Guénon vs Wahhabism

[OP No.17477743]

This thread we are going to be comparing selected writings of the sufi René Guénon, and the fundamentalist Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, then we will be exploring sufi and Salafi and Shia political thought which follows from what we've already covered

This is a continuation of the prior introduction course thread
>>17465603
last thread we compared the writings of Ibn Arabi vs Ibn Taymiyyah, as well as Shia epistemology
>>17465696

I can't stress how important that will be here because neither Guénon nor Ibn Abd al-Wahhab are just making up random teachings, both are very firmly building on systems of thought that predate them by hundreds of years or more.
These two systems of thought are completely at odds but Guénon is *not* simply schizo posting, and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is *not* simply saying "spirituality is for fags" (and just in case you're unaware, he never fought against the Ottomans or allied with the British, this is anachronism). This might not be evident if you haven't done the earlier readings. Something I also need to stress--I have to but I shouldn't have to--it is irresponsible to learn about sufism or Shiaism purely through Wahhabi or Salafi writings, and it is just as irresponsible to learn about Wahhabism and Salafism purely from its enemies. The best way to learn about these systems of thought is through the work of their learned adherents. This should be obvious but it isn't to some. Lastly, before we begin, I also
Cont

[OP No.17477748]

warn about usinh Wikipedia to learn about Islam, it is extremely inaccurate and I am pretty sure that's intentional. Absolutely 1984-tier-propaganda level reliability.

Now let's start by looking at a very accessible essay by Guénon called "Haqiqa and Shari'a in Islam"

Available here
https://archive.org/details/GENONHaqiqa

Now, the key point to immediately draw from the essay is that sufism distinguishes two levels of knowledge, one relating to action, and the other to theoria.

>the sharīʿa is first and foremost a rule of action, whereas the ḥaqīqa is pure knowledge

Important to note here is that Guénon is not simply making the classification of knowledge vs action (which as we shall is is the Wahhabi classification) but rather is distinguishing between knowledge for action and knowledge for being.

Now let's compare Wahhabi doctrine by looking at a lecture series on Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's short treatise, Usool al-Thalatha, see lecture #6
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLkKw0MVQkUNdHM8d9DNlO7NCat_2ZEOf

Within a Wahhabi framework, there can be action of the heart but it's a belief, not theoria. That is because Wahhabi thought rejects esoteric knowledge beyond Shari'ah as is made clear here (and if you do the reading from last thread, it explains why). Thus Wahhabi thought is extremely
Cont

[OP No.17477750]

>>17477748
action orented and disdainful of theoria, this is why there is a lot of overlap between for example ISIS and futurism
From the Futurist Manifesto:

>We want to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and rashness.

>The essential elements of our poetry will be courage, audacity and revolt.

>Literature has up to now magnified pensive immobility, ecstasy and slumber. We want to exalt movements of aggression, feverish sleeplessness, the double march, the perilous leap, the slap and the blow with the fist.

>Beauty exists only in struggle ["jihad" literally means struggle]. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character.

>We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman.

>We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.

For an academic exploration see, "The Political Aesthetics of ISIS and Italian Futurism"

Now let's look at the political thought. First we'll examine Shia thought, which stems directly from Shia epistemology as already covered. Within Shia political theory, the high jurist acts on behalf of the hidden imam, who is
Cont

[OP No.17477752]

>>17477750
believed to have total and absolute authority over all creation, and thus the high jurist can actually overrule the Qur'an (which in Shia belief is created)

>Is he only able to issue orders within the framework of the Islamic legal system, or is he fully authorized to make decisions even if they contradict the Shari’ah? In other words, is his license as a ruler defined by the Shari’ah, or is his authority above the Shari’ah and therefore absolute?

[....]

[Khomeini] writes:

>The government or the absolute guardianship (al- Wilayat al-mutlaqa) that is delegated to the noblest messenger of Allah is the most important divine laws and has priority over all other ordinances of the law. If the powers of the government restricted to the framework of ordinances of the law then the delegation of the authority to the Prophet would be a senseless phenomenon. I have to say that government is a branch of the Prophet's absolute Wilayat and one of the primary (first order) rules of Islam that has priority over all ordinances of the law even praying, fasting and Hajj...The Islamic State could prevent implementation of everything - devotional and non- devotional - that so long as it seems against Islam's interests42.

This is a serious political conflict with Wahhabism of course because within Wahhabi thought Islam is submission to Allah so you could not coherently defy Allah in the interests of submitting to Him. This however is less jarring from a Sufi perspective (see the reading from the last thread, Satan in Sufism).

>Unlike conditional authority (Wilayat al-muqayada) that restricts the right of the faqih for issuing governmental orders solely in permissibility cases (mubahat), Wilayat al- mutlaqa, by definition, is a juridical view concerning the dominion of the just faqih to issue governmental orders even if it is in opposition with some obligatory Islamic laws.

Full article, worth the read
https://www.al-islam.org/shia-political-thought-ahmed-vaezi/what-wilayat-al-faqih

Now let's examine sufi political thought. While Salafism tends to be extremely reactionary or Futurist (we will إن شاء الله discuss these variations), sufi thought I'd more traditional and conservative. Thus for example Hakim Murad opposes militancy against modernism (which jihadists endorse), saying
Cont

[OP No.17477754]

>>17477752
this is in conflict with Evola's injunction to "ride the tiger". Rather he says, Muslims must learn to assimilate into western culture and focus on internal practice. Full lecture here
https://youtu.be/07Ien1qo_qI

Hamza Yusuf says that Muslims who want Shari'ah or an Islamic state are crazy, and should rather support secularism
https://youtu.be/dUe5OsGbhM0

And that when it comes to gay rights, Muslims shouldn't legislate their morality on others
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/living/orlando-muslims-statement/index.html

The sufi publication, Traversing Tradition, extolls Enoch Powell for supporting small government and the free market
https://www.traversingtradition.com/2020/01/06/powellism-and-western-islam

All these positions are consistent with the sufi belief in the importance of pluralism and recognizing the Other. The obsession with the exoteric is seen as the ultimate disease of modernism.

Now as for Wahhabism, ever since Ibn Saud allied with the British there has been a growing rift. First of all within Wahhabi thought, allying with non Muslims is categorically forbidden, including Jews. And to facilitate their presence in Muslim lands is regarded as apostasy. Ibn Saud actually massacred his closest supporters, the Ikhwan (not to be confused with the Ikhwan as in the Muslim Brotherhood) in a surprise attack, because they defied British orders. Since then there has been a lot of bad blood. Ahmad Jibril (the Wahhabi lecturere) says that the House of Saud are"traitors in their blood" both for their turn on the Ikhwan and for Ibn Saud dispatching his son to London to request British help in return for fighting the Ottomans. ISIS refers to Saud as"the head of the snake" (since the Petrodollar has a big role in the politics there, and the British, America and Russia all intervened at Saudi request)
https://elokab.ro/2391

A descendent of the Ikhwan orchestrated the Grand Mosque Seizure,the first Wahhabi militant action against Saud. Opposition would cultimate when Osama Bin Laden, much to his
Cont

[OP No.17477758]

>>17477754
>>17477752
family's alarm, declared the House of Saud apostates and fled the country.

