Jihad in sufi and Salafi literature

[OP No.17542016]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم و الحمدلله و الصلاة و السلام على رسول

I am going to be exploring the Sufi-Salafi-Shia split when it comes to jihad. This presumes you are familiar with this thread
>>17477743

My collection of links for those interested in Islam
https://pastebin.com/CKbsaqE0

Clausewitz says

>Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as War, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst. As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the co-operation of the intelligence, it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in its application. The former then dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities to which the only limitations are those imposed by the amount of counter-acting force on each side.

>This is the way in which the matter must be viewed and it is to no purpose, it is even against one's own interest, to turn away from the consideration of the real nature of the affair because the horror of its elements excites repugnance.

[....]

>War is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds; as one side dictates the law to the other, there arises a sort of reciprocal action, which logically must lead to an extreme.

First of all, for those interested in classical jurisprudence of jihad, I refer you to
Cont

[OP No.17542019]

>>17542016
The Distinguished Jurist's Primer, by Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Chapter 10 covers jihad. Those who are about to tell me he's a heretic, the controversy surrounding him is in regard to his theology, not his writing on jurisprudence, which no one has a problem with afaik.

As for contemporary theory (war has, as they say, "changed"), let's start with the sufi theory of jihad as presented by Shaykh Abd al-Hakim Murad (Timothy Winter)
>Under some circumstances, Muslim scholars will allow oppressed peoples to rebel against their oppressors. They might, therefore, classify the American War of Independence as a form of jihad, broadly understood. When Bosnia was faced with ethnic cleansing in 1992, the Muslim authorities there authorized the use of force to defend the country’s Muslim minority. The alternative would have been mass murder and mass rape, and therefore jihad was lawful. Furthermore, some Muslim scholars will permit a non-defensive ‘idealist’ war to establish justice and freedom in a neighboring country. This is analogous, perhaps, to the decision of the United Kingdom to declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939, in response to the German invasion of Poland. There are more recent analogies as well, including very recent instances in which Western powers have used force to overthrow tyrants such as Saddam Hussein.
https://ageofjahiliyah.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/abdal-hakim-murad-on-jihad-apostasy-rights-of-muslim-women/
It can be vividly contrasted with the Salafi conception of jihad: “Jihad is inviting the kuffar to the true dīn [religion] and fighting them if they do not accept.”
https://peopleoftawhid.org/the-meaning-of-jihad/


Musa Cerantonio's (an Australian imam currently serving several years in prison for joining ISIS in the Philippines) idea of jihad
https://archive.org/details/thefilthofnationalismandthehaqofjihadbysheikhmusacerantonio

So we can see a serious tension here. Sufi support for Ottoman
Cont

[OP No.17542022]

>>17542019
reform in the 19th Century ending the death sentence for apostasy and homosexuality further caused tension between Sufis and Wahhabis. As for against the Shia, this tension is for reasons already covered, Ali gave his daughter to Umar to marry and his public account is very different from the Shia one; Shia recognize this but consider it taqiyyah, as I said that's all been covered. However the political problems really kicked off when a Sufi order, the Safavids, embraced Shiaism, and purged the Sunnis of Persia, installing Arab Shia in their place, thus making Persia Shia. The Wahhabis rose some time after this and it was naturally a feud. In terms of today the Shia fighting alongside America in Iraq and Russia in Syria has further caused tension. But that did not necessarily endear the House of Saud to Salafi Jihadists, who despise it for the following reasons

https://peopleoftawhid.org/the-man-behind-the-ashes-the-story-of-juhayman-part-one/

In fact Osama Bin Laden adamantly opposed Saud-funded clerics
https://peopleoftawhid.org/state-employees/

As the situation in Syria developed it became clear to Saud that the jihadists who were gaining control were the ones who hated them, thus Saud asked for Russian intervention
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200807-revealed-saudis-mbs-pushed-russia-to-intervene-in-syria-conflict-despite-supporting-opposition/

To the radical Wahhabi, it is proper for men to embrace fighting. For a man to shun fighting is as perverse as a woman who shuns bearing children. Society is properly ruled by warriors (see Awlaqi, "Victory") and the rule by bankers instead of warriors has created a race of "pseudo men" (see ISIS manifesto on women). ISIS therefore holds that leadership of a people must take the battlefield and brags that their leaders are frequently killed (see ISIS Reader), regarding this as a form of spiritual renewal, whereas leaders staying away from the battlefield is seen as the enfeeblement of manhood and laying the basis for feminism.

This is as brief as I could make it, for further clarification see the thread link in the OP

Questions and comments welcome

[Anonymous No.17542037]

>>17542016
>"And we will ensure that freedom is realized by bombing the shit out of civilian populations"

[Anonymous No.17542045]

>>17542037
>at the behest of my Jewish masters
That bit is important anon.

[Anonymous No.17542057]

dont quite understand all the islamic jihadist scholarship threads lately but its honestly a lot better than most of the revolving recurrent shit threads here

[Anonymous No.17542063]

>>17542016
>OP on his way to posting on /lit/

[OP No.17542121]

>>17542045
Ironically this was Bin Laden's position

>America insisted on attacking entire peoples, including their children, their women, and their elderly. It is now clear that it is Israel that is behind all the attacks on states in the Islamic world. However, for fear that great popular movements will rise up and topple them, these collaborator regimes have conspired to save their own skin, regardless of their duties to Islam and Muslims. The feelings of these people were desensitized as much as America wanted, so the Jews were able to employ American and British Christians to do the job of attacking Iraq. America claims that it is bringing Iraq to account and to justice, but the fact is that the Israeli authority and the Jewish authority, which has become powerful inside the White House, as everyone can see—the Defence Minister is Jewish, the Secretary of State is Jewish, the CIA and National Security officials are Jewish, all the biggest officials are Jews—led the Christians to clip the wings of the Islamic world. Their real target is not Saddam Hussein but the growing power of the Arab and Islamic world, even if they struck the Iraqi people or—as they previously alleged in the sanctions against Libya—because they had a chemical weapons factory, or when they bombed the al-Shifa factory in Sudan, which was a pharmaceutical factory

[Anonymous No.17542133]

>>17542057
It's just propaganda, but pretty decent propaganda at least.

