy and therefore unlawful. For something to be unlawful, haram, it has to qualify as illegal based on evidence and it methodology of one of the four schools. I have made it very clear

Again see here

>>17605585
>>17605724

It is considered unlawful knowledge period.

>>17605876
i pity christians, for they are my friends, not my enemies. it is pitiful that they are blind, that they are made to attack those who wish to help them and love those who wish for nothing but their annihilation.

>>17605922
False Hadiths have probably not been completely weeded out but the the criteriia required for Hadiths to be admissible in law means they are pretty much weeded out of jurisprudence.

It's not typical determined post mortem

Corroboration is not considered suspect in any branch of epistemology or law in the world

It's an objective fact that Muhammad's ﷺ companions, the Rashidun, upheld this Naskh, they did not profit by it or seek power or wealth, rather they aimed and urged people to accept Islam. If you think you know the meaning of the Qur'an better than they did then maybe you should double-check your ideological motives. The founders of three of the four madhhabs were imprisoned for defying the government

I think you are begging the question

>>17605928
Corrupt scholars always existed, Muslims are well aware that working for the state or being its friend is a bad sign as this was always the case. The best scholars are generally persecuted.

Seerah doesn't use weak Hadiths generally, just weak relative to jurisprudence. Relative to western historiography it's still very strong but with jurisprudence you cut out a lot of potentially correct Hadiths because in law it is considered better to cut out a hundred sound Hadiths than keep three or four incorrect ones.

>>17605969
>You said I never read ibn taymaiyah well there you go.
I think you know what I meant

>Oh trust me he wasn't the only one, but case in point islam does not support either scientific method or the empirical data nor thinking for your self because of the fact it contradicts islam and it having the potential to cause doubt.
It's actually produced some

>>17605981
>i pity christians, for they are my friends, not my enemies. it is pitiful that they are blind, that they are made to attack those who wish to help them and love those who wish for nothing but their annihilation.

Well your own sheyiks, own scripture, and allah doesn't think so, neither does OP.

>>17605993
Some *ultra empericists like Ibn Hazm

Reliance of the Traveler is a book of fiqh

You don't know what you're talking about

>>17605990
>It's not typical determined post mortem
of course it is, if A said to B said to C and only C is alive then we have to judge A and B post mortem. I thought this was a well-accepted fact.
>Corroboration is not considered suspect in any branch of epistemology or law in the world
yea but they don't claim to carry Gods Truth. If it is a fact that the matn is not carried then it is a fact that the matn is not carried. How can God legislate like this?

did the companions agree that the whole of the message of maintaining and seeking peace was abrogated by the sword-verses? And how do you personally understand that there is naskh if the Book says of itself that there is no contradiction in it?

>>17605993
>It's actually produced some
No it didn't to even trying to do so will get's you labelled as an apostate.
Because islam is hellbent on keeping people in a small box to the point it considered real and legitimate progress (not nu progression) considered as a regression and you aren't allowed to be critical of your own scriptures and keep it the same without it collapsing because they repeat the same thing that the sheyiks of then had stated, using any empirical data and scientific method means constantly challenging your own belief's Islam doesn't do that.

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_351_400/does_islam_permit_critical_think.htm

>>17605997
You [Prophet] are sure to find that the most hostile to the believers are the Jews and those who associate other deities with God; you are sure to find that the closest in affection towards the believers are those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ for there are among them people devoted to learning and ascetic -Quran 5,82

>>17606022
Ah, A and B are evaluated in their lifetimes almost always. Only some, a few, people are found to be liars post mortem

The majority of scholars rather understandably think that legislation proper wasn't something Muhammad ﷺ said once one time but something enacted firmly in law and adapted by the whole community with considerable evidence.

Naskh isn't contradiction rather sublation. The issue here is you are conflation particular versus general injunction

>>17606046
No one regards Ibn Hazm as an apostate

>>17606046
The worst creatures in God’s eyes are those who are [wilfully] deaf and dumb, who do not reason. -Quran 8, 22

>>17606001
>eliance of the Traveler is a book of fiqh

>You don't know what you're talking about

I have a clear idea what I am talking about

>>17606058
>You [Prophet] are sure to find that the most hostile to the believers are the Jews and those who associate other deities with God; you are sure to find that the closest in affection towards the believers are those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ for there are among them people devoted to learning and ascetic -Quran 5,82

Hey you forgot a few verses.