Now within Wahhabi thought as I have said are both futurist and reactionary tendencies. There is also the loyalist tendency, Madkhalis, who support the House of Saud but are hated by other Wahhabis. A manifesto that is widely accepted by both the reactionaries and futurists is "Join the Caravan", by Abdullah Azzam (not to be confused with the biography about him)
https://english.religion.info/2002/02/01/document-join-the-caravan/

From a Wahhabi jihadist perspective, riding the tiger is unacceptable. Secularism, atheism, democracy, communism and liberalism are all regarded as essentially the same ideology, and this ideology is regarded as a religion which must be fought in unending holy war until it is purged from the face of the earth
https://peopleoftawhid.org/democracy-the-modern-idol/

To the Wahhabi jihadist, even if civilization itself must be taken down to rubble and even if it costs millions of lives and takes millions of years, the war on "taghut" must never be given up otherwise it is surrender of spirit to matter
https://youtu.be/mGMXNAFU5nk

Naturally the United States regarded Wahhabis as excellent allies against communists but after the Cold War it became clear they saw America as the same coin, other side. Since then the state department has given preference to Madkhalis and Sufism (see the RAND, "The Muslim World After 9/11)

Wew, questions and comments welcome

[OP No.17477773]

بسم الله في أوله وأخره

[OP No.17477951]

Also sorry I couldn't really do justice to Shia political discourse in terms of comprehensiveness but I feel like I already deter too many people by the length of my OP's so most of the material I linked if you want more detail, the Shia article the excerpt is from is within a much larger series, I tried my best to provide all the resources of you're interested in further exploring any of these points or schools of thought

[Anonymous No.17478007]

>>17477758
>From a Wahhabi jihadist perspective, riding the tiger is unacceptable. Secularism, atheism, democracy, communism and liberalism are all regarded as essentially the same ideology, and this ideology is regarded as a religion which must be fought in unending holy war until it is purged from the face of the earth
>To the Wahhabi jihadist, even if civilization itself must be taken down to rubble and even if it costs millions of lives and takes millions of years, the war on "taghut" must never be given up otherwise it is surrender of spirit to matter
Based. Good to see that some realize that the “ride the tiger” strategy is a massive cope and that in reality one should strive to vanquish the tiger if they have the means and the spirit. I have always liked Wahhabism from an outsiders perspective, and cannot see why it is hated so, except for by people who want to attempt to reconcile their Islam with modernity and acceptance by the West.

Good stuff, OP.

[OP No.17478215]

>>17478007
Thanks, I try to be as informative as possible. I know it's a bit long to wade through

[Anonymous No.17478308]

>>17478007
I disagree, vanquishing the Tiger is precisely the goal of Riding the Tiger in the Evolian sense. You have to hold on inwardly as much as possible while the Tiger of modernity powers ahead. Only once the Tiger has become tired can you vanquish him and bring the end of Kali Yuga.

[Anonymous No.17478337]

https://absolutoracle.com/SufiMaster/Articles2/RealSystemThinkingAboutTheSufiWay.htm

Real System Thinking
About The Sufi Way
by Qutub Sarmouni

>There are two (2) fundamental branches of the Sufi Way of importance to Western seekers-of-the-miraculous:

>1. Eastern Sufis, physically, neuro-cognitively conditioned as automata of Islam (Sunni or Shia).

>2. Western Sufis, physically, neuro-cognitively conditioned as automata of Technological Atheism and/or Obsolete Christianity (Catholic or Protestant).

>Esoteric Development techniques designed for Islamic Eastern Sufis do not work for Technological Western Sufis. Without, for instance, an Eastern conditioning that responds organically and emotionally to “holy” chant-words in Arabic or Persian, the Western so-called “Sufi” does not have an organically resonant semantic net in his or her brain, even if he or she tries to inorganically “convert” to Islam and learns to be fluent in Arabic or Persian. Add to this that these organically non-resonant “Sufis” of the West are embedded in an organic environment that is hostile to Islam and that Eastern Sufis are embedded in an organic environment that is hostile to Western Technological Atheism, the systemic factors operating within the Western Sufi System, within the Eastern Sufi System and within the interface between the two systems as a joint venture, and the future of either system is not viable. Attempts to transplant the Sufi Way into the non-Islamic West are only breeding aberrations and societal endangerments for the most part in both West and East. The result:

>1. Western Sufism is unnatural, artificial, and activates the immune system of the Western political and societal greater system. Western Sufism is treated as a dangerous virus or infection in the West.

>2. Eastern Sufism is natural and organic in the greater Islamic political and social environment in which it is debilitating and dangerous to bring eager Western Sufis into, for they are seen as contaminating elements in the Eastern greater environment, which activates the immune system of the surrounding political and societal environment in the East.

[Anonymous No.17478345]

>>17478337
>If we are Naqshbandi(s), we have to meditate adequately on the Naqsh, which is the System of higher human evolution on our planet Earth. To do this, we have to be able to do Real System Thinking, both in the West and the East in conjunction with utilizing other indispensable cognitive functions. Hence it is required that we learn how Viability works by deeply studying the theories of Viable System Modeling of Stafford Beer and the Immune Response of Organic, Living Systems or Organizations as in the writings of Francisco Varela. In addition to this, every Naqshbandi, Western or Eastern, should study Chaos Theory, Complexity Theory, System Dynamics and Soft System Modeling. That is how the Naqsh comes to light within genuine human intelligence beyond thoughtless emotional identification with Western or Eastern Sufism. Yet higher faculties also need to be employed beyond intellect, but not below it. That I am myself an international management consultant as my profession in mundane life does not make my higher Sufic faculties less productive, but more. In fact, when raw emotional “Sufis” reject higher development of the True Intellect, it only serves to obstruct the further progress of other evolutionary faculties.

>Systemically within the Naqsh (the Total Spiritual System of the Earth Globe), the Western Sufi Way and the Eastern Sufi Way are just two (2) significant components among many in the overall dynamical interactions or causal feedback loops of the Naqsh as a whole. Higher dimensional System Thinking is indeed a tremendous intellectual and spiritual challenge for both Western and Eastern Sufis alike, but very few of them are willing to hear this! And why? Because of physical, intellectual and spiritual laziness rooted in the biological robotics of conditioning, prejudice and psychological identification, all of which maintain utterly stupid assumptions about what constitutes authenticity, authority or competence of any possible Sufi Guide. Assumptions plug the Ear of the Heart, which is why we see the vast majority of would-be Sufis in both West and East subject to gossip, slander and pretence all around about any figure who becomes temporarily exciting in their circles of superficial seeking, socializing, seducing and rejecting. Westerners playing these sociologically superficial games in and around Islamic Sufism are like minnows playing with each other within the Jaws of a great whale, which calls itself the “War On Terror”. The Sufi forums on the Web are thus a presently critical fault or debilitation within the Naqsh that also needs truly extensive System Thinking. But such an entity is operating on such a low level of intelligence that it has no resident shared faculty of correct self-examination. The whole thing is just a wasteful side-effect of the presence of a misunderstood entity: the Sufi Way.