[Anonymous No.17542236]

>>17542016
OP make a thread about Isra Miraj and its meaning.

[Anonymous No.17542248]

>>17542016
Jihad is the revolt of the slave classes against their masters.

[Anonymous No.17542260]

>>17542121
>When we do it, its good, when you do it, its bad.
Its the same double moral standard all slaves use. If Bin Laden wants to judge, first let him and his followers become upright moral individuals themselves.

[OP No.17542273]

>>17542260
To be fair he fought with pretty strict standards for a while before changing tactics

[Anonymous No.17542300]

>>17542016

Ok, but you towelheads do get that Clausewitz isn't a Philosophy of Law writer, right?

[OP No.17542317]

>>17542300
Contemporary jurisprudence of jihad sometimes hinges on qisas

[Anonymous No.17542385]

>>17542317
>qisas
Civilized people say lex talionis but whatever the fuck, flaunt your degeneracy all you want mate.

[Anonymous No.17542403]

>>17542248
how can a post be so wrong

[Anonymous No.17542414]

>>17542385
>latin
the very foundations of western society is inherently degenerate

[Anonymous No.17542422]

>>17542057
isis is obviously recruiting on /lit/
pretty retarded desu. these hajjis think they can convince a bunch of pimply america neets to give up their pepperoni hot pockets and take up arms against the great satan. lol

[Anonymous No.17542456]

>>17542414
>the very foundations of western society is inherently degenerate
> and then they pretend they aren't at war with us.

[Anonymous No.17542461]

>>17542016
Peace be upon you, Friend.
You kebabis must be really utterly and tragically desperate if you’ve taken to spreading your misbegotten murder-doctrines on a Burmese yak milking forum populated almost exclusively by jobless virgins.

[Anonymous No.17542476]

>>17542461
We can do as we like. We merely ask politeness from your behalf.

[Anonymous No.17542484]

>>17542476
>We merely ask politeness from your behalf.

You don't know the meaning of the term.

[Anonymous No.17542485]

>>17542121
His analysis was correct, his cure wasn't
>>17542414
Everything was great before the tiny hats

[Anonymous No.17542490]

[Anonymous No.17542494]

>>17542016

A more important question is, imho, if jannies won't clean these fucking threads, does that mean they won't ban me for spamming French-on-Beurette porn in here either?

[Anonymous No.17542506]

>>17542494
do it

[Anonymous No.17542511]

>>17542484
Islam teaches us to be respectful and patient.

[OP No.17542517]

>>17542456
From a Sufi perspective the malady begins with the Reformation but from a Salafi perspective it begins with Plato and modernism is not just the problem but a symptom. Though the west were polytheists their fitra is regarded as a "clean slate" before Platonism distorted their values and perception

[Anonymous No.17542522]

>>17542511
very respectful indeed

[Anonymous No.17542525]

>>17542016
Thank you for your threads, OP. Can you also make one on Shi'ism?

[OP No.17542536]

>>17542525
You're welcome

I have, I think. I also covered Shia epistemology and political theory in the thread linked in the OP

[Anonymous No.17542540]

>>17542511
>Islam teaches us to be respectful and patient.

But it does not teaches you to be refined or cultured, which is the essence of being polite. If it did you would accept your role as breeding stock for cute beurettes who are then seduced by chad orientalist Frenchman and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.17542545]

>>17542540
incredibly based
how will the black pajamas ever recover

[OP No.17542546]

>>17542522
This is extremely dubious, I have also literally seen a report that ISIS issued fatwas saying kill kittens and babies with Downs. The only confirmed incident I know of in which ISIS burned someone in cold blood was the Jordanian pilot,which they have written quite a bit to defend

[Anonymous No.17542553]

>>17542546
How do you justify the rape farms then? There is not one shred of respect for human life and dignity in ISIL’s vicious treatment of women.

[Anonymous No.17542557]

>>17542517
>Sufi
>Salafi
bobobababagaga [inane bs about Plato] this is all I hear you stupid subhuman.

[OP No.17542566]

>>17542553
I don't know what a rape farm is. ISIS does approve of taking women captives and making them slaves, they argue this is an established practice in Islam and always has been, provided the women are treated gently and the children are acknowledged as legitimate. Hamza Yusuf and many other Sufis argue that though this used to be halal, through esoteric insight the sufi elders have determined it has now become haram.

[Anonymous No.17542568]

>>17542557

[Anonymous No.17542575]

>>17542553
Actually, I do not care what obscure tafsiric verse or hand-wringing defense you can come up with to somehow justify these horrific, well-documented, anti-human actions. Islam may be a religion of peace, but it is wielded hypocritically as a weapon of war and crude power-seeking in practice (no different from Christianity, or western secularism, at that, although often more brutal in application). I am disgusted by the actions of the jihadis, just as I am disgusted by the american drone strikes.

[OP No.17542587]

>>17542575
Who are you?

[Anonymous No.17542608]

>>17542568

> Zoom Again, Enlarge

[Anonymous No.17542648]

>>17542016
OP, im an artist, a painter. is islam cool with that? do i have to avoid painting people and stick to landscapes? or is that also iconographic? genuinely curious

[Anonymous No.17542660]

>>17542540
>But it does not teaches you to be refined or cultured, which is the essence of being polite.
Islam encourages willingness to learn. Knowledge is important to us.

[Anonymous No.17542662]

>>17542648
Not OP, but I think it depends on the sect. Wahhabis/Salafis are against art but Shi'ism very much encourages it.

[Anonymous No.17542684]

>>17542660

Learn to enjoy being a French Department, then.

[Anonymous No.17542691]

>>17542684
What?