5:51 O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

Tafsir
Ibn kathir
Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir
The Prohibition of Taking the Jews, Christians and Enemies of Islam as Friends
Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them. Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this,

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

More detailed explanation in the tafsir.

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''
By ibn kathir

>>17606077
No you have no clue whatsoever. There is no such thing as "a Sharia", there is only THE Sharia, fiqh is scholarly interpretation of it

>>17606067
Looked him up, I don't see anything that regards him as an apostate and was a known very strict when it comes to the hadith or did anything that contradicts islam if he is that strict I doubt he contradicted any of the rulings in either sharia and sunnah.

>>17606064
>Ah, A and B are evaluated in their lifetimes almost always. Only some, a few, people are found to be liars post mortem
and those who are not found to be liars? my point is that the human factor here, the non-prophetically-guaranteed human factor, is huge.

>The majority of scholars rather understandably think that legislation proper wasn't something Muhammad ﷺ said once one time but something enacted firmly in law and adapted by the whole community with considerable evidence.
to me, in clear language, this would imply that to be law something would have to be mutawatir, and I know this is not the case.

are you saying that in every case of naskh, the latter aya is a general injunction that abrogates a particular one? I can't say I've gone through every example, but that doesn't sound right.
but really
we have aya A, and then we have aya B. B is said to abrogate A. What is the condition for abrogation? How is it even found that they two can be related to one another in such a relationship? I can only see that it is a reading where B demands something which conflicts with A. And my understanding, maybe I'm wrong here but my understanding is that naskh then de-facto negates A, rendering it passive. So the relationship was such that both could not be true at once. How is this not contradiction?
You see- some form of contradiction is a necessary condition for abrogation. If there is no conflict then there is no particular relationship between aya A and B that is not also true of A and C.

>>17606085
He was a strident empericist

>>17606082
>here is no such thing as "a Sharia",
Enough with the lies

>>17606077
>5:51 O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.
You just proved the Quran right.

>>17606095
>He was a strident empericist
I doubt he was if he was incredibly strict when it comes to the sunnah and likely the quran that means not questioning or being critical of his faith which is why rational thought is allowed and not critical thinking as shown here.
>>17606046

>>17606098
Oh thought it was him saying
>WE FRENS WITH DA BELIEVERS
Which is untrue.

>>17606094
>and those who are not found to be liars
You mean those who lead lives of impeccable honesty and were not forgetful and known to be of excellent memory? Because that's what is required here. But wait, in most cases it doesn't even depend on one but uses multiple chains of such persons

>to me, in clear language, this would imply that to be law something would have to be mutawatir, and I know this is not the case
That's the criterion for denying something to be kufr. Technically speaking of that's not the case you can reject the Hadith without it being kufr but it's not necessary purposeful to do so

The Qur'an contains numerous particular injunctions to various prophets there are also general injunctions, the distinction of these injunctions is more than just time of revelation, they are qualitatively different

>>17606096
Sharia is revelation

>>17606110
The Christian will always pick the Jew before the Muslim, even when the Jew has been corrupting their peoples for so long, controlling their banks and exposing their peoples to degeneracy.

>>17606105
>I doubt he was
I'm not interested in debating someone to lazy to read and so going to go off feels

>>17606130
>I'm not interested in debating someone to lazy to read and so going to go off feels
Not going off of feels, what I do feel is like I am talking to someone who denies evidence islam isn't pro science since the knowledge it seems to approve of is what is found in the sunnah or what has been laid down by muhammad.
As shown here/.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/13637/seek-knowledge-even-if-you-have-to-go-as-far-as-china-is-a-false-hadeeth
so which is why we sometimes see hilarious videos of saying retarded shit that is clearly wrong or other hilarity such as this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbzoSnPnsV0

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7608214/Scantily-dressed-women-cause-earthquakes-Iranian-cleric-says.html
>>17606125
>Sharia is revelation
......