[Anonymous No.17478353]

>>17478345
> Sufi organizations, which also include Gurdjieff organizations, in the world today are incompetent in System Thinking and will remain willfully incompetent to their own detriment. This is also true in regard to such missing cognitive skills as Scenarios Planning, Goal-Oriented Problem-Solving and Causal Texture Analysis.

> Consider the following Conference of Religions:

>Muslim: “God” is not Allah. You Christians and Jews, as well as Hindus and Buddhists, have all been conditioned in the wrong religion.

>Christian: “Allah” is a pitiful so-called “God”. Your stupid religion makes you into murderous fanatics.

>Jew: We have the correct esoteric Name of God. It is “YahWey”. We feel sorry for Christians. Muslims are nothing but mindless suicide bombers clinging to their inferior conditioning. Hindus are idol-worshipping fools. Buddhists are against God because they are stupid and have a wrong conditioning. Technological Atheists are best kept under the control of Israel.

>Hindu: All religions are little parts of the Leela, Game, of All-pervading Vishnu, who has a sky-blue body and wears golden sunshine pants. You are all lacking a proper education about religion.

>Buddhist: You are all unenlightened. Only we Buddhists are conditioned into Ultimate Truth beyond your meaningless “Gods”!

>Technological Atheist:
All you people are into dumb crap that just creates stupid cults. You are not with the program. You better adjust!

[Anonymous No.17478359]

>>17478353
>Try thinking systemically about the causal interactions going on between all six of these mind-choking religious conditionings pronouncing upon one another. Each stupidity has produced its own local brand of “Self-realization” or the “Way to God”.

>The Sufi Way is a kind of occult and spiritual know-how that cannot be simply transplanted like a fruit tree from Eastern to Western soil. There are system problems there. Will you look into it all with genuine intelligence plus higher intuition? Naturally, the false and brainless supposed “experts on Sufism in the West” and “supposed Authentic Sufi Masters in the East” who you endlessly allow to influence you will no doubt tell you, “Do not listen to that self-appointed Western management consultant ‘False’ Sufi. He will only distract you with his nonsense that the Naqsh is a ‘Causal Feedback Dynamical System’! Now that he has been exposed as a Western Management Consultant, which means he cannot possibly be a real Knower of the Divine, you should not need any further warnings from Us!”

[OP No.17478460]

>>17478337
>>17478345
>>17478353
>>17478359
I disagree with this assessment and so would Ibn Bayyah

[OP No.17478482]

>>17478460
I should add, unlike Sufis in the west,Ibn Bayyah strongly opposed democracy, but he does so because he considers it a major threat to secularism in the Middle East. He is on very good terms with Hamza Yusuf who also opposes democracy in the Middle East but supports it in the west

[OP No.17478512]

>>17478308
From a Wahhabi perspective, this is analogous to saying you will continue to look the other way while your wife has an affair because you know eventually she and him will get tired of each other

[Anonymous No.17478535]

>>17478512
Nah
More like, the guy she is cheating on you with is far more powerful than you and could kill you and take everything from you without consequences. So instead, you choose not to raise any suspicions and hide your knowledge of the affair from your own wife. Meanwhile you plot the destruction of the other guy at a future date.
Riding the Tiger 101

[OP No.17478548]

>>17478535
Yes from a Wahhabi perspective it would be better to die than to refrain from confrontation, because this is seen as reflective of putting metaphysical values above material desires, including the desire to live

[OP No.17478557]

>>17478535
>>17478548
I think I should also add that Wahhabis perceive the Evolian plan as having as much substance as QAnon

[Anonymous No.17478572]

>>17478535
Lol cuck

[Anonymous No.17478602]

>>17478548
>>17478557
>>17478572
This thread shows that you shitskins will lose in the end as you are no match for the long term thinking of the Anglo. The Anglos played the Arabs like the monkeys they are and totally control their future. I suggest you try to go after someone that better reflects your capabilities. Perhaps the pajeets or chinks

[OP No.17478633]

>>17478602
The Anglo played himself desu. He created a Commonwealth that allows open immigration to his homeland then left the EU in protest over it thereby isolating himself and becoming a virtual vassal of America. It's kind of ironic that this happened seeing as how prior to the American revolution it was the other way around (American colonies were only allowed to trade with Britain)

Unless by Anglo you mean America, but I honestly don't believe they are doing very well considering. Britain's empire lasted a lot longer before decline whereas America only started serious operations in the Middle East under Carter and have proven to be very confused on their strategy in that they keep doing something and then reversing it

[Anonymous No.17478666]

>>17478633
Bruh, have you ever considered that maybe transitioning to the Commonwealth and opening their borders was part of the plan? Globohomo is the ultimate Anglo PSYOP. Just look how many of your people have been enslaved in the process: culturally, economically, militarily.

And btw, America is firmly under control of the Anglos. America and the Commonwealth are the same entity with different masks.

Again, I must tell you that you are no match for the Eternal Anglo.

[OP No.17478686]

>>17478666
I don't believe the British race has increased in global power or status lately, rather I think they have been in very rapid decline since the end of WWII and are currently in free fall

[Anonymous No.17478726]

>>17478686
Anon, I have to go to bed so I can’t continue this conversation. As a reader of Guenon, this was a great thread though and I understand the wahhabi side better now so I thank you.

I will depart with one last bit. Stop thinking in terms of the average British or American citizen and think about the neo-British empire in terms of world banking, five eyes intelligence, big tech, Hollywood, American/British military, etc.

