/lit/ - Literature

>>19750281
الرحمن

Ar-Rahman, the All-Merciful

It is not permissible to refer to anyone but Allah as Rahman although Raheem is permitted as an an adjective and name. This name describes the mercy Allah bears for all creation, even unbelievers and rocks and trees. Be provides and cares for everything. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم relates in an authentic hadith that Allah says the Raham (womb) is named from mercy, with Allah saying “I am the Rahman, I created the Raham”. Allah adds whoever severs ties with it (the womb, meaning cutting ties with your family and especially mother) has severed ties with him.

الرحيم
Ar-Raheem, The Most Merciful

This is the Mercy Allah affords believers in that, among other things, He is forgiving and will pardon the repentant. It’s also the mercy that admits people to paradise for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said even he does not get paradise from deserving it by his deeds but out of the mercy of Allah. In describing this mercy, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم once asked his followers if a nursing mother would throw her baby into a fire, and they said by no means. And he said Allah loves His slaves more, meaning to have great hope in avoiding damnation.

Zizek noted Islam defies a Freudian reading because Allah is not a father figure like the God or chief god is in every other religion. Indeed we can see heee that though Allah has masculine pronouns (there is no “it” in Arabic), the love of a mother is actually a common theme unlike Christianity or Judaism which is about reconciliation with an angry father. Islam explicitly negates Allah as some All-Father.

إن شاء الله تعالى next thread I will go over The next verse and discuss how different declensions can be used in it for variant readings. I hope you have gotten something out of this because I could write a lot more on this one verse but I had to limit it quite a bit or else perhaps no one would read it

>>19750281
Only those who have read and understood the Qur'an know the truth. I've noticed that people who deny it as from God are unable to explain the most simplest verses from the smallest chapters of the Qur'an such as Al-Fatihah, the key to Jannah. They do not know the intention behind the meaning of "King of the Day of Resurrection" or "To you we worship and to you we seek help". This is because they are demons in the form of men who do not fear Allah.

>>19750382

It’s owner of the day of judgement or recompense, the word used is Dīn. King of the day of judgement is also a valid reading which I will cover in sha’ Allah. However like I said it’s Yowm as-Deen that’s used in this chapter, not Yowm al-Qiyama (day of resurrection)

>>19750399
my mistake. jazakallahu khayr

>>19750404
Yowm ad*-Deen

There is a principle in the definite prefix in Arabic, al. The l is dropped in pronounciation and replaced by the first letter of some some words, these letters are called Shams (sun) letters. One is د (d). The articulation of Arabic is much less cumbersome and more pleasant because of this rule. Al-Deen is not smooth unlike Ad-Deen

>>19750407
Wa iyyak

>>19750281
What’s the best English translation of the Quran? I want to read it but I don’t want to have to learn a whole other language to do so.

>>19750586
I have the Clear Quran, seems to be reputable based off my research

>>19750586
Arberry’s is the best imo for taking pains to capture the literary style and sound, it’s pretty faithful as well. Sahih International is nice for an understanding but the translation is a bit clinical. The Hihali-Khan is definitely best scholarly one volume translation done by Muslim scholars tho it’s a bit repetitive and exacting in the notes and parentheses, it’s a good go to for a Muslim to use in his daily practice

>>19750738
It’s garbage.

fucking dumb novel only subhuman reading this.

Threadly reminder that Ibn Arabi is a salafist.

عييييييييييييييييييييير بمك

Shame that the Bible threads get filled up so quickly while the Quran threads die out when the reprobates aren't responding with backlash. Nobody desires to understand the Qur'an. This fulfills what Allah said in the Qur'an (which was fulfilled centuries before when Noah split his people up between believers and non-believers), that the likeness of the one who argues or turns away from the deen of Allah is like the panting dog; panting when you drive him away, panting when you leave him alone. And so they either come into threads like this that seek to make clear the signs of Allah through the tafsir of the Qur'an and cause a ruckus or they ignore it to discuss Christianity and other vain philosophies that bring only Allah's anger onto them. "Evil is that by which they judge".

Anyone, ΟΥΤΙΣ, have you read Al-Ghazali's 'Jewel's of the Qur'an'? It is not an orthodox tafsir of the Qur'an, but within it Al-Ghazali tries to explain a bit about the formatting of the Qur'an and the rhetorical devices it sometimes uses, like repetition for instance.

go back to your own country

>>19751747
what did he mean by this

>>19751646
I haven’t, do you consider Ghazali unorthodox?

>>19751849
Not so. I haven't read him enough to make a consideration like that, but I was saying that "The Jewels of the Qur'an" is unorthodox because it is a speculative work, almost dialectical even, which is not the case with orthodox books on the sciences of the Qur'an. It gives us an idea of what Al-Ghazali believed was important in our reading the Qur'an; what we should look out for in order to grasp its hidden meanings correctly. I've read that Al-Ghazali was quarreling with many gnostic Muslims who were known as the Batiniyya because they believed there were many hidden meanings behind the Qur'an, which caused them to come up with many heresies and innovations. This book sought to rectify that belief, I believe, which is why I don't think it's that important, but there are many good gems in there to benefit from them, as it is a very digestible read.

>>19751906
The Batiniyya are sufis like Ibn Arabi. Ghazali went through several phases in his beliefs but he became more and more strict as he aged, the approach he uses is probably colored by when he wrote it.

>>19750281
did y'all already get to the part where Mohammed forces a minor?

>>19751994
The Quran is not a biography of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, that’s called seerah. I did post a lot of resources on it in the discord

>>19751994
>has no idea what's in the Quran

>>19752018
>>19752041
I was being ironic. Can you take a hint?

The speech of Isa Ibn Maryam عليه السلام in the cradle, "I am a servant of Allah; I was given the Scripture, and I have been made a Prophet." etcetera, proves Islam. For what does Islam say? That men do not become prophets, but are made prophets and are chosen and are given the Scripture to judge over Mankind. What was Muhammad ﷺ before he came a prophet? A shepherd. What was Isa عليه السلام? A carpenter. What was Moses عليه السلام? Again, a shepherd. What was Jacob عليه السلام? Again, a mere shepherd. What was Abraham عليه السلام? etcetera.

He thundered mere men of humble occupations higher than any throne, and placed Muhammad ﷺ at the head of His beloved pantheon of slaves, leaders of Man. This proves Islam.

>>19752234
Shepherding is a good occupation for prophets as it trains them to be gentle and patient but also vigilant and assertive

>>19752324
Yes, I have also heard that it teaches them to pay attention to the behaviors of a multitude. A shepherd knows his sheep; Muhammad ﷺ knew his companions, as they were his flock, as are we.

tfw I'll never be a shepherd

>>19752387
Have you ever watched Sweetgrass?

The quran is biblical fanfiction

>>19752407
no

>>19752416
you dont even know whats in the quran or what its about. get your head out of your ass

I'm Ismaili

>>19751747
Based. And let's team up to destroy israel.

>>19752533
You're a nigger.

>>19750281
God bless you brother.

>>19752419
If you are interested I n shepherding you would probably love it

>>19752581
I'm a nigger who live in Europe

reminder

>>19752681
Wala and bara are part of iman

>>19752234
The prophet peace be upon him to my knowledge was a merchant, not a shepherd

>>19753973
He was both. He was a shepherd throughout boyhood. Later in life he was a guide to merchant caravans who was hired to lead them (not a merchant himself exactly)

>>19754178
What sect do you belong ?

>>19754282
Ahlus Sunnah

>>19753807
The quran is wrong?

>>19754307
No, how did you get that out of my statement?

Okay what the fuck is up with the quran. From all ive heard it's just a fanfic written by a dude and theres some black box in the middle. Every character gets a marvel cinematic universe level mention or guest appearance. It's not a book of violence but there's always holy wars about interpretative differences in jurisprudence?

>>19754331
You're still here

>>19754334
Muhammad prayed towards jerusalem until jews made fun of him for it then he appropriqted the cube from arabic paganism. Muhammed thought he needed some place to pray towards for his cult to be successful is what it looks like.

>>19754335
I’m here in my own gathering, which you have stepped in. I have not sought your company and I am not hanging out with you, you have come to listen to me and the hukm on this is the same as those who spoke of Islam and were jeered at.

>>19754345
Jews rather claimed he was teaching their religion was true and this was an issue

>>19754362
Whenever you hear.
Don't you fear hellfire?

Can Muslim bros explain these verses

>There will circulate among them [servant] boys [especially] for them, as if they were pearls well-protected.
—Sura 52, verse 24
>There will circulate among them young boys made eternal.
—Sura 56, verse 17
>There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them [as beautiful as] scattered pearls.
—Sura 76, verse 19

>>19754371
I do, I also go by the actual intent of the text which is quite easy to discern if you read the rest of it.

>>19754386
It means you your servants in paradise will be quite beautiful (like everything else). Youths are used because you’re not going to parade your women in front of guests like a dayooth

>>19750969
>>19751990
Is Ibn Arabi orthodox or not? Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad says, "Ibn Taymiyyah is like Ibn Arabi: both are dangerously misread by fools."

>>19752416
Not so fast. The Qur'an has to be taken seriously when it seems to correct mistakes that are in the Bible.
Example:The Bible makes no titular distinction between the leader of Egypt in Joseph's time and in Moses' time. They both go by the name "Pharaoh". However, the Qur'an does make a distinction - the leader of Egypt in Joseph's time there is specifically called "King", not "Pharaoh" (see Surah 12). This seems to fit the historical record whereby the leaders of Egypt in Joseph's time were the Hyksos who were designated as "kings".

>>19754386
Try the Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran. Those "boys" might just be grapes/fruit

hello everyone!
i would just like to remind you that the quran is a massive pile of shit and islam is filth, a religion followed only by halfwits and pedophile rapists!
have a nice day!

>>19754910
Nuke meca

>>19750281
Thanks again for your effort. I find these interesting as someone who knows nothing about Islam.
>the love of a mother is actually a common theme
can you give an example?

>>19754403
there is nothing in there to rationalize going on infidel websites.

>>19754958
it's bullshit. he's lying to make islam appear like less of a cruel desert cult.

>>19754288
Maliki right?

>>19754761
I don’t consider AHM a reliable scholar because he favors the Tanzimat (which legalized homosexuality) and referred to Bush’s Invasion of Iraq as righteous jihad

https://unity1.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/abdal-hakim-murad-on-jihad-apostasy-and-rights-of-muslim-women/amp/

As for Ibn Arabi, he’s not orthodox, and says very silly things like Noah didn’t understand the idolatry of people was about the unity of God and creation and the flood is a metaphor for their achieving spiritual enlightenment. There is a reason Ibn Taymiyyah considered Ibn Arabi not a Muslim. AHM consequently did quite a bit piece on Ibn Taymiyyah in his Riding the Tiger of Modernity (which is about how Muslims must stop trying to fight modernity and should instead be apolitical and “ride the tiger “), dishonestly asserting Ibn Taymiyyah is a fideist and thinks the individual should interpret texts for himself. In fact Ibn Taymiyyah actually was very stringent about reason and scholarship, you can read a good introduction to his work in the English anthology, Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam.