>>17606123
>You mean those who lead lives of impeccable honesty and were not forgetful and known to be of excellent memory?
yea, the people who came up with different matns.

for me, the whole value of islamic tradition over other tradition is that the Quran is preserved. The whole point is that there is an impeccable man and an impeccable book. If you say to me that as an addendum you have an enormous textual tradition which you know is in some unknown degree is faulty, then I see something of a lesser pedigree. I can honestly say, genuinely, that when I read that something is in both bukhari and muslim, I implement it, but I do so because I take it to be *sound advice*, not law. If you say to me that you take this other body of text as a basis for judging in Gods name, then I'm lost. Every time I have delved into this subject I have found that you can make reasonable arguments against it, and that doesn't compare to the Quran, and I can not see how God would let this suffice. Genuinely I struggle with whether or not to identify as muslim, because it seems to me that the mainstream accepts things that are unacceptable to me epistemologically. As Hamza Yusuf puts it: If you accept the tradition, then you accept the whole tradition. But "the whole tradition" is not epistemologically equal.

>The Qur'an contains numerous particular injunctions to various prophets there are also general injunctions, the distinction of these injunctions is more than just time of revelation, they are qualitatively different
does this actually answer the question? are you actually saying that every commonly accepted example of naskh is a matter of common/general injunction? Because I seem to recall peace-verses that sounded pretty general.

>>17606169
>common
particular ofc*

>>17606161
I didn't say Islam is pro science, although science isn't objectionable and several thinkers considered it important


Yes Sharia is what is revealed. What a scholar says what Sharia means is called fiqh, understanding

>>17606169
I honestly don't see how Bukhari plus Muslim is any less sound than believing fire is hot. It's that epistemologically rigorous. Fire might not in fact be hot of course

Hamza Yusuf says Sharia is a joke so

Many commands in the Qur'an are about dealing with the Quraysh. This was a major concern. Only once they became Muslim did general policy become a serious question.

>>17605576
>word games
Explain

>>17606209
What does limitation even signify in a non spatial, non temporal context?

>>17606203
>Hamza Yusuf says Sharia is a joke so
I have seen him back the idea, reluctantly though, that blasphemy should carry a death penalty, (iirc) at least under certain circumstances.

>Many commands in the Qur'an are about dealing with the Quraysh. This was a major concern. Only once they became Muslim did general policy become a serious question.
ok, so I'm clear: your case is that injunctions become general only in the last couple of years of prophethood? I mean if that's your undertsanding then fine, I'll take it into consideration, but just so I know clearly.

>I honestly don't see how Bukhari plus Muslim is any less sound than believing fire is hot.
but do you agree that Bukhari plus Muslim is less certain than the Quran?

>>17606161
And thereby inevitably we come to the concepts of chastity, virginity, but also, perhaps even more importantly "sexual seal" (as a form of eternal fidelity. This latter term may have a multiplicity of meanings, but essentially it involves a psychic intervention on the part of one individual over another, whom he covets sexually and romantically. The sexual seal is meant to reduce or otherwise control the independent romantic possibilities of the coveted, so that, for example, the coveted may become unlucky in their romantic relationships (breakups, divorce, inability to conceive, etc). Another, seemingly contrary, form of the sexual seal occurs when the coveted (almost always a female in such cases) is consigned to a highly restrictive and controlling relationship, often with a strong religiously restrictive dimension, so that the inaccessible focus of the coveting becomes in a manner entombed in life by entering, for example, into a romantic relationship with a man involved in a cult that involves the brainwashing of women; such cults may include highly conservative versions of established religions. In such a fashion the sealing is the actual manifestation of the subconscious desire of one individual to control at a distance the sexual and romantic destiny of another in the absence of their ability to permanently be with that other, notwithstanding the fact that that "sealing" may ultimately involve the consigning of the coveted into a proxy's control, in which that proxy does what the latter could not or dare not directly do: i.e. render the coveted less able to express free will, especially when that free will might manifest as authentic sexual freedom. The conservative nature of said "seals" insure that the coveted will be consigned to a sort of specifically feminine vital entombment, such as one commonly observes in much of the Islamic world.

>>17606227
>back the idea
specifically in front of a western, non-muslim audience

>>17606203
>didn't say Islam is pro science, although science isn't objectionable and several thinkers considered it important

Because they didn't go against what islam taught, because science can be wrong and is something made up by men which can have flaws and mistakes, but it is because of that is why science often improves and gets better over time by looking into the mistakes and why it's failing you cannot do that with islam unless you are implying allah is imperfect.

