Islam General

[Anonymous No.5309648]

I liked last thread so here we go, discuss anything Islam related here, the Q'uran, Hadith, Sufism, anything really

[Anonymous No.5309694]

>>5309648

Why Islams stance toward music so fragmented?

Some say totally haram, others say just vocals no instruments, other still say that though it is discouraged it is not technically haram.

Can someone who knows more fill me in?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK9721v_V0E

[Anonymous No.5309707]

>>5309694
Islam as a whole is fragmented a lot I'd argue, but to answer your question, it changes - in Sufi circles I'm in, music is almost revered for its ability to make unbelievers chant the name of God just out of sheer rhythm

The reason for that is some hadith, afaik, but then we get shit like contradictory hadiths

[dfw No.5309717]

>>5309648
the alawites are the most infidel group on earth

[Anonymous No.5309896]

Asking for some Muslims to comment on these musics, indicate as to whether they are haram.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqaIY1kuckg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC-g5I-QsH4

[Anonymous No.5309987]

>>5309648
I read that some of the early, peaceful parts of the Q'uran are negated by the later, more warlike parts. Is this internet bullshit, or does it have somee grounding in the book?

[Anonymous No.5310010]

If Wahhabi's want to return to the lifestyle as lived by the Prophet in the 6/7th centuries, why don't they all speak classical arabic?

Why isn't classical arabic the standard spoken and understood by all?

[Anonymous No.5310720]

>>5309987
>I read that some of the early, peaceful parts of the Q'uran are negated by the later, more warlike parts. Is this internet bullshit, or does it have somee grounding in the book?

Mostly BS. There is a Qur'anic doctrine of abrogation, but there are tons of different theories regarding what can be/is abrogated. In actual practice, extremely few people consider all of the "peaceful verses" to be abrogated and they continue to be cited frequently.

>>5310010
>If Wahhabi's want to return to the lifestyle as lived by the Prophet in the 6/7th centuries, why don't they all speak classical arabic?

Everybody speaks Classical Arabic in formal/official contexts regardless of religiosity. There's a lot of code-switching depending on the situation and you can hear ISIS dudes transition to a more "classical" register as they wax sanctimonious.

>Why isn't classical arabic the standard spoken and understood by all?

It's understood by pretty much all Arabic-speakers and most of them can speak it to varying extents, but it's only used in certain situations. As far as colloquial speech is concerned, it's the natural tendency of a mother language to devolve into regional dialects after being spread over such a large area.

[Anonymous No.5311493]

>>5309987
While abrogation (nash, I think) is used by sect scholars to make their customs seem more legit, some scholars argue that, since the Q'uran is the word of God, abrogation through the uses of later verses can enter Kufr, since you're essentially saying God got it wrong first time

[Anonymous No.5311505]

[Anonymous No.5311508]

>>5309648
If some of the verses Gabriel told Mohammed were satanic in origin, how can we safely affirm the divine origin of the others? And why does mentioning these things in a novel get you a fatwa?

[Anonymous No.5311521]

>>5309648
why?

[Anonymous No.5311566]

>>5311505
Marital rape has only been regarded as a crime in western countries for abut 30 years. It's unsurprising that an old book has old fashioned ideas.

[Anonymous No.5311569]

>>5309648
>>5311508
Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá
and Manāt, the third, the other?
These are his exalted birds, whose intercession is hoped for.

[Anonymous No.5311603]

>>5311508
Teenagers in Iraq get stoned on the street for wearing jeans. You don't need a fatwa to get killed by a muslim.

>he's not a sinner
>he'll go to Heaven
>he's a sinner
>I did good

Religious logic in it's most pure intent. Which is the reason medieval Europeans drowned women without a second thought.
"She's not a witch? Whoops. She'll go to Heaven then no biggie, teehee."

[Anonymous No.5311823]

>>5311505
>white male
>token black guy
>white girl
What is this Hollywood-style formulaic propaganda bullshit?

[Anonymous No.5311955]

Reminder that persians, even though they lost their original culture and religion, perfected islam.

[Anonymous No.5311958]

>>5311955
>persians
>still in existence

[Anonymous No.5311961]

Could someone explain this to me? Theyre sunnis and/or shias, yet look at that, I dont get it. Different sects in sunni/shia islam?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madhhab_Map2.png

[Anonymous No.5311962]

>>5311603
I'm in Turkey right now and I was told that if people saw me drinking a beer out on the street on a Friday night during Ramadan they would probably fuck me up.

[Anonymous No.5311971]

Are Druze considered Shia muslims? IIRC they separated during the fatimid era, the fatimids were shia, i believe they believe that a presumed murdered guy will return.

Whats the relationship between syrian, lebanese and iraqi shias with iran? Do they follow the same shia beliefs? Do they look to iran as their protectore? Sort of like serbia looks up to russia.

[Anonymous No.5311986]

is someone here an imam and can tell us what islam is about

inb4 MIDF/JIDF

[Anonymous No.5311999]

>>5310720
>Everybody speaks Classical Arabic in formal/official contexts regardless of religiosity.
Nope Classical arabic=! Standard Arabic

Standard Arabic is what's taught in most muslim nation's schools, but classical and standard are pretty much mutually intelligible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Arabic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Arabic

[Anonymous No.5312000]

>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5312021]

>>5312000

[Anonymous No.5312028]

>>5311971
>Are Druze considered Shia muslims?
Nah, look at lebanon, that's two distinct things.
>Whats the relationship between syrian, lebanese and iraqi shias with iran?
Iran tries to rouse the rabble in an export of their own shitty revolution, bulding stuff like Hezbullah in Lebanon, or the Madhi Army in Iraq. Pious shias probably do look to Iran.

Iran is dominated by the largest subset of shia, the twelvers, but there are others, most notably the zaidis, who follow five instead of twelve imams, and the ismaili, known mostly for their glory days as hashashim.

[Anonymous No.5312043]

>>5312021
I am Florescent Onyx Pill. Anyone who says a discussion of that doesn't belong here, is clearly a fat virgin.

[Anonymous No.5312066]

>>5311986
BLOOD AND THUNDER

[Anonymous No.5312142]

>>5311999
>Nope Classical arabic=! Standard Arabic

Thank you for the pedantry, but Arabic itself doesn't distinguish between them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusha

[Anonymous No.5312152]

>>5311493
>abrogation (nash, I think)

naskh نسخ

not to be confused with the calligraphic style of the same name

[Anonymous No.5312174]

>>5311508
>If some of the verses Gabriel told Mohammed were satanic in origin, how can we safely affirm the divine origin of the others?

The historicity of the "satanic verses" incident isn't supported by any reliable chain of transmission. The reports associated with it are regarded as fabrications, like many others.

>>5311603
>Teenagers in Iraq get stoned on the street for wearing jeans

lel

Go to almost any Arab country other than Saudi and the majority of dudes will be wearing jeans.

>Could someone explain this to me? Theyre sunnis and/or shias, yet look at that, I dont get it. Different sects in sunni/shia islam?

Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali are different schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam.

Ja'fari (Twelver), Isma'ili, and Zaidi are different divisions within Shi'ism

Ibadism is a sect unto itself.

