Nearly all of islamic civilization ended up being ruled by turkics and persians, with arabs just being a obedient tax base and cannonfodder.
>>18684921Non-arabs were second class citizens for the longest time. So naturally the non-Arabs unified against the Arabs and took over once the two-class system was abolished.
>>18684921OP is a Muslim who hates Arabs because Arabs are important in Islam and his ethnicity isn't. It's the same case as with the Jew-hating Christians.
I believe it might be related to partially by chance the caliph title falling to Egyptian non-Arabs and then the Ottomans which normalised subservience
>>18684933The arabs are important because Islam came to them but the prophet literally said that no race or ethnicity is superior to another in his last sermon.
>>18684921There weren't a lot of Arabs, objectively speaking, and they didn't have a long or deep history.Most Muslim culture is basically adopted Iranian culture. Pretty much only the language and writing stuck around.
>>18684944I'm aware. The Turks and Pakistanis still seethe at Arabs anyway.
They got TVRK'd
>>18684954Kek no. Pakis larped as Arabs until recently when they started larping as Turks. As for Turks themselves, why would they seethe at a people they kept under their heel for 1000+ years?
>>18684963idk because they are orcs, they seethe about Gayreeks and Armenians too
>>18684963The Pakistanis and Turks really hate Arabs because the Quran is in Arabic and the text on the walls in mosques is in Arabic. They know God chose an Arab. Same goes for Christcucks and their Jew-obsession.
It always makes me laugh how muslims get assmad about slaves being untrustworthy. Why the fuck would they be loyal to you, you ENSLAVED them
>>18684965Ottomans had 0 problems with Armenians until the jews got involved. As for the Greeks, they squabble over islands and Cyprus. It's unrealistic for either country to attack the other directly so they both play the trolling/provocation game. But I've never met a Turk seething at Arabs because it's historically unimaginable. Maybe at wahhabis for blowing up the Mecca fort but wahhabis are crypto-jews anyway so the seethe is warranted.
>>18684968Pakistanis used to love the Arabs and still hold them in high esteem for the very reason you mentioned.Turks evolved and asserted themselves early as Persian-leaning culturally, so if anything they would see the Arabs as slightly beneath them despite the religious pedigree.
>>18684921It's the very typical story of a harsh Barbarian people taking over the decaying agricultural slave empires and then being corrupted by their degenerate urban values, only to eventually be replaced by a foreign Barbarian tribe, who is temperamentally closer to your own ancestors than yourself.Only the Germanic European nobility ever managed to figure out a way to prevent this from happening, until they were wiped out by Jews between the French Revolution and the Second World War.
>>18684944This is not true. Technically, it seperates people by whether they are Arab or not and with special rights for certain Arabic tribes like the Quraish. There are stuff about equality but it is aimed in theory at certain tribes and in certain contesxts.od had chosen [istafa; lit. "taken 'the best' from"[2]] Adam and Noah and the families of Abraham and 'Imran in preference to others. They were descendants of one another; and God hears all and knows everything.Quran 3:33-34emember, O children of Israel, the favours I bestowed on you, and made you exalted among the nations of the world.Quran 2:47Classed authentic sahih.Wathila b. al-Asqa' reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinana from amongst the descendants of Isma'il, and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinana, and he granted eminence to Banu Hashim amonsgst the Quraish, and he granted me eminence from the tribe of Banu Hashim.Sahih Muslim 2276Narrated Wathilah bin Al-Asqa': that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Indeed Allah has chosen [istafa; lit. "taken 'the best' from"[5]] Isma'il from the children of Ibrahim, and He chose Banu Kinanah from the children of Isma'il, and He chose the Quraish from Banu Kinanah, and He chose Banu Hashim from Quraish, and He chose me from Banu Hashim."Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)Jami` at-Tirmidhi 6:46:3605