>es Sharia is what is revealed.
It is based on the sources of both hadith and quran and the sunnah having to require you to follow it because it is the messenger's laws.

>>17606229
Why are you copy and pasting random shit anon?

>>17606227
>I have seen him back the idea, reluctantly though, that blasphemy should carry a death penalty, (iirc) at least under certain circumstances.
He says it is a joke and that homosexuality should be legal, if said apostasy should carry death no doubt he framed it to mean in cases where it would be legally equivalent to treason, not general apostasy

>so I'm clear: your case is that injunctions become general only in the last couple of years of prophethood?

No, I mean specifically injunctions relating to foreign policy and the context and content of them makes this clear

>but do you agree that Bukhari plus Muslim is less certain than the Quran?
Yes as I do just as I am less certain the earth is round than I am of Qur'an, however I don't see it as really contestable

>>17606241
How's this copypasted? It fundamentally has to do with Islam.

>>17606282
Nvm anon.

>>17606274
>No, I mean specifically injunctions relating to foreign policy and the context and content of them makes this clear
so there are no or very few generalizable lessons on foreign policy from the conflict with the Quraysh?

>Yes as I do just as I am less certain the earth is round than I am of Qur'an, however I don't see it as really contestable
I am fervently attached to the idea that only absolute certainty will do. I guess I haven't really evaluated why that is, but in honesty I think it is because the Quran keeps insisting on its integrity. I find it not to be consistent that the sharia can be both sunnah and Quran, since what makes the Quran be sharia is not true of the sunnah. And I do believe, as I told you, that there has been a relationship between 'ulama, as guardians of truth, and political power.

I think what I'm gonna have to do is be some kind of sufi desu. If that means that you behead me one day, then that is the day I go home.

>>17606308
same anon
I mean I have been powerfully, autistically focused on the question: "when I say that I am a muslim, what is it that I stand for?" And this in large part as regards politics, and particularly violence. It's one thing how I tend to my heart, it's another what I take a stand for imposing over all. When I learned that all madhhabs accept such far-reaching naskh something broke in me. I had a belief, or a hope, perhaps, that the 'ulama worked as a counterbalance against political ambitions. But this was not the case.

>>17606308
Particularized injunctions in the Qur'an also include general lessons or else it wouldn't mention things like the Sabbath

There is absolute certainty, then there is certainly that if someone denies it they are a disbeliever. The Qur'an falls under the latter category but Bukhari plus Muslim is generally former

Sufis not only heavily use Hadiths, they are generally much much more lenient in their chains

>>17606318
Problem is you're begging the question

>>17606333
I don't understand what you mean by that

>>17606326
>There is absolute certainty, then there is certainly that if someone denies it they are a disbeliever. The Qur'an falls under the latter category but Bukhari plus Muslim is generally former
so denying muslim/bukhari would not make on a zindiq?

>>17606336
I mean you presume the injunction to spread Islam by the sword must be a post prophetic political innovation and therefore dismiss any counter evidence even though occam's razor is clear here. In fact you might not have ever heard of Islam or considered it if men did not due to spread it in great numbers,which is the point.

>>17606345
It wouldn't make someone a kaffir, only denying a mutawatir Hadith does. But depending on your own rulings (as you obviously would be making your own) you might fall into heavy deviance

>>17606351
>I mean you presume the injunction to spread Islam by the sword must be a post prophetic political innovation and therefore dismiss any counter evidence even though occam's razor is clear here.
correct, because the alternative is that enormous parts of the Quran are abrogated, in which case I don't even understand why we keep a book where half of it abrogates the other half (exaggerated for effect, but to me at least this makes complete sense).

I know you've heard of "live by the sword, die by the sword". The way I understand that in the context is that that which fights will be fought. Fighting, struggle, is reason. A religion which defines itself by doing battle will be embattled. Meanwhile God is peace, and from Him is peace. Meanwhile I at least believe that the faculty of reason is only useful insofar as it can interpret signs, but it can not be a part of fana'. A religion that covers itself in reason, and takes this reason to do do battle with it- I don't see how it could ever, Ever point to One. Because One is not in battle. One is untouchable by reason.