>>19754958
See second post of OP

>Some Sabi (i.e. war prisoners, children and woman only) were brought before the Prophet (ﷺ) and behold, a woman amongst them was milking her breasts to feed and whenever she found a child amongst the captives, she took it over her chest and nursed it (she had lost her child but later she found him) the Prophet said to us, "Do you think that this lady can throw her son in the fire?" We replied, "No, if she has the power not to throw it (in the fire)." The Prophet (ﷺ) then said, "Allah is more merciful to His slaves than this lady to her son."
Bukhari


Also

>Abu Huraira reported: A man asked the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, “Who is most deserving of my good company?” The Prophet said, “Your mother.” The man asked, “Then who?” The Prophet said “Your mother.” The man asked again, “Then who?” The Prophet said, “Your mother.” The man asked again, “Then who?” The Prophet said, “Your father.”
Bukhari

>>19755399
No, Ahlus Sunnah means Sunni. Maliki isn’t a sect it’s a school

>>19750281
The Quranic script is meant to capture the irregularity of the infinite in hidden regularized form, thereby revealing and symbolizing that the true infinite itself is neither arbitrary nor incoherent: but always an open and decipherable book to the highest reaches of intellect.

>>19755436
Do you have any source that the actual script of Arabic is wahy?

>>19755418
What's your thoughts on Sufi Sadhili

>>19755456
None at all, I’m more interested in tezkiyah than Sufism desu

>>19754761
>Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad says, "Ibn Taymiyyah is like Ibn Arabi: both are dangerously misread by fools."

That is absolutely correct. It's made worse since so much of Ibn Arabi scholarship is done by Guenonian midwits.

>>19755415
>There is a reason Ibn Taymiyyah considered Ibn Arabi not a Muslim.

Remember that Ibn Taymiyyah loved the Futuhat and only started to hate Ibn Arabi when he read the Fusus.

The Quran is from Allah, and Muhammad ﷺ is His messenger. This can be proven by the meanings (tafsir) of the Qur’an; that being, the stories of the prophets, the admonitions of man, the God-centricity of the entire Book, the love of Allah to the believers, and the mercy of Allah to all, etcetera.

Trying to say the Quran is from the devil is impossible to substantiate because the Quran rebukes the devil and glorifies Allah over all the vanities and extravagances of the world. If the Prophets read the Quran, they would have to submit to it, for it only says what is true about Allah (that it makes no difference whether you disbelieve in Him or not, He has no need for you). Surah Al-A’raf, Surah Mulk, Surah Al Baqara, Surah Yunus, Surah Al Anbiya, etcetera

>>19755495
Ibn Arabi got a bit carried away with his own popularity and people flattering him and so it’s no surprise his work took a very steep wrong turn

>>19755503
>"When we ask (the Muslims) again: ‘How is it that when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: “First do you show us by witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us just what Scriptures there are that testify about you”’—they are ashamed and remain silent. [Then we continue:] ‘Although you may not marry a wife without witnesses, or buy, or acquire property; although you neither receive an ass nor possess a beast of burden unwitnessed; and although you do possess both wives and property and asses and so on through witnesses, yet it is only your faith and your scriptures that you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses.'"

>"Moreover, they call us Mushrikin, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’"

>>19755556
Isaiah 42

>>19755556
>yet it is only your faith and your scriptures that you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses
What a retard. In his own book Jesus said "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from.", but even besides this, I would like to have asked him who was a witness to Moses and Aaron (as), or Noah or any of the other messengers besides Jesus Christ. These people testified about themselves, and their testimony was correct because what they said was correct (that there is one God). And this doesn't even matter anyway in this case, because Muhammad's ﷺ companions witnessed many things he did which were miraculous, such as splitting the moon and healing people. This was Pascal's ignorance as well, who said the same thing John of Damascus said about Muhammad ﷺ in his Pensees.
>The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us
He doesn't know what they delivered, which reveals the origin of his ignorance concerning the Qur'an. If you don't know what the gospel actually taught, you wouldn't know what the Qur'an teaches consequently; it would be new to you. Knowledge of both is synonymous, including that of the Torah. This is because all the books of Allah taught the same thing, and its why Allah says there are people of the book who recognize the Qur'an as Scripture like they recognize their own sons, and is why Allah told Muhammad ﷺ to take as his witness those who have knowledge "of the book" (Surah Ar-Ra'd).
>So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.
This was exactly the iniquity and the foolishness of the Meccan Pagans, who said that Abraham (as) taught them to worship idols. The response is twofold: that if they taught this, they would be wrongdoers, and you would be wrongdoers for following them; that if you believe this, you have only yourself to blame. Allah responds to people like John of Damascus in the Quran when they say, after having committed an immorality, "Allah has ordered us to do this", "Indeed, Allah does not order immorality. Do you say about Allah that which you do not know?".

allah says he created earth first, then heaven
- quran 41:9-12
no wait actually heaven first, then the earth
- quran 79:27-32

>>19756011
There is an agreement that he created the heaven (as in the one with stars) then made the rest after earth

>>19756101
what?

>>19756506
The first heaven is the one with the stars according to Ibn Kathir. He created it and then the earth. And then he made the heaven seven by establishing the ones above it

ya wayli el cringe

>>19750281
Allahumma, la khaira illa khairul akhira, faghfir lil ansar wal muhajir. Amen.

Hello muslim frens,
I know the Quran can only truly be read in Arabic, but can any of you recommend a good English translation?

>>19750354
>although Raheem is permitted as an an adjective and name
you're 100% on this? I've wondered for a while, I've wanted if I have a son to name him Raheem, inshallah. I know of the footballer, but I haven't been sure. In a way I kind of prefer Abdurraheem, but I think it would make for bad nicknames in my native language. not bad but just unappealing.

>>19750789
>It’s garbage.
how so?

>>19750789
>Various Hilali–Khan versions of the Quran contain parenthetical insertions,[1] tafsir/commentaries and appendices.[2][3] The Hilali–Khan translation has been criticized for inserting the interpretations of the Wahhabi school directly into the English rendition of the Quran. Many readers will not realise this content does not form part of the original Quran wording. The translation has been accused of inculcating Muslims and potential Muslims with militant interpretations of Islam through parenthetical comments and additions as teachings of the Quran itself.
sir please what is your comment

classical ahl as sunnah wa al jamaa btw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=674BuY8yPSs

it says in the Quran that there are no contradictions in the book. a very, very common thing in the tradition, on which I imagine there is consensus at least regarding a few verses, is that some parts of the book abrogate parts revealed earlier. My question is: how can one verse abrogate another if no two verses contradict? Thank you.
also I have heard from a source I deemed credible (though I forget what it was and it was a long time ago) that there is no indication that the Prophet, saws, instructed anyone in abrogation (although it occurs among companions, may God be pleased with them).

>>19756947
I’m 100% sure

>>19756963
Goofy agenda rejoinder to Sahih International

>>19756980
The translation relies on four principle sources for interpretation: Tabari, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir and Bukhari. It never, not once relies on Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Libs are crybabies because it uses premodern understanding

>>19757149
Abrogation in Islam is better understood as sublation. So for example the revelation don’t get drunk before prayer is abrogated by don’t drink at all, it’s not contradictory so much as the demands of the religion increased as faith did.

>>19757446
>Goofy agenda rejoinder
what does this mean?

>>19757446
>But the Hilali-Khan translation inserts these words:

>“Guide us to the straight path, The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favour, not of those who have evoked (Your) anger (the Jews) or of those who are astray (the Christians).”
mate

>>19757667
I mean Sahih International basics released a translation intended to be as easy to understand as possible and it fulfilled that function very well but because it wasn’t politically correct (pic related) they came up with the clear stuff

>>19757446
>In the 1980's two Salafi scholars based in the Islamic University of Medina and working under the supervision of Bin Baz, Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhsin Khan institutionalized an interpretation of Islam... through their work Translations of the meanings of the Noble Qur'an in the English Language (1985). In it they used sustained interpolations to insert the interpretation of the Bin Baz school directly into the English rendition of the Qur'an. It was... used to inculcate Muslims and potential Muslims with militant interpretations of Islam artfully disguised, through parenthesis, as teachings of the Qur'an pure and simple.
was Bin Baz a salafi?

>>19757824
Those inserts are based on Hadiths of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم explaining this verse, you can find them in Tabari and Ibn Kathir. They’re also not in current editions. The parentheses are used throughout to indicate what or whom a verse is referring to. The explanation is Christians have actions but not knowledge, whereas Jews have knowledge but not actions. The former leads to you giving love to the creation as if it were the creator and the later leads to arrogance and puffing yourself up above the creator

>>19757876
Sure and I’m not particularly fond of him but all these gloses are taken directly from classical sources and no premodern Sufi would dispute them

>>19757876
We can see why exactly this translation was so triggering if we look at a review by someone who worked for the Department of Homeland Security

> Whereas most other translators have tried to render the Qur'an applicable to a modern readership, this Saudi-financed venture tries to impose the commentaries of Tabari (d. 923 C.E.), Qurtubi (d. 1273 C.E.), and Ibn Kathir (d. 1372 C.E.), medievalists who knew nothing of modern concepts of pluralism. The numerous interpolations make this translation particularly problematic, especially for American Muslims who, in the aftermath of 9-11, are struggling to show that Islam is a religion of tolerance.

https://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran

>>19750281
>The Name Allah encompasses all His names, so for example we don't say Al-'Azeez (the Almighty) is Allah, we always say Allah is the Almighty.
I actually remember coming across this idea in an argument Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) made against the Trinity in his "الجواب الصحيح لمن بدل دين المسيح". The Trinity says that Christ is the Logos begotten of the Father, and that the Logos is what Allah uses to create the world, and that the Holy Spirit is the Life He essentially gave to the world (so it is the Life of God, atleast, that's the idea Ibn Taymiyyah was attacking). Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) says that there is no reason to say the Word of God is God if by it you mean that Allah creates through His word or kalima, and he shows this by citing how common people don't invoke Allah by his power or His knowledge, but by His name only. They don't say, "Allah's wisdom, help me!" or "Allah's life, help me!" or "Allah's power, forgive me!" or "Allah's speech, give me strength!". They say, "Allah help me!" etcetera without personifying His attributes. So the teleology of faith by the Trinity is destroyed here by the Islamic conception of Allah, which does not deny that He creates things with His word or gives things life with His own life, and gives things mercy with His own mercy. So there is no reason to say the Logos is God, or that God is the Logos, but that the Logos is an attribute of God, and is included in His blessed name, Allah ﷻ.

>>19757929
Yeah the distinction of al’asma wasifaat isn’t into different deities, Allah’s voice doesn’t pray to Allah

>>19757898
>>19757031
>when cornered he would say "this is the consensus" when there was no consensus

>>19755479
May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon you.
Isn't tezkiyah heavily stressed in sufism? Almost to an extreme, are the sufis not among those who most ardently pursue purification?

>>19758002
Ibn Taymiyyah was just the most popular of *Ahl al-Hadith* at his time. The misconception among some is that Islam can change because a majority of scholars say so at a later point, for example Hamza Yusuf says the consensus now is slavery is forbidden. No, that’s not how ijma works. Ijma means unanimous scholarly opinion. Because that’s practically impossible to obtain today it’s mostly derived from you guessed it scholars from the Salaf. So when later scholars deviate from original consensus even by majority opinion (with dissidents being put in prison including Ibn Taymiyyah and majority being elevated in positions by rulers) that’s not actually ijma. To learn how ijma works see Imam Shafi’i‘a Ar-Risala which explains the concept

>>19758048
No, if you listen to their shaykhs they scream a lot and advocate dancing around. Tazkiyah is about crying in the night in repentance and frequent fasting and a sense of remorse and humility

>>19750281
quality larp, upvoted and subscribed.

