/lit/ - Literature

you don't have to read any books.
Essa (عيسى) is just a prophet like mohammed, but muslisms believe that the bible was twisted and changed. Essa wasn't crucified but he went up to Allah and some jewish dude got crucified instead. Essa also should come again at the end of the world to save the humans.

Islam doesn't believe in Jesus.

>>20498980
this is what you are looking for
https://ahmedafzaal.com/2009/09/06/a-muslim-view-of-trinity-2/

Don’t even waste your time. The Jesus of Islam is a false Jesus—Who is this ʿĪsā? It is certainly not the Jesus of the New Testament or the Apostles, let alone the Jesus as recorded by history. The name of the Islamic Jesus itself is even a mystery to scholars. Jesus preached, was crucified, was killed, and many, friends and enemies alike, came to believe that he rose again. Who will you believe—the testimony of the Messianic prophecies of the OT, the Apostles, the non-Christian historical witness, or the ideas of an Arabian merchant who was attacked by an ‘angel’ in a cave six hundred years later, married a littlr girl, stole his adopted son’s wife, and regularly attempted to commit suicide after getting his first ‘revelations’?

>>20498980
> he truly was only the messiah of the jews
The mere idea of the Davidic messiah in the OT implies the Gentiles coming to worship the God of Israel. He is a light to the world, and is exalted above all nations and peoples. This is seen in Isaiah, the Psalms, Daniel and in many other books of the Bible. When a Muhammadan says that he’s *just* the Messiah for Israel, they are exposing their ignorance.

>>20499227
exactly. muzzies don't recognize Jesus as God.

>>20498980
The classical tarikhs like At-Tabari's and Ibn Kathir's describe Jesus in more depth. Ibn Taymiyyah's Al-Jawab As-Sahih refutes Trinitarian doctrine. But I believe Surah Maryam, Al-Ma'idah and Az-Zukhruf are sufficient. The Prophet(pbuh) said: Both in this world and the after, I am the nearest of all people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The prophets are paternal brothers, their mothers are different, but their religion is one.

>>20498980
You ought to see the forest for the trees, anon. It's not about examining every most minute word, but seeing the bigger picture of each faith and what that picture presents to the world.

Because Islam lays too great a stress on duality (objectivity/external action), it renders love impossible.

Here's an excerpt from something I'm writing about it:

>Islam is about absolute duality, absolute difference: Man is a scrap of nothing trembling in submission before an infinitely transcendent God, and every social role replicates this lopsided (and utterly insurmountable) dynamic.
>
>The archetypal relation is submission between two absolutes: absolute being and absolute nothingness. God is absolute, absolutely transcendent, having nothing at all in common with man, who is nothing, a mere "clot of blood" (see Surah 96 v. 1-3—the first revelation of “Gabriel” to the Prophet). Everything follows this structure. Master and slave, male and female, the house of peace and the house of war (which is destined to dominate its counterpart).
>
>... The gulf generated by pure difference can only be virtually bridged by absolute submission.
>
>Christianity ... surpasses this not just in the incarnation of Christ but in the trinity itself. Not just "one" (God), or "two" (Father and Son), but the relation between them, their mediation (the Holy Spirit, Love). The resolution between non-duality (the Father, Absolute qua Absolute) and duality (the Son) is Love, a "third term" which has not a merely virtual (as in eastern religions and Islam), but a real existence.

>>20499296
Isaiah and Daniel do not explicitly use the word messiah in those prophecies. The prophecy in Isaiah refers to Muhammad(pbuh), a gentile prophet, which Jesus(pbuh) isn't, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel". Bart Ehrman and much of biblical scholarship confirm the idea of a "Paulian" appropriation of biblical prophecy for his hellenistic beliefs, which were first put forth by medieval arabs like Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah.

>>20500189
This has no basis in scripture,

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Chorinthians 11:3

"Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, on sencerity of heart, as to Christ" Ephesians 6:5-8

>>20498980
Muhammad didn't even know what the trinity consisted of, why should anyone listen to islamic takes on christian theology lmaooo

They're fundamentally opposed, anyway. Islam doesn't have theology, while the legalistic autism about authority that defines islam is similarly foreign to christianity. There's no common ground.

>>20500245
>the legalistic autism about authority that defines islam is similarly foreign to christianity
Maybe that's why most "christian" nations are barely christian anymore. I'll have you know that the traditional Christian approach to heresy and other faiths were especially brutal when compared with those of the Muslims.

>>20500263
>I'll have you know that the traditional Christian approach to heresy and other faiths were especially brutal when compared with those of the Muslims.

The fuck is this retard babbling about?

Why do Christcucks hate Mudslimes more than non-Abrahamic adherents? Most Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, and plenty of other religions do not accept a Jew on a stick as God incarnate, lol. At the very least, at least Mudslimes accept that J*w on a stick as a prophet.
Honestly, I'd just slaughter all of you alongside the Jews.

>>20500298
>non-Abrahamic adherents
non-Abrahamic religious adherents*

>>20500226
It's not that man is not obligated to submit to God unreservedly. The idea is that the incarnation, the trinity, and the passion (each of which phenomenon is deeply interconnected) all represent a deeper revelation of God's love than the abyss which He represents in Islam.

Not that God is not an abyss to which we owe absolute devotion, but we cannot love Him as we can love the Son who came and died for us and through whose revelation we have learned that even in God there is love between persons.

>>20500283
The Reconquista
The Expulsions of Jews
The Many Crusades against Muslims, Norse Pagans and Gnostic Christians
The Spanish Conquest of America
The Thirty Years War

>>20500310
There is no greater abyss than the flesh of a Jew.
If God incarnate as a whale, bird, or some incredible natural phenomena, I would agree with you.
However, you worship the literal flesh of a Jew as God incarnate. Your soul is a deeper blackness than even a Mudslime because you reduce all sacredness to the most reprehensible thing in this world, a Jew.
Kys.