[OP No.17542698]

>>17542648
Painting animate beings is forbidden unless it's abstract enough that it lacks facial details. If it's heavy impressionism and so on it's alright. Landscapes and plants is all halal

>>17542662
Sunnism is extremely iconoclast, Shi'ism is extremely iconophile and uses icons in prayers to their saints

[Anonymous No.17542709]

>>17542698
>Painting animate beings is forbidden unless it's abstract enough that it lacks facial details. If it's heavy impressionism and so on it's alright. Landscapes and plants is all halal
Are there any books dealing with this subject? In detail, not just the verses/hadiths where it's mentioned

[Anonymous No.17542720]

>>17542698
>Sunnism is extremely iconoclast, Shi'ism is extremely iconophile and uses icons in prayers to their saints
Saints yes, but it is forbidden to draw a face for the twelve Imams, the Prophets, or obviously a figure for God. That, in addition to naked or lustful images, is pretty much the only restriction Shi'ism places on paintings. What about Sunni view on other arts though? I've heard the Sunni think instrumental music is forbidden, but the Shi'i have no problems with it.

[Anonymous No.17542728]

>>17542698
Interesting. Are there exceptions made if it's for a non-artistic purpose, like say an illustration made for medical or veterinary reasons? Say a drawing of a face intended to help doctors understand anatomy.

[OP No.17542731]

>>17542709
Probably, most generally it's covered in fatwa collections and fiqh manuals though. Abstract being permitted is based on the fact that silhouettes of animate beings were used in decoration.or design by the followers of Muhammad ﷺ, so they're seen as not violating the prohibition on images. Since a lot of writing comew from pictographs it would be a problem anyhow. Really the only controversy is whether photos fall under images, or reflection

[Anonymous No.17542735]

Saint Ahmad al-Alawi. Thoughts on him and his order?

[OP No.17542741]

>>17542720
Every concentrated gathering of Shia I have encountered features images of Ali, رضي الله عنه

Yes Sunnis think instruments are forbidden except for certain things like announcing a wedding or eid a few select instruments are allowed

[Anonymous No.17542749]

>>17542698
>Painting animate beings is forbidden

Too late, the shamelessness of your women has already been captured by Western art.

[Anonymous No.17542755]

Just for everyone wondering, this is just propaganda. OP is using word tricks to convince desperate autists looking for grounding in a rotten world that the religion of ressentiment par excellence is actually very intellectual and peaceful.

[Anonymous No.17542760]

>>17542749
i would happily go live in that culture depicted tho

[Anonymous No.17542771]

>>17542760

Yes, the point is, OP would stone the people depicted in it.

[OP No.17542780]

>>17542735
I'm not familiar with the particulars of his order, perhaps you could enlighten me?

>>17542771
This is incorrect. Women in the household of their husband, father or owner don't have to be veiled. Even outside it failing to veil is twenty lashes I think, not stoning

[Anonymous No.17542783]

>>17542741
The sensitivity is on the facial features, which is disallowed to draw. I have seen a few drawings of the faces of Ali and other Imams, which struck me as odd. But generally the face of the Imams and the Prophets is painted as an orb of light, which they have no problem with.

[Anonymous No.17542789]

>>17542780
>This is incorrect. Women in the household of their husband, father or owner don't have to be veiled. Even outside it failing to veil is twenty lashes I think, not stoning

What about posing for a painting?

[Anonymous No.17542791]

>>17542780
>Even outside it failing to veil is twenty lashes I think, not stoning
That sounds fucking retarded. Lashing people because they aren't obscuring their natural bodies seems a bit hard to justify from a moral standpoint

[Anonymous No.17542794]

>>17542749
What is "shameless" here exactly? A man relaxing with his family?

[OP No.17542796]

>>17542783
There is a difference of opinion probably. Sunnis are tolerant of difference but Shia really are, for example they will often denounce saying Ali is Allah but refuse to make takfir over someone asserting it and will still pray with them and consider them a brother

[Anonymous No.17542797]

>>17542780
>or owner
lmao

[Anonymous No.17542805]

>>17542791
as someone living in a deteriorating hypergamous hellscape im not so sure i agree.

[OP No.17542806]

>>17542789
I don't know if anyone actually posed for this

>>17542791
So people shouldn't have to wear pants either?

[Anonymous No.17542826]

>>17542805
I suggest you move to nation where women are property. I don't think you'll like it
>>17542806
>So people shouldn't have to wear pants either?
Not being veiled is not the same as not wearing pants. Lashing because of an absence of a veil is hardly a reasonable stance

[OP No.17542830]

>>17542826
>Lashing because of an absence of a veil is hardly a reasonable stance
Face veil there is a difference of opinion on. Minority opinion is it's required, especially for women before menopause. Majority is that it's enjoined but not obligatory if her guardian doesn't require it

[Anonymous No.17542837]

>>17542830
>Majority is that it's enjoined but not obligatory if her guardian doesn't require it
Is this supposed to make me think it reasonable?

[Anonymous No.17542842]

>>17542806
>I don't know if anyone actually posed for this

I do. Benjamin-Constant painted from models.

[OP No.17542845]

>>17542837
Yes, of course. Islam is by definition the moderate way, Surat al-mustaqeem

[Anonymous No.17542848]

>>17542845
lol

[OP No.17542855]

>>17542842
Yes obviously I mean I don't know if they're everyday people in a regular scene of life, or selected by him from various sources for his setting

[Anonymous No.17542856]

>>17542796
>will still pray with them and consider them a brother
That is not true though. The Ali-Illahists are considered as Kaffirs by the Shia authority and are persecuted. It is said that even Ali himself beheaded a large number of them in his time.

[OP No.17542863]

>>17542856
Ali was not a Shia by Sunni reckoning

Alawites traditionally regard Ali as Allah. It's also worth noting that beliefs considered extreme by the Shia (such as corruption of the Qur'an) are often supported by their canonical Hadith books

[Anonymous No.17542869]

>>17542855

Nah, you are right, he visited Morocco in 72 but didn't paint most of these until 4~5 years later.

[Anonymous No.17542894]

>>17542826
>I suggest you move to nation where women are property. I don't think you'll like it
That's a pretty non sequiter response to the exchange we were having. I have a feeling it indicates that this (women as property) is your actual problem with the current topic. But why is that? To counter the point that my own society is a deteriorating hypergamous hellscape by saying there exist worse societies is frankly not even a counter.