>>19758053
but then you agree that Ibn Taymiyyah deviated on points of aqida?

>>19758568
Not unless you consider the aqidah of the Salaf as-Saliheen to be deviant.

>>19758640
where do you read about this? what is the proof and what went wrong, would you say, with the madhhabs? how did it go wrong, and who else has been maintaining a literary tradition on the side, in a credible manner?

and one of my main questions really: what do you think is the status of the average muslim that lived in the 1500s, ahl as sunnah, in the akhira? Is he gonna make it, even though he's a deviator?

>>19758640
>>19758655
and what is the isnaad of this whole on-the-side tradition? is it the hanbali madhhab? but is it in perfect accordance with your scholars? if not, then why not just be hanbali?

>>19758568
>>19758640
The confusion is Ibn Taymiyyah by consensus he means among the Salaf, this is the technical meaning of the term in fiqh in aqidah as I explained because it requires unanimity. This guy is upset because Ibn Taymiyyah would cite ijma in disagreements with his contemporaries. In doing this he was saying they were deviating from the Salaf. Hence the term “Salafi” is based on his pointedness in this

Is there something like islamic gnosticism?

>>19758668
I don't believe you. God knows best.

>>19758655
You can see his own opinions and arguments in English in Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam.

There is nothing wrong with madhhabs. Ibn Taymiyyah in fact was a major rehabilitatior of Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik. Shafi’i had written pretty stridently against his teacher Malik but Ibn Taymiyyah wrote Malik is quite sound and he even agreed with him on around 20% of the time over his own school. Imam Ahmad said Abu Hanifa was not to be taken from in relating Hadiths, or his students. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a long treatise showing they were sound.

He is controversial only for two reasons. He said triple talaq is invalid and that praying to the dead for intercession is impermissible. As for charges of anthropomorphism you can see they’re bs if you read his work, that’s why he was acquitted each time

I don’t make presumptions about other Muslims but the average one then would consider contemporary sufis deviant filth

>>19758663
You mean Ahl al-Hadith?

See
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hanabilah

It’s a lengthy article but it explains why Hanbalis seemed to split so far from the others

Read from here
> One particular misconception concerning the Ḥanbālī madhhab was its relatively reduced representation in the Islamic world when compared with the other madhhab s. This fact kept cropping up in the early studies on the Ḥanābilah, and its repeated mention is indicative of the scholars' perplexity when they were confronted with what appears to be the disproportionate attention this madhhab received from the annalistic sources in descriptions of riots

>>19758708
You don’t have to, I mentioned a book for you to see for yourself, Imam Shafi’i‘s Risala

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R4ZXCoHrcw

>>19758741
I debated this guys on their server and they just degenerated into calling me names at the top of their lungs and banning me

>>19758727
but you have your whole own tradition of hadith and fiqh do you not? what else is al Albani? this is why I ask about madhabs and isnaad. how is it not innovation that a new guy pops up in the 1900s and reinvents the game?

>>19758700
twelver shiism

>>19758753
refute the video then.

>>19758727
and if literally the only difference between an ahl as sunnah muslim and a salafi is that you don't do triple talaq and you don't pray for intercession at graves.. you mean to tell me that all the noise over ibn taymiyyah, in this thread and in history, is over intercession?

>>19758757
Albani has many critics, Sulayman al-‘Alwan wrote very critically of him. He’s promoted a lot for political reasons even though he meant well. I don’t agree with him on a lot

>>19758784
this mostly does not answer the question. do you or do you not have your own tradition of hadith, and if so, how was it maintained and guaranteed?

>>19758778
Yes and it’s big. In the past that was it, and actually other movements like Deobandi agree on it anyway. Today however it’s because Salafis tend to be premodern about jihad and slavery whereas sufis say these are not allowed

>>19758790
My own tradition of Hadiths? You mean my own usool al-Hadith? Most hadiths in my school are from the major six books and follow the same methodology as everyone

>>19758753
what kind of names?

>>19758795
>it’s because Salafis tend to be premodern about jihad
the strange thing is that this is combined with having a couple american vassal-states as your headquarters (I count here Qatar and Saudi. Turkey is somewhere in between imo). that's one strange thing anyway. like how do you not think you are being played? if you're violent and there's a McDonalds in the Haram? didn't whole thing start because some najdi larper brought a kalashnikov into the Haram? What way is that to start a party?

>>19758766
still waiting for your refutation

>>19758806
you mean to tell me you are not salafi?
>>19758828
like, on that same list of countries features Israel

>>19758828
They don’t? The Salafis who are adamant about jihad like Sulayman al-‘’Alwan are imprisoned. Usama bin Laden had to flee to Sudan because he criticized the government for being an American puppet

>>19758836
I don’t know what you mean by Salafi. That means Ahl al-Hadith generally, which is not an usool al-hadith. Bukhari was Ahl al-Hadith

>>19757929
I am a passive observer of these threads, as I would like to always try to learn more about other religions that I am not familiar with, and since I have an interest in philosophical theology and have dipped my hand into apologetics and polemics for ideas of God’s complexity and simplicity, I thought that this post was interesting.

Ibn Taymiyyah, along with other Muslim scholars such as Al-Ghazali and Al-Baqillani, seemed to of characterized Trinitarian belief as God’s essence along with two concomitant attributes, one being God’s word and the other being God’s life, and since the Trinitarians believed that God’s word was the agent through which God created everything, then therefore God’s word must be God, along with God’s life instilling everything with life, then therefore God’s life must be God.

Except the fact that, such in your case, attributes are merely predicates of the divine essence, such that they are merely descriptions of God’s agency, in that God actually has speech through which He reveals, and God actually has life through which he lives.

Except, in my ideation of Trinitarian dogma, the Trinity isn’t that there is God’s essence, and then two other concomitant attributes that embody the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ibn Taymiyyah characterized Trinitarianism as this belief, and therefore due to his conception of the belief, believed that Trinitarians had no objection to the idea that since God’s word was an attribute and so was life, then it would be arbitrary to say that God’s word is God’s Son instead of God’s life, so there must be two Sons (as pic related suggests), and if God’s wisdom and life precedes from God’s essence, that would mean that God’s essence was before wisdom and life, meaning that God was ignorant and lifeless, meaning that God’s attributes could not be actual persons that have subsistence as persons.

Except that this isn’t actually what Trinitarianism teaches, at least Nicene Trinitarianism. Nicene Trinitarianism doesn’t believe that the Hypostases of the Trinity are attributes, but rather are actual particular subsistences of the divine essence, with the divine essence being identified as one paternal Hypostasis, with this one paternal Hypostasis begetting through self-reflected eternal wisdom a corollary image through which God acknowledges Himself, with this act of acknowledgement being another subsistence, the Son, and their willful communion producing a third corollary Hypostasis that is the Spirit.

These aren’t attributes in the context of predication. They’re three subsistences of one substance, all three being ‘relations’ of the divine essence, the Father, stemming from Him as the Son and the Holy Spirit, and since spiration is distinct from begetting, there cannot be another Son, and since the idea of divine processions is atemporal, there cannot be a time where God is ignorant and lifeless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R4ZXCoHrcw

>>19758835
are you the type to wait for people to refute each other on the internet so you can mimic them? learn to think for yourself. seriously, what kind of social reject bugman thinks posting another persons visual essay proves anything? nobody wants to watch your daddy's 20 minute debooonk video.

>>19758862
>they don't
so what's the money then? US department of state?
>what I mean by salafi
is someone who has abandoned the majority consensus for a revivalist movement that I believe began in the 1700s, and which appears truly prone to violence, if not as a whole then at least certainly as a halmark. See the Grand Mosque seizure. How could anyone take anything seriously that begins with 100s shot dead within the Masjid al Haram? How am I to believe that a man who was positively inspired by this, the late king, was a man of sound heart? And how am I to belive that the exercise of this kingship is not intimately tied with salafism? Or yourself even? It's their Quran you espouse, you know. They give it to hajjis.

What I believe it means is: someone who is being played. Someone who is being used to disrupt the religion. That's what I believe it means. God knows best. Say what you will about the average 1500s muslim: he was not being played by the US state department.

>>19758906
>I'll insult you instead of addressing the argument!
Islam, everyone!

>>19758890
Ibn Taymiyyah was a nominalist and that is his major issue here

>>19758923
What money? You mean Madkhalis? But those are quietists and not the element here

Majority consensus if an oxymoron. Consensus, ijma, is a technical term in usool al-fiqh meaning unanimous agreement by the scholars. An ijma is almost always as a consequence something which must be taken from the early generations because it’s impossible to even prove later. What an ijma is is explained by Shafi’i in his Risala. Until you grasp that a majority saying something in Islam is not an evidence in usool al-fiqh and definitely not an ijma then this discussion cannot go further

The Grand Mosque seizure was an inevitable backlash to Saud trying to pozz people and get in bed with the British and then America which lead to far far more deaths. It isn’t based on any particular precept of a jurist or scholar and didn’t inspire any king, the king executed the people involved but he wasn’t a good man himself

The 1500’s Muslim believed in jihad and slavery. If you really want to see the state department’s hand check out the Muslim World After 9/11 by the RAND Corporation

>>19758952
you also mean to tell me then that you don't believe that a sunni shaykh such as the one linked would be able to understand the use of the word "ijma"?

>>19758952
>and didn’t inspire any king

>"`Those old men actually believed that the Mosque disaster was God's punishment to us because we were publishing women's photographs in the newspapers, says a princess, one of Khaled's nieces. The worrying thing is that the king [Khaled] probably believed that as well... Khaled had come to agree with the sheikhs. Foreign influences and bida'a were the problem. The solution to the religious upheaval was simple—more religion."

>>19758979
I mean he is a liar and that is objectively the case, yes. Majority opinion is objectively not ijma and you can open any book on usool al-fiqh to see this. But I recommend one write by Shafi’i for you. If you choose to ignore this and play that the emperor is wearing a fine outfit and not naked, then congratulations, you are following in the footsteps of the willfully ignorant who have always been opposed by the shaykhs they sent to prison

>>19758890
Ironically, I am in various philosophy discords, with Sunni Muslims continually attacking the Trinity due to it’s ostensible incoherence, with the ex-Muslim ‘rationalist’ deists (who are obsessed with people such as Descartes and Spinoza) saying that the same anti-Trinitarian arguments made would apply to ideations of God consisting of multiple distinct predicated subsistent attributes, such as so that God must be absolutely simple in essence, existence, predication, etc. where any distinction whatsoever must at most be conceptual, so that God’s attribute of wrath and His attribute of mercy must be really the same thing.

Of course, there are arguments against that ideation as well--many of which are ignored by those same people.

I do think that attacks on the Trinity can be from a wrong place, such as Ibn Taymiyyah’s, where he misinterprets Trinitarian doctrine along with his contemporaries. It’s hopeless, really. I do not think philosophical arguments like these work, and the people I have met who have gone down these paths and have rejected every model of God rationally still remain as some sort of follower of a religion, although a type such as a fideist.