>>20500298
If you were truly faithful to your forefathers you would have followed in their footsteps

Also the pagan wypipo whom you so idolize were the denizens of an uncivilized backwater at the time their worship of their gods was at its peak. They overran the med civilization not through strength but force of numbers and barbarism. Christianity civilized them and is the only reason Europe is such a unique aberration in history.

>>20500322
Your hatred of Jews is irrational. The Jewish people of today are different from the Jews of Christ's time and before. The Jewish people were waiting for a messiah; they got one (indeed, they got more than they bargained for). Modern day Jews are literally the descendants of the pharisees whose religious hypocrisy Christ condemned.

We don't worship the blood of Christ because it is the blood of a man or the blood of a Jew, but because by supernatural faith we believe that Christ's being and person are united to the second person of the trinity, the Son, the Logos, the eternal uncreated word of God. It is the dazzling nobility of this being, its glorious radiance, which inspires our love, not servile kowtowing to foreign peoples for its own sake (which is a distinctively modern development).

>>20500310
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "When Allah created the creations, He wrote with Him on His Throne: 'My Mercy has preceded My Anger."

Umar ibn al-Khattab reported: Some prisoners of war were brought to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and a nursing woman was among them. Whenever she found a child among the prisoners, she would take it to her chest and nurse it. The Prophet said to us, “Do you think this woman would throw her child into the fire?” We said, “No, not if she was able to stop it.” The Prophet said, “Allah is more merciful to His servants than this mother is to her child.”

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying : Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: I live in the thought of My servant and I am with him as he remembers Me. (The Holy Prophet) further said: By Allah, Allah is more pleased wth the repentance of His servant than what one of you would do on finding the lost camel in the waterless desert. When he draws near Me by the span of his hand. I draw near him by the length of a cubit and when he draws near Me by the length of a cubit. I draw near him by the length of a fathom and when he draws near Me walking I draw close to him hurriedly.

On the authority of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: Allah the Almighty said:
O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great at it.

"And when My servants ask you, [O Muḥammad], concerning Me - indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he calls upon Me. So let them respond to Me [by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be [rightly] guided." Al Baqarah 186

>>20500298
>>20500322
May Allah punish you for what you say against His prophet, Isa.

>>20500298

>>20500344
Jews should have been ethnically cleansed by Kourosh/Cyrus. Not a day goes by where I don't damn Kourosh. If it were up to me, I would destroy the tomb of Cyrus/Kourosh, and ship the heads of all Jews to Israel and nuke every single last Jewish, Christian, and Islamic site.
Slit your throat, you demonic piece of shit.
If God incarnated as a majestic whale, natural phenomena, bird, or whatever, you'd have a point, but Jews are only good for being killed. Period. And this includes your beloved kike too.
Stfu. Hadrian had the right approach in dealing with you Semites.

>>20500298
>>20500327
>>20500379
Teenage fight

>>20500191
>but muh lost sheep
Muslims forgetting that the same Gospels you quote end with him sending the apostles out to convert the entire planet under the Father, Son and Holy Spirit lol. Also, it doesn’t matter whether Isaiah and Daniel directly use the word ‘Messiah’ or not—the term ‘Messiah’ is used for lots of Biblical people, such as kings, priests, even Cyrus the Great. The Davidic king promised throughout the Bible is also *the* Messiah, who will be one like a son of man, and will be like a son to God. This is God’s Logos, and the anointed Davidic king was always prophecized as divine, as can be seen in Psalm 45, not to mention the fact that the one like a son of man will rule forever, just like the one to whom God will be like a Father, and he a son.

>>20500298

>>20500396
>worshipping brute irrational animals
truly cringe
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom+15%3A18-19&version=NRSVUE
>accusing me of diabolism
But the gods of the pagans are demons, anon. It would be ahistorical to imply that there was ever such a concept of demons in classical paganism, at least in the reprobative sense you use it against me.

Also, on a more psychological note: hatred is a secondary, subaltern emotion. Is there anything you love, or do you just hate jews?

>>20500432
Keep running your retarded brainwashed Jewish mouth, you stupid soulless piece of shit. I doubt you've deeply read any religious scriptures outside of the Abrahamic or any of the Pre-Socratics. Jewsus doesn't matter one bit. In fact, neither Jewsus nor Muhammad even most likely existed, you brainwashed slave of Kaballahist Masons and Jews.

>>20500444
I'm sensing something almost akin to aggression in these responses, anon. Not to be overly sensitive, but are you putting out some less than benevolent energy towards me? I could be wrong, but... I just have a hunch.

>>20500444
>>20500470
But to expand a little bit, I've read my fair share of da Greeks, and personally I think it's almost comical how closely the big guys seem to set the ground for Christianity—for example, in the Timaeus (to the point that cringy modern atheist scholars translate Plato's 'theon,' God, as "THE god").

It's my understanding that the real OG pagans didn't publish any scriptures. Either they were illiterates (your noble barbarian forebears), or their religions were mystery religions, more ritualistic than dogmatic.

>>20500470
The sacred dimension is not reducible to claims of exclusive divine revelation of the Semites. The sacred dimension must involve a tacit apprehension of metaphysical principles that are readily accessible to one's experience or discernment, and nothing about my honest assessment leads me into believing a Jew was the son of God, a Bedouin had a 'final' revelation, or Jews (or other Semites) were chosen people.
This world would be a better place with every single last Jew, Muslim, and Christian dead.