[OP No.17478756]

>>17478726
Happy you enjoyed it

I wouldn't exactly say banking and hollywood are Anglo controlled, nor would I say the Anglo lobby dictates American military policy. I think Anglo on fact is a bit of a dated term, the global culture today is sort of an heir to the idea Britain had but only vaguely, in reality the British idea had a sort of anchor in monarchy and white identity and religious discipline, even if only culturally. Pop culture is rather the deciding factor now and it's only linguistically Anglo really

[Anonymous No.17478784]

Spiritual Discussion Groups on the Web
Are Not Developmental
by Qutub Sarmouni

>There are all sorts of forums, discussion groups and chat rooms on the Web where supposedly serious and profoundly intelligent people share important insights on serious subjects, which sometimes will cause a group flurry of interest in a website such as this one, which has an interactive oracle and some articles but noticeably no forum, discussion group, chat room, advertised meditation classes or other “please get involved with our wonderful work” sort of commercial advertisement. We give no address to contact; we offer no form of overt participation. So the shallow grouping will suddenly get fascinated with something, kick it back and forth with witty doubts and criticisms and then pause a little in group satisfaction that theirs is the sophisticated consensus, which will soon be followed by their swarming temporarily on to something else, like a mass of flies in Morocco moving from one piece of hanging meat in the open market and then moving to another one when the first one gets disturbed in some way. What these various forums, discussion groups and chat rooms accomplish is not even a preparation for higher human development. What it is, which any genuine Sufi can see, is an attention exchange situation so that the participants can give and receive the amount of social attention they need to fuel their social egos. It therefore does not matter what website or seemingly serious issue they temporarily land on together, because their only real concern is their attention exchange system. The little flurries and fads they create for themselves are utterly without substance, except where one or two of them suddenly wake up to the shallow emptiness and pretentious verbal posturing of witty commentators and critics in their group, thus causing these one or two awakened people to stop attending such groups with the realization that attention needs and cravings have no bearing whatsoever on serious human development other than to postpone it for secondary rewards.

[Anonymous No.17478792]

>>17478784
>Sufis are often called “cold-hearted” and “smugly superior” for pointing out the difference between a social attention exchange situation and a developmental situation or gathering that we in fact call a Gathering, a Jam. Developmental people in a developmental gathering are not relieving social cravings to belong, to give or get attention. Anyone with that kind of neurotic problem is simply not going to be there, even if they whine and complain of being “wrongly left out”. In the end, such people with attention problems will inevitably “decide” that the rejecting people, genuine Dervishes working to become Sufis, are themselves “inferior” and “irrelevant” or they would not have shut out the self-important attention seeker.

>Any Eastern teacher or situation that panders to immature social seekers is himself or itself non-developmental, whatever the claims and self-convictions otherwise. This includes even certain well-known “Sufis” and “Sufi” groupings who offer an indiscriminate “come one, come all” approach with bulletins, advertisements and the like. This is nothing but cheap consumerism. Any Sufi who says, “Come and try us out and if you feel impressed and stimulated enough, be sure to try and stay and remain committed to our particular work”, is a false Sufi. Neither you nor anyone else will ever develop in the company of shallow shoppers who drift from one grouping to another as if they are gathering important experiences along their route of various attention exchange situations. The Way has never been and never will be a consumerist attention exchange situation.

>Who knows? Perhaps this very article will cause a temporary swarm of visits from some discussion group or forum on the Web when one or another of them feels struck somehow by the Sufi approach to the Sufi Way as opposed to the brainy doubting shoppers of the West. However, we are never elated or encouraged by such shallow group flurries of “interest” because we know exactly what it really means and does not mean.

[Anonymous No.17478797]

>>17478792
https://absolutoracle.com/SufiMaster/Articles2/spiritualDiscussion.htm

[OP No.17478798]

>>17478784
This guy sounds cranky. Is he you?

[Anonymous No.17478812]

>>17478798
>Is this guy you?
In a sense, yes, but in the way I assume you’re asking (the literal, physical sense), no, I am not the one who wrote those articles.

[OP No.17478814]

>>17478812
I think he's confused: sufism is a school of thought within Islam, not a school of thought or philosophy unto itself. Yet one could replace "sufi" in this writing with any other word and it would come out the same as it never really relates to Islam

[Anonymous No.17478867]

>>17478814
Yes, he’s playing off the definition of Sufism given by figures such as Idries Shah, who claimed it was a sort of trans-Islamic spiritual know-how, existing independently of any culture, as well as the closely related Sarmouni school referenced by G.I. Gurdjieff. I’ve had telepathic conversations with the guy who wrote those articles and that’s proof enough for me that he’s not “confused.”

https://absolutoracle.com/SufiMaster/Articles2/WeMustBeMoreThanSufisButNotLess.htm

We Must Be More Than Sufis
But Not Less
by Qutub Sarmouni

>Culture-bound Islamic Sufis have managed to achieve levels of personal and group evolutionary attainment even though hobbled by Islam and all too often persecuted by Islamic Orthodoxy. Though would-be Sarmoun Sufis beyond Islam, both in the West and the East, are more universal-minded and eclectic about their spiritual aspiration, this has all too often resulted in a dilettante hodge-podge of bits and pieces of doctrines and random exercises or methods from a variety of uncoordinated sources, resulting in expansive goodwill socially, but precious little of genuine higher development individually. Western seekers have all too often unwittingly become less than Islamic Sufis rather than more.

>Another factor in all this is that many ostensibly exclusively culture-bound Islamic Sufis have had to seem that way to prevent themselves from being martyred by Orthodox Islam when they have been in fact well-versed in all the world’s esoteric traditions and have often adopted validly useful elements from a variety of sources. Superhuman Guides, working in the guise of Islamic Sufism, have had to secretly coordinate the Way of Ways for their students for over a thousand years. They have had over a thousand years of knowledge, experience and realization as the founding members of the Sarmoun Brotherhood. For them, the activities of universal spirituality in the West are simply too social, immature, confused and incompetent for personal and group achievement on the Way. Decoding their Islamist expressions should thus be a high priority for any Western seeker of the Sarmoun Brotherhood who can extract himself or herself from the habit of silly socializing and bragging on the stupid Sufi Web forums on the Internet where superficial group politics predominate.

> No spiritual tradition on Earth is as adept at cutting through silly social spirituality and pretentious false guides as are the Naqshbandi affiliated Sarmouni(s). Indian Gurus, for instance, have notoriously invited and accepted all sorts of unqualified and randomly self-selected “disciples” or confused, greedy, self-selected and experimental seekers. These Gurus, drowning themselves in such false disciples, have suffered huge scandals in the style of Baba Muktananda, Swami Shyam, Bhagawan Rajneesh and Sathya Sai Baba.

[Anonymous No.17478875]

>>17478867
> Then there is Da Free John in Fiji and a whole new wave of New Age spiritual leaders, which has included the horribly distraught and foolish Tensegrity Cult of Carlos Castaneda.

>Putting together fragmentary and incomplete spiritual schools and traditions does not necessarily create a balanced, integrated and spiritually effective Way, just as tying leaking boats together does not make them float, as it is said in Bengal, the land of boats. For centuries, in fact, the Bauls of Bengal have been a branch of the Sarmoun with the problem of dealing with a combination of Islamic Sufism and Tantric Buddhism coupled with Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava mysticism and Yoga. The Bauls mirror locally in Bengal the global situation of the Sarmoun Brotherhood. How this really works should be deeply and extensively meditated upon.