>>19758997
did I post the first part? he talks about how there is barely any ijma. i don't remember if I posted it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O801hAgChAY

he has studied shafi'i fiqh btw, but is mainly maliki

>>19758995
He did it to avert a revolt. Same reason he executed the rebels. If he agreed with them he wouldn’t have. And after that brief appeasement the program went back to liberalizing, with MBS now holding Pitbull concerts in the country

>>19759014
There are plenty of recorded ijmas, the best scholar who specialized in collecting them was Ibn Hazm who was Ibn Taymiyyah’s preferred source for ijma

>>19759030
what are your credentials actually?

>>19759034
I don’t have any ijaza if that’s what you’re asking, but then I’m not citing my credentials or issuing a fatwa. I’m referring you to primary sources

>>19759047
well, sleep tight man. we'll know what's what eventually, let's just hope it's not too late.

As salaam wa alaikum wa rahmatu Llahi wa barakatun.

>>19759056
وعليكم السلام ورحمة وبركاته

>>19758952
>Muslim World After 9/11 by the RAND Corporation
Link?

>>19759105
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG246.pdf

>>19750281
Alhamdullilah!
Reading the Noble Quran for the first time and just finished Sura Al-Baqara
Have a nice day brother

>>19758890
>with this one paternal Hypostasis begetting through self-reflected eternal wisdom a corollary image through which God acknowledges Himself
This is not specified by the Nicene Creed, and is honestly unintelligible to me in light of it, as the action of self-reflection or self-acknowledgement is not the same as the action of begetting. It seems like you intend a separate meaning for the generation between the Son and the Father which would be unnecessary to bring up in pretty much any discussion about the coherence of the Trinity.
>Nicene Trinitarianism doesn't believe that the Hypostases of the Trinity are attributes,
The problem for Ibn Taymiyyah here is that the Son is the Logos or the Word of God and is the property through which God speaks to His creation. Hearing this, being a nominalist as the other brother pointed out, he believed this necessarily meant He was an attribute of God, and any claim to the contrary by a Christian would have been seen as ineffectual to his argument. If you told him this, I suspect he would've argued that the Word of God through which He commands creation cannot be considered as anything other than a concomitant attribute, explaining further that that which mediates is not the same as that which originates; the Logos mediating the Will of the Father with the action He intends. If it is through the Logos that the Father orders and communicates with mankind, then the Logos is either a concomitant attribute, or a separate God. It is either dependent on the existence and discretion of God or is another god through which God proper fulfills His will. This is shown by him further on in his appraisal of the Nicene Creed, where he says that nothing can be equal to an essence except another essence, believing that if the Logos is Allah He should not merely be the Logos, but that which the Logos is a concomitant attribute of (the name of Allah encompasses all His attributes and actions). This is again in consideration of the idea that the Logos is God as divine reason, which is Allah's attribute, and is included in His name, being the opinion of ahlus sunnatu al wa'l jama'ah since the revelation of the Holy Qur'an.

>>19752416
And the bible isnt a jew fanfic?

>>19752575
As a Christian I stand with my Muslim brothers against the Kike Menace

Why is there this huge overwhelming corpus called hadith that completely overshadows the Quran but insists it's a secondary source? I struggle to understand how the Arabs haven't relapsed into Rabbinic Talmudism. Why is islam so overbearing on the 21st century person or the Non-Arab? When people try to adopt islams 5 pillars and 5 tenets of Iman and the quran's restrictions it seems to not be satisfactory. I find this thing called hadith to be the most off-putting aspect of "Islam" and muslims always try to rope in people with the Quran and then shove these extra steps? Why not quran and alone and why am I threatened with hellfire when this is proposed?

>>19759736
1 Hadiths are not secondary, they’re a record of Sunnah, they’re not like the Talmud as in a corpus of opinions but mostly the accounts of the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم actions and words which are among other things important for interpretation of the Quran. The very usage of Quranic Arabic relies on Hadiths

>>19759736
Ordinary people generally don't read hadith. They read Qur'an if they read anything. But what is the problem exactly, do you find the exoteric and fundamentalist essence of Sunni Islam to be overwhelming, or is something specific about hadith literature bothers you?

>>19759765
I don’t know what exactly this continuous assertion that Sunnism is “exoteric”. Actions in Sunni Islam are divided into actions of the hand and tongue, and actions of the heart which is interior aspect of the religion and a wealth of material is available on that. I think by exoteric you mean not having special hidden Masonic codes or things.

People do not necessarily read Hadiths but they learn them very much and a few hundred well known ones are recognizable by pretty much every Muslim

>>19759384
>This is not specified by the Nicene creed
The idea of the Son being begotten through self-reflection is something coming from the ante-Nicene Christians, which Nicaea inherited. The idea of begetting as the self-acknowledged reflection of the divine image is what is expressed through multiple saints during the first centuries of the Church, which distinguishes the Son from the Spirit due to their originating processions being different in that regard, which defuses the idea of the Spirit being another Son as Ibn Taymiyyah said in >>19758890's pic related. This obviously has everything to do with the definition of the generation of the Son and therefore would be the historical context of the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore making it a requirement when discussing the Trinity doctrine.
>he believed this necessarily meant He was an attribute of God, and any claim to the contrary by a Christian would have been seen as ineffectual to his argument.
Ibn Taymiyyah is begging the question in this argument, in assuming that either the Son was a predicate of a divine essence, or another divine essence entirely. This is what you mean by formulating his argument in your post when you say, "then the Logos is either a concomitant attribute, or a separate God." It is circular reasoning in that you are only giving two options: either, one, the Son is a predicate of the divine essence, or is an entirely distinct divine essence himself, meaning that the Son is either an attribute or another God, neither of which Trinitarianism holds. Ibn Taymiyyah is misinterpreting the title of what 'Logos' means, not that the Son is the descriptor of the divine omniscience, as the Son also is predicated of that too in Trinitarianism, meaning that he is a particular of the divine essence and not merely an essential predicate or alternatively an accident. Nominalism doesn't explain why Ibn Taymiyyah denies the Son being anything other than a predicate of a substance or another substance, with those two options being the only ones that exist. Since Trinitarianism advocates for not only the Son being the agent of creation, but also the creatior Himself, also participating in the one divine energy emanating from the divine essence.

So, Ibn Taymiyyah misinterprets the idea of the Son being the logos, in that he interprets this meaning that the Son is "the property through which God speaks to His creation", even though that is not what Trinitarians mean, and Ibn Taymiyyah begs the question in giving an arbitrary criteria of how the Son must exist, as either a predicate of the divine essence or another essence entirely, since he is presupposing that there cannot be another subsistence of the divine essence generated by the Father through an act of self-reflection as the fathers of the church formulate it.

>>19759784
By exoteric I mean the part of religion that focuses on the outward aspects of life: prayer rituals, jurisprudence, the Shari'a as a whole. By esoteric I mean the aspect of religion focused on inward spirituality, purification and mystical states. Perhaps Sunnism is not 'exoteric in an absolute sense' but when compared with Tasawwuf (Sunni or non-Sunni) and Tashayyu' (Shi'ism), the non-Sufi Sunnism weighs heavily on the exoteric side.

>>19759835
Tazkiyah is a major theme outside Sufism. Sufism just means secret orders or in the popular sense the Muslim equivalent to holy rollers

>>19759894
All advanced spiritual teachings become "secretive" at some point to guard from misunderstandings by ordinary people. As I said, you ought to compare it with other interpretations of Islam. No one who knows what he is talking about would call non-Sufi Sunnism as esoteric or mystical.

>>19759915
Yeah you mean Freemasonry stuff. Obviously not compatible with Islam which requires knowledge to be conveyed as an obligation for having and not doing so is likened to hoarding wealth instead of sharing it

>>19760007
No, I mean Sufism and Shi'ism. No idea why you insist on bringing up Freemasonry. According to Shi'i narrations Muhammad had Ashab al-Asrar (companions of secrets) with whom he shared esoteric teachings. There is also a narration which says "Allah obligates Prophets to speak to people according to their level of understanding."

>>19760072
I say Freemasonry because it’s the same principle

There are millions and millions of narrations. However only 20,000 at very best are sound according to usool al-Hadith.

>>19759835
All serious religions must have and maintain a Law. If there is no "exotericism" there will be no religion. I respect Abd Al-Wahid Yahya, but I disagree on his disdain for "exotericism" and interpret it as his modern and orientalist sensibilities getting the better of him.

How to learn arabic, muslim bros ?

>>19759802
>which defuses the idea of the Spirit being another Son
not really. he didnt argue that the holy spirit is begotten like the Son, so that the Holy Spirit should be considered a Son himself. He said that if both express the attributes of God, in that one is the divine reason which the world was created through and from, and the other is the life of God which He bestowed on the world, these both come from the Father, and so both must be considered as sons in that they are offspring, albeit differently regarded.
>The idea of begetting as the self-acknowledged reflection of the divine image
Regardless of the modality that entails the Son's existence, this doesn't harm Ibn Taymiyyah's argument, because if the Son is a consequential thing, or is caused to exist in any way, through any mode or action, by God, and He is what God creates the world through, then He must be an attribute or a lesser being. You said this was circular, but this comes from the nominalist view of Ibn Taymiyyah that only substance and quality exist; that you are either a substance or a quality of a substance. This can be shown by the character of the argument he uses against the Son's equality with the Father, that no effect such as heat has a like essence with its cause, such as fire; an argument only a nominalist would use in a discussion on metaphysics.
>being the agent of creation, but also the creator Himself
Ibn Taymiyyah responds to this directly in an untranslated bit of the Jawab As-Sahih, where he says that a student is not a teacher, the intender is not the intended, the ability is not that which is able, the belief is not that which believes, etcetera. The "agent" of creation, being the divine reason which was used to form the cosmos, is not the creator, but rather a lesser attribute of the essence of God, who creates everything. This is very important to his point, because the Son of God is also called His wisdom (despite having wisdom himself), and the Wisdom of God is the attribute of God, not God Himself. When one calls upon Allah, one does not mean to call upon His Wisdom or His Life, as these are attributes.
>arbitrary criteria of how the Son must exist
it isn't arbitrary. If you want to argue that the Son can be a subsistence of the divine essence, or its particular, then you can go ahead and do that. Nobody is preventing you from introducing a third option. Ibn Taymiyyah is using common sense here when he says that divine reason cannot be like that which reasons, heat not being like that which is fire. The idea that the Son is distinct person in the Godhead who shares equally in the divine essence is not what is being critiqued here, as this alone can't really be critiqued, but that the Son is the Wisdom of God necessitates a critique that says the attribute and the one which possesses the attribute are not alike.

>>19757883
>>19757824
I found it in Tirmidhi. Some say it is in Tirmidhi and abu Dawud, but I didn't find it in abu Dawud on sunnah.com. I looked through all ahadith from 'Adi bin Hatim, ra, and of all of his ahadith the word "jew" is only mentioned once, in a hasan hadith that among other things includes this saying of the Prophet, saws. I did at least skim all of them, read some, alhamdulillah. This is a rating from darussalam (the official saudi rating). So it appears to me that this is a hasan hadith ahad, at most, out of which saudi officials decided to include words directly in the text of a Quran in order to incite inter-religious conflict.