>>20498980
There are no prophecies in previous Scripture predicting Muhammad. Muslims deny obvious historical facts such as the crucifixion. Muslims have no proof that the Bible is ‘tahrif’ or corrupt in anyway. The Qur’an is filled with errors, saying that Mary is the sister of Aaron and daughter of Amram. The Qur’an was not preserved. The greatest reciter of the Qur’an had a different mushaf. Verses were left out, as Umar said regarding the verse about stoning. Multiple musahif with different amounts of surahs and different readings of the rasm exist. The Qur’an is plagiarized from Syro-Aramaic Christian texts. Islam is a meme inspired by the devil.

>>20500486
The Pre-Socratics like Empedocles (who has many extant fragments), Mahayana figures (Ch'an/Zen patriarchs) and scriptures (e.g., Diamond Sutra), Zoroastrians (Gathas), and so on all exist.
Empedocles was a better man than Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, and every other garbage Semitic thinker.

>>20500410
>Muslims forgetting that the same Gospels you quote end with him sending the apostles out to convert the entire planet under the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
We do not reject nor accept every word of the gospels. Some of it is forged and some true.

>Also, it doesn’t matter whether Isaiah and Daniel directly use the word ‘Messiah’ or not
Yes it does. If we are to know the true meaning of the prophecy.

>who will be one like a son of man, and will be like a son to God
Son of man is literally the opposite of son of god.

>and the anointed Davidic king was always prophecized as divine, as can be seen in Psalm 45
Christians are not familiar with the biblical practice of calling humans gods, and whenever they see it happen, they take it out of context and claim it to be a prophecy of Jesus.

>>20500487
>The sacred dimension must involve a tacit apprehension of metaphysical principles that are readily accessible to one's experience or discernment...

I agree with this. I think that this is why true education tends to form a soul for classical theism, which I think is quite reconcilable with the gospels... St. Paul says that God's glory and divinity is manifest everywhere.

Also, a note about the Jews—is it not notable that their people still exists? You can't really say that about any other. People have pointed out that their continued existence is itself an indirect proof of the Bible's claims.

>>20500509
I don't really know anything about Empedeocles, but at first blush I'd expect the Buddhists to be quite opposed to the Zoroastrians. If I understand correctly, the Zoroastrians were sort of like classical theists. But Buddhism denies substance, as well as

>Son of man is literally the opposite of son of god.
That's the great part about Jesus: he's both.

>Christians are not familiar with the biblical practice of calling humans gods
While this is probably true, any good Christian worth His salt (of the earth) ought to be able to point to this passage in the gospel where Christ directly references the practice:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010%3A31-36&version=ESV

>>20500544
Ugh, this post got mangled. Buddhism denies substance, as well as God's existence.

Everything that follows was intended to be in response to this post:
>>20500511

>>20500311
>The Thirty Years War
protestant cope

>>20500501
>There are no prophecies in previous Scripture predicting Muhammad.
Debatable, the same thing could be said about Christ.

>Muslims deny obvious historical facts such as the crucifixion
Allah made the crucifixion appear to happen, while Jesus was saved. So everyone thought he was crucified and Muhammad is sent to the gentiles to clear up the confusion

>Muslims have no proof that the Bible is ‘tahrif’ or corrupt in anyway
Biblical scholarship has proven it for us. Virtually no scholar affirms the traditional biblical authorship attributed by the Rabbis and early Christians.

>saying that Mary is the sister of Aaron and daughter of Amram
Two different people in different times can have the same name.

>The Qur’an was not preserved
This is the worst one. Many of the so called "variants" in the recently found Qur'anic manuscripts are so miniscule, that some letters are different and some words like "wa" and "fa" are swapped. Most of these can be explained as scribal errors. Yet the meaning is the same. While the four canonical gospels(not mentioning the many others) all disagree on each of their first pages! And Christians cope by saying that's the will of God.

>The Qur’an is plagiarized from Syro-Aramaic Christian texts
There is no direct evidence of this and this theory is merely conjecture.

>>20500544
>Also, a note about the Jews—is it not notable that their people still exists?
Plenty of more ancient ethnic groups still persist. For example, look at Brahmins. Also, why should this have any bearing on truth value?
Also, most Jews are mutts, and all that's required to be a Jew is matrilineal continuity. Modern Jews have little to do with ancient ones who were likewise vile.
>I don't really know anything about Empedeocles
You can read his fragments and philosophy encyclopedias on his views. He dealt with the one/multiplicity issue in a unique mystical way that parallels Eastern traditions.
The Pre-Socratics are generally more interesting than the Semites.
>I'd expect the Buddhists to be quite opposed to the Zoroastrians.
Right, I was responding to your claim "the real OG pagans didn't publish any scriptures." There are plenty of "pagans" like Empedocles, Buddhists, Eastern figures, Zoroaster, and much more that have scriptures.
>That's the great part about Jesus: he's both.
If it's not readily accessible to my honest discernment or first-person perspective, then it is irrelevant. Nothing about contemplating in solitude will lead me to conclude either a random Jew from the Levant held all of the secrets or a Bedouin had the "final revelation". I find claims of sacredness that are inextricably tied to a historical figure's "exclusive access" highly dubious and asinine.

>>20500567
>Allah made the crucifixion appear to happen, while Jesus was saved. So everyone thought he was crucified and Muhammad is sent to the gentiles to clear up the confusion
This utterly runs roughshod over the whole point of Christianity, and as a heresy (docetism) it was condemned in 325. Do you really think God would permit so many nations to fall into error as to the nature of His greatest prophet?

>>20500559
Don't make me throw you out the window again, idolater.