[Anonymous No.17542909]

>>17542863
There are different sorts of Alawites. Those who view Ali as Allah are regarded as Kafirs by the Shia.
>It's also worth noting that beliefs considered extreme by the Shia (such as corruption of the Qur'an) are often supported by their canonical Hadith books
That is true, but partly. According to Shia Hadith, the current Quran is not compiled in the order it was revealed, this is because Abu Bakr and Uthman refused to take into account Ali's compilation of the Quran, which he dedicated his life to writing in the months following the Prophet's death. Aside from the order of the Surahs, the Quran is complete according to Shia Hadith, and the order is not seen as a problem really.

[Anonymous No.17542912]

>>17542894
>I have a feeling it indicates that this (women as property) is your actual problem with the current topic
Yes, and the underlying thought pattern associated
>But why is that? To counter the point that my own society is a deteriorating hypergamous hellscape by saying there exist worse societies is frankly not even a counter.
True, but if you want women (or anyone) to be property, then your thinking is more inline with the Muslim community, at least in a certain aspect. Lashing women for not wearing a veil is hardly an improvement compared to a deteriorating hypergamous hellscape

[Anonymous No.17542924]

>>17542912
I'm not super into the idea of lashing women, by default, but I'm also not super into the way they behave, de facto

[OP No.17542928]

>>17542909
>Those who view Ali as Allah are regarded as Kafirs by the Shia.
I think you're jumping the gun. Maybe some Shia regard them as kuffar but when was the last time any Shia put someone to death for this? Certainly the Alawites themselves do not consider it a serious issue or make takfir of those who do it

>the current Quran is not compiled in the order it was revealed,
Yes Sunnis agree

>this is because Abu Bakr and Uthman refused to take into account Ali's compilation of the Quran
Stronger narrations say it is compiled in the order Muhammad ﷺ recited it in

>Aside from the order of the Surahs, the Quran is complete according to Shia Hadith
No there are Hadiths in Shia canonical collections which say otherwise but they're rejected

The order would obviously be a huge problem, if you take a moment you think about it you would realize putting someone's words in a different order than intended can drastically alter meaning

[Anonymous No.17542934]

>>17542924
There is a middle ground to be had, I am sure you agree. I don't want to fix society at the cost of "freedom"

[Anonymous No.17542935]

>>17542924
If you want a behavior the prevented, you need to enforce a deterrent for it. If you lash a woman once for not covering herself, thereafter they all will cover themselves and there will be no need for lashing ordinarily. But if you don't enforce a deterrent, everyone will act as they please. This applies to all sorts of behavior and all sorts of people. A deterrent is what keeps people in check.

[Anonymous No.17542940]

>>17542016
God be with you, from a Christian brother who does not believe our two faiths to be irreconcilable.

[Anonymous No.17542948]

>>17542935
Values can be instilled in more ways than by lashing people as if they're dogs. Correcting society through enforcement and severity is a cure worse than the disease, I think

[Anonymous No.17542950]

>>17542940
Christianity is already subsumed in Islam.

[Anonymous No.17542953]

Thoughts on the Naqshbandi?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9wD8j1jos4

[Anonymous No.17542954]

>>17542940
Which book is the actual word of God?

[Anonymous No.17542955]

>>17542950
Christian and Jewish scholars would argue the same, but I seek a syncretism nonetheless.

[OP No.17542957]

>>17542940
They're irreconcilable, doctrinally. They can coexist however

[Anonymous No.17542966]

>>17542948
If we suddenly abolished the police and the prisons, do you think you could "instill" values in people in order to prevent all the crimes? To some extent yes, the values a society holds determines the way the people in it ordinarily live. But you still need to keep those outliers in check, otherwise those minority of outliers will subvert the values you instilled.

[Anonymous No.17542971]

>>17542966
>If we suddenly abolished the police and the prisons, do you think you could "instill" values in people in order to prevent all the crimes?
That does not follow from what I said
>to some extent yes, the values a society holds determines the way the people in it ordinarily live. But you still need to keep those outliers in check, otherwise those minority of outliers will subvert the values you instilled.
If you can only keep women "in check" by lashing them, then that does not speak well of your society, and the solution itself is regression

[Anonymous No.17542974]

>>17542957
Not at all, doctrine hinges solely on interpretation. I have been discussing it with a Sufi colleague of mine, and he agrees (accepting some degree of compromise on both sides) a syncretism can be reached. Expect such a movement within our lifetimes.

[Anonymous No.17542984]

>>17542928
>The order would obviously be a huge problem, if you take a moment you think about it you would realize putting someone's words in a different order than intended can drastically alter meaning
It is argued that it is not a problem because the contents of the Qur'an are absolute and timeless. Keep in mind it is only the Surahs that are out of order, but there is no such problem for each Surah individually.

[OP No.17543018]

>>17542953
Very conservative, I believe

>>17542974
Hinges on truth

>>17542984
So do Shia used Ali's order?

[Anonymous No.17543036]

>>17543018
>So do Shia used Ali's order?
No, Ali kept his compilation hidden and did not release it. He only showed it to people once after finishing wiriting it. Since Ali had no problem with it being out of order, the Shia also do not have a problem.

[Anonymous No.17543041]

>>17542575
Based and warpilled anon. We have no horses in this war game and I wish more would see this

[Anonymous No.17543050]

>>17542954
Read the bhagavad gita l and you'll get your answer.

[Anonymous No.17543055]

>>17543050
What makes it more credible than others?

[Anonymous No.17543069]

>>17542121
>its da joooos
nice conspiracy theory idiot

[Anonymous No.17543104]

>>17542974
Prophet Muhammad said "Whoever interprets the Qur’an with his own opinion, let his seat fall from the Fire."

[Anonymous No.17543110]

>>17543018
Divine truth is uncovered a little at a time over the ages by earnest men working to uncover it.

[OP No.17543121]

>>17543036
>Ali kept his compilation hidden
But Shia say this about a lot of things they ascribe to him

>>17543110
It's revealed

[Anonymous No.17543128]

>>17543104
A anti-intellectual stance frequently parroted mirrored identically in Christianity; we interpret not through opinion, but through faith and wisdom dispensed by God through study.

[Anonymous No.17543131]

>>17543121
So you believe, because you are a lay worshiper, but much still remains concealed.