[Anonymous No.5312184]

So if you know arabic script, does that mean you can read farsi? (But not understand it spoken)

Are there internstional sunni-shia conventions/events were high ranking people from each side get together and talk?

Im really ignorant on this, what exactly do you do in a mosque? Example, in church (catholic, nonbeliever for 10+ years) the priest reads a bit, talks, ritualized prayers, etc. Is it like that?

Whsts the diff between a sunni and a shia prayer? Do shias have a 'priest' that leads the service, while sunnis dont?

Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.5312193]

why is this thread on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.5312199]

>>5312174
>The historicity of the "satanic verses" incident isn't supported by any reliable chain of transmission.
Interesting. If scholars are that sure, why do they call for the death of the dude who brings it up?

[Anonymous No.5312209]

Why is islam called a religion? I think it's more something like a kind of illness or to be more precise, a personality disorder. Seriously, who would call schizphrenia a religion?

[Anonymous No.5312213]

>>5312184
>So if you know arabic script, does that mean you can read farsi? (But not understand it spoken)

Yes, but I can't understand it apart from loanwords, and it uses some specialized characters.

>Are there internstional sunni-shia conventions/events were high ranking people from each side get together and talk?

Yeah, there are major conferences and things like that every few years or so, but their ability to impact the situation on the ground is limited.

This was a notable effort:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amman_Message

>Im really ignorant on this, what exactly do you do in a mosque? Example, in church (catholic, nonbeliever for 10+ years) the priest reads a bit, talks, ritualized prayers, etc. Is it like that?

Basically wash up, listen to a sermon (on Fridays) and pray. It's pretty similar. Depending on the mosque and your religious proclivities you might do other stuff, like participate in Sufi rituals, though Sufi orders often have their own specialized buildings.

>>5312184
>Whsts the diff between a sunni and a shia prayer? Do shias have a 'priest' that leads the service, while sunnis dont?

Don't know about how Shi'ites pray. Both Sunnis and Shi'ites have an imam to lead congregational prayers and a khatib (can be the same person) to give Friday sermons, as far as I know. There are minor differences in prayer postures and the like between the four schools of Sunni Islam, so I imagine Shi'ism comes with its own set of minor differences.

[Anonymous No.5312228]

>>5312193
>why is this thread on /lit/?

To complement the "Christianity General" threads, I guess.

>>5312199
>Interesting. If scholars are that sure, why do they call for the death of the dude who brings it up?

I think Khomeini did it mostly to promote himself as a "defender" of political Islam. Iran had just gotten out of a disastrous war with Iraq and he was looking for a way to revive his image, I guess. He died the same year he issued the statement about Rushdie.

[Anonymous No.5312263]

>>5312174
>isn't supported by any reliable chain of transmission

It's covered extensively by Al Tabari. Which is why the Iranians took it quite seriously.

The way it was explained to me on /int/, it was all a ruse by Mohamed to pander to some arabic tribe he wanted to get allied with.

In other words everything Mahmut did that doesn't sit well with your religion gets explained away with historical happenings.

Some day the whole book will be explained away with politics and agendas and there will finally be peace in the middle east.

[Anonymous No.5312277]

>>5309896
is there a good translation of Punk Islam's lyrics anywhere?

[Anonymous No.5312386]

>>5312263
>It's covered extensively by Al Tabari.

At-Tabari was a historian who collected narrations without particular regard for their reliability. The fact that a narration appears in his history is no guarantee of its reliability, nor did he intend for it to be. His methodology differed from those of the hadith compilers whose collections have come to be regarded as canonical by Sunnis, and the narration does not appear in those collections.

>Which is why the Iranians took it quite seriously.

I don't think Khomeini's fatwa had anything to do with the veracity of the "satanic verses" themselves . . . you're confusing the historical issue with Rushdie's book, which was attacked on the general grounds of being "insulting" to the religion (it apparently parodies Khomeini.)

>The way it was explained to me on /int/

Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the hallowed judgment of /int/.

[Anonymous No.5312454]

>>5312386
>The fact that a narration appears in his history is no guarantee of its reliability,

You could easily use the same logic to disapprove any religious or non religious historical text.

[Anonymous No.5312492]

>>5312454

Sure, but I thought you were implying that the incident probably took place -because- At-Tabari included it in his history.

[Anonymous No.5312537]

Jesus fucking Christ I just spent ten minutes trying to access Brill's online version of the Encylopaedia of Islam, only to find out there is no article for the Satanic Verses in it. There is one in the Encyclopaedia of the Quran, but my uni library's access to it is being a quadruple gateway'd clusterfuck.

Can anyone at a university grab it please? I know Tabari is the largest narrative source (and I will say not to underestimate him, he's a fucking GOLDMINE of shit we have otherwise lost, albeit an endless frustrating one) but I want to see a collation of the other accounts, which do exist.

[Anonymous No.5312541]

>>5312537
Also I am not any of the above posters, in case someone misinterprets this post. Just a passerby.

[Anonymous No.5312587]

>>5311986
This issue has been solved before there was any muslims. Don't ask people about Islam.

There's a book, it's called the Qur'an. It has everything you need. All the arguments are made there.

Everything in the Qur'an is Islam, anything outside the Qur'an isn't Islam.

No other source is to be trusted.

[Anonymous No.5312599]

>>5312587
>disregarding fifteen hundred years of ijma
>disregarding fifteen hundred years of exegetical fiqh
>disregarding the people who will disagree with you and cut your head off if you don't say ali's name the correct number of times before dinner
>disregarding sufi exegesis
>being the most fundamentalist of all fundamentalists

[Anonymous No.5312609]

Has Islam produced any great religious writers, such as Christianity influenced Dostoevsky (among many others)? Or is the religion too intellectually suppressive?

[Anonymous No.5312620]

>>5312587
>There's a book, it's called the Qur'an.
AKA the book of Leviticus.

All your non pork eating and wife lashing in a compact Jesus approved package!

[Anonymous No.5312662]

>>5312599
This is exactly why I said what I said.

The Qur'an is the source, It's one book, extremely consistent and has all the information and arguments about Islam.

Have you ever read the word Sufism in the Qur'an? No, then it's shit made up by people. It might be good or bad but it's made my people and should be regarded as such.

Thus you only complicate things for yourself. Why not read the book that's supposedly the words of God himself before moving to stuff made up by people? Who are very different, complicated and inconsistent? And who are also, sometimes, fairly evil and with unknown agendas?

Ijma' is irrelevant. Because if it dared to disagree with anything from the Qur'an then into the trash. More reason to read the Qur'an first if you truly want to understand the religion. All this should go without saying but sadly it's okay to be ignorant when the subject is Islam because you can just take the discussion towards memes and insults. This also happen with other religions too but it seems that Islam is worst.

I hope no one is stupid enough to take this post as me endlessly praising Islam.

[Anonymous No.5312691]

So all the oppresion, woman hating and sexism, is that part of arab culture, or does that come from islam?

[Anonymous No.5312702]

>>5312609

Fareed ud-Din 'Attar, Rumi, Ibn Tufayl, Ibn al-Faridh, and Hafez all wrote classics with explicitly religious themes. But pretty much all classic works from the Islamic world address religion in one way or another, including 1001 Nights and the like.

