/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16823549]

Who's the best Muslim author of all time?

[Anonymous No.16823552]

>>16823549
Guenon

[Anonymous No.16823565]

>>16823549
God

[Anonymous No.16823571]

>>16823549
Probably a tie between Moses and Jesus

[Anonymous No.16823573]

>>16823549
Pretty sure she's Orthodox Christian

[Anonymous No.16823578]

>>16823549
Homer

[Anonymous No.16823585]

What the fuck, that headscarf just makes her more attractive.

[Anonymous No.16823632]

>>16823549
Best modern one is Naguib Mahfouz

[Anonymous No.16823696]

>>16823549
Platon

[Anonymous No.16823702]

>>16823549
Zartu Hooglo

[Anonymous No.16823785]

>>16823549
I've posted this before but
>Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Kahldun, Al-Ghazali (he was against the schools of philosophy inspired by Greek philosophers but he's one nonetheless), Mulla Sadra, and Yahya ibn Habash Suhrawardi are all good ones. If you want to read the most autistic Aristotelean of all time Ibn Rushd is also a goodie.
I'm less familiar with fiction writers but there's Attar of Nishapur (or Fariduddin Attar, however you write it), Ibn Tufail, Ibn al-Nafis, Naguib Mahfouz, and Orhan Pamuk.

[Anonymous No.16823792]

>>16823573
I highly doubt she's a Muslim since most Muslim women don't wear a headscarf like that, even the one's that show a bit of the hair at the front usually don't show that much.

[Anonymous No.16823795]

>>16823552
PBUH

[Anonymous No.16823802]

>>16823785
Oh and I forgot Al-Kindi in the post I copied over

[Anonymous No.16823815]

>>16823549
i'd convert to islam if there was a qt like that.

no i wouldn't and there isn't anything literary worthwhile in islam that wasn't already better written in the christian world

one of these is true, the other is not.
Take a guess

[Anonymous No.16823830]

>>16823815
This sort of mindset is tiring to me as a Muslim who finds beauty in other traditions, not in a "muh open your mind BRO" kinda way but in a you're missing out kinda way

[Anonymous No.16823839]

>>16823785
great post, my friend

[Anonymous No.16823860]

>>16823830
when your tradition hasn't produced anything of value in the last 500 years, I supposed that would be the position you would take.

[Anonymous No.16823867]

>>16823549
For classical poetry- Abu Nuwas, Aatiyah, Kuffiyah

[Anonymous No.16823887]

>>16823632
midaq alley any good?

[Anonymous No.16823888]

Kateb Yacine, probably
Tahar Ben Jelloun

I wanted to say Amin Maalouf but he's a christian, so my bad

[Anonymous No.16823898]

>>16823552
Based

[Anonymous No.16823922]

>>16823860
Well no that really isn't the case? Muhammad Iqbal, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Bahram Beyzai, Nuruddin Farah, and many more from the last century and the current one are worthwhile. Hell there's Naguib Mahfouz and Orhan Pamuk who I already mentioned. There are many, many more I have never heard of.
>inb4 literal whos
Your ignorance doesn't prove your point.

[Anonymous No.16823930]

>>16823922
And to be clear I didn't mention any philosophers but there are many modern ones I could list out

[Anonymous No.16823933]

That's a Christian head cover. By the looks of it she forgot it was a feast day and they had to offer her curtains, or else she chose that for a penitential rite.

[Anonymous No.16823993]

>>16823922
>>inb4 literal whos
This is valid criticism. If the literature was amazing, it would have gone past the boundaries of the muslim world, but it hasn't, because it isn't

[Anonymous No.16824004]

>>16823993
>This is valid criticism
Not really.
>If the literature was amazing, it would have gone past the boundaries of the muslim world, but it hasn't, because it isn't
Multiple of them have, not all of them though.

[Anonymous No.16824005]

>>16823993
50 shades of Gray is the best literature ever

[Anonymous No.16824028]

>>16823993
I would also add that there's a good deal of French, German, Spanish, Dutch, and Czech literature that isn't translated and hasn't made a splash outside their countries of origin but that doesn't diminish their value.

[Anonymous No.16824048]

>>16823922
>>This is valid criticism
>Not really.
Not a refutation.
>Multiple of them have, not all of them though.
Some of them have, but far less than than the other way around.


>>16824005
k
>>16824028
But there is a good deal that has, a greater deal that work from other cultures.

[Anonymous No.16824080]

>>16824048
>Not a refutation.
You didn't say why a work has to be popular internationally to be of value.
>Some of them have, but far less than than the other way around.
See above but also what's the number that has to be reached for Islamic literature to be of value?
>>16824048
>But there is a good deal that has, a greater deal that work from other cultures.
>There isn't as much Chinese or Japanese Literature translated into English as there is French literature translated into English, therefore French literature is superior
Just a weird metric but okay.

[Anonymous No.16824136]

>>16823922
Ok, seeing as you are a muslim, can you answer something for me?
Once I saw a criticism that was: "they are [good, great, peaceful, so on so on] despiste islam". So I guess this person would say something such as "these writers are great despiste islam".