[Anonymous No.17543138]

>>17543121
>But Shia say this about a lot of things they ascribe to him
Of course. Because of the oppressive government of the first three Caliphs, Ali had to convey a lot of his teachings in private. This also happened to the later Imams, who were all heavily persecuted by the Caliphs of their time and were not allowed to teach publically, so Shi'ism used to be very closed circle.

[Anonymous No.17543146]

>>17542019
Jihad is basically Islamic version of casus belli and it can be many things to many people.

[Anonymous No.17543171]

>>17543055
I didn't say it was more credible than others. I just said if you read it you'll find the answer.

[Anonymous No.17543178]

>>17543128
You can twist the semantics of words as much as you want, but the fact remains that the Prophet said many verses of the Quran must be taken literally (the verses known as Muhkamat). You cannot interpret just anything you want.

[Anonymous No.17543187]

>>17543178
If you come at me with that quranist shit I will slap you. Of course it's supposed to be taken literally.

[OP No.17543190]

>>17543138
This isn't consistent with Ali's character however to publicly praised oppressors and marry his daughter to them while privately speaking I'll of them. Ay least not from a Sunni account of him, which is a very powerful and courageous man who would go against bigger men without a second thought. The idea Umar (whom Shia say is a coward) could push him around and hurt his family as he cowarded really stretches credulity, especially when Ali's account is that Umar was righteous, Ali was just saying this out of fear? He married his daughter to him out if fear? And the true account comes through a chain with known liars which has to be accepted on the basis of sometimes liars tell the truth? And these Hadiths were reported in Iraq and Imam Ja'far said it's nonsense but that was just taqiyyah on his part? Something doesn't add up

[Anonymous No.17543193]

>>17543050
This was the book that convinced me to embrace religion again which ultimately lead me to Islam. Keep in mind Muslim scholars have commented on vedic literature and how it affirms Tawhid.

[Anonymous No.17543243]

>>17543190
Not fear, but he didn't want to cause needless division among the Ummah right after the Prophet's death. Keep in mind the teachings which the Prophet taught Ali in private, who taught his descendants in turn, were taught in private for a reason. People were not ready for the deeper esoteric aspects of Islam, just barely accepting its dogmatic side, so it were taught in private.

[OP No.17543257]

>>17543243
He didn't want to cause needless division so he supposedly founded a sectarian division that is the longest lasting religious feud in history?

[Anonymous No.17543260]

>>17543193
It certainly does. I'm glad you you found your path. After all the Sufis are said to follow the advice of Krishna better than most.

[Anonymous No.17543264]

>>17543187
All of it taken literally? Many parts, according to Quranic verses, are allegorical (i.e. Mutashabih).

[Anonymous No.17543270]

>>17543264
>All of it taken literally?
Yes. It's a fundamental axiom of the faith upon which other conclusions are built. Is you disregard that you will be building your axioms upon shaky foundations.

[Anonymous No.17543276]

>>17543257
So what would you rather he did? Just forget about the Prophet's private teachings?

[OP No.17543281]

>>17543264
Not everyone would agree with that. In fact most Sunnis wouldn't. There are examples taken to be metaphors but they're typically similies or idioms

[Anonymous No.17543286]

>>17543276
>Just forget about the Prophet's private teachings?
Obviously the Prophet wouldn't deliberately start a schism from the get go until today, therefore he's a lyand there were no teachings

[OP No.17543289]

>>17543276
I think if Abu Bakr and Umar were actually kuffar then it would have been disgusting for him to try to keep unified with them let alone marry his daughter to a kaffir which is invalid

[Anonymous No.17543298]

>>17543281
>>17543270
God Sunnis are retarded bros.

[Anonymous No.17543306]

>>17543270
Yes, but one of the axioms, according to the Quran (3:7 pasted below), is that there are Mutashabih (ie allegorical) verses.
هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُ َرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِ ُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

[OP No.17543308]

>>17543298
It's not really retarded because if there is allegory it has to be clear otherwise anyone can just obliterate a teaching or account as allegory and everything is subjective

[Anonymous No.17543309]

>>17543298
DIE KAFIR

[OP No.17543315]

>>17543306
"Allegorical" is not how Sunnis understand this term and doesn't really fit the context

[Anonymous No.17543317]

>>17543306
>He is the One who has revealed to you the Book (the Qur’ān). Out of it there are verses that are MuHkamāt (of established meaning), which are the principal verses of the Book, and some others are Mutashābihāt (whose definite meanings are unknown). Now those who have perversity in their hearts go after such part of it as is mutashābih, seeking (to create) discord, and searching for its interpretation (that meets their desires), while no one knows its interpretation except Allah; and those well-grounded in knowledge say: “We believe therein; all is from our Lord.” Only the men of understanding observe the advice

That's a wrong translation and you are literally doing what the ayah you posted is warning you about

[Anonymous No.17543335]

>>17543286
So what if the people couldn't fathom esoteric teachings of Islam? Would you rather he didn't teach them at all, or taught them private?
>>17543289
Downright "kafir" is different from not being the legitmate sucessor of the Prophet. It's not so black and white.

[Anonymous No.17543345]

>>17543308
>>17543317
I just posted the first translation that google brought me. Let's have a few more.
>He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

>He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

They all say the same thing.

[Anonymous No.17543351]

>>17543308
The allegorical verses must be interpreted with respect to the foundational ones (Muhkamat). That is why it is not arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.17543370]

>>17543335
>So what if the people couldn't fathom esoteric teachings of Islam? Would you rather he didn't teach them at all, or taught them private
I yield to this line of reasoning. It's better to have guidance than not.

[Anonymous No.17543378]

>>17543345
OMG did you just autistically went and replaced every word with allegorical?

[Anonymous No.17543386]

>>17543370
In that case, I highly suggest reading Ali's book Nahj al-Balagha and Imam Sajjad's book Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. Both are extremely illuminating about the teachings of Islam.

[Anonymous No.17543393]

>>17543378
Please do not be so uncharitable. Here is the link I got translations from. See for yourself.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0006%3Asura%3D3%3Averse%3D7

[Anonymous No.17543400]

>>17543308
Language is imperfect. We do not have the means to illustrate the divine through straightforward verse lacking subtlety or allusion. What you have grasped is the "artful means" by which law is made communicable to the layperson, no more.