>>17606370
A great deal of events are narrated in the Qur'an for didactic purposes rather than raw injunction, often including injunctions to past prophets for contexts no longer contempory. You should listen to the lives of the prophets and the Life of Muhammad ﷺ, it will make much more sense

Allah is peace in surrender to him. Sekijw for example is total tranquility on the battlefield. Allah is not peace in a wordly sense of material prosperity and lack of conflict. Islam tells us to become detached from wordly fear and hope and find all comfort and serenity in Allah and be unperturbed by the world, and to fight for him for it says though we don't like it it's good for us, it says fight everyone who dies not forbid what He does

Trying to abrogate reason is not compatible with the Qur'an since it appeals extensively to reason

>>17606396
Sekina*

>>17606396
to me, any religion that favours agression falls to the basic litmus-test from Isa (alayhi salam): does the tree bear good fruit? Is the consequence of the teaching good? The consequence of a teaching that sets itself up as Gods Kingdom, and takes as its rule that it must impose itself by force on all else: this is bad fruit. To the extent that this was how the muslims lived under the leadership of the Prophet (saws), this is different, because he was not like other men. But the idea that regular human beings are going to take this kind of carte-blanche and not mess it up is madness. For this reason it is as you say: I assume that this violent breed of religion is a post-prophetic invention, because it can not be the truth, because the fruit is not good. It doesn't even really matter- even though it certainly is interesting- if the muslims had coherent and humane rules of engagement: it can not be the Truth that agression for the sake of conquest and domination is Good. It is certainly a fact of life, and in that sense a part of the order of things, but giving a political entity carte-blanche in the name of God: this is bad fruit. God knows best.

>>17606430
Luke 19:27

>>17606545
Ahmed that's a parable not a command.

>>17605841
It doesn't follow that Islam is uniquely situated to stop any of that. Muslims are already extremely degenerate and they can barely follow their own religion in their own countries. They don't control their own women. And god forbid what happens when they come to the west. There's nothing in Islam that armors them against modernity. They start drinking and doing all the other shit they aren't supposed to. They're still fallible humans and they happen to be extremely stupid ones. I just think someone abandoning Christianity because it's weak for Islam because it's strong is missing the point so badly they're never ever going to make it. Maybe people like that are the ones who made Christianity weak in the first place?? What makes you think it will be different?

>>17606599
It's a prophesy. There is an implicit belief among many Christians that there is and can be no chastisement for those who defy Allah when in fact both Islam and the Bible make clear there is not only in the afterlife but often as wrath manifested in this life and both also make clear ever since after the Exodus Allah has establishee war as the expression of such wrath, predominately by the believers against heathens but also by the heathens against believers when the latter defy God (Babylonian captivity, Roman destruction of Jerusalem). Once Jesus returns to reign he will lead one more earthly reckoning and then peace will reign, peace through the entire world submitting to Allah. Then he will pass away and the world will degenerate again until it ends

>>17606649
Christianity,let's face it, does not have people earnestly eager to die for it, and this is a good measure of the strength of a belief. Islam's strength is intense where such people are found and weak where they are not present but even just two or three out of ten thousand is magnitude compared to rival beliefs

>>17596919

>>17606715

>>17606665

>>17606734
Let's face it, Muslims killing Christians in retaliation for Christians killing Muslims doesn't mean Christians embrace death.

>>17606797
>doesn't mean Christians embrace death.
If they didn't they would've agreed to becoming muslims.

>>17606797
What was this in retaliation for?

>>17596919
>this thread
>Here lies op after being btfo for the 500th time
>probably some repressed homo that loves sucking cocks
>result:Op is a faggot.

>>17606801
I don't think they were urged to become Muslims or that this had anything to do with the executions except in popular imagination

>>17606810
American and Russian bombing of Muslims and probably Christian alliance with Sisi to some extent since he killed a lot of Muslims in Egypt and bombs many in Libya

>>17606813
Why would ISIS kill them without asking them to convert first

>>17606822
Asking a prisoner to convert before killing him has never been common although happens sometimes. If a prisoner embraces Islam he must not be killed but if the intent is to kill him then he's not generally asked.

>>17606819
The Russians and Americans aren’t bombing Muslims because they’re Muslim, so I don’t really see how this is a retaliation. What’s your opinion on Isis though, some Muslims have told me they’re not ‘real’ Muslims

>>17606830
At any point or time they could've embraced islam while still being captive.