>>20500587
Allah says regarding the Jews, Christians and Muslims, "Had Allāh willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allāh is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." Al-Ma'idah 48

>This utterly runs roughshod over the whole point of Christianity
The very fact that Muhammad chose to oppose the established belief and history of the time that Jesus was indeed crucified, is proof enough of, at least, his good intention.

>>20500578
>There are plenty of "pagans" like Empedocles, Buddhists, Eastern figures, Zoroaster, and much more that have scriptures.
I would say that Empedocles' writings are more philosophical than religious, but I admit the distinction is a fine one and mostly irrelevant. I guess I took you to be defending the paganism of the Greeks and Romans (or the European peoples).

>If it's not readily accessible to my honest discernment or first-person perspective, then it is irrelevant. I find claims of sacredness that are inextricably tied to a historical figure's "exclusive access" highly dubious and asinine.

I can definitely understand this perspective. Personally, on an purely emotional level, Buddhism's hyper-scrupulous neutrality has always strongly appealed to me (it presents itself as something purely naturalistic, only incidentally connected to history; anyone could have come across the truths the Buddha discovered, Buddha just happened to be the one to do it. It's almost "scientific," in that regard).

I have struggled to articulate just WHY it is acceptable that a singular nation or a singular individual could come bearing the world-salvific revelation.

Part of it is perhaps we can ground on the intuition that the world itself has a story, and thus a protagonist. Note that Christians now believe that we, and not the Jews, are the 'protagonists,' so to speak. So it's not as if we are necessarily given over to racial masochism. Frankly I think that God balances the scales for giving Christ to the Jews by making them (permitting them to) reject Him. I believe that Paul writes about this in Romans somewhere.

Another idea which I think makes sense of Christ's particularity is that, in a sense, particularity is universal. That is, none of us are purely neutral subjects. We are all either male or female, Jew or Gentile, Greek, Roman, or [other]. Every single human being comes up in a distinct context, as a part of history, so it makes sense that Christ, out of love for us, would share in this part of our being as well.

But that is all admittedly ex post facto. I don't really understand how faith in Christ works, epistemologically. I know that it is given by God upon request, but as to its concrete causes in the world... I guess those can be anything. But I suppose that it typically hinges on the witness of another person (that is, it's very rarely a direct mystical vision). Somehow you perceive in a Christian a cetain energy or light (the presence of Christ), and by following that, you gradually come to see that Christianity is true.

I don't blame anyone who has never perceived that presence for not following it. But I think that everyone has a duty to believe in God and to ask Him in sincerity for the truth.

>>20500628
>I have struggled to articulate just WHY it is acceptable that a singular nation or a singular individual could come bearing the world-salvific revelation.
Because prophethood is passed on through paternal blood.

>>20500590
lmao ok wahhabi puritan wannabe

>>20500653
VGH the Calvinist Wahabi continuum

>>20500639
Yes but intuitively it makes more sense, prima facie, for the ultimate truths to be similar to the truths of science; derivable at least in theory by any rational being anywhere.

This is one of the most popular arguments against the Abrahamic religions... that God chooses certain people to bless centuries before others. It takes a little bit of theological wrangling to explain, for example, the new world. Everyone who lived there was born innocent, but they had to wait about fourteen centuries (or longer) to even have the chance to respond to Christ's revelation.

>>20500653
Not even the sufis and mu'tazilis kneel to wooden idols

There is a funny tale in the qur'an of the newly born jesus speaking if jesus was god then he could speak as an infant which sounds ridiculous.

The other thing non muslims should know is that jesus will reign on the earth for 40 years in a caliph uniting all Christians and Muslims together helping billions of people go to heaven.

The third thing is that the bible isn't meant to be read in islam. Its literally taking the best stories that God remembers and loves and he tells them to his Messenger what is needed and wanted to be known. If you studied the bible for 15 years of course reading the Qur'an will be frustrating if you don't have some perspective.

It was narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) came to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with some written material he had got from one of the people of the Book. He read it to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and he got angry and said: “Are you confused (about your religion), O son of al-Khattaab? By the One in Whose hand is my soul, I have brought it (the message of Islam) to you clear and pure. Do not ask them about anything, lest they tell you something true and you disbelieve it, or they tell you something false and you believe it. By the One in Whose hand is my soul, if Moosa were alive, he would have no option but to follow me

>>20500245
>Islam doesn't have theology

>>20500671
Al-Ghazali's opinion is that those to whom the message of Allah does not reach before they dies will be judge according to their deeds.

And monotheism(tawhid) is human nature(fitrah). A baby is born a monotheist and many who do not know islam know tawhid through their fitrah.

>>20500628
>I would say that Empedocles' writings are more philosophical than religious
Not so much with Pre-Socratics like Heraclitus, Parmenides, and so on who tended to be mystical.
>(it presents itself as something purely naturalistic, only incidentally connected to history; anyone could have come across the truths the Buddha discovered, Buddha just happened to be the one to do it
Yes, you understand the gist of my claim at least.
>I have struggled to articulate just WHY it is acceptable that a singular nation or a singular individual could come bearing the world-salvific revelation... Part of it is perhaps we can ground on the intuition that the world itself has a story, and thus a protagonist.
Are you some kind of Messianic Jew? The whole attempt to make Semites the center of the world for all spiritual and religious questions is the most disgusting and life-denying bullshit ever. Ludwig Klages' criticisms of this are worth looking into.
It is a very narcissistic worldview when we see the full complexity and large scale across the world. There is no "global protagonist". There can only be "particular protagonists dependent on time, place, and context". Maybe in such and such place and time, this person was the protagonist in his respective village or country, but that does not entail a a global narrative that subsumes all others.
Also, at the end of the day, only the individual's discernment, judgment, and insight matter when it comes to mystical matters.
>Somehow you perceive in a Christian a cetain energy or light (the presence of Christ), and by following that, you gradually come to see that Christianity is true.
It is Satanic because you are confining that certain energy or light into the flesh of an irrelevant Jew. Why can't divine light exist in every sentient being or even the classical elements? Don't you see by making Jesus the main intermediary to the Infinite, you are fostering a very life denying mentality? The issue with Muslims is they are against **all** intermediaries; the issue with Christians is they make Jesus the sole intermediary.
>I don't blame anyone who has never perceived that presence for not following it.
Your religion says people experience eternal damnation because they have valid doubts in Christ. This is even worse than trillions of kotis of kalpas of suffering in Mahayana.