For you non-muslims this means:
Saudi officials took one single report (a hadith ahad) of something that Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, is supposed to have said, that only one person supposedly retold (this is also uncertain as far as I gather), that they don't even consider to be fully credible themselves (it is "hasan"- fully credible would be "sahih") and decided to include inflammatory information from it in their offical translation of the Quran, in the text itself, which the OP recommends.
>inb4 they removed it
How could anyone even consider trusting anyone who did so in the first place?

Just so you know.
God knows best;

and with reservation- I did not find the supposed hadith in abu Dawud. If you know it OP then please share it.

>>19761810
>and decided to include inflammatory information from it in their offical translation of the Quran
on page 1, nonetheless, in al Fatihah, which a muslim is supposed to repeat at least 17 times a day, they added hate based on a claim they themselves take to be spurious. It's sometimes compared to the Lords prayer for Islam. They added it. Literally added it. OP recommends it.

>>19761830
>OP recommends it.
he also seethes if anyone mentions The Study Qur'an because it doesn't conform to his Wahabbist views

I just got a Qur'an in Arabic from the UAE, it's very pretty. OP, how can I learn Quranic Arabic on my own?

>>19763143
An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic - Wheeler Thackston
It's very good but very dense. Only recommend it if you've learned another language before.

>>19761419
How much do you know? If you can’t read or write it phonetically then start by memorizing this vocally and in writing, then get back to me if you follow through on that and I will not only give you more resources, I will in sha’ Allah help teach you

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sTTX7KZ1kv0

>>19761810
>>19761830
Brother, the reason this explanation is included in the Hilali-Khan translation is demonstrated by its full title, see pic related. It’s a very condensed summary of the exegesis given by Tabari, Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir. ALL THREE say this verse refers to the Jews and Christians and those like them. If you actually read the Quran you’d see these are pretty mild things compared to what is said about the respective sects elsewhere. But wait, there’s more! Because of ignorants complaining so much about this exegesis, these parentheticals were removed from the Surah and have not been printed since the 1990’s! That’s right, you’re griping so much over something that hasn’t been printed in this translation for over 20 years.

The scholars who translated this are not “Saudi officials”, they are simply legitimate scholars with sanad. And Darussalam is not the Saudi state, they are a private publishing house. As for their grading of hadiths, it’s strictly used as a reference for amateurs. No expert accepts it. Why? Because you need a license (ijaza) in usool al-Hadith to give official grade to a Hadith (and that can be disputed by another such licensed individual) and such a license, such credentials, can ONLY be given to a particular individual, not a publishing house. In order for the publishing house to give an authoritative grade they must put the name and credentials of the particular individual who graded something.

>>19762651
The Study Quran is perennialist and in its exegesis of Al Ikhlas it says this Surah isn’t incompatible with the Trinity, bold nonsense that no scholar in the history of our religion would concur with. To paint this as some new perspective of “Wahhabism” is cockamamie, simple as

>>19763143

See above

>>19763240
It’s great but is very sparse on harakat and you cannot possibly learn pronunciation from that. Recommending that to someone as a starting text to learn on their own is irresponsible, even if they learned multiple other languages. The only way someone quote new could learn anything from that is with a teacher (which is the intent of the book). You are setting him up to be discouraged and give up

>>19764777
>You are setting him up to be discouraged and give up
I learned the script and phonetics elsewhere then started with the said book, without any teacher, and I find it great. Anons on this board are not infants. I'm sure they know they can use another resource if something didn't work for them.

>>19754958
The word "Raheem" (Allah's second revealed name) actually comes from the Arabic word for womb. There is, in traditional thought (not just Islam) the idea of the transcendent and imminent qualities (truth/love) being related to the masculine and feminine. This is why when people say "Allah is a masculine war god", you can just laugh and not take them seriously. Allah is the ultimate transcendent deity; He is only referred to with the Arabic "huwa" because that's what you'd say in the language when referring to someone or something you don't know the gender of. Allah does have merciful qualities, and His mercy precedes his wrath, but he is also the avenger of wrongs.

>>19752681
>"(These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: "Were we not with you?"- but if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): "Did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you from the believers?" but Allah will judge betwixt you on the Day of Judgment. And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers." (Qur'an 4:141)
Taking the full context into account, I think the message is a little more complex than stranger danger but for the disbelievers. Not that OP's response is entirely incorrect.

>>19764825
Those take a a couple of months to get down if you include tajweed, longer if you get to the point of reading smoothly aloud. Skipping the fundamentals is most likely going to discourage someone if they think the next step up is the fundamentals

>>19764951
Tajweed takes a while yes, but reading it smoothly shouldn't take more than a few weeks at most, and much sooner if you've learned a few languages before.

>>19764968
Depends on practice. But definitely using a pronunciation sheet from a book with minimal harakat to figure this out is going to lead to confusion and frustration. Tajweed rules are also relevant

>>19765020
I would not recommend a newcomer to learn tajweed before he is able to read texts normally. Tajweed has a lot of rules and details which would just overwhelm the newcomer. The book I recommended is great on reading skills and grammar rules - the best I've seen - but I agree one should learn the script and phonetics before starting with it. Same goes for any language and any language book. I actually like that the author purposefully tries to make you as little dependent on written vowels as possible early on. This gives you a great advantage in the long run since you get much more practice of figuring out the vowels yourself as you go along.

>>19765049
Tajweed rules are actually much easier in Arabic than most languages because of how consistent they are but anyway I’m not talking about things like qalqala, I mean things like elision .

>>19761513
Ibn Taymiyyah showed no knowledge of the matters of procession, in that the Son was begotten and the Spirit spirated, so that he couldn’t of known the distinguishing factor between the two in Nicene Trinitarianism so that the Spirit wasn’t the Son. Again, he’s begging the question in assuming that the Son and the Spirit are merely predicates of the divine essence instead of being particulars communicating the divine essence so they they are instead predicated the divine essence instead of the other way around. No Nicene Trinitarian ever meant, by saying that the Son was the logos, that he was the predicate of God’s knowledge as expressed through the attribute of wisdom, just that he embodied the agency of God through his self-reflection by which we know God.

Ibn Taymiyyah also isn’t making an argument against the Son’s being through procession, so that the Son has ontological subordination to the Father through the matter of divine processions. He’s arguing against the idea of God having a Son through attacking the idea of the Son being a predicate, not that since the Son comes from the Father therefore the Son must be a predicate of the Father, since he views the Son as either being an entirely separate essence entirely or a predicate of the divine essence, instead of simply another subsistence that is predicated the divine essence. Ibn Taymiyyah’s nominalism only makes sense in making a distinguishment between essence and accidents, but only that the essence is itself a predicate of a substance which has no bearing on how many subsistences are predicated the substance themselves. This isn’t something that Ibn Taymiyyah even outlines in his argument, considering the fact that Nicene Trinitarians can view there being an essence - mode of essence distinction while saying that the Son is predicated both at the same time, in that the Son is both predicated the essence and the attributes which is what Trinitarianism believes.

Saying that a student is not his teacher is something irrelevant to the idea of divine processions, in that the Son being the logos is not meant as a divine predicate but merely a title of the Son’s origin in the divine processions, mainly self-reflection which would be known through God’s revelation of Himself through the Son, hence why the Son was called the logos by ante-Nicene writers. Likewise, any analogy of the Son’s procession with an effect of an essence, not being a subsistence of the essence itself, is irrelevant in that the Son isn’t merely a distinct predicate, whether an essential one or an accidental one.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s critique of the Son being the divine wisdom is merely a critique of the Son being a predicate which would not follow even in his nominalism. If he believes that there can only be substances and their modes, then not only would the Son be a subsistence in the substance, I.e., that the Son would be predicated the substance, but also the modes.

>>19765752
The biggest error and fault of Trinitarianism is its lack scriptural evidence. Trinitarianism always finds a way to explain every perceived error in its logic. The best approach is to just read the Gospels without assuming a Trinitarian position beforehand. The Trinity and all its theological "crevices" has no basis in Scripture and exists solely in a Greco-Roman understanding of a Semitic tradition. Abdul Hakim Murad illustrates this quite well in "The Trinity is Incoherent", an essay in "Debating Christian Theism"

>>19765752
Christians themselves cannot and do not coherently distinguish between spiration and begetting regarding the Trinity except by saying which persons do which

Multiple church fathers identify the logos with Sophia and wisdom especially regarding the OT

Essence and substance are not coherently distinguished in the Trinity since ουσια which is translated as substance in Latin is in fact the Greek word for essence and overtly cognate with the Latin term esse.

OP, you said 2 months ago that 1 month from now you'd be in Afghanistan. Why are you still shitposting on 4chan?

>>19765752
>in that the Son being the logos is not meant as a divine predicate
The wisdom of God cannot be anything other than a divine predicate, and saying it's merely a title shows how little you've read the patristics. If you mean that the Son is not simply the Wisdom of God, but is also God, Ibn Taymiyyah is perfectly aware of this nuance, and uses the former notion to refute the latter, for if you say that the Son is the Wisdom of God, you cannot further on say that He is God, because the Wisdom of God is a mere attribute (this is his entire point). That's the point of the student not being the teacher bit, which you ironically said was irrelevant, despite you not understanding what it entailed or what it was referring to, seeing as how you thought it had anything to do with divine processions.
>would not even follow in his nominalism
It does. He believes only substances and qualities exist (read his tract on the attributes of Allah to see where he stipulates this). He doesn't believe you can be both a substance and a quality i.e. that you can subsist in a substance and be its mode at the same time. This can be seen by the character of his arguments (heat/fire, student/teacher, knower/knowing, etcetera).

>>19767266
My passport is being indefinitely delayed, pretty sure I’m on a no fly list. I do still have plans to travel but I’m not disclosing them here until after I do إن شاء الله

are u faggots in the fbi just talking to each other or do u think u really found a real retarded guy to psy op

>>19767831
Assalamu alikom brother. Loving your dawa. Look at this beautiful song by abu ali : https://youtu.be/0yM8reUWdfo

Christians please watch that

Reminder that the djinn are not just near Eastern mythological leftovers
They are in fact imports from Roman religion
Djinn comes Genius
Genie is in fact a counterloan
Did Roman cultic practices eternally coexist with Allah
>>19751906
Ghazali was an atomist who believed the world was being recreated every atom of a second by Allah
The Mutaridi might actually be the greatest intellects in human history
It takes an awesome autism to unify rabbinic absolute monotheism and Epicureanism

>>19769560
The etymology of jinn is jannah, it refers to inhabitants. The idea it comes from Roman Religion is a bit silly, Roman religion was not practiced there ever, even the Christianity of the Arabs wasn’t Roman

>>19768526
وعليكم السلام ورحمة وبركاته وجزاكم الله خيرا

If you're an honest muslim, why would you bring your proselytizing here, in this den of utter dejection? It must be a sin to even write His name on this site. It's like writing Qur'an's verses on the walls of a public toilet.
Besides that, I have been memorizing the Qur'an. First I started to memorize from the beginning, then it got overwhelming so I switched to the last Juz', which is the usual starting point from what I've read. Have you memorized the Book already?