[OP No.17543418]

>>17543335
>Downright "kafir" is different from not being the legitmate sucessor of the Prophet
He's a kaffir according to the Shia

[Anonymous No.17543445]

>>17543393
I apologize but here's the top 5 translations (the one you posted is just under them) on quran.com and none of them use the word allegorical. They use definite and indefinite meaning, unclear and clear and similar, but none of them use allegorical as it has quite a specific connotation.

[Anonymous No.17543453]

>>17543386
>I highly suggest reading Ali's book Nahj al-Balagha and Imam Sajjad's book Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. Both are extremely illuminating about the teachings of Islam.
I might actually do that as that part of Islam is quite a blank to me.

[Anonymous No.17543489]

>>17543445
Well then, I'm happy that you confirmed I didn't change any of the three translations I posted. If you know a little Arabic, we can look at the word itself. "متشبه" means literally what is likened, coming from the root verb "شبه", ie "to liken". In any case, even if we translate it as "indefinite", what difference would it make? It similarly conveys that the verse cannot be taken literally.

[Anonymous No.17543492]

>>17542057
Federal agents.

[Anonymous No.17543493]

>>17543193
What led you to Islam? It seems like such a limiting choice for someone who is aware of God extending his hand to every willing human no matter their religion.

[Anonymous No.17543513]

>>17543453
That would certainly be a worthwhile endeavor. If you also want a concise introduction to Shi'ism from a Shia authority, I recommend Shi'ite Islam by Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai.

[Anonymous No.17543523]

>>17543489
>In any case, even if we translate it as "indefinite", what difference would it make? It similarly conveys that the verse cannot be taken literally.
Indefinite would imply the meaning is not know, or we can't be quite sure of what the meaning is. Allegorical has quite distinct meaning that it's all just a fable and you take from it whatever message you get.

[Anonymous No.17543639]

>>17542557
degenerate, as i said. the west today is irrecognizable to your greater ancestors who fought with mine with honor.

[Anonymous No.17543660]

>>17542485
>Everything was great before the tiny hats
Ah yes the greeks and romans were homos because of the jews

[Anonymous No.17543664]

>>17543493
I actually started from German Idealism, reading Hindu literature on Schopenhauer's prompting. What at first convinced me of the truth of Islam was Nasr's description of how Allah, being the Divine Oneness, outwardly manifests itself through his Divine names, which if you have read Schopenhauer eerily corresponds to his philosophy (the names corresponding to Platonic Ideas). What convinced me of Shi'ism in particular was the descriptions of Allah from Shia Imams, Allah being outside of time and space, being even beyond existing, of which no description could be provided, for describing it is the same as limiting it, which again corresponds to Schopenhauer's description of the thing-in-itself. Of course there are some perhaps less important differences between the philosopher's metaphysics and Islam, but having been convinced of the Divine origin of Islam, I attribute the differences to the imperfection of human intellect.

I understand that the legalistic aspect of the religion might seem limiting from the outside, but I assure you, familiarizing oneself with it, it is indispensable as it solves every problem in human conduct by giving it the best possible structure.

[Anonymous No.17544047]

>>17542546
They burned some Turkish soldiers too.

[Anonymous No.17544060]

>>17542522
This doesn't even make sense. Headline seems to have no understanding of what a slave is, it's not something you opt-in to.

[Anonymous No.17544461]

bump

[Anonymous No.17544572]

>>17543660
Islam doesnt fix inbreeding and kiddy diddling

[Anonymous No.17544596]

Reminder that this is is just propaganda. OP is using word tricks to convince desperate autists looking for grounding in a rotten world that the religion of ressentiment par excellence is actually very intellectual and peaceful.

[Anonymous No.17544615]

>>17543131
Not that poster, but I think you fundamentally are misunderstanding Islam. Even though Sufis believe in concealed esoteric truth, they're a fringe within Islam and still have to work within a context of the hadithes and jurisprudence.
Your beliefs seem to reflect protestant reformation beliefs, which is fine, but it cannot simply be extrapolated onto a different context. Your entire conception of time as something leading to greater truth is alien to the magian culture Islam comes out of, and the Islamic conception of history is one of revelation followed by decline.

[Anonymous No.17544619]

>>17544596
Seething gaytheist

[Anonymous No.17544621]

>>17544596
this, don’t fall for the bait, you tender autists. i don’t want to see any of you end up wearing a kufi and a silly beard standing on a street corner calling me “my brother” and trying to sell me perfume oils.

[Anonymous No.17544705]

>>17544596
Why would Muslims resent the westm you are delusional

[Anonymous No.17544741]

>>17544619
Except that I'm not an atheist nor gay, sorry
>>17544621
kek
>>17544705
Ressentiment, anon. Islam is much like wokeism in that regard.

[Anonymous No.17544786]

>>17544741
>Ressentiment, anon. Islam is much like wokeism in that regard.
This, a sentiment of righteous outrage, wounded superiority and justified vengeance is deeply seeded in modern Islamic discourse... just take this thread, for example. They’re basically SJWs with more praying, more fasting, more regulations, more suicide bombing, tastier food, and less bright neon hair dye (actually that last point is debatable).

[Anonymous No.17544805]

>>17544786
>why yes I ignore the best of Islam and focus exclusively on the lowest common denominator for the reasons I'm not even aware of

[Anonymous No.17544838]

>>17544705

Same reason Cain resented Abel: God rewarded Abel's sacrifice while Cain had nothing to show for his.

[Anonymous No.17544848]

>>17544805
I don’t ignore the best, friend. I have a dear friend from Palestine who is a devout Muslim. Once I heard her reciting Mujawwad with her sister over the phone, and it was one of the most beautiful things I’ve heard...

But I reserve my right to critique the religion’s followers and their many flaws, hypocrisies, and shortcomings, just as I likewise critique Christians, Jews, and secularists.

[Anonymous No.17544861]

>>17544805
There's the car.
Now explode.