>Or is the religion too intellectually suppressive?

Too suppressive to allow any Muslim from Portugal to Indonesia to ever create literature? Is that even possible?

[Anonymous No.5312743]

>>5312691
Has opression, women-hating and sexism been particular do Islam or arabs? Your question is nonsensical

[Anonymous No.5312744]

Quranism. All hadith into the trash. Discuss
>tfw no Islamic legal tradition before 722

[Anonymous No.5312750]

>>5312691
Has oppression, women-hating and sexism been particular or unique to Islam through history?

[Anonymous No.5312759]

>>5312662

>Assumes that the Qur'an never gives rise to multiple ,sometimes conflicting interpretations

>Assumes that for any given problem, you can open up the Qur'an and find explicit instructions to do x or y.

>Assumes that extra-scriptural information about the Prophet, etc. is totally useless

>Assumes that it's possible to have a religion without relying on institutions "made up by people"

Read about the early history of fiqh. It addresses these problems directly. Because the Qur'an does not spell out explicit solutions to every single issue that will ever confront humanity, people have had to develop different approaches to understanding and applying it.

[Anonymous No.5312760]

>>5312691
Most of it comes from the pre islamic cultures. Some of what you may identify as woman hating and sexism might also come from Islam.

>>5312662
Are you some kind of quranist?

[Anonymous No.5312774]

>>5312744

see

>>5312759

[Anonymous No.5312777]

Sub-Syrian Arabs were largely polygamous tribal/clan organisations that had "patriarchal" (placeword) customs very similar to many other nomadic tribal societies, like the Central Asian Indo-Iranian, Turkic, and Mongol peoples. To a large extent it's reflected in their cultural output, including the Quran. When their diaspora with Islam happened, they brought it with them, and melded it with the customs of the places they conquered, which were also "patriachal", like most places were.

If you overlay Arabic- and Judeo-Christian- (both "patriarchal" traditions) inspired Islam onto nomadic Berber peoples (ALSO "patriarchal") and then they conquer Spain, e.g., where Roman/German "patriarchal" customs are the norm, you're not gonna get a whole lotta feminist lit out of it.

[Anonymous No.5312789]

>>5312662
This: >>5312759

Fiqh is your usual historical phenomenon of a custom/tradition evolving around a "simple" text, a la the Catholic Church, sure. But it's also a very straightforward answer to a very immediate and pressing problem: what the fuck do we do?

Once the Quran had been compiled, which itself took a pretty long time, they had a list of prohibitions and spiritual motivational sayings and exhortations. But how do you draw a system for living out of that? What does God actually want us to do? Once you start talking about that, and especially once particularly intelligent people who have managed to read through the Quran 50 times to support their arguments start talking about it and convincing others, you have fiqh. Even if it's voluntarist, you still need to interpret the text.

The most you can really take issue with is the idea of the state as a guarantor of Islamic law, maybe? And hence a hegemonic interpretation of it. I could see that. But exegesis itself is pretty much inevitable, along with collaborative exegesis.

[Anonymous No.5312810]

Speaking of fiqh, anyone have thoughts on Wael Hallaq?

[Anonymous No.5312820]

>>5312193

It's history, theology, and religious related literature.

It does fit in with /lit/s general inclinations towards discussions.

As usual, if you don't like it then don't read or just hide the thread.

[Anonymous No.5312885]

This isnt really about islam, but maybe some of you guys are knowledgeable about my following questions. They mostly deal with ethnicity and regional perceptions.

Do we know if the arab conquest of north africa drastically changed the berber people that lived there? Has there been studies done on their genetics? Do most people west of egypt see themselves as both arabs and berbers or just mostly arabs? How religious are the people in morroco, algeria and libya? More liberals than saudis?

Now egypt, does egypt see itself as belonging neither to north africa nor to the levant? Are they an entity on their own? Does egypt look more to the east or to the west?

Iran, do we know if most iranians are actually ethnically indo-iranians? Or are they ethnically arab thanks to the conquest? I assume that most people in the south, north and northeast are still native iranians, be it persians, baluchis, etc. Is there animosity for arabs? How well protected are minorities in iran today? And one question that ive always wanted to ask, what do iranians think of zoroastrianism? What do they think of their ancient religion? Do they view it as something amusing but fake? Do they try to preserve its memory? Are iranians required to read the shahnameh in school? I personally find farsi to be a beautiful language, much more appealing to me than arabic.i find it pleasing to the ears. And yes i know theyre not related.

Last question is not really related to anything. In modern iranian architecture, are there any distinct iranian features? Like if someone well informed in architecture/religious buildings, if they saw a mosque or something, would they be able to say, "yep, this is in iran", as opposed to another place?

Thanks in advance. Great thread.

[Anonymous No.5312892]

need a restore on chapter 8 and a ban on shrew

[Anonymous No.5312897]

>>5312892
Shrew needs to be unmodded

[Anonymous No.5312936]

>>5312885

I can answer some:

>How religious are the people in morroco, algeria and libya? More liberals than saudis?

Certainly. Saudi follows a very strict interpretation of the Qu'ran and Sunnah (sayings and teaching of the prophet) and is the primary economic force behind wahhabism which is extremely orthodox and fundamentalist by nature.

>Or are they ethnically arab thanks to the conquest?

No. Iran as it currently is is very ethnically diverse >According to the CIA World Factbook, the ethnic breakdown of Iran is as follows: Persian 61%, Azeri 16%, Kurd 10%, Lur 6%, Baloch 2%, Arab 2%, Turkmen and Turkic tribes 2%, other 1%

>How well protected are minorities in iran today?

Quite, actually. Iran does have minority rights in place by law and even has members of minority groups in government.

>In modern iranian architecture, are there any distinct iranian features?

Islamic architecture is a blend of both an arab mentality and that of those conquered peoples styles preceding them. Iran prior to the Islamic conquests did have their own unique architecture and elements certainly continued to exist and be in use even after the Islamic conquests.

[Anonymous No.5312953]

>>5309648
Is there any current within Islam that openly proclaims the following three things:
1. The permission of apostasy
2. The optionality of the hijab
3. Tolerance of homosexuality
?

[Anonymous No.5312974]

>>5312953
>Is there any current within Islam that openly proclaims the following three things:
>1. The permission of apostasy
>2. The optionality of the hijab
>3. Tolerance of homosexuality
>?

Small members of the community in the west openly declare these things. Some practitioners (though they would be declared 'infidels' themself ironically) have no problem with those things at all.

Religion fundamentally, before the book, before the politics which grows around it, before the rituals etc is a very personal thing - of course you will get people who consider themselves muslims and have no problem with those things though they might frown upon it they keep it to themselves.

[Anonymous No.5312983]

>>5312974
Yeah ok that's a thinly veiled attempt to dodge the question. I meant organzations, associations, in the most general sense, anything where the one proclaiming these things isn't just speaking for himself.

[Anonymous No.5312992]

>>5312936

Thanks for answering.

>elements certainly continued to exist and be in use even after the Islamic conquests.

Could you point me to these?