How do you feel and answer this sort of criticism? It is always followed with something like "islam cannibalizes other cultures" and "this is why you don't have enough information about the arab world pre-islam".
I don't know if these things are true AND I don't think I'll ever develop interest to study these things on my own. And I don't know anyone to ask these questions, but as seeing you are a muslim, can you give me some sort of answer and maybe even a couple of books so I can, at least, understand better the whole situation?

One thing I can say, from the christian world, is that there isn't really that cannibalization of past cultures unless bigotry takes contrl, which we saw happening and still see people trying to cling to power diminishing the heritage. But overall there is a lot of respect, specially from the older churches.

It SEEMS to me bigotry took hold of islam somewhere in the last few centuries and they didn't manage to fight it off like christianity did, or maybe it was the default and somehow they fought it off until the last few centuries when the reality settled.

I'm not trying to diminish anything, I just want to learn.

Thanks!

[Anonymous No.16824151]

averroes
not exactly muslim though

[Anonymous No.16824212]

>>16824136
>>16823922
Both the Christian and Islamic worlds are bastardizations of the superior Zoroastrian world, which you both joined forces to destroy. Alas, the Gathas still exists and is far great than the entirety of your Abrahamic corpus!

[Anonymous No.16824233]

>>16824136
I think this isn't something that only occurs within Muslim cultures, you'll see other faith's preachers talking about their countries pagan past negatively, it's just that retarded sheikhs that push that sorta shit get funded by their governments through the money said governments get from western governments. The Saudis fund fundamentalist madrasas (religious schools) around the Muslim world off US dollars perpetuating a cycle of fundamentalist violence and suppression. Now I'm not saying the idea that Islam looks with suspicion at pre-Islamic culture is totally unfounded, pre-Islamic Arabia is looked at as being barbaric by most Muslims, but there wasn't much of a notion that the past must be completely destroyed or something to that degree. You get people like the Mughals and the like who wanted to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan every once and a while but it isn't as clear cut as "this Muslim hated all non-Muslim culture", there are many instances of the exact opposite. That's how you have Muslim Shamans and the like. Sorry if that wasn't too coherent, to boil it down to the main point I'm trying to make, there are Muslims for and against pre-Islamic culture, but there tends to be exceptions made even by those who wish to get rid of certain parts of pre-Islamic culture.

[Anonymous No.16824243]

>>16824151
He was though.
>>16824212
ok.

[Anonymous No.16824306]

Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.16824506]

>>16824136
Born and raised Arab ex-Muslim here (now Agnostic).

>It is always followed with something like "islam cannibalizes other cultures"
There is truth to this. Islam looks down upon all non-Muslim societies, and by extension, cultures. "The culture of kaafireen (infidels) is worthless, for it is a transgression against God, therefore it must be replaced with a culture/society that reveres Him." This was the unspoken mantra of Caliphs who conquered the world, from Iberia to India.

>and "this is why you don't have enough information about the arab world pre-islam".
Not necessarily, while Islam does replace cultures by function, it does not call to erase evidence of their existence, although it would be naive to assume that Islam had NO influence on diminishing the history of pre-Islamic Arabia. The answer then is "mostly not".

>It SEEMS to me bigotry took hold of islam somewhere in the last few centuries and they didn't manage to fight it off like christianity did, or maybe it was the default and somehow they fought it off until the last few centuries when the reality settled.
Islam is bigoted by design. Bigotry against non-Muslims is part & parcel of the doctrine. Anyone who says that Islam teaches us to co-exist with kuffaar (infidels) is telling a half-lie. Yes, the Quran/Muhammad does say "you have your faith, and I have mine" in response to infidels, but that certainly doesn't stop it from also teaching us to loathe them. It's more like "tolerate their existence until an opportunity to wipe them out reveals itself".

>"they are [good, great, peaceful, so on so on] despiste islam".
I left this for last for a reason. This is absolutely true, your average Muslim has the same likelihood of being a good or bad person as any other non-Muslim, and this is in spite of Islam. Why? Because said average Muslim does not follow the doctrines to a T, in fact, they might follow only about 50% or less, and this percentage is continuously decreasing with time. At this point, a vast population of Muslims are in fact closeted non-Muslims, whom keep their silence in fear of persecution and/or in fear of themselves.

Funny enough, however, Muslims outside of Muslim-majority countries tend to be more radical than native Muslims, which ends up leading to them giving the rest of Muslims a bad rep in the West. This is not a coincidence. When these people migrated to Western countries, they felt out of place, and so only turn to each other for that sense of belonging, which leads them to hang onto the one link that binds them together even tighter. They can be de-radicalised with a two-way solution, which is to first convince them that non-Muslims aren't necessarily bad people and you could make many friends among them if you tried, and by convincing their host community to be more open towards them in good faith.

[Anonymous No.16824591]

>>16824028
>dutch
almost got me

[Anonymous No.16824648]

>>16823552
pbuh
>>16823573
she is, it's a sign that all muslims should convert

[Anonymous No.16824662]

>>16824648
>she is, it's a sign that all muslims should convert
If you absolutely have to embrace a religion, then it's got to be Gnosticism. Any other option is cucked.