>If you are serious about all this, then overlook the parochial authoritarianism and arrogance of Idries Shah, for in spite of his personal failings and cosmic limitations, his lack of genuine oneness with the Divine level of Nondual Awareness of Being, he is an ample transmitter of the indispensable Naqshbandi orientation. Also, for your education, work with the interesting hypothesis that he faked his own death in Britain and has taken on a new identity in a new location. Perhaps he foresaw the demonization of all Muslims in Britain, Europe and America. Why would he sit there in Tunbridge Wells as a sitting duck for the Blair government to play games with?

[Anonymous No.17478879]

>>17478875
>I have said it before and I am saying it now: Any so-called “Sufi” in Britain, Europe or America who outwardly identifies with Islam will suffer greatly in the coming pogroms as the Third World War unfolds due to Al-C.I.A-Duh false flag terrorism, particularly in Britain. No seeming “Sufi” with half a brain will remain a resident Muslim in Britain. It would be much better to move to Morocco and risk being persecuted by the Muslims who are suspicious of Western “converts” who they would suspect are British spies. Why do you suppose the EU planners have tried to make Turkey a member of the EU? It means that Europe would be flooded with millions of “potential terrorists” to justify excess surveillance and suspension of human rights throughout Europe. The Turkish people might imagine they would have a more affluent lifestyle in mainstream Europe, but they would be persecuted for sure, just like the Arabs in France. It is all going to get far more ugly.

>The sociological and political turmoil in and around Islam is not a promising environment for the Sufi Way as such. That is why it is so presently crucial to fully absorb Sufi know-how before it disappears as such from the planet. You must be more than a Sufi but not less. This remains the fundamental Sarmouni requirement. If you do not understand it, I pity you, even though real understanding will make you suddenly very unpopular in Sufistic social circles.

[OP No.17478890]

>>17478867
I'll stick with Allah and His Messenger ﷺ

[Anonymous No.17478892]

>>17477743
Help me learn more of this stuff OP for threads seriously discussing this are rare. I've read Guenon's Introduction to Hinduism and The crisis of the world, I really enjoyed the former a lot more and would love to get into the Vedas but I have no idea where to start or if I should read more secondary lit

[Anonymous No.17478899]

>>17478890
May it work out as best as it can for you.

[OP No.17478928]

>>17478892
Try this
http://muslimphilosophy.net/pre-islamic-indian-thought

[Anonymous No.17478932]

>>17478928
>http://muslimphilosophy.net/pre-islamic-indian-thought
ty

[OP No.17479067]

>>17478932
Np

[Anonymous No.17479070]

Why dont you, idk, talk to actual mudshits about this and not with at best edgy wanna be contrarian mudshits here?
I am certain there’s a telegram chennel you can join.

[OP No.17479096]

>>17479070
Irl is where I talk to other Muslims.

[Anonymous No.17479153]

>>17479096
Then what's the point of this?

[OP No.17479166]

>>17479153
Are you saying the only reason to post on this board is not having friends?

[Anonymous No.17479178]

>>17479166
Anecdotal, but yes. I know those times i have a friend in my life i can talk to, i completely forget about this site

[OP No.17479199]

>>17479178
I use this board for dense discourse on written works. Surely you don't think I would state an entire op like this as the opening to a conversation irl?

[Anonymous No.17479217]

OP, how do you justify the early raid on the Qurashy caravans after the Hijrah?
Or the slaughter of the Beni Qurayza?
Any good sources, preferably books, that justify the difficulties some may have with Mohammad's behaviours, actions and things he condoned/ allowed or ordered?
Thanks for a great post btw. Keep up the good work.
Btw, I'm guessing your the same anon who did those posts on the Quran? Did you keep them somehow? I'd like to read over them as I only saw a couple but, as I understood, there were more.
Peace.

[OP No.17479245]

>>17479217
>OP, how do you justify the early raid on the Qurashy caravans after the Hijrah?

Please explain to me why such a raid would require justification. There was no peace agreement between Makkah and Aws and Khazraj. In fact the tribes of Makkah all tried to collaborate in an assassination of Muhammad ﷺ. Why exactly would their merchandise be sacrosanct?

>Or the slaughter of the Beni Qurayza?
They made war on the Muslims and did so despite having a covenant with them. Muhammad ﷺ showed considerable magnanimity to Jews who did this in prior circumstances all things considered. Here a judge was assented to by the Jews, they wanted a Muslim who was on good terms with them and had many friends among them. So they got that and the fact is he issued a very harsh verdict. But there was nothing particularly unjust in it

I don't what morality you want to justify his actions by but if it's liberalism then you will find that impossible. However as far as Biblical morality goes he was a very clement man, in fact so clement he was rebuked in the Qur'an for not beheading the prisoners of Badr. He couldn't after he already said he would spare them but Allah said prophets do not commence war in clemency

I have them saved in a justpaste if you want the link

[Anonymous No.17479306]

>>17479245
How is violent robbery permissable? Wouldn't Muhammad have had relatives in the caravans?

Enslaving the families of the fighting men wasn't harsh? Couldn't he have just exiled the Qurayza from Medina? There was no Divine injunction to execute the jews was there?
Another question: do you know of any sources were we get the relative times the ayat were revealed?

[OP No.17479324]

>>17479306
How is not permissible to rob your enemies? Every nation either raids (especially common in privateering days) or (more common nowadays) bombs or torpedoes enemy shipping or production

Both he and his followers had many relatives on the other side

Exile is how he normally dealt with the matter. This was dealt with differently because someone else judges it, someone in particular the Jews wanted as judge

Yeah there are a lot of Hadiths relating the words of his followers about when various verses were revealed

[Anonymous No.17479375]

>>17479199
>Surely you don't think I would state an entire op like this as the opening to a conversation irl?
Of course not that's not how spoken conversation works.

[OP No.17479381]

>>17479375
Then you must realize that this is a different medium and therefore not fungible in content and purpose

[Anonymous No.17479529]

How does contemporary Islam handle sexuality? Given that sex outside marriage is a sin, people used to marry young as soon as they were financially capable of starting a family. Now that in most cases such financial capability is not attained until late twenties, what is expected of young people? Just endure and repress sexuality until marriage is possible?

[OP No.17479551]

>>17479529
It's more of an issue for men than women, the latter are still married very young, right after high school or earlier depending on the custom of the family. Men who marry earlier tend to stay living with their parents, the wife moves in

[Anonymous No.17479579]

>>17479551
Of course, women are not expected to provide so this is not a problem for them, I should have specified.
>Men who marry earlier tend to stay living with their parents, the wife moves in
But an arrangement like this is only possible in some countries under Islamic law. What is expected of Muslim men who do not have the family's support?