[Anonymous No.5312994]

>>5312885
>In modern iranian architecture, are there any distinct iranian features? Like if someone well informed in architecture/religious buildings, if they saw a mosque or something, would they be able to say, "yep, this is in iran", as opposed to another place?

Persia in Islam is sort of like the old saying by Horace, 'graecia capta ferum victorem cepit'. The second great Caliphate was practically explicitly Persian, reviving a lot of the terminology and customs directly, and integrating the great Persian lower aristocracy which had survived the conquest practically seamlessly. Persian architecture was immensely influential on it. The fundamental logic behind the Persian imperial palace and ceremony can be seen in Herodotus and in Abbasid court cermonial. The Caliph (Shah) adopted the title of 'Shadow of God on Earth' and followed tons of Persian customs. Persian culture exploded into Islam, tons and tons of important statesmen, centres of cultural production, philosophers, artists, etc. were Persian in ethnic heritage.

Most of the civilisations and polities which followed, especially Turkic, Eastern Iranian, eventually Indian civilisations were heavily 'Persianate'. Perso-Islamic is often a term used for much of the Middle Eastern Islamic world. There's a reason the Ottoman literary/elite language (more of a wonky artificial register) was a forced mixture of Turkish, Arabic, and Persian. You HAVE to force Persian in there because.. it's Persian. It's like the Latin or Greek of the West.

So the tldr would be that it's difficult to separate 'Persia' from 'Islam' in a way that you could see vestiges of it or something in Iran. There is both conscious and unconscious imitation of Persian form everywhere because it was spread with Islamic civilisation by melding with it. The forms simply never died.

[Anonymous No.5313000]

>>5312983
>I meant organzations, associations, in the most general sense, anything where the one proclaiming these things isn't just speaking for himself.

I swear I've seen a muslim gay pride parade/march from /int/ - I think it was in France? If you mean a collection of these individuals who unite together then sure - they do exist but you rally won't hear about them in the news.

If you're talking something akin to the Taliban but with those views then you're out of luck as there are none to my knowledge.

[Anonymous No.5313006]

>>5312992

I'm on expert in Iranian or Islamic architecture but look at the shapes of the domes, the minaret structures, even the doorways. Like I said, the architecture of the conquered nations very heavily inspired what was to come with Islam as it emerged and created further architectural monuments and buildings.

[Anonymous No.5313007]

>>5312759
>Assumes that the Qur'an never gives rise to multiple ,sometimes conflicting interpretations
Irrelevant to whether the muslims should rely upon the hadith or only the Quran

>Assumes that for any given problem, you can open up the Qur'an and find explicit instructions to do x or y.
Not an assumption I made.

>Assumes that extra-scriptural information about the Prophet, etc. is totally useless
The hadith is not just any extra-scriptural information, it is highly politized and no one can make a rigorous argument that they are attributable to Muhammad, so why should they have religious value?

>Assumes that it's possible to have a religion without relying on institutions "made up by people"
Not an assumption I made, but why should those be based on medieval politics?

[Anonymous No.5313008]

>>5313006
>I'm on expert

I'm *no* expert...

[Anonymous No.5313014]

>>5313007
>and no one can make a rigorous argument that they are attributable to Muhammad
>what is hadith science.

[Anonymous No.5313024]

>>5312992
If you're looking for a paper topic or something it might be good to start for the famous Sasanian arch or domes, also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_architecture (ctrl+f "Sasanian", Bloom & Blair seem to be a good book to look at)

Other points of interest might be the dehqan or dihqan (various spellings), http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dehqan

[Anonymous No.5313042]

>>5313000
ah yes, queer muslims or something. sort of does answer my question, even if it's preciously little compared to a pope who basically says it's ok to be gay.

[Anonymous No.5313071]

>>5313014
I am aware of hadith studies, now tell me how tracing the history of a text makes the author reliable.

[Anonymous No.5313081]

>>5312885
>Do most people west of egypt see themselves as both arabs and berbers or just mostly arabs?

Judging by my experience in Morocco, most or many people will openly admit to having Berber ancestry, and Berber languages continue to be fairly widely spoken. Even the Arabic there has a heavy Berber (and French) influence. They are noticeably different-looking from Arabs of different regions. I'm not familiar with genetic studies, but my perception is that the population is overwhelmingly Berber, including the Arabic speakers. Morocco is a case in which conqueror and conquered have each changed the other drastically.

>How religious are the people in morroco, algeria and libya? More liberals than saudis?

Alcohol and sex are easier to find than in most other Middle Eastern and North African countries. Most people are still quite religious and aren't involved in these things, but they tend to be less puritanical.

>Last question is not really related to anything. In modern iranian architecture, are there any distinct iranian features? Like if someone well informed in architecture/religious buildings, if they saw a mosque or something, would they be able to say, "yep, this is in iran", as opposed to another place?

Even as an amateur, it's pretty easy to distinguish major Muslim architectural styles once you've seen enough buildings or photos. Iranian, Maghrebi, Egyptian Mamluk, Ottoman, Mughal, SE Asian, Yemeni, Malian, and other styles all have extremely distinctive features.

This doesn't always carry over to modern architecture, though.

Pic related is extremely Iranian-looking, IMO.

[Anonymous No.5313096]

>>5313071
Maybe because the study also includes knowledge about when an author is reliable?

[Anonymous No.5313110]

>>5313096
Through corroboration with what? I remember one individual recounted over a thousand hadith.

[Anonymous No.5313145]

>>5312936
>wahhabism which is extremely orthodox and fundamentalist by nature.

I'd dispute this. Wahhabism is extremely strict, but many beliefs and practices associated with it are very peculiar. It was almost universally condemned as a heresy when it began to spread (largely because it challenged Ottoman legitimacy), and it has only won acceptance gradually and with a lot of money behind it.

>>5312953

Probably some minor groups, why do you ask?

>>5313007
>Irrelevant to whether the muslims should rely upon the hadith or only the Quran

Why should hadiths be written off entirely?

>The hadith is not just any extra-scriptural information, it is highly politized

Even if we accept that this is true in many cases, does it mean that we cannot use them at all?

>and no one can make a rigorous argument that they are attributable to Muhammad,

Why not? In that case, how are we supposed to know anything about that period of history?

>Not an assumption I made, but why should those be based on medieval politics?

Who says that they are?

[Anonymous No.5313155]

>>5313145
>Probably some minor groups, why do you ask?
because the apparent predominance of currents rejecting all three is troubling to me.

[Anonymous No.5313171]

>>5312953
>1. The permission of apostasy
I remember the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood calling for a stop to the mandate for death penalty for apostasy, Tariq Ramadan was his name I think? fairly common

>2. The optionality of the hijab
The Hijab is Arab tribal culture, it's optional in Islam, Islam only demands "modest clothing" from Men and Women equally, what that means is down to interpretation.
In the west many women aren't forced into wearing various kinds of covers and do it of their own accord. Those women are mostly stupid bitches with faulty interpretations of feminism, western culture and capitalism etc. (in my experience)

>3. Tolerance of homosexuality
this one's pretty scarce, but some Sufis and Quranists, and just muslims that don't give a shit and disregard Sunnah do allow all these things.
And Ahmadiyya if you count those as muslims.