[Anonymous No.16824671]

>>16823549
Non-meme answer: Rumi

[Anonymous No.16824682]

IQBAL
>>16823792
>most Muslim women don't wear a headscarf like that
People don’t care now days in my cuntry

[Anonymous No.16824685]

>>16823549
Dave Sim.

[Anonymous No.16824689]

>>16824682
based emirati bro, how's israel treating ya?

[Anonymous No.16824712]

>>16823571
Jesus never wrote a word

[Anonymous No.16824734]

>>16824506
Good post, never thought of the radicalisation of Muslims in the west of being a function of their isolationism quite in the way you described although I’m not sure I agree. How do you measure how radical Muslims are in their countries of origin? I would argue that they have hard line views in most Muslim countries but it’s taken as the norm over there. I have made friends with Muslims but it is absolutely apparent to me that their ideological beliefs are at odds with my own and that is not a geographically based cause.

[Anonymous No.16824756]

>>16824712
he wrote in the sand once.

[Anonymous No.16824899]

>>16824734
>How do you measure how radical Muslims are in their countries of origin?
The preachier and/or holier-than-thou a Muslim, the more radical they are (this is provided they don't reveal other red flags like permitting the killing of Muslims from sects other than theirs, let alone infidels). It's pretty easy to tell in Muslim-majority countries where they are encouraged to show it off rather than hide it, but if they do hide it in a community where they are a minority, well, I hate to advocate for judging books by their covers, but a Muslim man with a giant and maybe unkempt beard is almost always a sign for Islamic fundamentalism at the least, and total radicalisation at the worst. Keeping in mind that some Muslim sects, like Shia, aren't concerned with not cutting your bead.

>I would argue that they have hard line views in most Muslim countries but it’s taken as the norm over there.
I don't know if I'd call it "the norm", but it's certainly not gonna be challenged by anyone. No one in their right mind would openly criticise even the most extremist of views in Muslim-majority countries less they risk getting lynched. The only exceptions to this (to varying degrees) might be Lebanon, UAE, and Kuwait.

>I have made friends with Muslims but it is absolutely apparent to me that their ideological beliefs are at odds with my own and that is not a geographically based cause.
It certainly is not, because again, Islam is by design is a an ideological system that is inherently opposed to all ideals held by non-Muslim societies. With regards to a Muslim, it's a question of how many of those opposite and antagonistic ideals they hold, and whether it's genuine or in bad faith, and the answer to that question is a complex one, but one of the biggest factors that play into it IMO is "where did this person grow up?".

[Anonymous No.16824971]

>>16824136
I’ll try my best to answer
>first paragraph
The other guy made the argument that this is absolutely the case but I don’t necessarily hold that to be valid. The virtues extolled in our religion are the same in the other Abrahamic faiths. If they follow their religion and live it’s virtues, why would they be good in spite of their faith? Would this argument not also be meted out to the Christians? There were centuries of censorship of philosophy and some arts. I think this is more an argument towards religion in general.
>cannibalism
Can you expand on this?
Cannibalism is the eating one’s own species. What exactly is the “cannibalism” of other cultures?
As for pre-Islamic Arabia, the reason we know so little about it is for sure in part by Islam, but the main reason is because of the lack of writing we have. The Arabs before Islam were all mainly illiterate and history was passed down through oral transmission. Much of these oral records likely were lost once the Arabs embraced writing after the conquests.
>last two paragraphs
I still don’t know what you mean by “cannibalising older cultures,” you’re going to need to explain this.
I don’t know what you mean by bigotry. Most of the lands that were conquered where Christian and Zoroastrian and, for the standards of the time, they were tolerated. I think this is what you probably mean by bigotry? Until the 19th century when Islamic tolerance became obsolete, things more or less worked fine. The problem we have is that we still hold on to some of the obsolete notions of tolerance while we’re (slowly earlier, quickly now days) getting accustomed to modern freedom of religion.

[Anonymous No.16824988]

>>16824899
>I hate to advocate for judging books by their covers, but a Muslim man with a giant and maybe unkempt beard is almost always a sign for Islamic fundamentalism at the least
Yep, that's me. My beard is not ready unkempt though.

[Anonymous No.16824998]

>>16824506
>>16824899
Can you share some of your background with Islam? I’m asking because you speak like you’re an authority on the religion.
t. Muslim, if that matters.

[Anonymous No.16825006]

>>16824971
Christians need to stop acting innocent. It is tiring because the Christian Byzantines actually helped Rashidun conquer Zoroastrian land. The first Jihadists were actually Christian, and they united with Arab Muslims over common hatred of Zoroastrians. Heraclius burned many holy cypress trees and fire temples in Iranshahr.

[Anonymous No.16825073]

>>16824998
Like I said, I was born & raised in an Arabic Muslim country for all of my life (still living here btw, although I've studied abroad for about 5 years, so it widened my perspective).

I was raised in a devout/partially-fundamentalist Shia Muslim family. Well, my siblings save for one are certainly far from devout, but my parents very much are. I was never a Muslim in good faith, I have distinct and vivid memories of questioning the religion when I was just 10 years old. I've been a closeted Atheist for most of my life, then recently became Agnostic.