>>17606841
>The Russians and Americans aren’t bombing Muslims because they’re Muslim
That's how it's perceived and desu I perceive it that way as well

>>17606863
Correct, and James Folely could have as well

>>17606869
Same anon as here.
>>17606801

>>17606864
Tbh I think it’s politics more than anything, the Middle East just happens to be Muslim.

>>17606883
Yes it's anti Muslim politics

>>17606889
The Americans worked with Muslims when it suited them. If there is any anti Muslim sentiment it’s probably a reaction to Muslim terrorism

>>17606909
America also worked with communists when it suited them

Muslim terrorism against America began after America had already killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims through bombing and sanctions

>>17599468
Honestly given all the restrictions they put on their god, it only seems to question if appropriate to question his omnipotence and therefore if his power is ultimately arbitrary.

>>17606975
If that was true, then America would be bombing Bosnia, Albania, Indonesia, parts of Nigeria, etc...

Muslim Terrorism is a Middle Eastern problem by and large and started and ended with them.

>>17606975
His point is that the US did not invade the Middle East because they hated Muslims, it was and is for various geopolitical reasons.

>>17606975
The earliest terrorist attack was 1993 IIRC, what was that in retaliation to? The Gulf War?

>>17606987
This is like saying if America had a problem with communism they would have bombed tito

>>17606993
Yes anti Muslim geopolitics. America supported Sisi's coup

>>17607004
The Gulf War, the support for Israel

>>17607013
I don’t see how the Gulf War was a Muslim issue, it happened because Iraq invaded Kuwait for oil. In fact a dozen Muslim countries supported the Americans, and even sent troops to fight.

>>17607005
No not anti-Muslim geopolitics, Israel, oil, banking, Russia, etc.

>>17607054
Kuwait was severed from Iraq mainly so the British could continue to extract oil from it. It's really the same country. The main issue of the Gulf War of course is a government not under American control could gain prominence and that might spread

>>17607058
Yes and of course any unity or recovery of the Muslim people would threaten that

>>17596919
Good thread OP. Looking forward for more threads.

imagine killing people over your deep lore. are jihadis just weaponized so y?

>>17606656
>>17606656
>>17606656
can you point to Jesus ever speaking of men doing retaliatory violence in the name of God? it's been a while since I read it but if I recall Jesus instructs his followers to leave those alone who refuse the message, and to simply run away if they are percesuted. There is quite a radical difference here.

besides, by this logic, anyone who murders anyone does so with God on their side.

>>17607848
Sure


>>17608498
Jesus was sent to the Jews (most prophets were sent to a particular people, not universally) and he wasn't sent to harm the Jews, quite the reverse, he was sent as the last and most gentle of their prophets in order to get through their hard hearts. Only when they had finally and decisively rejected him does a reckoning become permissible. This is the same pattern of almost every prophet, like Noah and Lot and Moses and Solomon and Hud and Salih, and you really need to listen to the lives of the prophets. The difference is that now the reckoning is primarily military and this became the pattern after the exodus. The reckoning under Jesus doesn't happen until his second coming and he speaks on this clearly. Muhammad ﷺ also was not given the order to inflict reckoning until a people had decisively rejected the message and this took many years

The purpose of shredding blood determines whether or not it is supported really. When and why it's done has been exhaustively established by the example of Muhammad ﷺ and the Sahaba

>>17609087
how does this justify endless warfare upon the christians and zoroastrians?

>>17609124
It's not endless, it will culminate in the conflict between Jesus and the Antichrist and once Jesus reigns there will be peace.

>Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet of God
>He says he's God
>There is no God but God. He was not born.
Nice theology Istards

>>17596919
>Neither (in Wahhabi thought) is there a distinction of His qualitative this and His essential that since Wahhabi theology considers the ontological and the existential to be the same and incoherent if considered seperately (sic) except for semantic purposes. So though the distinct reality of every quality is affirmed, the unity is a given.
Exactly what line of discourse led to this being clarified? What do "this" and "that" refer to?