>>19770189
How exactly is this board worse than public in the west? In fact it’s arguably better because it doesn’t have music about sex all the time

I haven’t memorized it but إن شاء الله I will

>>19770246
There's stuff here far worse than music, infectious perversity of all forms. Qur'an often says that you must not mix guidance with misguidance and this place is a deep sewage filled with misguidance and lies. Although I am grateful you are bringing this content

>>19770278
I don’t think this board is a sewage of misguidance compared to television or YouTube

>>19751646
>that the likeness of the one who argues or turns away from the deen of Allah is like the panting dog; panting when you drive him away, panting when you leave him alone. And so they either come into threads like this that seek to make clear the signs of Allah through the tafsir of the Qur'an
Please seek help.
A lot of people have made up their mind about the quran already and don't want to be muslim. Is that so hard to grasp?

>>19756101
>there is an argument
That's all there is? No solid defense?

OUTIS, what's your opinion of the Quranic code theory

>lead billions into believing a guy died on a cross (but it was actually someone who looked like him) and punish them for it
>ignore divinity allusions in the NT

Why?

>>19770361
> It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “We are an unlettered nation, we do not write or calculate. The month is such-and-such or such-and-such – meaning sometimes it is twenty-nine and sometimes it is thirty.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1814; Muslim, 1080)

This is not normative but it is descriptive. As such numerology in the Quran seems dubious

>>19770382
Jesus never associated himself with Allah when he was alive, so whatever people said about him after he was raised up can not be blamed on Allah or himself.
>divinity allusions
lol

>>19770385
Why would Arabs being unskilled at math during that time have any bearing on the content of the text made by God, unless you are suggesting it is man made

>>19765796
I'm disappointed.

>>19770398
I'm not going to believe what you wrote until you make sound arguments.

>>19770382
Why do you think Muslims care about the NT which was written by Greeks? No translation of it was even available in Arabic until after the Muslim conquests. When the Quran refers to the Gospel it speaks of a single work revealed to Jesus, not Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. In fact it doesn’t even use the Arabic word for Christians, Masiyun, it refers to Nasara, Nazarenes, and probably the Christians in Arabia came with the Jews (after the fall of Jerusalem), not from the Greek sects. So it was more likely the Gospel of the Nazarenes available

>>19770403
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is considered the highest authority on interpreting it, if advanced mathematics were required he would have been endowed with suck knowledge as it would be required for him

>>19770418
Those were sound arguments. Jesus never said he was God. Allah saved him and broke His covenant with the Christians after they changed their religion from Islam to idolatry.

Can someone pls address the inheritance math error

>>19770437
>>19770382
and when the Qur'an tells the Christians to judge by the Gospel, it essentially tells them to judge by the principle of Tawhid, for that is why the Scriptures were revealed. If you judge by something other than Tawhid, which is pure jealousy for Allah, that you associate Him and share your worship of Him with nobody else, than you are not judging by the Gospel, but by something foreign (your desires). Christians are retards who don't understand why belief in scripture is mandatory. They think they believe in one God because that's what the scripture says, when really we believe in the scripture because it reveals that precept. If you try to tell us that scripture says something other than La Ilalah Ilallah, or, There is no God except Allah, then we will call what you think is scripture by its proper name.

>>19770454
Wuestions about when there were parties in excess of shares cropped up during the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم own lifetime, it’s just a question of going over who has priority in division and conflict

>>19770443
There are other things about the Qur'an that Muhammad doesn't mention, such as the initials.

>>19770473
By the Gospel, not the Synoptic Gospels. Though we all know who Shafee Allah (the Advocate of Allah) is, it’s a title for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . We also know Christians have other scriptures to examine like Isaiah 42

>>19770478
Those aren’t initials. They actually make up the entire Arabic alphabet (without the noktas which didn’t exist at the time of revelation) and have an unknown meaning. But no one used initials for things then

>>19770488
No Arab anyway

>>19770488
I was just using the term usually applied to them. I am aware no one knows what they mean or even if they are initials. They are called so only because they look like that. Still doesn't change the fact that this aspect of the text wasn't mentioned by Muhammad, indicating that there are things about the Qur'an he didn't speak about

>>19770437
>Why do you think Muslims care about the NT which was written by Greeks
Because it is a holy scripture. It will not make any other comments on this unless you ask of course.
Do you contest that the NT is flawless? Then please do provide your argumentation as to why. The Muslims I talked with so far say that the Gospel is pure truth.

>>19770446
>Jesus never said he was God.
What do muslims make of this?
“Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58).

And:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, emphasis added). In verse 14, John identifies the Word: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John is affirming that the Word (Jesus) is God, and He left heaven to come to earth in the form of a man to live with men and display the glory of God the Father.

>>19770483
>like Isaiah 42
What is there for Christians to examine.
Blessings.

>>19770507
>before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58)
This isn't actually a problem for Islamic theology even if this quote was authentic, as there is a famous hadith where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that he was a prophet before Adam was formed between clay. As for the other Johannine verses, they are rejected by Muslims because the Word of God for Islam is an attribute and not God Himself. It doesn't matter what John or the writer of John affirms or denies in respect to Allah because he wasn't a Prophet.

>>19750281
Hello brothers! *bang bang bang*

>>19770536
>Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that he was a prophet before Adam was formed between clay
How is this explained? Is there consensus on this or do schools differ?

So wait, do muslims reject the complete truthfulness of the NT?

>>19770504
There is not hadith covering them, he may well have spoken about them. If not their meaning will إن شاء الله be explained in Ahkirah. There is a reason we are supposed to memorize them

>>19770507
The Greek scriptures didn’t exist in Arabia. Are you aware there were also Semitic Christian scriptures?

>>19770524
Who is Kedar? Where is the Sela of his progeny ?

>>19770553
Muhammad Ibn Abdullah صلى الله عليه وسلم did not become a prophet until forty and any saying he was a prophet before Adam is probably fanciful fable, not Hadith proper

>>19770578
>Are you aware there were also Semitic Christian scriptures?
Which ones?

And I don't know who Kedar and Sela are but it seems that you know the answer. Please find the patience to explain.

>>19770556
Sure, I am mentioning them in relation to the Quranic code. There being no record of Muhammad divulging information about some aspect of the text does not mean it isn't present, as the initials demonstrate. The same can be true for the patterns of the number 19 that are present throughout the text. The Qur'an itself mentions that 19 is a very significant number, which will strengthen the faith of the righteous and confuse those who reject Allah.

>>19770553
It is not explained, as it isn't a very important concept in regards to the eschatology of the religion, unlike in Christianity, where Jesus's pre-existence as the Logos is important in understanding the incarnation and successively the soteriology of the dogma. I only read it from a Tahqiq of the Injil by a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, and like the other brother said it probably isn't authentic anyway, though I wouldn't write it off completely >>19770578 as we were all Muslim before we existed, testifying to the sovereignty of Allah before we were created, as expressed by the Qur'an, despite us possibly becoming Muslim later on in our lives.
>do muslims reject the complete truthfulness of the NT?
Muslims don't take the accounts of Jesus Christ in the Gospels seriously at all, nevermind the other books such as Revelations and the letters of Paul. They have their own accounts in the Qur'an to go off of, where the lives of the Prophets are presented. Jesus, in unison with all the other Prophets, tells his people to worship Allah alone, and that he is a servant of Allah warning them of His punishment, and giving them good news of His reward. Muslims don't believe they need to know anything more about Isa (as) than what I wrote.

>>19770631
>They have their own accounts in the Qur'an to go off of
Why is this a more accurate account than those that came centuries earlier?

>>19770589
The Gospel of the Nazarenes

Kedar was a some of Ishmael and the father of the Bedouins, it says in Isaiah Kedar rejoice and mentions a place called Sela (the rock). The only place by that name by the prodigy of Kedar is by Medina which rejoiced at the advent of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . The Jews of that area had in fact moved there because they were expecting a prophet, but according to Hadiths they were disgusted when he appeared and was Arab rather than Jewish

>>19770665
Son of Ishmael

>>19770659
>Why is this a more accurate account
Because it's source is omnipresent.

>>19770692
>Because it's source is omnipresent.
Can you prove it?

>>19770703
Yeah.

"This is revelation of the Book from Allah, the Mighty, the All-Knowing," (40:2)

Allah has knowledge of all that has happened in history. He says it right there.

>>19770712
Please don't troll.

>>19770718
You asked me to prove that the source is omnipresent, and I provided you a verse that says the book is from the All-Knowing, so what's the problem?

>>19770665
>Kedar was a some of Ishmael and the father of the Bedouins, it says in Isaiah Kedar rejoice and mentions a place called Sela (the rock). The only place by that name by the prodigy of Kedar is by Medina which rejoiced at the advent of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . The Jews of that area had in fact moved there because they were expecting a prophet, but according to Hadiths they were disgusted when he appeared and was Arab rather than Jewish

Thanks. How does it relate to Isaiah 42? I appreciate your answers.

>>19770726
>this book is perfect
>why? because it says so in the book

>>19770726
Anon this isn't how you have arguments with other faiths. Obviously if he believed in the Qur'an he wouldn't have asked that. He needs reasons to believe in the Qur'an first.
>>19770382
Consider the story of Noah. He preached for years and years but only a few believed. Why shouldn't something similar happen to Jesus, assuming he preached monotheism in the form of Tawheed rather than Trinity?

>>19770741
Thank you.
And, I would prefer not to get a question back to my face, because though I like the thinking exercise to defend my own beliefs better, it reminds me of arguing with jews.

>>19770741
Unfortunately, that argument is used by Muslim apologists. I saw Zakir Naik do it in front of an audience of what seemed thousands to demonstrate the Qur'an's superiority to the Bible.

>>19770761
As a Christian I found the explanations from Muslims in this thread quite interesting and enjoyable, intellectually. I would prefer their take over that of the likes of Naik, MH, Alidawah, Faridresponds, and so on...
I'm confident enough in my own faith to allow these kinds of dialogue and I must say that contrary to previous threads from late 2020, there's barely any attacking of Christianity here, which pushes people away.

>>19750281
Allahumma salli ala Muhammad wa ali Muhammad

>>19770758
Fair enough, although my question had point which I was going to make. The Qur'an does not consider Prophets responsible for the effects of their teachings. They are, it says, only responsible for "proclamation" of the message; it is of no business to them whether they are accepted or not. Noah's story is cited as an example. In fact, the Qur'an frequently consoles Muhammad this way.

"Say, “Obey God and obey the Messenger.” But if they turn away, he [the Messenger] is only accountable for that wherewith he has been burdened, and you are accountable for that wherewith you have been burdened. But if you obey him, you will be rightly guided, and naught is incumbent upon the Messenger save the clear proclamation." (Qur'an 24:54)

And this verse is particularly prescient:
"Those who ascribe partners unto God say, “Had God willed, we would not have worshipped aught apart from Him —neither us nor our fathers—nor would we have considered sacred aught apart from Him.” Those before them did likewise. Is aught incumbent upon the Messenger save the clear proclamation?" (Quran 16:35)

In this same way, it is of no business of Jesus that Christians, according to Islamic teachings, have gone astray. He was tasked with sending across God's message, which he did. It is now the responsibility of we, the people who are to be tested in this world, to find the truth about God and worship him in the correct way.