[Anonymous No.16825155]

>>16825073
Iraqi or Lebanese?
I'm a pakistani and Ive lived in the USA my whole life. Most of the diaspora muslims ive met have all been more or less about as or a bit more religious as the average american. My experiences have been more positive. Most of my friends I met at mosques and muslim student groups at school and without that i'd just be another stuck in NEET.
I respect our differences though. We're all a product of our upbringings and circumstances.

By the way, the only extreme islamic view I hold is that I believe circumcision is haram

[Anonymous No.16825270]

>>16825155
Well, I wasn't gonna reveal my nationality, but since you did, I'll reciprocate. I'm Kuwaiti, born and raised.

You Pakis are pretty cool in my book, some of the best friends I've made abroad are Paki. Coincidentally, even though they were all Muslim, they weren't really religious either, though that's not really why we became friends.
Can I ask about the nationalities of your friend? In my experience, the nationalities that tend to be more radicalised overseas are Syrians, Moroccans, Kurds, Saudis, and Iraqis. Pakis, Hindis, and other South/South-East Asians tend to be waaaaaay more moderate.

[Anonymous No.16825288]

>>16825270
>about the nationalities of your friends*
>add Algerians to the overseas radical tendency list

[Anonymous No.16825327]

>>16825270
Why are Gulf Arabs such shit-heads with regards to Iran?

>Saudi Arabia funds Saddam as he uses chemical weapons on Iranians
>be mad when Iranians shit on you throughout the middle east in response
>call in daddy USA to literally starve their country

[Anonymous No.16825332]

>>16825155
>>16825270
Middle East would have been more stable if Sassanian empire didn't collapse, and you were all Zoroastrian. In fact, Zoroastrianism should have spread to Europe too instead of Abrahamism.
You should all kneel to Zoroaster's divine fire.

[Anonymous No.16825334]

Suhrawardi.

[Anonymous No.16825348]

>>16825327
>Why are Gulf Arabs such shit-heads with regards to Iran?
Unironically American-funded propaganda. I don't hate Iran at all, their people are actually much better than many Gulf Arab nationalities. Iran is Arabia's greatest possible and America and Israel have been sabotaging any budding relationships between us and them since the 1960's, it's fucking shit. And yes, Saudi Arabia is nothing more than America's hand in the M.E.

>>16825332
Don't care.

[Anonymous No.16825355]

>>16825348
>greatest possibly ally*

[Anonymous No.16825357]

>>16825006
yeah but christianity's message is of love.
If someone perverted then he should be punished.
Islam is a warlord religion

[Anonymous No.16825378]

>>16825270
Mostly south asians, arabs, SEAs, and Africans. My city is really diverse, albeit, soulless.

[Anonymous No.16825406]

>>16825348
Iran is going to become Zoroastrian again in due time.

[Anonymous No.16825425]

>>16825357
>Islam is a warlord religion
>christianity's message is of love
i sincerely hope you don't actually use this as an argument.

[Anonymous No.16825440]

>>16823549
she is a catholic dumbass

[Anonymous No.16825448]

>>16825378
I see, most of your friends aren't from nationalities that tend towards overseas radicalisation. Well anyway, Allah Yhafthik Pakibro.

[Anonymous No.16825460]

>>16825357
Maybe in some forms of Gnosticism and maybe some Catholic mysticism, but overall, it is a religion of guilt and penitence. I don't think it has more room for love when you're self-flagellating yourself over an irrelevant Jew. I mean who cares? It was just a Jew.

[Anonymous No.16825470]

>>16823993
This has little to do with the quality of literature and more to do with the respective ability of each culture to mass produce, spread, sell and market their stuff. If you want your literature to cross boundaries the best is simply to send millions of your people past those boundaries.

[Anonymous No.16825474]

>>16825460
>more room
much room*

[Anonymous No.16825639]

>>16825406
Based.

[Anonymous No.16825865]

>>16825425
i don't despise truth, so yes I use this argument

[Anonymous No.16826046]

>>16825865
You call it truth but it's a very objective statement

[Anonymous No.16826224]

>>16823549

Averroes because he made other Muslims seethe

[Anonymous No.16826662]

>>16826224
How did he do that?

[Anonymous No.16826683]

>>16823549
Historically? Al-Ghazali.

Modern? A toss up between Abdal Hakim Murad and Hamza Yusuf.

[Anonymous No.16826757]

>>16826224
Being the most autistic Aristotelian in history will do that yeah

[Anonymous No.16826770]

>>16825270
I'm >>16823785 >>16823922, and as a Kurd living in a Kurdish community in Burgerland I find that most Kurdish kids just never talk about religion. To be fair I only had Kurdish friends when I was younger so that might have something to do with it.

[Anonymous No.16826779]

>>16826683
Hamza Yusuf is a good pick but c'mon you're gonna not mention Seyyed Hossein Nasr?

[Anonymous No.16826793]

>>16826683
What about Iqbal?