>>17596919
What does Islam say about "where" God exists? I forget all the words to describe what I mean but like is He permeating through the whole universe or are we inside Him or does He exist at one point etc

>>17610280
The difference between attribute and being, this is talked about at length by Ibn Taymiyyah

>>17610316
Salafis maintain he is above the throne (the terminus of creation) and that this must not be taken to be a univocity of above but that he is outside space. Ash'ari and Maturidi maintain he is not in a place and place must not be ascribed to him. Akbariyya hold that he is being in itself and creation is phenomena.

>>>/wsg/3805429

>>17607848
>good thread
>Op btfo multiple times in a row
Mudslime please.

>>17610430
hey man I listened to the first chapter of al awlakis book. it says that in the beginning there was only God, but the throne was upon water. what do you think is the implication of this? It might be interesting to know that the Torah begins similarily in that there is water before creation begins

>>17611272
>unironically reading arabic retardation.

>>17596919
Done reading this thread

Op how did it feel to get btfo multiple times just like in the previous threads.

>>17597147
Already did.

>>17597254
>>17597256
>>17597380
You are as weak as the cultures that formed you.

>>17598672
Muhammad was also filtered by the trinity.

>>17611377
Just like islam.
Islam is a weak religion that are to scared of investigation whoch is why their nations are complete and utter shitholes with shit and selfish people

>>17597004
>>17598469
>>17598477
>>17600093
>>17605922
>>17605928
based
>>17610221
outstandingly based in its brevity

>>17597004
>It has not been said of any people on the earth that the moon was observed that night such that it could be stated that it was not split. Even if this had been reported from many different places, so that one would have to exclude the possibility that all agreed upon a lie, yet, we would not accept this as proof to the contrary, for the moon is not seen in the same way by different people... An eclipse is visible in one country but not in the other one; in one place it is total, in the other one only partial.
Presented without comment

>>17611523
Bullshit you have people interested astronomy looking at the sky.

Mudslimes use the logic that everybody was sleeping back then

>>17611272
In Islamic cosmology the water the throne is upon is not earthly water, which comes later; Allah says all creation was compacted at first and then he separated the sky and earth and formed the first heaven, and then added several more. Water however carries quite a significance and the Qur'an says all life is created from water, once when Muhammad ﷺ and Abu Bakr, رضي الله عنه, were being questioned about were they were from but Muhammad ﷺ wanted to maintain opsec, he simply said, "from water", alluding to what the Qur'an says. Some thinkers like Ibn Arabi got very detailed in their understanding of eater's spiritual meaning but I don't like to speculate too much, Allahu 'alim.

>>17611625
>Allah says all creation was compacted at first and then he separated the sky and earth and formed the first heaven, and then added several more.
You forgot the retardation that the earth is created first then the heavens and the rest of universe and how it was made

>Which is all wrong.

>>17611643
No, the earth and first heaven are created simultaneously, they are originally one, all being is one, and then Allah seperated the earth and heaven. The other heavens are created

>>17611662
>No, the earth and first heaven are created simultaneously, they are originally one, all being is one, and then Allah seperated the earth and heaven. The other heavens are created

https://quran.com/41/9-12
Read 10, 11 and 12.

and by ibn kathir.

(And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps, ) This refers to the stars which have been placed in the heavens, some moving and some stationary.
[...]
Even one of the companions of muhammad confirms this obvious fact that the quran is talking about the visible stars in the night sky.
"(Verily, We have adorned the near heaven with the stars (for beauty). And to guard against every rebellious devil. They cannot listen to the higher group (angels) for they are pelted from every side. Outcast, and theirs is a constant (or painful) torment. Except such as snatch away something by stealing, and they are pursued by a flaming fire of piercing brightness.) 37:6-7 Qatadah said, "These stars were only created for three purposes: Allah created them as adornment for the heaven (sky), as missiles for the devils and as signs for navigation. Therefore, whoever seeks to interpret any other meanings for them other than these, then verily he has spoken with his own opinion, he has lost his portion and burdened himself with that which he has no knowledge of.'' Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim both recorded this statement."

To bad the demons still manage to steal allah's plans.

I think I am losing more braincells the more I read into this retarded ass religion.

>>17611708
Anon that is because islam unironically rots your brain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2AuQfMUC9A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9ofCP3WAKU

>>17611708
Yes jinn and angels go through space,I wrote a thread on this,the Unseen

>>17611708
Forgot to use this video

>>17611951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsSIjaXnf3s

>>17597256
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/286870