>>19770761
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the Qur'an as a source of truth has been so ingrained in their mind that they don't even consider it? I don't know. In any case, I only see this kind of things said by Sunni apologists. You must see the things they say to Shias.

>>19770858
Fair. Although I cannot accept the suggestion that the Gospel is wrong and the Qur'an is right about Jesus, his teachings and effects.
I appreciate your effortposting, truly. May you have a blessed life.

>>19770882
What I find interesting is that there are other Biblical books other than the current canonical Bible used by the Catholic church, some of which agree considerably with the Islamic narrative (eg the Gospel of Barnabas). When I ask on what basis they reject these Biblical books and accept the other ones, Catholic Christians say the Church infallibly decides which books are canon and which are not. I find this argument very unsatisfactory, since the Church's decadence is known to all.

>>19770882
The Gospel wasn't wrong. It said there was no god except Allah, and it was good news for the believers, ordering them to prayer, charity, and dutifulness to parents (See speech of Isa Ibn Maryam in Surah Maryam). If you believe in Islam, you will be safe from Allah's chastisement, as you would have accepted all the Prophets and all their books, and you would have associated nobody with Allah. But you are in danger now that you believe Jesus is God, for Jesus said only that he was God's servant, and that he revealed and performed acts only with the permission of Allah.

>>19765796
>exists solely in a Greco-Roman understanding of a Semitic tradition
>Hasn't read Segal, Sommers or Boyarin
>Not aware of two power theology
Stop it

>>19770930
>But you are in danger now that you believe Jesus is God, for Jesus said only that he was God's servant, and that he revealed and performed acts only with the permission of Allah.
this is in contrast with the teachings of the Gospel.

>>19770994
No it isn't.

>>19771006
Jesus alluded to his divinity in the Gospel.

>>19770994
But which Gospel? Please answer >>19770909. The Gospel of Barnabas opens by saying Paul has distorted Jesus's message and inserted many false things.

>>19771013
No, he didn't. He was God's servant. Any claim that he alluded to or outright proclaimed his divinity is ludicrous. Why do you cling to idolatry? The Meccan pagans believed Abraham (as) taught them how to create idols, but we know that Abraham was God's servant, and so we reject that claim as we do yours.

>>19771022
>>19771025
It's in the NT as according to the Catholic church, that's undeniable.

>>19771013
He didn't allude to it. He outright claimed it. In all four Gospels, when Caiphas asks if Jesus is the Son of the Blessed, Jesus says yes and that they will see the Son of Man seated at right hand of the Power and coming down with the clouds of heaven. This a direct allusion to Daniel 7. Caiphas rips his garments and calls this blasphemy because he knows exactly what was meant by it.
>>19771022
>Gospel of Barnabas
You have to be joking - the medieval forgery filled with anachronisms?

>>19771036
I refrained from using such a strong position since in the past, Muslims would ask where he literally said it and dismiss what you wrote as insufficient proof. I agree with what you wrote though, and I'm not as knowledgeable on Christianity as I'd like to be (hence my confusion about the hidden gospels).

Did the prophet really marry a 9 year-old ?

>>19771061
There's divide over it. One school says yes. The other says she was 19 at the age of consummation, an interpretation which arose only after Islam was examined by Western scholars.

>>19771044
>dismiss what you wrote as insufficient proof
This is Ahmed Deedat-tier argumentation. Apparently things have to be said in a way that one arbitrarily determined that they have to be said. The sustained quotation of the OT in Gospels was because that was what the Jews were familiar with, but more importantly for the sake of continuity and show fulfilment of those prophecies. If the Jews of the period weren't familiar with their texts in written-form they sure as hell were familiar with the oral traditions.

>>19771036
And the nazarenes and ebionites?

>>19771086
What of the Ebionites? They deny the Virgin Birth which is something Muslims hold to. The Nazarenes affirm the crucifixion and the resurrection which Muslims reject.

>>19771099
Why are they not part of the NT in Western Christianity?

>>19771103
I don't understand your question.

>>19771107
Why is the gospel of the ebionetes and nazarenes not considered canon

>>19771044
That's why I stipulated that even if you could show Jesus said he was God in a direct quotation, it wouldn't harm the Muslim position, as they believe the scriptures were corrupted.

>>19771032
You did not answer my question. The point is, on what basis do you accept the Gospel of the Church rather than other Gospels? How do you know the true Gospel is not rejected by the Church?
>>19771036
>medieval forgery
There is no conclusive evidence it's of medieval origin. It's the speculation of academics in the same vein as they speculate Jesus was not a historical figure. At any rate, it isn't my point. You say you believe in the Gospel, but you do not give a satisfactory criteria to say which Gospel is true and which is not.
>>19771061
>>19771074
There is no evidence in Shia sources that Aisha was 9 when she got married. The sources suggest she was about 17 when the marriage was consummated.

>>19771117
Apologies, I am not familiar enough with the history of canonization. Someone more informed can step in.

>>19771118
I believe that.
>corrupted
I have learned from this that I can mention this in future discussions with muslims when they ask "where does it say Jesus said 'I am God worship me'" to show they are making a moot point.

>>19771138
>The sources suggest she was about 17 when the marriage was consummated.
Which sources

>>19771141
The notion of corruption tends be used as an ad hoc fallback position

>>19771138
>The point is, on what basis do you accept the Gospel of the Church rather than other Gospels?
Forgive me, but I have to sleep now. I have read the link below and I think it addresses it quite well. Feel free to say otherwise and I hope to resume this conversation tomorrow.
It also seems that in mentioning Paul, you must concedewas written after Paul's eminence.
https://revtrev.com/live-light/why-dont-christians-include-the-gospel-of-barnabas/

>>19771150
It is discussed in Al-Sahih Men Sirat Al-Nabi Al-Azam, volume 3, pages 285-287.

>>19771190
How do Shias treat their major hadith books like al-Kafi or al-Istibsar? Is it like the Sunnis who say Bukhari and Muslim are sahih?

>>19771184
I don't care specifically about the Gospel of Barnabas. I think both it and the canonical Gospel of the Church are inaccurate, although the former less so. The true Gospel, as sent by God, is in possession of Imam al-Mahdi--may God hasten his return--and he will reveal it on his arrival with Jesus. That is what I believe. My challenge to you is this: why should I trust the Catholic Church to decide which Gospel is canon and which is not? I simply have no reason to do that.

>>19771207
>My challenge to you is this: why should I trust the Catholic Church to decide which Gospel is canon and which is not? I simply have no reason to do that.
I cannot answer that question due to lack of knowledge. Sorry to disappoint.

As for Muslims, why do you believe your scriptures are right?

>>19771196
No, we don't have "sahih" books. The narrations in al-Kafi or any of "the four books" are mostly reliable as they've been compiled by imminent scholars, but in any scholarly inquiry the validity of all narrations (whether they are in the 4 books or not) are subject to close scrutiny.

>>19770824
اللهم صل على محمد وعلى آل محمد، كما صليت على إبراهيم، وعلى آل إبراهيم، إنك حميد مجيد، اللهم بارك على محمد، وعلى آل محمد كما باركت على إبراهيم، وعلى آل إبراهيم إنك حميد مجيد

>>19771061
Married at six or seven, consummated at 9, according to her.

>>19771074
The other “school” depends literally and entirely upon her getting her own age mixed up since the narrators are too numerous for anyone in the chain to be mid it up but all agree

>>19771138
Shia “sources” literally discount A’isha رضي الله عنها as a source because they find her account offensive.

>>19771215
Because there is simply only one Qur'an since it's been compiled. We don't have many different versions of the Qur'an as we have of the Gospel.

>>19771223
>Shia “sources” literally discount A’isha رضي الله عنها as a source because they find her account offensive.
For good reasons, too. Imagine thinking this woman is a reliable narrator kek.

>>19771228
How is that in your eyes a valid reason for being right?

>>19771178
It's not ad hoc at all. Muslims have never believed the canonical Gospels were authoritative over them; they didn't even believe the Torah was either for that matter, which is why the early Muslims didn't care to recover or be in possession of the Gospel or the Torah until the medieval ages, when they began writing tracts and epistles refuting Christians.

>>19771228
This is not a good reason. Our scriptures are right because they affirm there being no god except Allah, and that everything is subservient to His will, and that all of creation is His mulk or kingdom, and that He oversees everything and that nothing can happen without His consent, and that idols are false. The lump in Moses's throat in Surah Taha is enough to prove Islam, for it is cognizant of the weight of the truth of its own message.

>>19771232
My answer would have satisfied the challenge I set to you ("on what basis do you accept your Gospel in favor of the other ones"). As for why why I myself believe in the Qur'an, it's a long story of how I realized the Shi'i interpretations of the Qur'an along with sermons from Shia Imams corresponded with (and improved) the philosophical conclusions that I had prior to studying Islam. It was a big realization and I could not have believed otherwise.

>>19771249
https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/has-the-qur-an-been-perfectly-preserved/

>>19771230
Shia don’t even think Ali رضي الله عنه is, they completely write off his praise of Abu Bakr and Umar رضي الله عنهما as “taqiyyah” and even saying his marrying his Fatima’s daughter رضي الله عنها to Umar in Maria was taqiyyah (I just just like the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم giving two of his daughters to marriage in Umar, the second after the first died). But then use chains with known liars to say Ali known as basically the Achilles of the Muslims stood by and peed his pants while Umar (which Shia say was an effeminate coward) beat up his wife, their excuse being that being a liar doesn’t mean someone can’t ever narrate truth. Their whole system of grading Hadiths is whack

>>19771234
Then how can they claim to be the true faith of Abraham and Moses? They dispense with the priesthood, temple worship and the covenantal system - all of which are integral to Jewish belief. Seems like an ahistorical approach to things. Let me guess, they just call those things innovations as well?

>>19771249
I answered how I the challenge I raised for the Gospel could not be applied to the Qur'an. Christians need criteria to differentiate between true and false Gospels, but we Muslims do not need so because we only have one Qur'an.

>>19771223
It's pretty funny how they don't like Aisha's age when she married but then have in their own books that Umm Kulthum married Omar when she was a child.

>>19771258
This article deceptively leaves out a lot of essential information.

>>19771267
Uthman literally burnt different qurans

>>19771267
>but we Muslims do not need so because we only have one Qur'an
Account for Uthman burning the seven other Qur'ans? How did they know which was the correct one?

>>19771276
Such as?

>>19771261
>his Fatima’s daughter رضي الله عنها to Umar
That was not Umar Khattab and that was not his biological daughter.
>tood by and peed his pants while Umar (which Shia say was an effeminate coward) beat up his wife
He was compiling the Qur'an when Umar barged into his house and attacked his wife. Afterwards he leaped unto Umar, took him by his beard, and said "if it wasn't for the promise that I made to the Messenger of Allah you wouldn't have made have left here alive". He resisted his urge to kill that "man" because he had promised the Prophet to prevent any fitnah as much as he could.

>>19771279
>>19771285
The council of the memorizers "huffaz" were in agreement that the so called "uthmanic" text is the correct one. Afterwards Ali--the heir of Muhammad--who was the most knowledgeable person on the Qur'an confirmed the soundness of the one compiled under Uthman. The word of Imam Ali is enough.

>>19771316
>The word of Imam Ali is enough.
Can you briefly explain why Shia Islam is true and Sunni Islam is not (IF that is what you believe of course, feel free to add any nuance).