[Anonymous No.16826803]

>>16826793
I think by modern he meant currently alive

[Anonymous No.16828186]

>>16826793
>>16826803

Yes, I meant someone who's currently alive, but also the type of writing they do. Iqbal may be the best modern poet, but Hamza Yusuf is one of the best non-fiction writers.

I guess by "Muslim writer" I mentioned "writers who are Muslim and write about Islam" not "writers who are Muslim and write about anything."

[Anonymous No.16828315]

>>16824136
if you don't understand what "cannibal" means in that context then I honestly can't help you. Unironically I must say "start with the greeks".

[Anonymous No.16828332]

>>16823922
Seriously though, who?
Lol, nobody cares because they’re contributions are minimal

[Anonymous No.16828337]

>>16823573
She's catholic, it's a catholic chapel veil she's modeling

[Anonymous No.16828363]

>>16823922
Don't know about the others but Pamuk is non-religious

[Anonymous No.16828470]

>>16828363
>"He describes himself as a Cultural Muslim who associates the historical and cultural identification with the religion while not believing in a personal connection to God."
It depends on how you define religiosity.
>>16828332
So someone's contributions are only worthwhile if they are well known outside of the region they come from (which many of the names mentioned are anyways)? I dunno man, if you say so.

[Anonymous No.16828476]

>>16828186
I would definitely recommend Seyyed Hossein Nasr as well then

[Anonymous No.16828626]

>>16823887
sorry for late reply. Haven't read that one, I've only read CHildren of our alley which is good, and The Harafish which is better.

Cairo trilogy is supposed to be his best

[Anonymous No.16828916]

>>16823792
Most Iranian women wear their hijab like that.

[Anonymous No.16828922]

>>16823549
Ibn Taymiyya

[Anonymous No.16828966]

>>16828916
I had that in mind when I said that but they don't show that much hair typically

[Anonymous No.16828967]

the one that wrote 9/11

[Anonymous No.16828972]

>>16828922
One of the worse ones you could have said, he was right on hell but that's about it

[Anonymous No.16828982]

>>16828972
Have you even read him, or the secondary literature on his thought?

[Anonymous No.16828991]

>>16828982
No I haven't, I am somewhat familiar with his ideas and his influence however. His literalism is what I have an issue with mainly.

[Anonymous No.16829030]

>>16824671
This is the only correct answer.

[Anonymous No.16829068]

>>16828991
'Literalism' is a very bad way of describing Salafi theology. There's a difference between the literal (ḥaqīqī) reading of the text and what is called the outward meaning (ẓāhir) of the text. The latter is often translated as 'literal,' but the former is closer in meaning to our Western conception of literalism. Salafis take the ẓāhir, according to the understanding of the Salaf, which is the face value meaning of the text, but that can also encompass a metaphorical (majāzī) interpretation. An example of this is the latter part of Qur'an 57:4, "He is with you wherever you are," which is interpreted to refer to His knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16829131]

>>16829068
Yes but Salafis aren't always correct in their use of metaphorical understandings of verses, such as Ibn Taymiyya's anthropomorphic views on God.

[Anonymous No.16829143]

>>16823549
This attire is a lot more seemly and dignified compare to how most western women dress nowadays.

[Anonymous No.16829151]

Nuwas's erotic poetry is something that can not be lived without. Would certainly be your misfortune.

[Anonymous No.16829164]

>>16829131
He was no anthropomorphist. He constantly insists that God's attributes are not like human attributes. In reality, it's the Ash'arites and the Shi'a who are closer to anthropomorphism, because they begin with the assumption that the attributes which God affirms for Himself in the Qur'an are like those of humans and thus that they need to be reinterpreted to mean something else in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16829177]

>>16829164
>In reality, it's the Ash'arites and the Shi'a who are closer to anthropomorphism, because they begin with the assumption that the attributes which God affirms for Himself in the Qur'an are like those of humans and thus that they need to be reinterpreted to mean something else in the first place.
That's some weird logic there, neither of those groups says that the attributes Allah describes are him affirming them for himself, rather that his intention there was to approximate something that would help a human understand the unknowable God. A metaphor isn't a falsehood, it's a bridge to the truth. Claiming that God has hands "but they're just totally a different kind of hands" is an odd theological position that nonetheless creates attributes for God like those of a human, and the meaning of shirk is "to associate" so.

[Anonymous No.16829201]

>>16829151
>>16823867
I would but one of his works being called "O Tribe that Loves Boys", did he literally mean boys or just younger guys

[Anonymous No.16829205]

>>16829201
Younger guys, not literal children. In the Pasolini adaptation of his poems and stories, the guys are late teens.

[Anonymous No.16829208]

>>16829205
Oh thank God I can read my medieval smut in peace, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.16829260]

>>16829177
It may seem an odd position to you, but it's the only one with epistemic humility. The problem is that you do not want to let God be God, but we as human beings are not more capable of explaining God's nature than He is capable of explaining it Himself. Once again, when you read in the Qur'an where it talks about the hands of God, you're assuming that it means hands like those of humans, when this is not what the text says or what Salafis believe. The Qur'an talks about how God creates with His hands (36:71, 51:47, etc.). On the Day of Judgement the heavens and earth will be rolled up in His right hand (39:67). In His hand is all good (3:26). How are these human-like hands, and how can one who believes such things be attributing human-like attributes to God? No creature has attributes like this.