>>20500675
never heard a sufi to say that he will throw me out of the window

>>20500685
Read Rémi Brague. Neither judaism nor islam has theology in any real sense because they lack hellenistic DNA. What you are probably thinking of as theology is just hellenistic philosophy expressed in islamicized terminology that was grafted on to islam itself way after its creation and is fundamentally irreconcilable with it, which is why all the branches of philosophy that prioritized reasoning over revelation such as the mutazila got obliterated as apostates and heretics.

>>20500693
this also shows the comparative ethical poverty of Islam. Even the Jews recognized that no man's deeds were worthy of comparison with the most high.

>"Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." Ecclesiastes 7:20
and elsewhere:
>"... who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?" Malachi 3:2

Christian theology rightly judges by the condition of one's heart, not by some tally of good vs. bad, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

>>20500732
Hellenistic philosophy is not the sole origin of theology, and no ancient culture would agree with you in regards to this strict divide between "legalistic thought" and theology. Whatever ancient culture you larp as would consider you a blasphemer. That aside, Judaism and Islam both have independent theological concepts and approaches to reality, any attempt to claim otherwise is pure cope.

>>20500352

>Umar ibn al-Khattab reported...
This is basically echoing the OT, Isaiah 49:15

Also, what strikes me most about that little episode is the satanic perversity of the warlord 'prophet' using two innocent victims of his own belligerent wars of conquest as his example case for the mercy of God! What an abyss there is between Mohammed and Christ.

Seriously, compare this awful scene with any episode from the life of Christ. Superimpose the image of Muhammed haughtily preaching of mercy as he divvies up his war slaves—compare that with the image of Christ, bloodied by lashes, carrying His heavy cross to the place of His death. Dying abandoned by all men but that beardless youth, John, and His own blessed mother. Or even His sermon on the mount. The Word of God teaching truths which have been hidden since the creation of the world—yet with no place to lay his head! A homeless exile on the face of the earth. What nobility, what glory, what grandeur on the side of Christ! In comparison with Him, all that is merely human seems bestial. Or do you not perceive the difference between Christ dying to ransom souls from spiritual servitude and Mohammed killing to enroll them in carnal slavery?

>Abu Huraira reported...
This is Book of Mormon tier plagiarism of the gospels (composed FULLY FIVE HUNDRED YEARS after they were written down), namely Luke 15:1-7 & Luke 15:11-32.

>On the authority of Anas...
Again, this reiterates a concept found in the OT, as well as the NT, God's mercy:
Psalm 103:12

It's not that any of these statements about God's mercy of false. They represent a truth about God which Islam bears forth. These truths are also present in Judaism as well. God in Kabbalah (IIRC) has two "pillars:" His mercy and his justice.

What, then, does Christ bring that is new? A new depth to God's mercy, and the definitive revelation that God's mercy is even greater than His justice. For there is deeper mercy in giving up one's own Son to death, there is a greater mercy in dying out of love, than there is even in the infinite and perfect love of God. God has become a person; He has walked among us.

And in the trinity as well, we see the revelation that Love is a person, that Love is one designation or description of the ultimate metaphysical reality. God is not merely loving, as He is in Judaism or Islam. He is Love itself.

Otherwise, what was He doing for all the endless ages of timeless eternity before He created the universe? Is God finally alone? When we enjoy friendship among equals or a sense of belonging in a community or the deep intimacy of romantic love, are we really only enjoying a mere artifact of creation which God cannot ever truly experience for Himself? For again, the fullness of love cannot really exist between two absolutely incommensurable beings.

I think that if you follow your heart you will find that these are the highest things, high enough that it does not hurt God's dignity to see them within His very nature.

>>20500750
>"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
You know that reminds me of a certain quotation from a religious scripture whose name eludes me, goes something like
>Aisha reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Follow the right course, be devoted, and give glad tidings. Verily, none of you will enter Paradise by his deeds alone.” They said, “Not even you, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said, “Not even me, unless Allah grants me His mercy. Know that the most beloved deed to Allah is that which is done regularly, even if it is small.” (Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6467, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2818)

>>20500755
>Hellenistic philosophy is not the sole origin of theology

What is, then? "Allah/Yahwe is so powerful, oh my god" isn't exactly enough to furnish a philosophical system. At most you could argue for things like the theodicy of the book of Job or something, but even those are cribbed from the wisdom literature of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

>no ancient culture would agree with you in regards to this strict divide between "legalistic thought" and theology.

Yeah, classification is just like, our projections, bro. Categories aren't real. Fucking yawn.

>That aside, Judaism and Islam both have independent theological concepts and approaches to reality, any attempt to claim otherwise is pure cope.

Judaism is an ethnocult, not a religion proper, and islam is just an excuse to send incels to die so that rich arabs could have harems of thousands of women. Neither of them have particularly rich intellectual traditions of their own that wasn't grafted on from somewhere else.