[Anonymous No.5313183]

>>5312759
>>Assumes that the Qur'an never gives rise to multiple ,sometimes conflicting interpretations
>>Assumes that for any given problem, you can open up the Qur'an and find explicit instructions to do x or y.
>>Assumes that extra-scriptural information about the Prophet, etc. is totally useless
>>Assumes that it's possible to have a religion without relying on institutions "made up by people"

First of all some this is stupid and wrong. Second of all you're missing the point. The Qur'an might not be enough for in depth discussion, however, it's completely retarded to skip the Qur'an and ignore it and start considering shit that arose later on from extremely complicated factors clashing with each other.

Go ahead and waste your time with this clusterfuck. We'll never reach any satisfying result to a discussion about Islam if there was no corner stone to define Islam itself. Again the solution is simple, once we completely discuss the Qur'an and its teachings, we can move over to more specific topics you mentioned. Namely Hadith. And later on fiqh and all the sects and whatnot. How do you expect to talk about anything when people don't know what came from the religion and what didn't? What's Haram and what's Halal? Sometimes people are ignorant of kindergarden tier shit about shit that the Qur'an left no room of any interpretation and gave a clear ruling from God himself directly. It's just embarrassingly foolish to ignore this text and then jump to shit made up by different entities who could be evil or most likely just stupid and ignorant.

Otherwise it's going to be a waste of time and the quality of discussion won't be better than the shit you find on /pol/ with one side known as the JIDF and other side known as MIDF or whatever flinging shit at each other. It's often the case. If /lit/ is interested in any good discussion about Islam then the text of Qur'an must be above all else. Then Hadith, then fiqh. That's the correct order.

[Anonymous No.5313188]

>>5313145
>Why should hadiths be written off entirely?
Because medieval perspectives are now known to be inhumane, and cannot be proven to be valuable.

>Even if we accept that this is true in many cases, does it mean that we cannot use them at all?
No, but I don't see how any of them can be seen as necessary with special religious value.

>Who says that they are?
Wahhabis and Salafis and other Islamist conservatives want to base Islam on Tradition that dates to the early middle ages.

[Anonymous No.5313205]

>>5313171
>The Hijab is Arab tribal culture, it's optional in Islam
No it's not, the burqa is arab tribal culture. The hijab is most definitely an Islamic concept
>And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

[Anonymous No.5313207]

>Muhammedan thread
>more than 4 responses

grow up /lit/ stop bickering over things that don't matter...

[Anonymous No.5313213]

>>5313155

Does it surprise you, though? Values like tolerance of homosexuality (meaning same-sex couples acting basically the same as opposite-sex couples) are very recent and peculiar to the post-industrial West. This doesn't make them bad or wrong, but we certainly can't expect them to become universal immediately when they weren't even practiced here 50 years ago. Apostasy and the hijab thing are more complicated. Islamic societies in history have of course tended to condemn these things, but forms of them (and of homosexuality) have been tolerated to varying extents.

But any religious group that defends these freedoms -in principle- will necessarily be modern and Western-influenced.

[Anonymous No.5313231]

>>5309694
People are easily swayed by the aesthetic of music, and since the value of music is weighed by its aesthetic, not its content, people can be lead astray easily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM9erS90gTE

[Anonymous No.5313238]

>They are noticeably different-looking from Arabs of different regions.

What are the characteristics? More mediterreanean, olive skinned than darker brown gulf states? Any famous people?

[Anonymous No.5313257]

>>5313183
>it's completely retarded to skip the Qur'an and ignore it

Who is advocating this?

> [ . . . ] If /lit/ is interested in any good discussion about Islam then the text of Qur'an must be above all else. Then Hadith, then fiqh. That's the correct order.

1. I'm not the OP. I didn't make this thread.

2. Expecting /lit/ discussions to follow such a prescribed order is silly and futile. Discussions here are disorganized by nature and jump from topic to topic. If at any point you feel compelled to insert your musings on the Qur'an, though, nothing is stopping you from doing so.

[Anonymous No.5313281]

>>5313205
Says nothing about covering hair

[Anonymous No.5313287]

>>5313213
>But any religious group that defends these freedoms -in principle- will necessarily be modern and Western-influenced.
Yeah I know, and there seems to be some sort of consensus in the muslim world that this would be a bad thing.
It becomes even more troubling when you consider that there seems to some sort of resistance against these western influences, both in a violent form in the middle east, and to a lesser extent in the migrant communities of the west, making both less tolerant than they used to be 20 years ago. So when you say, it's recent and you can't expect it to take hold this fast, this sort of understates the problem.

[Anonymous No.5313295]

>>5313188
>Because medieval perspectives are now known to be inhumane, and cannot be proven to be valuable.

1. What does 'medieval' mean to you?
2. Why are hadiths necessarily 'medieval'?
3. Why are 'medieval perspectives' necessarily inhumane and valueless?

>No, but I don't see how any of them can be seen as necessary with special religious value.

Many of them provide the historical context necessary to understand certain Qur'anic verses. Others provide specific information that builds on general injunctions in the Qur'an (e.g., how to pray and fast.) Is it not best to base our practice on evidence that we can trace with some confidence to the early Muslim community?

>Wahhabis and Salafis and other Islamist conservatives want to base Islam on Tradition that dates to the early middle ages.

Wahhabis and Salafis in the like espouse views that have as much to do with modern politics as they do with ancient tradition. Plus, they are far from the only ones who use hadiths and fiqh and other traditions and institutions that have developed around the Qur'an.

[Anonymous No.5313302]

>>5313281
"The meaning of khimar and the context in which the verse was revealed clearly talks about concealing the head and then using the loose ends of the scarf to conceal the neck and the bosom. It is absurd to believe that the Qur’an would use the word khimar (which, by definition, means a cloth that covers the head) only to conceal the bosom with the exclusion of the head! It would be like saying to put on your shirt only around the belly or the waist without covering the chest!"

[Anonymous No.5313312]

>>5311962
depends on where you drink it

[Anonymous No.5313331]

>>5313257
>such a prescribed order

It's simple logic actually. In order to talk about something, we must know what is it first and agree on that fact. Otherwise everything that comes after is wrong and just nonsense.

This shit wouldn't fly in any other kind of discussion. But due to the political nature of Islam(arguably after 9/11 as far as the vast majority of people are concerned to be honest) people feel that they can just have "opinions" about something they don't even understand.

What's even more dangerous is that people start actually building up on that very same ignorant and fairly worthless view by just accepting anything that they like and refusing anything they don't. This later develops to a clusterfuck that confuses many outsider who wish to know the truth.

[Anonymous No.5313333]

>>5313302

Well hey, if some guy says so...

[Anonymous No.5313350]

>>5312953
>1. The permission of apostasy
>2. The optionality of the hijab
Both are guaranteed in the Qur'an.
>3. Tolerance of homosexuality
There is a historical tolerance of homosexuality (see: Sufi poetry, Mahmud of Ghazni and Malik Ayaz) but the practice is strictly forbidden. That said, the legal requirements necessary to accuse someone of having committed homosexual sex, like that of adultery, are restrictive to where it's nearly impossible. Not that that's stopped homophobes, of course.