[Anonymous No.16829396]

>>16825470
nigger how do you think the french built such a cultural powerhouse, immigration?

[Anonymous No.16829431]

>>16829396
It wasn't because of muh racial purity or muh 16 digit IQ either

[Anonymous No.16829439]

>>16823549
David Foster Wallace

[Anonymous No.16829477]

Taleb

[Anonymous No.16829785]

Allah.

[Anonymous No.16829795]

>>16824662
Gnosticism is a dead religion and all gnostics are larpers.

[Anonymous No.16829948]

>>16826662

Agent intellect = one single, eternal substance. He departs from Aristotles claim that an intellect receives material forms, since it can't do so if it itself is material. So it has to be incorporeal. If it isn't material, it can't be divisible because only matter is divisible. Therefore it is single, not multiple - i.e there are not as many intellects as people, only one.
To Averroes, all thoughts occur in two subjects: the eternal agent intellect and the individual 'imaginaton' which is personal. This oversight is the only way he can get around our thoughts being our own, otherwise we'd have universal telepathy since we all just share the same intellect.
When we die it gets even more haram - our soul (which isn't immortal on its own, since the real intellectual element of thought is non-personal i.e the agent intellect) mixes into the universal intellect. Immortality is not experienced personally. This has serious repercussions in terms of divine judgement, because the soul seems to be indifferent to any material affect, and the afterlife is totally impersonal.
Averroes was basically a mystic, so you can see why he rustled some Al-Jimmies.

>>16826757

>t.virgin al-Ghazali

He was pretty autistic tho, you're right.

[Anonymous No.16830026]

>>16829795
having a religion is the highest form of LARPing. also
>dead religion
and this matters because?

[Anonymous No.16830302]

>>16830026
You cant have a genuine religious experience if you only learned about it from some book and thought it sounded cool.

[Anonymous No.16830315]

>>16829260
i've just started reading about islam recently and the literal hands argument makes me despair

[Anonymous No.16830317]

Father forgive me for I have sinned
AWOOOOOGA AWOOOOOOOOGA

[Anonymous No.16830406]

>>16830315
What's your main problem with it?

[Anonymous No.16830628]

>>16823549
Yunu Emre, probably

[Anonymous No.16831684]

>>16823860
>If I don't know about it, it doesn't exist.
Peak smooth-brain arrogance

[Anonymous No.16831743]

>>16830406
the fact that the argument took place at all, if people read things literally to that extent they're incapable of understanding anything

[Anonymous No.16831771]

>>16823549
Its Muhammad (pbuh) you motherfuckers, Allah save them, they know no what they do.

[Anonymous No.16831793]

>>16829260
Ok, but then you want to look at what "يد" means. According to the salafis, you can't do تفويض المعنى, so you cannot say we don't know what exactly is meant. You have to affirm the meaning of يد. So, explain to me. What is "يد", so that I can affirm it?

[Anonymous No.16831809]

>>16825357
Islam is a religion for a complete society. if it is the case that men wage war, then Islam will have a law for war. real christianity can either be like buddhism, for a small elite, or it can be like judaism in which case it is the same as Islam, only more confused.

And God knows best.

[Anonymous No.16831865]

>>16831793
explain to a by-stander would you?

[Anonymous No.16831878]

how can there be a need for naskh if the Quran is a book without contradictions?

[Anonymous No.16831925]

>>16831865
So basically, salafi's say you're not allowed to say "we don't know the exact, true meaning of this word." This is important.

They also say the word "yad" means hand, in its literal, outward meaning. Now by all definitions, a hand is a limb, comprised of bones, musculature, tendon, skin. If a thing doesn't have any of these features, it's either not a hand, or it's an imperfect hand. The problem is that affirming anything of this would be heresy of the highest order to any Muslim, even salafis, because it's blatant anthropomorphism.

They get around this by saying "it's a hand, a *literal hand*, but unlike any hand of anything in creation. So, essentially, they outwardly completely deny any conventional meaning to apply, yet they insist that one affirms the literal meaning, because saying "we don't know what it means" isn't allowed by them either.

So, Sunni Muslims have always had one of two approaches: consigning the meaning to Allah, and explaining the meaning through metaphors found in the Arabic language.

The former says "ay, we don't really know what it means, so we leave the meaning up to Allah and we simply affirm belief in its reality." The latter is finding meanings which are common in the language, like if I say to you "give me a hand, will you?", The word "hand" actually means your assistance. This isn't changing the words of God, it's simply understanding his words through the language in which he chose to reveal his book.

This enrages the salafi.

[Anonymous No.16831943]

>>16831925
>ay, we don't really know what it means, so we leave the meaning up to Allah and we simply affirm belief in its reality
doesn't seem like it would do much good to give mankind a book they can't read

[Anonymous No.16831958]

>>16831943
Which is why mostly, that position was taken to avoid accidentally interpreting it in a wrong way. Yet, much has been written to explain the meanings through the Arabic language.

[Anonymous No.16831964]

>>16831958
is it generally treated as tenable that there could be more than one valid interpretation at once?