>>20500298
quite low effort bait sir

>>20500717
I'm not Jewish. You may find it inconceivable that anyone can set aside ethnic identity for a higher truth, but I promise you that it's quite possible; indeed it's the norm (see what became of the most virtuous and noble of your European forebears—they converted). And in fact it is positively inhuman to pre-emptively castrate one's own power of reason in favor of mere carnal identity, because what picks out human beings as unique is our rational nature. Ironically (as Chesterton writes somewhere), race-idolators have more in common with Jews than they do with adherents of other religions (which perhaps explains the hatred—narcissism of small differences!)

>Also, at the end of the day, only the individual's discernment, judgment, and insight matter when it comes to mystical matters.
It's true that the conscience (and thus subjectivity) is the ultimate rule of morality, but I don't think that conflicts with what I said about sincerely seeking the truth in God.

>It is Satanic because you are confining that certain energy or light into the flesh of an irrelevant Jew.
"Satan" is a loan word from Hebrew, lol.

>>20500767
Islam again proves itself more carnal, less spiritual: it seems that external ritual prized over internal condition of the heart—it is habit, not faith, which justifies.

More from the essay:

>Islam corresponds to pure objectivity, to the exclusion of valid subjectivity. Hence also the "scientific proofs" which some offer to prove the Quran's validity—there is no tension of faith & reason in Islam; absolute faith simply consumes reason (compare the anti-intellectual Al-Ghazali with his contemporary St. Anselm or the later St. Thomas). The "five pillars" (along with the moral code) are external, "objective," even the daily act of prayer follows certain inflexible external forms.

And all this is to say nothing of the carnal paradise promised for the adherents of Islam. It's revisionist to pretend that the houri were not exactly what they're caricatured as.

>>20500784
>but even those are cribbed from the wisdom literature of Egypt and Mesopotamia.
If you're willing to proclaim to supremacy of Marduk and Mesopotamian civilization over all inferior imitations of it that followed, be my guest. There are many independent streams of theology, pretty much coinciding with the typical Spenglerian view of the various "high cultures". There are more independent streams of theological understanding than Spengler's model would lead one to believe but it essentially works similarly to how he believed it to.
>Yeah, classification is just like, our projections, bro. Categories aren't real. Fucking yawn.
Purposeful misinterpretation of what I said, my point is that most ancient cultures would have viewed those legalistic ideas as originating from a metaphysical understanding of the world. To quote Shah Waliullah Dehlawi
>"Some people think that there is no usefulness involved in the injunct of Islamic law and that in actions and rewards as prescribed by God there is no beneficial purpose. They think that the commandments of Islamic law are similar to a master ordering his servant to lift a stone or touch a tree in order to test his obedience and that in this there is no purpose except to impose a test so that if the servant obeys, he is rewarded, and if he disobeys, he is punished. This view is completely incorrect. The traditions of the Prophet and consensus of opinion of those ages, contradict this view".
Ultimately the actions we take in regards to ethics, politics, and artistic creation exist within a system of more primordial concepts and forces that transcend the material world, but are nonetheless affected by them.

>>20500848
>You may find it inconceivable that anyone can set aside ethnic identity for a higher truth
Not really, no. I'm Persian, and I admit that the Greeks and Indians have a superior philosophical and religious tradition to us. Zoroastrianism was like a bootleg version of Vedic or Hindu thought, which then led to Abrahamic buffoonery. I would have preferred Hinduism to spread into Iran over Islam, and I think the loss of Zoroastrianism was fundamentally good due to the oppressive orthodox clergy, which had killed off the more sensible Mazdakite reformers.
I do like the colorful dualistic aesthetics of Zoroastrianism, but philosophically it is indefensible. It still makes more sense than Abrahamic bullshit like Christcuckery, Mudslimery, and J*daism. 'Making sense' doesn't mean much though. The point is, Abrahamism is 'senseless' because you are beginning solely with divine revelation rather than metaphysical axioms which can be recognized by one's mind and discernment.
Hellenism = Mahayana = Hinduism > Zoroastrianism > Abrahamism

>>20500881
>Zoroastrianism was like a bootleg version of Vedic or Hindu thought

Was it when it was more like a sibling system stemming from the same root as vedic/hindu thought?

>>20500784
Speaking in "Hegelian" terms, Jerusalem stands for faith, Athens for reason. They come to a world-historical synthesis in Rome; as both are eternal, the synthesis is doubly eternal (as eternal as Christ's humanity and divinity; one by nature, the other by grace).

>>20500881
>Hellenism = Mahayana = Hinduism
Woah there buddhy.

In Hinduism, there is an ultimate absolute substance (Brahma) which is identical with subjectivity. I.e: "You are God"

Yet a core Mahayana doctrine is the nothingness (sunyatta) of all phenomena. In other words: there are no substances. "There is no God, there is no self (anatta), there is no anything."

Hellenism, as far as I know, was never so deep as all that. In any case, I don't think it ever went to the point of either pantheism or metaphysical anti-realism. Like I've argued early, I think that its most perfect expression comes in Socrates'/Plato's/Aristotle's rational theism, which is a far F****ing cry from either pantheism or "phenomena are empty."

I guess my point is this. How can you portray these three religions or ways of being as equal in value when each one teaches such radically different things?

Surely one of them is right, or at least more correct than the others?

***

Also, to counter your argument against the validity of divine revelation: is it really not even in principle conceivable that God could speak to an individual and commit a special message to him? I don't see why that's impossible. I get how on the face of it (considerig how much truth neutral rationality and science bring), it may seem less probable, but surely it is conceivable?