[OP No.17479604]

>>17479579
No country is under Islamic law really, some have a little influence of it but most operate under colonial framework with the Islamic elements being enforced grassroots or by jihadists

You literally cannot have a valid marriage Islamically without her guardian's approval, this is understood across the board even by pozzed goofballs in the west

[Anonymous No.17479633]

>>17479604
More ambiguity on my part, apologies. I meant the financial support from the family of the male. If there is no such support which enables the wife to move in, then an early marriage like the one you mentioned would not be possible. What is expected in that case?
>No country is under Islamic law really
I thought countries like Iran enforce Islamic law? Is that not the case?

[OP No.17479652]

>>17479633
There is no such support customarily. In fact in Islam the dowry is given by the husband to the wife, we call it mahr.

Unless her family is very religious then you are out of luck. If her family is very religious and you are as well and your devoutness is a major factor for your appeal to the father, then it's not really a problem. She just lives with you and your parents. Not necessarily very glamorously but it's not a problem.

Iran is an extraordinary exception, Islamist revolution elsewhere is normally crushed by foreign intervention

[Anonymous No.17479682]

>>17479652
Ah, it makes sense. So the families on both parts try to make it work.
>Iran is an extraordinary exception, Islamist revolution elsewhere is normally crushed by foreign intervention
Were there such attempted interventions to prevent Iran's revolution too? I know that the American and Israeli governments seem very active against Iran currently.

[OP No.17479696]

>>17479682
Generally marriage is arranged by the two families

The Shah was extremely pro Israel so naturally deposing him was not well received by Israel. He also guranteed the British could take oil our very cheaply. But there was nothing there like what Russia did with Syria, no, nor was the military active enough for secularism as in Egypt

[Anonymous No.17479708]

>>17477743
"Guenon was muslim lol"

No.

"What also surprised me a great deal was the regret that I had no biographical information about myself; this is something I have always formally opposed, and above all for a reason of principle, because, according to traditional doctrine, individualities count for nothing and must disappear entirely ... But, in spite of this, I am obliged at least to rectify erroneous assertions when they occur; For example, I cannot let it be said that I am "converted to Islam", because this way of presenting things is completely false; anyone who is aware of the essential unity of traditions is by this very fact "unconvertible" to anything, he is even the only one who is; but he can "settle down", if it is permitted to express himself in this way, in this or that tradition according to circumstances, and especially for reasons of an initiatory nature. I would like to add in this regard that my links with Islamic esoteric organizations are not something more or less recent as some people seem to think; in fact, they are almost 40 years old...".
- Letter from René Guénon to A. Daniélou, August 27, 1947, my translation - i'm french and my English is bad so sorry if there are mistakes

Retarded Muslims who try to grab his glory must get out. Guénon was Sufi at the end of his life, for purely practical reasons: he already had links with Sufi organizations and he wanted to leave France. The closest and most convenient was the Maghreb.

99.99% of the Muslims who try to seize Guénon's genius by saying "he converted to Islam lol" are refuted by the master himself in this letter and probably never read him, because they would make apostate any Muslim having 1/10th of Guénon's beliefs. Some points of his belief in brief:

1. that all religions are currently valid to lead to God and that Islam is only the most practical path of our time for a European
2. that deliverance (union with the Absolute, death of the ego, al-fana' ) is superior to salvation (entry into paradise), the latter being there for the masses when deliverance is the way of the elites
3. that the world is a part of God and that there is an impersonal Absolute superior to the personal God.
4. that it is desirable to achieve supra-individual states through intiation
5. that there is an esoteric path that transcends religious divisions

The Sufi Islam of Guénon is: yes.

The exoteric Islam of 99.99% of the Muslims on earth: it's no, it's shit, and it's probably the worst exotericism still alive.

Small message to the islamists who play the guenonfags to convert naive people to their shitty sect.

[Anonymous No.17479728]

>>17479696
>Generally marriage is arranged by the two families
Is arranged marriage recommended in Quran and Hadith or is it more of a cultural thing? I might be mistaken, but I think there was no marriage arranged for Muhammad, but he chose (or agreed to marry) all his wives himself.
>The Shah was extremely pro Israel so naturally deposing him was not well received by Israel. He also guranteed the British could take oil our very cheaply. But there was nothing there like what Russia did with Syria, no, nor was the military active enough for secularism as in Egypt
So the circumstances were just right to allow the revolution to happen. But do you think they were successful in creating an Islamic governance? Some of the Iranians I see online do not seem very happy with how things turned out.

[OP No.17479763]

>>17479708
If you knew anything about the sufis Guénon was influenced by, you would know they spoke in a similar way.

If you read the essay by Guénon I linked you would know that not only did Guénon see nothing wrong with Shari'a, but he actually said it is very important.

>>17479728
Muhammad was an orphan so yeah he didn't have a dad to arrange a marriage. If your father is living it is extremely common for him to be the one who asks the father of the bride. This is not religiously required but it's common

Shia qualifications for Islamic government is much different than Sunnis for reasons I mentioned in the OP but obviously Iran cares more sincerely about Islam in government than countries which actively persecute reviving it, such as Egypt or even Saudi Arabia

[Anonymous No.17479778]

>>17479763
>Muhammad was an orphan so yeah he didn't have a dad to arrange a marriage.
Then shouldn't it have been his uncle to arrange a marriage for him?

[Anonymous No.17479783]

>>17479763
>If you read the essay by Guénon I linked you would know that not only did Guénon see nothing wrong with Shari'a, but he actually said it is very important.
the same shari'ah that would kill him for his nawaqid ul islam, kek.

>99.99% of the Muslims who try to seize Guénon's genius by saying "he converted to Islam lol" are refuted by the master himself in this letter and probably never read him, because they would make apostate any Muslim having 1/10th of Guénon's beliefs. Some points of his belief in brief:
>1. that all religions are currently valid to lead to God and that Islam is only the most practical path of our time for a European
>2. that deliverance (union with the Absolute, death of the ego, al-fana' ) is superior to salvation (entry into paradise), the latter being there for the masses when deliverance is the way of the elites
>3. that the world is a part of God and that there is an impersonal Absolute superior to the personal God.
>4. that it is desirable to achieve supra-individual states through intiation
>5. that there is an esoteric path that transcends religious divisions

[OP No.17479804]

>>17479778
Abu Talib? I don't know if he could. Muhammad ﷺ married fairly late for his time and place and his wife proposed to him. His uncle actually had too many children to take care of and sent Ali, رضي الله عنه, to live with Muhammad ﷺ in order to handle it. Muhammad's ﷺ position as an orphan made him not necessarily a desirable husband since he lacked influence

[OP No.17479817]

>>17479783
By Shari'a Guénon is not referring primarily to a penal code, Shari'ah didn't come to primarily mean that until westerners emphasized. Legally it's a lot more extensive but it also refers to practice, period

[OP No.17479836]

>>17479817
Also I think we have to remember that Guénon's idea of esoteric is actually esoteric, that is, not public. Al Ghazali in his Ihya says he won't put esoteric affairs into writing. I very much doubt in such a society that Guénon would publicly disclose his full ideas, or approve of it

[Anonymous No.17479875]

>>17479324
How is robbery not abominable too God? This is what I dont understand. How is slaughter and enslavement not even frowned upon.
I just cant wrap my head around it. Also why did he have so many wives when others weren't allowed as many and why was Aisha so young. These issues really hold me back from Islam honestly. >>17479778
Lings talks about that in "Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources." It seems as if Khadijah basically just asked him through an intermediary.