[Anonymous No.16831985]

>>16831964
It's definitely there in the literature, yes. Salafi's also dislike this, generally, because they want the eternal ocean of meanings without shores that is the Qur'an to be simple and comprehensible, ideally in translation. The exegetes show many instances where several meanings can apply and even complement rather than contradict each other.

[Anonymous No.16831992]

>>16831985
cool

[Anonymous No.16831996]

>>16831992
Quite so.

[Anonymous No.16832059]

>>16823993
retard

[Anonymous No.16832191]

>>16829948
>>t.virgin al-Ghazali
>He was pretty autistic tho, you're right.
I'm more of an Arabifag than a Ghazalifag but if you diss my man Ghazali one more time all Jahannam's gonna break out

[Anonymous No.16832220]

>>16832191
>Ibn Arabi
My absolute lad

[Anonymous No.16832224]

>>16828967
jews generally don't qualify as muslims unless they're the saudi royal family

[Anonymous No.16832227]

>>16823792
That's obviously an Ukrainian girl with a Babushka scarf.

[Anonymous No.16832232]

>>16832220
>the virgin Ibn Taymiyyah fan vs the chad Ibn Arabi enjoyer
Very based this one

[Anonymous No.16832304]

>>16832232
Virgin anthropomorphist Vs Chad wahdat Al wujud enjoyer

[Anonymous No.16833234]

>>16824048
>get btfo
>"k"

[Anonymous No.16833420]

>>16831925
People like you always end up leaving the faith completely, and become atheists. If you start down this road of trying to force an image of the siffat of Allah, you will soon enough end up denying all of them, as many sects have done in the past. How can Allah have sight, when we know sight comes from light entering into an eye? How can Allah have hearing? How can He have speech? How can Allah be above the heavens, as many Quranic verses and ahadith have affirmed, if He has no physical presense? How can Allah make a decision, when we know decisions are made in the mind, and the mind reacts to outward stimuli? How can it be that the believers will see Allah in Jannah?

If Allah has no hand, and in fact no physical presense or makeup, and He has no sight, nor hearing, nor speech, you end up with a god who is unrecognizable to any Muslim. The only way a believer can make sense of these facts, is by accepting that our understanding of the divine is limited to what has been revealed to us, and to take revelation without trying to force new meaning onto it. That means affirming His sight, without going into what that means in practice. It means affirming His hearing, and His speech, and His being above the heavens, without going into details about how these things can be. We affirm His hand the same way we affirm His sight, without adding limitations onto it, and without explaining it away to mean something different.

[Anonymous No.16834184]

>>16833420
Nobody doubts Allah has sight or hearing or any such siffaat.

But you don't allow tafwid Al ma3na, and you affirm "hand" for Allah. So please, explain to me the meaning of Hand. Explain to me how it can "literally" be a hand, without sharing the attributes of the hands of people. This isn't about "how", like you're strawmanning the argument. This is about "what". What is this hand of Allah that you're describing, and of which you're not allowing us to say "I don't know."

[Anonymous No.16834321]

>>16832304
Cringe reality fan vs chad delusion enjoyer

[Anonymous No.16834596]

>>16823549
k

[Anonymous No.16835113]

>>16823552
fpbp

>>16823549
Orhan Pamuk is good

[Anonymous No.16835132]

>>16823549

>140+ replies
>ctrl+f khaled hosseini
>0 results

Yeah I'm leaving guys. Bye.

[Anonymous No.16835185]

>>16834184
In fact, many of the mutakallimin and the falsafa did. That's what the Ash'ari logic leads to in the end: divine simplicity where you can't say anything about Allah and He may as well not exist. We all know the meaning of the word hand, and the meaning of that is not "human body part." A clock has hands, yet those are completely different from human hands, and if you mentioned these hands to a person who had never seen a clock in his life, he would not know the nature of these hands. When you describe the hands of a clock, you are not using a metaphor for the clock's power or whatever the Ash'aris say, but you are describing an attribute which exists in a unique modality. Ash'aris are content to say that Allah has attributes like mercy, but that His mercy is different from human mercy, etc., so why is this different? How is saying Allah is merciful not anthropomorphism? Or would you really go that far, as the Jahmiyya did?

[Anonymous No.16836775]

>>16835185
You've explained what a clock's hand is. Great. I've asked you to explain what Allah's hand is.

Again, you're not allowed to do tafweed Al ma3na, so you have to assign a meaning, ie. A definition, to the word. You say we all know the meaning of the word hand, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to define and explain it to me.

[Anonymous No.16837053]

>>16833420
>>16834184
Does Allah have a penis?

[Anonymous No.16837201]

Said Nursi.