>>20501077
>Yet a core Mahayana doctrine is the nothingness (sunyatta) of all phenomena. In other words: there are no substances. "There is no God, there is no self (anatta), there is no anything."
Madhyamaka does not define the whole of Mahayana. Please read the Lotus Sutra, Platform Sutra, and some others. There is something like a Self in Mahayana, but it is referred to by different words such as "Original Nature", One Mind, Dharmakaya, or whatever, which is reached via the One Vehicle (Ekayana). There is an absolute nondual reality in Mahayana that can be likened to the Vedanta conception of Self.
>"There is no God, there is no self (anatta), there is no anything."
Read Huineng's poem. It is wrong to claim it is either something or nothing. Commonsense dualistic ontological categories don't work on it, hence why paraconsistent forms of logic were used to point to it. It is like a bright mirror where no dust can alight, which is **always present**.
>Hellenism, as far as I know, was never so deep as all that. In any case, I don't think it ever went to the point of either pantheism or metaphysical anti-realism.
I interpret Heraclitus and Empedocles as having quasi pan(en)theistic, monistic, or panpsychist/hylozoist leanings.
>How can you portray these three religions or ways of being as equal in value when each one teaches such radically different things?
Because they begin from first-person perspective and then utilize a kind of __ reasoning based on one's actual interactions and experiences with the world.
>is it really not even in principle conceivable that God could speak to an individual and commit a special message to him?
Yeah, but do you realize how many people have claimed that throughout history? It's better to begin with one's discernment, first-person perspective, and insight. If it's not something you can determine based on your lived experience, then it's meaningless. Nothing I do in reality will lead me to concluding a Jew was the Son of God or a Bedouin had the final revelation in the Arabian deserts. Yes, there are experiences and arguments that can lead me to believe in One god, but that would effectively make me more like the Greeks by adopting a reserved attitude.

Op here, could you guys discuss with some reference to actual works by islamic scholars? Something like these
>>20499228
>>20500155
Thanks

>>20500881
>im persian

Well that explains everything now.

>>20500881
So what do you make if Ibn Arabi, Mullah Sadra and Suhrawardi? Don't you think its a bit disingenuous to disregard these thinkers and to paint Islam as something solely despite what happened to them?

Or are you of the opinion that, "their efforts don't count" because the powers that be found them heretical. I don't see this position as reasonable or legitimate by any stretch. The Quran is multi-faceted and can be comprehended within the scope of Ancient wisdom of the Hellenic's.

>Islam corresponds to pure objectivity, to the exclusion of valid subjectivity.

This is an absurd statement. An Aristotelian view of Islam is not the be all of the Tradition. People who emphasise this don't know enough or trying to assert a particular view to suit their biases.

>>20498980
What unites Islam and Christianity, if truly understood, is Shi'ism. According to Shias, Jesus, as well as Muhammad and Ali and other Imams, are all theophanies of the Muhammadan light, which is the same as the Logos and the Intellect. The thing that Islam and by extension Shi'im deny is "incarnationism": the idea that the Godhead, the Intellect and a material reflection of these are all equal is what is rejected. But in Shi'ism the Muhammadan light is how God choses to reveal Himself, it is not God but it is the Face of God: "And call not upon another god along with God. There is no god but He! All things perish, save His Face" (Q. 28:88), "To God belong the East and the West. Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God. God is All-Encompassing, Knowing" (Q. 2:115) and "And there remains the Face of thy Lord, Possessed of Majesty and Bounty" (Q. 55:27). The Face of God is the Logos, the Light, and the Imam—and here Jesus as well as Muhammad and his Imams are considered Imams—is both this Light (on an ontological level) and the historical person in possession of it. He is at the same time the possessor of God's treasury and the treasure itself. Thus understood, the Gospel is in perfect harmony with Islamic Shi'i theology when Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well." Shias would only object to the translation of the word "father", but agree with everything else. Imam Jafar al-Sadiq means the same thing when he says, "The heirs of the Prophet [ie the Imams] are the gates to Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, through which people go to Him. Had they not existed, Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, would not have been recognized." When you realize both the "official Islam" and Christianity have been subverted and corrupted it all makes sense. The truth cannot be found among the majority.

>>20501692
What do shiites think of Sufism (sunni)? Thinkers such as Ibn Arabi, Al-Ghazali, Rumi, etc. Are they enlightened, or are they mistaken in their theology/character, etc. What is the verdict in sufism from a Shiite perspective?

>>20499705
Will recognizing Jesus as God help me become less possessive about my wife and my nation and more charitable towards refugees?

>>20502000
A lot of Shi'ites historically actually took a similar view regarding Sufism as the Salafists do, in that Sufi piety and asceticism is admired in their circles but their theology is seen as misguided. This is also connected to how many Sufis saw their mission as going against the powerful Ulama class and returning to a more genuine expression of Islam. This obviously comes into conflict with the heavily clerical structure of Shi'ism.

>>20502000
Sufis all claim their lineages go back to one of the Shia Imams. So Shias consider them either (a) genuine practitioners of the teachings of the Imams or (b) divergences from their teachings. You must understand that both Sufism and Shi'ism are a wide spectrum with people of differing beliefs. In the case of Shias with legalistic and exoteric views, they reject Sufism as (b); but in the case of Shias with gnostic and batini inclinations, they view Ibn Arabi and Rumi with very high respect and regard them as Shias who were in taqiya. They justify it by pointing out that Rumi has poems praising the 12 Imams and Ibn Arabi's doctrine of walayah is originally a Shi'ite concept. Also read this paper:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20004827
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/20004827

>>20499227
Islam is Abrahamaic and post-Christianity meaning it recognizes the prophetic status of all Christian prophets

>>20502234
It is worth noting that the Shia clergy only formed starting from the Safavid era and is not a representative of early Shi'ism. A lot of Shias today are also anti-clerical.