[Anonymous No.5313366]

>>5313295
>1. What does 'medieval' mean to you?
5th to 15th century, Early Middle Ages are 5th to 10th.
>2. Why are hadiths necessarily 'medieval'?
because they were created in this period
>3. Why are 'medieval perspectives' necessarily inhumane and valueless?
because modern notions of humanity were created from the Renaissance to the 20th century.

> Is it not best to base our practice on evidence that we can trace with some confidence to the early Muslim community?
Shouldn't the religious base their views on God first?


>Wahhabis and Salafis in the like espouse views that have as much to do with modern politics as they do with ancient tradition.
True

> Plus, they are far from the only ones who use hadiths and fiqh and other traditions and institutions that have developed around the Qur'an.
True, I mentioned other Islamist conservatives as an example.

Let's just cut to the chase here. Roughly speaking, Hadiths contain the majority of the shit that says you can kill infidels and own women as property, how are you going to adress that, what grounds can you dismiss those on while sustaining the traditional importance of the Hadiths at the same time?
And if you don't dismiss them Islam is doomed.

[Anonymous No.5313382]

>>5313350
>Both are guaranteed in the Qur'an.
Woah, I heard the opposite.

[Anonymous No.5313392]

>>5313333
Way to miss the point

[Anonymous No.5313398]

>>5309694
I'm Muslim , and there is no specific rule about forbidding Music or singing
>Some say totally haram, others say just vocals no instruments, other still say that though it is discouraged it is not technically haram.
all this is considered "Ijtihad"

[Anonymous No.5313401]

>>5313331
>we must know what is it first and agree on that fact.

The problem is that delimiting a concept as huge as "Islam" is difficult. If we define it too narrowly, our concept becomes too sectarian. If we define it too broadly, the term ceases to draw a clear distinction between what is and isn't Islam.

You can argue that Islam refers ONLY to what is found in the Qur'an, but the problems that I mentioned earlier remain. How are we to interpret what we find in the Qur'an? When something is unclear or allusive, how much historical context (i.e., hadiths and the like) do we allow into our definition of Islam? Assuming that we decide how to read and interpret the Qur'an, what do we do with the information it gives us?

If you develop answers to these questions, you aren't really defining Islam; you're devising methodologies for fiqh and tafsir and other extra-scriptural branches of knowledge.

[The Management of Savagery No.5313412]

The sharia emphasizes that the need of the soul of the believer for servitude to the Creator is the
greatest impetus and catalyst for conflict and that that is what a sound innate nature imposes
on any human whose innate nature has not been corrupted, just as it emphasizes the role of
capital in conflict in a way that is commensurate with its true influence. Perhaps for most of
the leaders of the enemies and many of the troops and followers it is the fundamental
catalyst (of conflict). Thus, economic pressure on the enemies is part of the sharia policy;
however, with respect to the ranks of the believers, this is a different matter. Sharia policy
does not ignore capital as a motivation for some whose hearts are united (through money)
and a secondary and subordinate motivation for some of the believing ranks. However, it is
not crucial for motivating the firm base among the believers. Likewise, the sharia makes it a
fundamental element, like fuel for the battle and conflict between two sides. Thus, there is
the verse [in the Qur'an] that indicates that capital is the artery of battle and that not
spending money on battles and normal necessities leads to abandonment of the Messenger
of God (peace and blessings be upon him). However, he reassures the believers that if those
who have money are unable to pay for the costs of battle and the necessary expenditures for
the believers, then God has the storehouses of the heavens and the earth [i.e. God will
provide; cf. Qur'an 63:7]. All of this is meant to urge the believers to spend money in the
path of God and emphasize the sharia laws which designate sources of capital, such as zakat,
booty, and the like.

[The Management of Savagery No.5313424]

"By polarization here, I mean dragging the masses into the battle such that polarization is created between all of the people. Thus, one group of them will go to the side of the people of truth, another group will go to the side of the people of falsehood, and a third group will remain neutral -- awaiting the outcome of the battle in order to join the victor. We must attract the sympathy of this latter group, and make it hope for the victory of the people of faith, especially since this group has a decisive role in the later stages of the present battle. Dragging the masses into the battle requires more actions which will inflame opposition and which will make the people enter into the battle, willing or unwilling, such that each individual will go to the side which he supports. We must make this battle very violent, such that death is a heartbeat away, so that the two groups will realize that entering this battle will frequently lead to death. That will be a powerful motive for the individual to choose to fight in the ranks of the people of truth in order to die well, which is better than dying for falsehood and losing both this world and the next."

[Anonymous No.5313468]

>>5313401
It's not huge at all. It's huge if you want to consider the opinions of every shithead in the planet.

The Qur'an solves this issue. It's the speech from good to humans. Not to muslims or arabs, to humans. That's the idea, Islam is Qur'an. If you can't agree on that then Islam becomes something else completely, depending on the person you're speaking to.

The Qur'an isn't complicated and extremely straight forward and leaves no dispute. You said unclear? There's nothing like that in the Qur'an. The text wasn't sent to poets or intellectuals, it was for the common man. But of course it still holds many secrets and hidden meanings that the knowledgeable and able can try to study. It's one of the things The Qur'an is known for: text that the simple person can understand and at the same time text that can leave the most knowledgeable of scientists puzzled. It's very worthy of discussion to say the least.

I've had "discussions" with people who think Mohammed is The God of Muslims. Or that Mohammed spoke ill and was enemy of Jesus and Christians at the time. And all kind of false stuff. This is what happened when the idea of Islam isn't defined for people who wish to discuss it. And further error is only inevitable.

[Anonymous No.5313488]

>>5313366

Why are things from the 5th to 15th century necessarily bad and things from the Renaissance to 20th century necessarily good?

>Shouldn't the religious base their views on God first?

How are they to understand God? Why is it better to understand God without hadiths than with them?

>Let's just cut to the chase here. Roughly speaking, Hadiths contain the majority of the shit that says you can kill infidels and own women as property, how are you going to adress that, what grounds can you dismiss those on while sustaining the traditional importance of the Hadiths at the same time?
And if you don't dismiss them Islam is doomed.

The process of interpreting and implementing hadiths, and for that matter scripture, is necessarily influenced by outside concerns—political, economic, and so on. Another way of saying this is that our understanding and practice of Islam is always influenced by the larger context in which we find ourselves. I think that this is universally and eternally true. Scripture and hadiths are ALWAYS subject to interpretation; interpretation is ALWAYS subject to outside influences. Multiple interpretations are almost always possible and circumstances may change to favor one over the other.

We can use stoning apostates is an example. How do Muslims decide what constitutes apostasy? Multiple jurists have decreed that private disbelief is not punished and that apostasy must be coupled with sedition or open hostility to religion in order to be punishable. Moreover, on the basis of hadith evidence, jurists have ruled that apostasy may be punished with banishment. These examples are from memory, but I'm sure a quick google search will turn up some sources.

My point is that the hadith collections are large and diverse. There is a lot of source material there that can be interpreted and used in different ways; using hadiths does not bind us to a particular type of Islam.

And it must be remembered that hadiths aren't only used in law. They contain the details of personal practice and much of the Islamic basis for disciplines like Sufism.