[Anonymous No.16837207]

>>16837201
Said nursi

[Anonymous No.16837223]

>>16837207
I am reading him, but i don't know a lot about islamic literature
And fető is good too

[Anonymous No.16837230]

>>16835185
>>16836775
can't we all agree that the point of insanity is if we could all agree? if all the meanings could be pinned down then clearly they would be masterable by humans, and clearly they are not nor are they meant to be. I feel like the ummah gets a lot of its modern problems from every single muslim trying to have THE answer to questions that the 'ulama aren't even qualified to answer definitively, and that every single muslim is enabled to do this by information-tech in a way that was never intended when the 'ulama agreed on how Islam should work. We aren't supposed to have sunna.com. We are supposed to listen to a khutbah every friday, and if we are damn pious put work into the Qur'an. But that we should each and every one of us have ULTIMATE TRUTH? Nah man this... I don't like the implications at all. We will only become rigid and short-sighted.

[Anonymous No.16837234]

>>16837207
me in the back

[Anonymous No.16837260]

>>16837230
>ULTIMATE TRUTH
apart from tawhid of course. that's the ultimate point, I guess, that Islam IS the straight path, but this discussion makes it crooked.

[Anonymous No.16837269]

>>16832224
redpill me on the saudis being hebrews

[Anonymous No.16838005]

>>16823549
ibn khaldun, hafiz shirazi, ruzbehan baqli, hallaj

[Anonymous No.16838397]

>>16837230
>Ummah agrees for 1200 years on basically all fundamental questions of aqidah
>An unqualified layman called Muhammad ibn Abd Al Wahhab literally says nobody before him understood tawheed
>People believe him
>"The ulama argue with him"
>You: "The ulama simply don't have the answers, guys!"

[Anonymous No.16838407]

>>16838397
Do you seriously think he invented Salafi aqida?

[Anonymous No.16838422]

Allah

[Anonymous No.16838436]

>>16838407
Can you point me to their trinity of tawhid Al uluhiyya, rububiyya and tawhid Al Asma WA siffaat before him?

I'm aware of ibn taymiyyah having inspired his anthropomorphism, the weak commentary by "Al """"hanafi"""" on the tahawiyya, but nowhere does the Trinitarianism of MIAW occur before him, which allowed him to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Muslims.

[Anonymous No.16838488]

>>16826046
lol you don't evne know what objective means.
sad life

[Anonymous No.16838519]

>>16838436
>Can you point me to their trinity of tawhid Al uluhiyya, rububiyya and tawhid Al Asma WA siffaat before him?
All of those concepts existed before him. He may have been the first to concisely express and codify them in that way, but it doesn't mean he came up with him.
>I'm aware of ibn taymiyyah having inspired his anthropomorphism
He was not an anthropomorphist. Stop slandering scholars. All Sunnis were Salafi in aqida before Greek philosophy infected the Arab world.

[Anonymous No.16838536]

>>16823792
You haven’t met any muslims.

[Anonymous No.16838549]

>>16838519
So what would you say if a scholar said Allah's يد is not a limb, and is not subject to limitation, size, mass or any such properties that hands have?

[Anonymous No.16838557]

>>16838519
Also, you're still not pointing me to those concepts being described by scholars before him in the way he meant them. You're just making a baseless claim that they did exist.

Also, in Taymiyyah literally held that Allah will make space on the throne for Muhammad ﷺ to sit on next to him. If you say that's not anthropomorphism, then I think we're done talking.

[Anonymous No.16838671]

>>16838549
I would say that statement is a mix of truth and innovation depending on what is meant. His hands are not like human hands and are not limited. However, see this hadith:
>‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: "The seven heavens and the seven earths in the palm of the Most Merciful are no more than a mustard seed in the hand of one of you."
https://hadeethenc.com/en/browse/hadith/3412

[Anonymous No.16838709]

>>16838671
Then you've just declared imam Ahmad an innovator, as this statement is found in the tطبقات الحنابلة

Also, Ibn Taymiyya does affirm limit to Allah and his siffaat.

[Anonymous No.16838736]

>>16838709
Provide the quotes.

[Anonymous No.16838743]

>>16838736
I'll do so once you provide the quotes showing that the Trinitarianism of MIAW was found before him.

[Anonymous No.16838745]

>>16823549
Essad Bey

[Anonymous No.16838824]

>>16838743
http://www.wahhabis.com/articles/asnof-ahmad-bin-ali-al-maqrizi-al-shafii-d-845h-on-tawhid-shirk-rubiyyah-uluhiyyah-shafaaah.cfm

[Anonymous No.16838906]

>>16838824
I fail to see where this declares the blood of those who believe in tawassul(all four imams) to be halal, as MIAW in his understanding of trinitiarian Islam.

[Anonymous No.16838945]

>>16838824
As for the limit assigned to Allah by Ibn Taymiyyah:
https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/275167/ibn-uthaymeens-view-on-allaah-having-a-body-limit-and-direction

>To summarize the issue of hadd (limit) in relation to Allaah, Ibn Taymiyyah may Allaah have mercy upon him underlined in his books Dar' At-Ta‘aarudh and Bayaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyyah that Allaah is beyond the limits that we know but has a limit that only He knows.

[Anonymous No.16839432]

There are lots of great poets in Islam. Rumi, Attar, Omar Khayyam, Ibn Arabi, Rabia Basri, Mansur Hallaj etc etc. Rumi is the greatest though.

[Anonymous No.16839482]

>>16838397
yea it was a stupid thing to say, especially considering
>>16838436
>which allowed him to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Muslims.