[OP No.17479907]

>>17479875
I'm not understanding how raiding an enemy tribe is considered robbery.

Enslavement which leads someone to converting to Islam is a obviously beneficial. And even slaughter is certainly nothing compared to damnation, so you will have a hard time wrapping your head around that.

A'isha wasn't very young then, in fact she was the only virgin he married. All his other wives had been married before

>why so many
They narrated a lot of his practice, the limit imposed on wives is because men can't treat more than four with proper justice and tend to neglect some

Lings is not a good source but that is correct

[Anonymous No.17480016]

>>17479907
I just dont understand it. Why did he even need to raid them? Why even commit any form of aggression? What was his intent? How is it in anyway noble to attack traders?
>slaughter is certainly nothing compared to damnation
So was it just the Qurayzah for their treachery that were damned? (I dont think I understand the implications of your statement there- was it better for their souls that they be executed?) or are all jews damned?

Surely you can understand by qualms about A) the massive age differential between Aisha and Mohammad and B) the seeming hypocrisy in him having more than 4 yet claiming others cannot.
How to rectify these qualms?

[Anonymous No.17480045]

>>17477743
Is the dajjal(delusion)a manifestation of modernity?

Make a thread about the signs of the day of judgement+interpretations

[OP No.17480079]

>>17480016
Not sure why you think Abu Jahl was the agressed against party here, but tribes which persecute you and keep you away from your home and work to prevent spread of Islam are considered obligatory enemies in the Qur'an

All Jews who reject Islam are damned and those who were enslaved were often saved

I don't see the issue because the limit on wives is not (as westerners seem to mistakenly presume) about some sort of sexual contingence; men can have unlimited slaves (and in fact Muhammad ﷺ didn't have many)

The age difference is actually not usual, what's unusual is that it was only present in one marriage

[OP No.17480085]

>>17480045
I plan to إن شاء الله

[Anonymous No.17480168]

>>17480079
>tribes which persecute you and keep you away from your home and work to prevent spread of Islam
So heres the thing. If muslims actually believe Jesus existed and said "turn the other cheek" (big 'and', another question is to what extent is the gospel changed? because its really only John as I recall that has the abominable partnership verses) how can that be considered consistent with Mohammad's prophethood? Isn't the Gospel a morally superior message in this department and others? And wouldn't it be a degeneration of revelation to have gone from a morally greater messenger to a lesser one? Idk, why even follow the Quran when its pretty clear what in the gospels has been corrupted by roman idolisation? Why not strip away the heresy and follow the greater message? A message that says forgive your enemies- which to me is obviously more morally holy and Godly.

Why are jews damned? If they still worship God and keep their covenant I don't understand why they should be condemned. And didn't the tolerance Muhammad gave them in the early days extend into the afterlife? I seem to remember verses such as: vie as in a race of good deeds amongst each other (referring to peoples of the book). How do you explain God or Muhammad changing his mind like that?

The issue with the wives is about the hypocrisy of it. Why was he allowed and others not? Fair enough about Aisha.

[Anonymous No.17480176]

>>17480079
Thanks for attempting to answer my questions btw and thanks for your patience. Reflects very well on our Lord, Most High.

[OP No.17480214]

>>17480168
Forgiving personal wrongs rather than exacting vengeance is extolled by the Qur'an, however that's not the same as overlooking wrongs against the Muslim Ummah, which is a political matter, nor the same as people opposing Islam which is also not simply a personal wrong

Refusing to fight is not regarded as morally superior in this context, the Qur'an rather cites it as cowardice and relates that the Jews were made to wander so long with Moses due to it

Jews teach that rabbis have higher authority than God

Muhammad ﷺ was also allowed to fast through night while others were not, not really about hypocrisy

[OP No.17480268]

>>17480176
Sure

[Anonymous No.17480301]

>>17480214
Those are actually kinda satisfying answers. (Although I could argue that there is no need to make a spirtual issue a political one. I suppose its pretty obvious that God would naturally will the removal of idol worship though so i can seen the political/tribal conflict as a vector for the destruction of idolatry which makes sense.)

Although jews do not teach that bro, thats either disingenuous or foolishness. At least not any that I would consider jews. The orthodox have a pretty rigid traditionalism were prior revelation and insight cannot be contradicted by later people.

Whats the issue of the wives about then? Is it: you guys can't handle it, but I can? Why did he even want/need that many wives? He was really poor right? So how is it even a good thing to take so many people that he would have struggled to support?

[Anonymous No.17480335]

>>17477743
The best thing about this board is there's no way these goatpillers can threaten me

[OP No.17480336]

>>17480301
The idea that politics are not a spiritual concern is very foreign to Islam. The religion, especially Sunnism, requires total subordination of laws and political matters to Allah

>Although jews do not teach that bro

They do

>A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?

>Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.

Widows and divorced women were not generally desirable spouses and finding husbands for them could be very tricky, especially single mom widows which many of his wives were. Again, the only virgin he married was A'isha,and that was due to divine command

[Anonymous No.17480361]

>we are taking ur women

[OP No.17480378]

>>17480301
>He was really poor right?
Also he only was for the most of his prophethood. After massive spoils started coming in he became extremely wealthy, he just gave it away and chose to keep to austere living

[Anonymous No.17480403]

>>17480336
Mm. Well that just kind of points out to me that, yes, islam seems like an all encompassing worldview: politico-spiritual in a sense.

Did you skirt the question of how do you explain changes in the message? Why was it fine to race with jews in good deeds then later they are damned if they dont accept islam?

You got a source for that one? Thats good.

So if it was a good thing for Muhammed to do it, why was it not good for others to take in widows? And if he was poor how was it something good to do if they depended on him and he struggled to provide?

What is the source on the divinity of the command to marry Aisha?

[Anonymous No.17480419]

>>17480378
I want to assure you that this>>17480361
>>17480335 is not me>>17480403 >>17480301 >>17480176 etc

[Anonymous No.17480441]

>Buraydah reported: Abu Bakr and Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, offered a marriage proposal to the Prophet’s daughter Fatimah. The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “She is too young.” Then, Ali proposed to Fatimah and the Prophet married her to him.

Sources claim Fatimah was 9. How to reconcile this with Aisha's betrothal at 6?