[Anonymous No.5313495]

>>5313468
>The Qur'an isn't complicated and extremely straight forward and leaves no dispute.

1400 years of history contradict this statement.

[Anonymous No.5313502]

>>5313495
How?

Have you read the Qur'an?

[Anonymous No.5313521]

Why aren't muhammedans allowed to draw their muhammed, but they are allowed to venerate and worship a giant rock? I don't get it

[Anonymous No.5313531]

>>5313502
>How?

Different kinds of Islam based on different readings of the Qur'an exist.

>Have you read the Qur'an?

Yes, have you? In Arabic?

Are you familiar with the early history of fiqh? The major works of tafseer? How would you have addressed the problems facing the early Muslim community?

[Anonymous No.5313592]

>>5313521
>Why aren't muhammedans allowed to draw their muhammed, but they are allowed to venerate and worship a giant rock? I don't get it

They don't

>Umar—may God be pleased with him—came to the black stone, kissed it, and said, "I know you're a stone; you neither harm nor benefit, and had I not seen the Prophet (s.) kiss you, then neither would I kiss you."

[Anonymous No.5313604]

>>5313592

Also, they prayed toward Jerusalem before Mecca.

[Anonymous No.5313627]

>>5313592

so why can't they draw muhammed but there is no injunction against venerating a rock, go figure..

[Anonymous No.5313650]

>>5313627

Much of their religion is based on the simple understanding that their comrades are mentally under-developed. So they need to cover up their women, prohibit art, expression, certain foods, apostasy, etc...

[Anonymous No.5313663]

>>5313592
So did Omar kiss it or not ?

[Anonymous No.5313667]

>>5313650

thank you.

[Anonymous No.5313669]

>>5313531
>Different kinds of Islam based on different readings of the Qur'an exist.

Nope. There's no enough differences to make any of that matter. Islam is defined by the Qur'an and if you don't find that agreeable then Islam doesn't exist and has no defining text. The readings differ very slightly and rarely and don't change the meaning of anything.

>have you? In Arabic?
Of course and I have some of it memorized and I aspire to have more. Mostly the parts that I consider to be beautiful in the literary sense.

>Are you familiar with the early history of fiqh? The major works of tafseer?
There wouldn't be any of that without the Qur'an. The Qur'an leaves no need of any other explanation. Sometimes people run across a word they don't understand and a dictionary will be useful but that's the fault of modern people, old arabs didn't have this problem. And the knowledge of grammar is necessary too. Bring up an issue that the Qur'an wasn't clear about. Qur'an = 1st. Everything else = 2nd. Please stop running me in circles.

>How would you have addressed the problems facing the early Muslim community?
Like what? All of it is mundane conflicts and the usual thrive for power. This has nothing to do with the religion itself. This is where arabs fucked up. Good caliphs though didn't give a shit about that like any rational person would. Corrupt people fueled it and took advantage of it for mundane gains. To this day this didn't change.

[Anonymous No.5313683]

>>5313663
No. It's just a rock from heavens. You don't have to kiss it.

You only worship God.

[Anonymous No.5313702]

>>5313627
You can venerate whatever you want, as long as you only worship god and follow his command.

[Anonymous No.5313718]

>>5313683
worship == Kiss

[Anonymous No.5313727]

>>5309648
Fuck Islam.

Degenerate death-loving pedo cult.

[Anonymous No.5313729]

>>5313702

so what's wrong with drawing muhammed? are they trying to keep him inhuman, mythic?

why is representing him pictorial different than representing him linguistically?

I thought the usual argument was that muslims are so simple that they will automatically begin to worship muhammed's picture if they see it. Right?

[Anonymous No.5313733]

>>5313650

Why bother posting in this thread?

[Anonymous No.5313745]

>>5313733

good point. What was I thinking...

[Anonymous No.5313750]

>>5313727
*tip Jewish cap*
>>5313729
it considered disrespectful
plus not all Muslim think this way
the fatwa of forbidding it came in the ~50's when the work on AL-Resala الرسالة movie began

[Anonymous No.5313755]

>>5313745

you probably wanted to report this thread, but unfortunately the Quran qualifies as a "book"---so the discussion, while being completely degenerate and idiotic, has an excuse to be on /lit/

[Anonymous No.5313760]

>>5313750
>*tip Jewish cap*

any civilized person knows to steer clear of the semitic desert cults, whether juden, muhammedan or even christian...

[Anonymous No.5313766]

>>5313729
>so what's wrong with drawing Muhammad? are they trying to keep him inhuman, mythic?
You are allowed to draw Muhammad. What is forbidden is claiming that your drawing is actually what Muhammad looked like.

>why is representing him pictorial different than representing him linguistically?
Nothing.

>I thought the usual argument was that Muslims are so simple that they will automatically begin to worship Muhammad's picture if they see it. Right?
*Tips orientalist hat.

[Anonymous No.5313772]

>>5313766
>Nothing.
I meant: "it isn't"

[Anonymous No.5313776]

Can't wait for the day we grow out of retarded imaginary friends in the skies.

[Anonymous No.5313792]

>>5313766
>What is forbidden is claiming that your drawing is actually what Muhammad looked like.

no. simply drawing him sends moslems in a frenzy, causing them to burn and pillage civilized people. How do you explain this? Did you forget the whole cartoon debacle? Islam showed it's true face once again, and it was uglier than we could bear.

[Anonymous No.5313800]

>>5313792

the scary part is they get outraged when non-muslims draw muhammad, as if it's forbidden for every one to draw him....go figure how insane that is. Do they get mad when christians eat bacon?

[Anonymous No.5313804]

>>5313792
>>5313800
Mate, that cartoon pretty much claimed Muhammad was a terrorist. What did you expect?

> causing them to burn and pillage civilized people
I suppose I'm being baited right now and will thus stop answering your posts.

[Anonymous No.5313819]

>>5313804
Actually it didn't, it was exactly about what happened, which made it bitter. It certainly came from an islamophobic background though.

[Anonymous No.5313833]

>>5313804
>Mate, that cartoon pretty much claimed Muhammad was a terrorist

Gee, dunno, not act as a bunch of hillbilly retrograde primitive bloodthirsty goat-fuckers?

They chopped someone's head.

Over some drawings.

You people are sick in the head. "Mate".

[Anonymous No.5313840]

>>5313792
>>5313804
>, that cartoon pretty much claimed Muhammad was a terrorist. What did you expect?

There were 12 cartoons, most were benign like pic related.

Let's be honest here, Muhammed was a warmonger, he terrorized many people, so calling him a terrorist is historically accurate. He definitely was no ethical man, no St. Assisi, Jesus or Buddha.

[Anonymous No.5313849]

>>5313840
>Let's be honest here, Muhammed was a warmonger, he terrorized many people, so calling him a terrorist is historically accurate. He definitely was no ethical man, no St. Assisi, Jesus or Buddha.

That's obviously true, but that is irrelevant. The cartoons were meant to make fun of the majority of muslims who happened to be violent and primitive. They weren't really aimed at muhammed himself... Ironically muslims formed massive mobs who acted just like the cartoons depicted.