>>20499227
thats wrong though

>>20502234
>>20502523
Very informative, screenshoted and saved. Reading the paper tomorrow. What do you think of Sayyed Hossein Nasr, I think he's sunni, is he in taqqiya too? Is his quran any good?
Also quite unrelated, how do you respond to sunni seething on nikah mutah? Is it really for pure pleasure? And is if that is the case, how do shiaa view sex and sexual pleasure? Thank you for your time.

>>20502640
Seyyed Hossein Nasr has said himself that he is a Twelver Shia. See this video around 11:50.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=VB5-l299Ikc
He also says in another video that in the west he tries to hide his Shi'ism and be as non-confessional as possible to avoid Sunni seething. See this video around 1:20.
https://vimeo.com/25207438
So yes, in essence he is doing taqiya (dissimulation). You must understand that dissimulation in Shi'ism has a sacred character. The Study Quran is very nice. The translation is in my opinion the best one in English, and the commentary gives you the Sunni, Shia, and Sufi views on the verses. So it's very helpful.

Regarding mut'ah, I will only say to those sunnis that many of their sahaba whom they revere are children of mut'ah, so they need to be careful about what they say. In Shi'ism today mut'ah is only practiced in two ways. Either when a couple are engaged and waiting for nikah, then a mut'ah contract is issued (with sexual relations prohibited in the contract) so they can speak to each other until they get married. It is also practiced discreetly among older divorced people who do not have the means to get married. It's rarely for "pleasure," but it's a means to not fall into haram. Shia view on sexuality does not differ from the Sunni view as far as I know.

>>20502566
There's a spilt among historians regarding whether or not the early Dhia community was as centralized as we think of Shi'ism today, and while I think the degree of power Shia clerics had shifted over time, I'm in the camp that believes the early Shia movement was still based on the more structured and centralized authority of certain clerics. To me it fits more with the early proto-Shia history of various Alid charismatic leaders coming out of nowhere and attracting a devoted following.

>>20502878
From what I have read from the academic scholarship, early Shi'im was centralized purely on the person of the Imam (see the works of Amir-Moezzi, in particular The Divine Guide). The Usuli movement which depends on ijtihad (personal research) of the scholar-cleric gained prominence only after the Safavid rise. Prior to that, Shi'ism relied only on the Qur'an and traditions of the Imams, rejecting ijtihad, ra'y, qiyas, ijma and so forth (this is what is known as the proto-akhbari current).

>>20502878
From what I have read from the academic scholarship, early Shi'im was centralized purely on the person of the Imam (see the works of Amir-Moezzi, in particular The Divine Guide). The Usuli movement which depends on ijtihad (personal research) of the scholar-cleric and the taqlid (imitation) of the laity gained prominence only after the Safavid rise. Prior to that, Shi'ism relied only on the Qur'an and traditions of the Imams, rejecting ijtihad, taqlid, ra'y, qiyas, ijma and so forth (this is what is known as the proto-akhbari current).

>>20502898
While early Shi'ism was indeed usually centered on the figure of the Imam, the evolution of the idea of the Imam was sort of like the evolution of the idea of the messiah. In earlier Jewish accounts it seems most Jews considered the messiah to just be a virtuous man whose wise leadership saved the Jews jn some way. In a similar fashion to how the title of messiah took on further spiritual meaning, the Imamate invisible by Shias grows out of various claims of prominent Alids to be the rightful heirs to the authority of the Prophet (PBUH). So to some degree the political machinations of the various periods important to Shia theology did change their views regarding religious authority. This is the same reason why Shias are more favorable regarding the idea of taqiyya, they were compelled to by historical circumstances.
>The Usuli movement which depends on ijtihad (personal research) of the scholar-cleric gained prominence only after the Safavid rise. Prior to that, Shi'ism relied only on the Qur'an and traditions of the Imams, rejecting ijtihad, ra'y, qiyas, ijma and so forth (this is what is known as the proto-akhbari current).
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how this disproves that the early Shia community was centralized in terms of religious authority. While the Akhbaris reject ijtihad and were more liberalism, their authority was still more centralized then say that of a Mufti's. Plus, most literalist religious movements are selectively liberalism, human reason always plays a role and the Akhbari clerics would be the arbiters of the correct literal interpretation.

Wonderful to see discussion on Shia Islam. Do you have any info on the Zaydi's and their theology? Information on these people is very scarce in western scholarship and the english language in General.

>>20502929
If we study Shi'ism based on its own earliest sources rather than Sunni heresiography, we see that there is little to no difference between the teachings attributed to each Imam. In fact the Imams say their teachings comprise one whole. None of the Twelver Imams placed any particular importance to politics; Ali is reported as to saying he accepted caliphate reluctantly; Husayn's martyrdom is interpreted in a mystical and esoteric fashion as a sacrifice of the material world and a union of the lover with the beloved; the rest of the Imams all advocated radical apoliticalism and a disdain for political matters. Taqiya is presented as a "keeping of the divine secret", similar to the early Chrstian disciplina arcani. We are of course talking about Twelver Shi'ism here, the case of Zaydi Shi'ism is different as it is purely political.

I don't think akhbarism has anything to do with liberalism. The authority in akhbarism is in the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Imams; if it is centralized, it is still centralized around the Imam. In Usulism this changes and the authority becomes the interpretation of the scholar-cleric.

>>20502953
From what I understand, Zaydi theology is basically their open adoption of Mutazlisim. That, and of course, their insistence on Jihadism as a condition of Imamate.

Bump.