I'm muslim myself but curious about this

[OP No.17480467]

>>17480403
There was not a change in message. Rather according to accounts Jews were always hostile to Muhammad ﷺ because he wasn't a Jew and found it offensive that a gentile claimed to be a prophet and extolled Jesus.

https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.59b.4

It was good for others to take in widows but I don't think you're suggesting that the average Arab would choose widows and single moms and divorced women for most brides. He's going to opt for virgins

It's from Hadiths, he dreamed multiple times A'isha was his wife and these dreams featured the angel Gabriel.

>>17480419
Yes I know

[OP No.17480498]

>>17480441
Fatima, رضي الله عنها, is the only child of Muhammad ﷺ who continued his line, he also told Ali, رضي الله عنه,not to take any wives besides her while she was still alive. I don't know if that's a factor here but again the marriage to A'isha was divinely mandated so not really analogous

[Anonymous No.17480573]

>>17480467
>[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
But your telling me the jews are all condemned? Whats the source?

See it says over and over again in the OT protect the rights of the widow. How do you personally feel and what do you think about this aspect? Can you see what I mean when i said it seems like a hypocrisy? I would have thought people would have followed his example.

Thanks for the source on the heeb story btw.

[OP No.17480582]

>>17480573
This ayah is unanimously understood to be in response to concerns over those who died before Muhammad ﷺ was given prophethood (Seba is Sheba)

How is marrying a widow hypocrisy?

[Anonymous No.17480660]

>>17480582
Why does it use present tense 'believe', instead of belived, 'are' instead of were, 'does' not did, 'shall' when its unnecessary if its referring to the already departed?
How do you explain it if we go with the more obvious and literal translation and where is the verse or hadith contradicting the literal interpretation of this verse?

>Seba is Sheba
?

>hypocrisy
Its still hypocritical and a double standard to say: you can only have 4 but I can have, what, nine? Even if they were widows or divorceys. I don't understand why he couldn't encourage them to follow his example: and take the widows and divorceys.
Something about it just doesn't sit right with me, and to tell you the truth (God knows best though) I wish I could get beyond this because it just doesn't compute for me. I get the raiding, I get the Qurayzah incident, I get Aisha, this I just don't get. This and why and by whose authority you can say Jews are condemned.

[Anonymous No.17480694]

>>17478548
>it would be better to die than to refrain from confrontation
low inhibition third worlders at it again

[Anonymous No.17480999]

>>17480694
Coward

[OP No.17481055]

>>17480660
The overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews when this was revealed had no clue who Muhammad ﷺ was and Muslims expected they would not for a very very long time.

This Hadith is in Ibn Kathir. The verse revealed directly after this verse was 3:85. This is on the authority of Ibn Abbas (that is, a Hadith from him, not the apocryphal exegetical work)


Sheba as in the country the Queen of Sheba ruled. Sabinans is someone from there or following the religion of it, Allahu 'alim

Muhammad ﷺ did not make this double standard, Allah did. Allah also would later cap his wives in the Qur'an. Allah also established the double standard that Muhammad ﷺ unlike other Muslims was not allowed to divorce his wives and he actually sent Gabriel to prevent this after Muhammad ﷺ intended to once. It's also worth noting this is after Allah offered to provide any Muhammad's ﷺ wives with a divorce and an easier husband (one who provided them more money and gave them ease in having slaves do most of their labor) if she so chose but they all declined.

[Anonymous No.17481169]

>>17477743
OP, Why do scholars assert that the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Qur'an is the Angel Gabriel?

[Anonymous No.17481205]

>>17477743
Does anyone have the lit meme of Rene Guenon as Luigi (with a luigi hat)?

[OP No.17482549]

>>17481169
Are you suggesting the messenger sent to give Mary tidings of her son is not Gabriel?

[Anonymous No.17483191]

>>17481055
Source on the hadith?

Man- on the wives issue. Honestly I'm just reminded of the the hadith where Aisha says: It seems you Lord hastens to fulfill your desire.

[OP No.17483302]

>>17483191
It's in Ibn Kathir

A'isha, رضي الله عنه, was an extremely jealous wife and was honest about this. She said once about Sophia (a Jewish captive who was enslaved), "As soon as I saw her I hated her." That is, because she knew Muhammad ﷺ would propose to her. Once when Muhammad ﷺ told A'isha to put another's wife's luggage on her camel, A'isha became angry and said, I thought you were supposed to be the man of justice, which her father overhead and grew furious, making a motion to hit her but Muhammad ﷺ stopped him saying nothing she said against him while jealous should be judged harshly as women when jealous can't tell a valley from a mountain. No one who studies Seerah and sees the immense hardship and poverty Muhammad ﷺ underwent just to obey the Qur'an for many years before he even had multiple wives, thinks the Qur'an fulfilled his desires

[OP No.17483533]

>>17483302
In the incident where A'isha was alone with another man and given a ride by him both her parents and Muhammad ﷺ doubted her innocence. Muhammad ﷺ finally told her, after steering clear of her for several days while she stayed away, that if she has done anything wrong she should repent to Allah because he is All-Merciful and would forgive her. At this she became crestfallen and didn't know what do if he suggested this while all his friends and family told him to divorce he because he could have any wife he wanted. Then suddenly the revelation came down that she was innocent and the Muslims were slandering her. She was completely cleared. Her parents told her to thank Muhammad ﷺ and she said she would not, rather she would thank Allah and it was Allah, not Muhammad ﷺ, who vindicated her. This is just how she was, very short tempered, and all these incidents by the way are related by her.

[Anonymous No.17483927]

>>17483302
Where in Ibn Kathir? What work? What section? Why should I trust him? And isn't this another example of inconsistency and God changing his mind?
>"God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?" - Numbers 23:19; "Moreover, the Glory of Israel does not lie or change His mind, for He is not a man, that He should change His mind." - 1 Samuel 15:29; "Yet He too is wise and brings disaster; He does not call back His words. He will rise up against the house of the wicked and against the allies of evildoers." - Isaiah 31:2.

So was their no admonition or encouragement from either Muhammad or God to marry widows and divorcees* TIL?

[Anonymous No.17483969]

>>17483927
>>17483927
Ibn Kathir was an exegete, historian and compiler of Hadiths. This is from his tafsir of the Qur'an, specifically the verse you mentioned

This isn't inconsistency, these two verses were revealed together as is clear here. They are in different parts of the Qur'an because the verses of the Qur'an are not arranged chronologically

Muhammad ﷺ actually suggested marrying a virgin.

[Anonymous No.17484047]

>>17483969
So why is 2.62 in the present tense? Doesn't this contradict Ibn Kathir's tendency towards interpreting literally?

[OP No.17484062]

>>17484047
Most Christians and Jews then had no clue of who Muhammad ﷺ was and this applies to them as well

[Anonymous No.17484260]

>>17484062
Thanks again.
Oh yeah. So did you keep those older posts about the Quran somehow? I'd love to read them.

[OP No.17484279]

>>17484260
https://justpaste dot it/u/Qjabir

I have a few saved there