[Anonymous No.5313863]

To answer the question of Muslims being mad when people draw Muhammad, it's probably something that came up in the 1500s, as before then we have pictures of Muhammad being drawn without the veil (just a bearded guy with a hugeass burning halo)

[Anonymous No.5313867]

>>5313804
>Mate, that cartoon pretty much claimed Muhammad was a terrorist.

Well fuck. He pretty much was one.

Do you ever wonder why do Islam threads always end up the same way?. In you muslims getting BTFO?.

It's because your religious ideology has no place in the civilized world. It has no place in the west. It has no place among sane civilized people.

Go be happy with your backwards way of thinking in your shitty strip of desert fucking kids, goats and camels. Be happy beheading each other over shiite or sunni bullshit. Be happy blowing yourselves up over some dude's ruling legitimacy 1000 years ago.

Go do it in your shithole countries and kill each other off so you rid mankind of your cancerous existence and allow the world to make us of the only thing worthwhile to come out of your putrid nations, dat oil.

[Anonymous No.5313886]

>>5313833

Lel

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5313893]

Does a mod need to sweep house ITT?
I'm no friend of religious zealotry, but this looks like you're trying to be Mr Edgy and hurt somebody's feelings.

[Anonymous No.5313915]

>>5313669
>Nope. There's no enough differences to make any of that matter. Islam is defined by the Qur'an and if you don't find that agreeable then Islam doesn't exist and has no defining text. The readings differ very slightly and rarely and don't change the meaning of anything.

The readings differ very slightly? Is that how you explain the divergence between imam-venerating, mystically-inclined Shi'ites and shrine-destroying, puritanical Salafists?

>Of course

كيف علمت العربية؟ ما أصلك؟ هل تفهم القرآن بالعربية ام تقرأه فقط؟

>There wouldn't be any of that without the Qur'an. The Qur'an leaves no need of any other explanation. Sometimes people run across a word they don't understand and a dictionary will be useful but that's the fault of modern people, old arabs didn't have this problem. And the knowledge of grammar is necessary too. Bring up an issue that the Qur'an wasn't clear about.

What do we do after the Prophet dies?

>Like what? All of it is mundane conflicts and the usual thrive for power.

Do we rely on tradition or opinion when forming judgments and interpreting the Qur'an? If tradition, whose tradition? If opinion, what are its limits?

You're being thick.

[Anonymous No.5313938]

>>5313893
>Does a mod need to sweep house ITT?

Agreed. A mod needs to sweep this entire thread into the trash.

[Anonymous No.5313946]

If Muhammad is so great then why did he seem to have revelations when they suited him? Doesn't that seem a little fishy to you guys?

[Anonymous No.5313949]

>>5313867
>Do you ever wonder why do Islam threads always end up the same way?. In you muslims getting BTFO?.

Actually, it's more like

>some people ask innocent questions
>other people argue over theological and historical minutiae
>retards come and hemorrhage butthurt all over the place for no reason

[Anonymous No.5313967]

>>5313946

Are revelations more believable if they don't relate in any way to the situation of the person receiving them?

>walking to the market
>"LET IT BE KNOW THAT YE SHALL NOT SWIM IMMEDIATELY AFTER EATING"

[Anonymous No.5313969]

>>5311971
druze is an offshoot of islam.
The druze consider themselves muslim, but not the opposite way around.
The Sunni and Shia in Lebanon accuse them of believing in reincarnation.
All i know about the Druze as a Maronite Lebanese is that there was a civil war between the rich Druze landlords and the poorer Maronites.
Oh, and they consider a guy who was 10 years old, I think his name is AlMou3allem, to be the mahdi and he went to hiding when he realized the world wasnt ready.
Also, they have another book in addition to the quran and they cannot eat mloukhiyeh (a popular vegetable in Lebanon), because their prophet slipped on it.
Oh, and also only 5 percent of the druze are religious ì, they are called sheikhs and sheikhat, the other arent required to follow the religious guideline rigorously.
They also learn about their religion well into their 60's; when they are considered mature.
This is things that non-Druze Lebanese say about them, the Druze themselves are kind of secretive and don't talk about their religion.

[Anonymous No.5313977]

>>5313946
>If Muhammad is so great

lol what a thought

[Anonymous No.5313978]

What's a good copy of the Quaran to pick up? Are there some widely accepted translations like we have for the bible?

[Anonymous No.5313981]

>>5313967
>Are revelations more believable if they don't relate in any way to the situation of the person receiving them?

Yes, slightly.

>tell some dudes they can worship their pagan gods
>shit, I should have said that
>errr, the devil was controlling me
>praise be to allah

[Anonymous No.5313982]

>>5311971
>>5313969
They are a very small radical (in terms of theology) splinter of Fatimid Shi'aism, which had an extremely powerful corps of 'subversives' who specialised in preaching the exceptional nature of the Fatimid Caliphs. They believe a (by most accounts, brutal and quite probably insane) Fatimid Caliph to be the Mahdi. They believe he occultated (was hidden by Allah). These latter two beliefs are very similar to things that many Shi'a believe, theologically. Obviously they consider themselves Muslim. But they're seen as fairly aberrant.

Other than that they're basically just a minority population and have existed in that fashion for centuries.

[Anonymous No.5313987]

>>5313978
>What's a good copy of the Quaran to pick up?

Arberry is pretty good:

https://archive.org/details/QuranAJArberry

> Are there some widely accepted translations like we have for the bible?

Nope. And the 'most popular' ones are shit backed by Saudi oil money.

[Anonymous No.5313994]

>>5313981

You came late to the satanic verses discussion.

[Anonymous No.5313995]

>>5313987
I appreciate it, thanks.

[Anonymous No.5313996]

>>5313994
no one ever found me the brill/encyclopaedia of quran article

fuck you lit

[Anonymous No.5314009]

>>5313969
Druze are masters of taqiyya.

[Anonymous No.5314018]

>>5313996

I searched for that article and looked for one under different names in the Encyclopedia of Islam, cus sometimes it's stupid like that.

I found an Encyclopedia of the Qur'an torrent with 0 seeds.

[Anonymous No.5314036]

>>5314018
>tfw you realize this is how knowledge-seeking worked before the internet
>tfw I thought "well I can write it down and check out the hard copy next time I'm at the university"
>tfw my first instinct was FUCK THAT, TOO MUCH WORK

I have a new appreciation

[Anonymous No.5314075]

>>5314036

I know. Even the internet is too much. As a student I downloaded an assload of articles from JSTOR and the like just so I wouldn't have to use their shitty search function and wait for things to load and stuff. Now, of course, I don't even have a subscription.

[Anonymous No.5314126]

Ibadi > all

[Anonymous No.5314157]

>>5314126

>wanting to be cast into hell forever

I'll pass m8.

[Anonymous No.5314174]

>>5314126
>ibadi
>greater than anything

[Anonymous No.5314389]

> n-no it says in Qu'ran that women must wear hijab!
> look at how I interpret this word to mean = hijab

makes me kek every time

[Anonymous No.5314401]

>>5314157
>I'll believe the religion that suits me best

[Anonymous No.5314517]

>>5314389

I mean, the word is خمار which most classic and current dictionaries will tell you is a head-covering.