>>19771262
They don't have an opinion on them. They don't say they are innovations or authentic traditions; they believe Allah took a covenant with them, and that they broke that covenant and became disbelievers. They claim to be the true faith of Abraham and Moses because they believe their faith was Islam, which is a distinction used in reference to their behavior in the Qur'an, where when Allah told Abraham to submit ("aslim" - means submit), Abraham said, "I submit" (aslamtu). The title "Muslim" means someone who has submitted to God, and Islam means submission. Muslims believe Islam has existed since creation itself, for it is the common behavior of all servants of God (submission). You are right in calling it ahistorical because it isn't a historical claim, it is a spiritual one. The term Islam isn't merely nominal to the Muslim, it is a way of life. Read the lives of the Prophets in the Qur'an (Surah Anbiya, Surah Al-A'raf, for instance), and you will see this expressed.

>>19750281
I've read the Quran in the past and I was first struck by how the doctrine is clear and straightforward. Then I was disappointed on how the book is poor on it's contents, just a bunch of rules being laid with some seething on infidels.

One thing drew my attention, in many passages it's said that Allah has sealed the hearts of the unbelievers. As if some people were not predestined to belief.
Can we say Islam is clearly "Calvinist" when comes to a predestined and already laid out fate?

>>19771292
The Quran says killing is better than fitna (2:191), do you understand what fitna is? Do you understand Ali رضي الله عنه actually DID fight a civil war with Muawiyya رضي الله عنه so arguing he wouldn’t with Umar رضي الله عنه out of desire to avoid “fitna” makes no sense?

>>19771335
Calvinist with the added bonus of their god deceiving people on purpose just to send them to hell (cfr the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, to which they say that it was made to appear like he died but actually didn't).

>>19771335
The Quran is definitely not mostly rules

Allah seals the hearts of those who continue to sin and take His forgiveness for granted. Eventually Be punishes them by taking away their belief so they no longer have a heart that asks His forgiveness and this is in the beginning of Surat al Baqarah, I will إن شاء الله cover it

>>19771335
It is a fatalistic religion, although that isn't something you should pull from the verse you read about Allah sealing hearts. Allah seals their hearts because they continued in their disbelief, giving them what they wanted principally. That isn't fatalism, as the event of their continued misguidance is prefigured by their own desire to be misguided.

>>19771327
Sunnis are more "worldly" while we Shias are more theologically oriented. Sunnis believe after Prophet Muhammad died, the link between man and God is severed until the end of times; that it is man himself now that should guide and orient himself towards God. We Shias believe God will never leave earth without a link to Himself. It could never be that the world is empty of a divine man chosen by God to guide His followers towards God. Near his death, Prophet Muhammad--peace and blessings to him and his noble family--declared Ali is his successor. After he died, a few of the more powerful companions disregarded that order, made a council between themselves, and declared Abu Bakr is the successor, all the while Ali was busy burying the Prophet. But Abu Bakr was only a man; Ali (a.s) was a man of innate divine knowledge, and a divine Leader appointed by God Himself. It is evident by the astoundingly beautiful and illuminating sermons Ali gave, that he is leagues above Abu Bakr and the likes of him. He has often been compared with Jesus in his deeds and words. I highly recommend reading his sermons.

>>19771352
I see. So it is not predestined?

>>19771346
Muslims don't believe you'd get sent to hell for believing Jesus was crucified.

>>19771362
It’s predestined certainly however it’s also consequential and contingent like rain making plants grow is predestination. If a believers loses faith it’s never “just because” but because they engage in wickedness and blow it off

>>19771332
>You are right in calling it ahistorical because it isn't a historical claim, it is a spiritual one.
I understand what you mean by the word "Muslim" means but you can't divorce the historical claim from the spiritual claim. To merely say this is a submission to God is empty in itself. Submission is praxis and therefore has some sort of outward manifestation. The stuff I listed were things the Jews did in the past because they were tied to a specific spiritual belief system. This was the way in which they submitted to God and this method was so ordained by God. Sure, God can change this praxis but you'd naturally expect a good reason for doing so and also why those practices were there in the first place.

Again taking for example the priesthood, the priesthood is eternal according to the Psalms. Again, that has been completely dropped/not addressed in the Quran. Another thing is keeping the Sabbath, literally one of the 10 Commandments. Where did this go? You can't just wave your hands at that as a Muslim but in the same breath claim to be the true faith.

I hope we're not talking at cross-points but it's the same thing when Muslims say Islam is the worship of one God. Ok cool, there were pagan societies that a singular deity but they were definitely not Muslims. Muslims seek to tie themselves to a specific historical tradition, that being the one of the ancient Jews. When Muslims say things like "submission", "one God" etc. it's usually cheap and oversimplified dawah.

>>19771340
This verse is addressing الکفار الحربیون , the disbelievers who attack Muslims. It permits Muslims to defend themselves if disbelievers attack them. It does not permit all killing to prevent any fitnah.

>>19771340
And no, God is not and will never be satisfied with with Muawiyyah (لعنة الله). The situation was different as Ali already had the Caliphate but Muawiyyah rebelled against him.

>>19750281
How is this shit allowed when the board rules clearly state to take religion to /his/?

>>19771438
It refers to kufr and haram. Killing in self defense is covered by 2:190. Killing kuffar (which most of the Sahaba are by Shia reckoning) trying to subjugate Muslims is not considered fitna (the reverse, letting them rule is fitna, killing is to avert that), rather the war between Ali and Muawiyya رضي الله عنهما is called a fitna by Sunnis because they’re both Muslims. A Muslim going to war to war an unbeliever would never be called a fitna in Islamic usage

>>19771340
Actually the verse says fitnah is worse than killing. Which agrees with what I said (that he avoided killing Umar to prevent fitnah).

>>19771450
The Caliphate cannot ever be held in either Sunni or Shia jurisprudence by an unbeliever. In Shia narrations Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه was also rebelling against Ali رضي الله عنه

>>19771480
Your post doesn't make any sense.

>>19771475
The supporters of Umar and Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه were kuffar according to Shia so jihad against them would NOT be fitna, rather letting them rule would be

>>19771490
It makes perfect sense. According to the Shia Abu Bakr rebelled after Ali was made Khalifah by Ali. You’re saying he let him and Umar brutalize his wife to avoid fitna. So why did he fight Muawiyya?

>>19771492
The ordinary people were not necessarily kuffar. They had been lied to by their caliphs.

>>19771499
Shia narrations say Ali was burying Muhammad when Abu Bakr and his friends declared Abu Bakr is the caliph. Ali had not assumed political caliphate at that time, so there was no "rebellion", but there was a conspiracy to remove him from power. He did not "let" Umar brutalize her. Umar barged into his house and hit her, then Ali stood up and grabbed Umar.

>>19771428
Muslims believe the Jews had a law which they were ordered to follow, and that Allah had ordered them certain prohibitions and practices such as the Sabbath.
>Another thing is keeping the Sabbath, literally one of the 10 Commandments. Where did this go?
Allah says in the Qur'an that He ordained the Sabbath to the Jews as a trial for them, and that He would judge between them concerning it.
>Muslims seek to tie themselves to a specific historical tradition
I don't know what you meant by this or the pagan bit, but Muslims do not deny that Allah had delegated a certain tradition and practice to the Ancient Israelites. The problem I think you are having here is you are thinking of Islam in the normative sense of the word. This may have been my fault, as the Qur'an says they were Muslim, but not that their religion was Islam, since Islam in the normative sense was founded by Muhammad (pbuh), and perfected by Allah during his days (Surah Maidah Verse 3). Nonetheless, they were Muslim, as the Qur'an states. Regardless of what forms of prayer or prohibitions they had, they were still in submission to Allah alone. This means they were Muslim.
>cheap and oversimplified dawah
Simple is good. Allah has asked of us only that we submit to His books and Messengers; he has not asked us to be complicated in these spiritual matters. What Rabbinical Judaism or Christianity claims about the Ancient Israelites are just as important to us as our beliefs about them are to you.

>>19771501
According to Shia aqidah anyone who denies the imams is a kaffir. By your logic Sunnis wouldn’t be but Shia sites say ignorance is not an excuse because it means you were too lazy to find the truth

>>19771523
According to the Shia, Umar terrified Ali into giving bayah, he then openly praised Abu Bakr and Umar out of fear, whereas Sunnis say he did these freely

>>19771994
Who gave you permission to speak so confidently about what is "according to the Shia"? First, Shia scholarship is not monolithic as Sunnism is; every scholar is allowed to form his own views and others to critique it. Second, these things you say are not what Shia orthodoxy believe. You always say things "according to Shia" that I had never heard or read even once.

>>19771138
>There is no evidence in Shia sources that Aisha was 9 when she got married. The sources suggest she was about 17 when the marriage was consummated.
But Shias have other narrations explicitly saying it's permissible to consummate marriage with a nine year old wife or slave. See here https://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=4703

>>19772013
denying the imams including the Mahdi is kufr in Twelver Shiaism, full stop, not just in mainstream or conservative opinion, this is why the Safavids put Sunnis to death. If you haven’t read that then I’d be curious to know just what—if any—book you have read on Shia aqidah

>>19750281
القارعة ما القارعة جدتي مصارعة

>>19772081
This is not true. There is a line between not accepting Imams and hating the Imams. If a Sunni does not accept the Twelve Imams but does not hate them, he is not a kafir; If he even likes them, he is rewarded for it; but if he hates the family of the Prophet, he is a kafir. I could link you dozens of narrations saying this from al-Kafi.
>>19772030
There is a difference of opinion among scholars on this issue. This scholar, Ayatollah Khoei, seems to have allowed it. Some do, some don't.

>>19772117
>Some do, some don't.
which don't?

>>19772129
I know Makarem Shirazi doesn't. I think Khamenei and Sistani also don't, but I'm not sure. I'm having difficulty finding their ruling.

>>19772081
A few narrations from al-Kafi that I just found now. THESE CONFIRM SUNNIS ARE NOT KAFIR ACCORDING TO SHIAS. Now you can stop repeating this falsehood in every thread.
https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/1/2/19/10
https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/2/1/171/1
https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/3/3/93/1
https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/8/1/453/453

>>19772183
>https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/8/1/453/453
I like how one authority says the hadith is sahih and other says it daif

>>19772203
I wouldn't take the word of either of them. For our purposes it's enough that the hadith is in al-Kafi, which is considered generally reliable.

>>19772212
Interesting. What's the purpose of having those scholars rate them and post them on the website? I'm not being facetious FYI

>>19772214
It's certainly helpful to have a scholar's opinion about the status of a hadith. But in Shi'ism we don't just trust the word of authority like Sunnis do with Bukhari and Muslim. A scholar could also make mistakes, and scholars frequently disagree with each other (as with in that particular narration).

>>19771335
I've heard this too, but how would those that believe in predestination reconcile their beliefs with a god that is all-merciful, as laid out in >>19750354?

>>19772283
Sunnis believe in determinism but Shias believe in a form of metaphysical compatibilism.

>>19772300
So how would the Sunnis reconcile their beliefs?

>>19771579
>Simple is good.
Why

What do muslims think of the Christian concept of God? Obviously they think it's wrong but why? And does it merit hell in islam?