[Anonymous No.17544900]

>>17542461
based bro

[OP No.17545883]

>>17543400
I go by daleel. Anyone can say anything but there's a million wisemen with fifty million interpretations and it's effectively static. Factor in daleel and it tunes quite a bit out. Daleel is shaytan's enemy

[OP No.17546031]

>>17543664
Shia theology is definitely not in accordance with Schopenhauer as it affirms free will, absolutely no similarity to German idealism really. It's closer to Plotinus, apophatic theology isn't the same as phenomenology

[Anonymous No.17546169]

all of this islam spam on /lit/ is slowly making me racist

[OP No.17546220]

>>17544047
Yeah two of them probably for the same reason. It's not something that would apply to many captives

[OP No.17546333]

>>17546169
I think several Muslims on this board are white, anon

[Anonymous No.17547560]

Is the Sealed Nectar a good book if I am interested in Islam?

[OP No.17547935]

>>17547560
Yes it's excellent however if you are getting the English one make sure it's the revised edition since the original translation into English is like Chinese bootleg

[Anonymous No.17549312]

>>17547935
Thanks for the warning

[Anonymous No.17550282]

>>17546031
Please note that I confirmed there are differences but what struck me was the similarity between the underlying metaphysical structure. In his own way, Schopenhauer affirms Tawhid by demonstrating that the true reality of the world is what he calls the Will, which is One and the same everywhere, despite that we could have inner perception of it, and not subject to change, not subject to time and space, and responsible for the existence of the material world by manifesting itself through archetypes and thereby individuating itself into the material world. So the Will, transcendentally is One, and after individuation through the platonic archetypes, it falsely appears to be of multitude despite yet being One. If this description sounds Platonistic, it is because Schopenhauer revived Platonism and reconciled it with Kant. Here is a Hadith from Ali, reminiscent of the prior description:
>So whoso describes God-glory be to Him-has given Him a comrade (i.e. the description). Whoso gives Him a comrade has declared Him to be two (tathniyah). Whoso declares Him to be two has divided Him. Whoso divides Him is ignorant of Him. (Whoso is ignorant of Him points to Him).34 Whoso points to Him has delimited Him. Whoso delimits Him has numbered Him. Whoso says, 'In what is He ?', has enclosed Him. Whoso says, 'On what is He ?', has excluded Him (from certain things). He is a being (ka'in) not as the result of temporal origin (hadath), an existent (mawjud) not (having come) from nonexistence (adam). He is with everything, not through association (muqaranah); and He is other than everything, not through separation (muzayalah). He is active (fa'il), not in the sense of possessing movement and instruments. He was seeing when there was none of His creatures to be observed by Him. He was 'alone' (mutawahhid) when there was none with whom to be intimate and at whose loss to feel lonely."
And from Nasr which I mentioned earlier:
>Only the sage is able to understand and know, in the fullest sense of these terms, that God is the Immanent as well as the Transcendent and to completely grasp the sense of the verse: “Whithersoever ye turn, there is the Face of God” (2:115). Moreover, the sage can gain this understanding only by virtue of his or her having realized the Divine Transcendence (ta‘ālī) , for the Divine reveals itself as the Immanent only by virtue of having been first known and experienced as the Transcendent. [...] Furthermore, the [Divine] Essence delimits Itself in the Divine Names and Qualities that constitute the very principles of cosmic manifestation and are the ultimate archetypes of all that exists, both macrocosmically and microcosmically. The Quran asserts: “To God belong the most beautiful Names; call Him by these Names” (7:180). [...] The universe and all that is in it are woven of the theophanies and reflections of the Divine Names, which, as already mentioned, play a central role in both Islamic thought and piety.
Cont.

[Anonymous No.17550321]

>>17546031
Regarding Free Will, I understand that Schopenhauer is known for his arguments against Free Will, but that is only a part of story. Rather, he defended a sort of compatibility. Accordingly, he argued that we have freedom transcendentally but not immanently. That is, we, in a way, choose our path in life before coming into the material world, but once we are individuated and born, we are trapped in a series of pre-determined causes and effects, which however, we chose before coming into the world. He affirms what I described in this passage:
>In short, determinism stands firm; for fifteen hundred years attempts to undermine it have been made in vain. They have been urged by certain queer ideas which we know quite well, but dare not call entirely by their name. In consequence of it, however, the world becomes a puppet show worked by wires (motives) without its even being possible to see for whose amusement. If the piece has a plan, then a fate is the director; if it has no plan, blind necessity is the director. There is no escape from this absurdity other than the knowledge that the being and essence of all things are the phenomenon of a really free will that knows itself precisely in them; for their doing and acting are not to be delivered from necessity. To save freedom from fate or chance, it had to be transferred from the action to the existence.
Incidentally, Shi'ism also holds a sort of compatibilism, where we each being is responsible for his actions, and yet all actions are determined by Allah. The Fifth Imam affirms this:
>God loves His creation so much that He will not force it to commit sin and then punish it. And God is so powerful that whatever He commands comes to be.
and the Sixth Imam:
>God is so generous that He does not make it a duty for men to do what is not in their power. He is so powerful that nothing comes into being in His kingdom which He does not will.
Keep in mind, however, despite these similarities, dissimilarities are bound to follow, as Schopenhauer was operating solely through intellect and did not have access to divine revelations. Despite that, it seems he did well in his attempt to understand the world.

[Anonymous No.17550424]

>>17542720
>it is forbidden to draw a face for the twelve Imams
no it isn't, I've seen icons of husayn with faces

[Anonymous No.17550435]

>>17542749
>implying orientalist painters actually visited the middle east instead of just conjuring up racist fantasies
oy vey

[Anonymous No.17550441]

>>17542863
tahrif al-qur'an is supported by sunni hadith books too no? at least surahs or parts of surahs being lost is

[OP No.17550470]

>>17550282
First of all I don't think the Qur'an or Hadiths support immanence of Allah.

>>17550321
Schopenhauer saw human will as merely the Will, I don't think Shia do

>>17550441
No, not by any Hadith with a chain , they're all classed as fabricated

[Anonymous No.17550514]

>>17550470
>First of all I don't think the Qur'an or Hadiths support immanence of Allah.
I am not sure, but Nasr wouldn't just make things up, would he? At any rate, even if we consider the immanent world as something as not Allah, it does not change the core of the argument. The immanence could just as well be considered Allah's creations, while the Transcendent be considered His self.
>Schopenhauer saw human will as merely the Will
Again, I said multiple times that there are differences. But what does this even mean? Note that the Will could be considered in different senses. In one sense, the whole world is the manifestation of the Will. In other sense, each being is a particular individuation of the Will. Is it not said in the Qur'an that Allah breathed his own Soul into humans?
>ألَّذِى أَحْسَنَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ خَلَقَهُ وَبَدَأَ خَلْقَ الْإِنْسَانِ مِن طِينٍ * ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِن سُلاَلَةٍ مِّن مَّآءٍ مَّهِينٍ * ثُمَّ سَوَّاهُ وَنَفَخَ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِهِ وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمَعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَ الْأَفْئِدَةَ قَلِيلاً مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ
>(It is He) Who made good everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust. Then He made his progeny of an extract of water held in light estimation. Then He made him complete and breathed into him of His spirit, and made for you the ears and the eyes and the hearts; little is it that you give thanks. (32:7-9)
This breathing of his Spirit into humans could just as well be interpreted as the individuation of the Will.

[OP No.17550623]

>>17550514
I don't regard Nasr as an ‘Alim

The Will for Schopenhauer is the noumenal so talking about it being inside of things is a bit tricky as that's a phenomenal consideration

You could interpret it any number of ways but I stick with the Sahaba

[Anonymous No.17550662]

>>17550623
>The Will for Schopenhauer is the noumenal so talking about it being inside of things is a bit tricky as that's a phenomenal consideration
Yes, that is the intricacy of his thought. The Will although One everywhere, is present inside of each phenomenal being. So the phenomenal division is in some sense illusory the Will is undivided. Considering the verse I posted above, one would not say that, by breathing from His soul into something else Allah has divided himself. That would contradict Tawhid. It is a similar case in Schopenhauer's system.
>You could interpret it any number of ways but I stick with the Sahaba
Of course, and I too will stick with the Prophet and the Twelve Imams. I am not by any means arguing that Schopenhauer was a retroactive Muslim or anything so absurd. The poster asked what lead me to Islam, and I described how these similarities lead me to it.

[OP No.17550951]

>>17550662
> is present inside of each phenomenal being.
I'm not sure you understand Schopenhauer or German idealism

I stick with the sound narrations of such imams

[Semitoskeptic No.17551087]

>>17543069
Here you go, retard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

>A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm(commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led byRichard PerleforBenjamin Netanyahu, the thenPrime Minister of Israel.[1]The report explained a new approach to solvingIsrael's security problems in theMiddle Eastwith an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal ofSaddam Husseinfrom power inIraqand the containment ofSyriaby engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction". Certain parts of the policies set forth in the paper were rejected by Netanyahu.[2][3]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZRlatDWqh0o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#People_associated_with_the_PNAC

>click those names
>check early life

Unironically, it was the neocons during Bush's regime that planted my interest in Jewish group behavior on host countries. When I found out about the Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution, I was not surprised. Additionaly, the neocons trace their ideological lineage to Jewish trotskyists that abandoned their allegiance to the Soviet Union during Stalin's purges.

Semitoskepticism is the future and shall be the fashionable cousin of antisemitism.

[Anonymous No.17551197]

>>17542016
.gg/xFbgVnvcjp

[Anonymous No.17551326]

>>17542016
what's your take on this hadith OP? from sahih muslim

Musa b. Talha reported:
I and Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) happened to pass by people near the date-palm trees. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What are these people doing? They said: They are grafting, i. e. they combine the male with the female (tree) and thus they yield more fruit. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: I do not find it to be of any use. The people were informed about it and they abandoned this practice. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) (was later) on informed (that the yield had dwindled), whereupon he said: If there is any use of it, then they should do it, for it was just a personal opinion of mine, and do not go after my personal opinion; but when I say to you anything on behalf of Allah, then do accept it, for I do not attribute lie to Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.

[Anonymous No.17551327]

>>17550951
>I'm not sure you understand Schopenhauer or German idealism
If there is any mistakes you detected, please be so kind as to point it out to me. Keep in mind Schopenhauer goes a few steps further than Kant, and makes assertions about the noumenon and its relation to the phenomena.

[OP No.17551392]

>>17551326
It means Muhammad ﷺ does not expect imitating his personal preference (not considered opinion) on matters of technical expertise

>>17551327
Space and time are phenomenal

[Anonymous No.17551411]

>>17551392
>his personal preference (not considered opinion)
where and how is this established? It would seem that for something not to be preference, it would have to include "speaking on behalf of Allah", which seems rather specific.

[OP No.17551429]

>>17551411
This is established by looking at the extensive collection of total Hadiths, this always has to be done to clarify what Muhammad ﷺ means before a ruling is established. For example he says when there are two choices, go with what is easier. There is potentially unlimited latitude for understanding this injunction however it becomes rapidly circumscribed if it examined in relation to everything else he did and said, and the meaning becomes clear and specific

[Anonymous No.17551460]

>>17551392
>Space and time are phenomenal
Of course, I did not claim to the contrary. Yet conscious beings have a direct access to the Will by reflecting inwardly.

[Anonymous No.17551462]

>>17551429
but this would seem to establish with full clarity that not everything he said and did should be taken as a leading example, saws, which somewhat undermines the idea that the truth is the aggregate of the ahadith. As you can perhaps tell I strongly suspect that somewhere along the line this tradition has become incredibly padded, when it was originally simple, and that this position finds some support in the ahadith. One does, for instance, not have to go deep into sahih al bukhari to find a very simple deen being presented as adequate.

[OP No.17551578]

>>17551460
This is where Schopenhauer is weakest since it's rationalization the direct access is to

>>17551462
Islam is extremely simple and Muhammad ﷺ was a very simple man. In fact one could argue the most difficult thing about Islam is it's simplicity. Rather people do not like it when Muhammad ﷺ says huts with dirt floors are preferable to advanced housing or that it is considered Islamically better to not own furniture and sit on the floor and sleep on a cot and eat with your hands