Narrated Muhammad bin Jubair bin Mut`im: That while he was with a delegation from Quraish to Muawiya, the latter heard the news that `Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As said that there would be a king from the tribe of Qahtan. On that Muawiya became angry, got up and then praised Allah as He deserved, and said, "Now then, I have heard that some men amongst you narrate things which are neither in the Holy Book, nor have been told by Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). Those men are the ignorant amongst you. Beware of such hopes as make the people go astray, for I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, 'Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, and whoever bears hostility to them, Allah will destroy him as long as they abide by the laws of the religion.' "Sahih Bukhari 3500Narrated Ibn `Umar: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, even if only two of them remained."Sahih Bukhari 3501It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: People are the followers of Quraish in good as well as evilSahih Muslim 1819It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I joined the company of the Prophet (ﷺ) with my father and I heard him say: This Caliphate will not end until there have been twelve Caliphs among them. The narrator said: Then he (the Holy Prophet) said something that I could not follow. I said to my father: What did he say? He said: He has said: All of them will be from the Quraish.Sahih Muslim 1821a
Black are considered inferior in Islam. This included in this time period people from Yemen.'Ubaidullah b. Abu Rafi', the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: When Haruria (the Khwarij) set out and as he was with 'Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) they said," There is no command but that of Allah." Upon this 'Ali said: The statement is true but it is intentionally applied (to support) a wrong (cause). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him described their characteristics and I found these characteristics in them. They state the truth with their tongue, but it does not go beyond this part of their bodies (and the narrator pointed towards his throat). The most hateful among the creation of Allah is one black man among them (Khwarij). One of his hand is like the teat of a goat or the nipple of the breast. When 'Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) killed them, he said: Search (for his dead body). They searched for him, but they did not find it (his dead body). Upon this he said: Go (and search for him). By Allah, neither I have spoken a lie nor has the lie been spoken to me. 'Ali said this twice and thrice. They then found him (the dead body) in a rain. They brought (his dead) body till they placed it before him (Hadrat 'Ali). 'Ubaidullah said: And, I was present at (that place) when this happened and when 'Ali said about them. A person narrated to me from Ibn Hanain that he said: I saw that black man.Sahih Muslim 1066g
Narrated `Abdullah: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "I saw (in a dream) a black woman with unkempt hair going out of Medina and settling at Mahai'a, i.e., Al-Juhfa. I interpreted that as a symbol of epidemic of Medina being transferred to that place (Al-Juhfa).Sahih Bukhari 7038Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledg- ed allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)Sahih Muslim 1602arrated Abu Bakra: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Do you think that the tribes of Juhaina, Muzaina, Aslam and Ghifar are better than the tribes of Bani Tamim, Bani Asad, Bani `Abdullah bin Ghatafan and Bani Amir bin Sasaa?" A man said, "They were unsuccessful and losers." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "(Yes), they are better than the tribes of Bani Tamim, Bani Asad, Bani `Abdullah bin Ghatafan and Bani Amir bin Sasaa."Sahih Bukhari 3515Narrated Abu Hurairah (ra): The Prophet (ﷺ) said, (The people of) Aslam, Ghifar and some people of Muzaina and Juhaina or said (some people of Juhaina or Muzaina) are better with Allah or said (on the Day of resurrection) than the tribe of Asad, Tamim, Hawazin and Ghatafan.Sahih Bukhari 3523
These distinctions are actually preserved in Islamic law as well.n his Athar, Shaybani quotes the first tradition above [“The Quraysh are each other’s equals, and the Arabs are each other’s equals. Among the non-Arabs, whoever has two Muslim parents or grandparents are each other’s equal.”] approvingly and adds that if a woman does marry a man who is not her [racial and/or tribal] equal, and her wali [legal male guardian] brings the matter to the qadi [Islamic judge], the qadi ought to separate the couple. . . . Shaybani also notes that Abu Ḥanifa agrees that the qadi separates the couple.”Susan A. Spectorsky, Women in Classical Islamic Law, Brill, pp. 77-78[Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was asked] ‘I have a paternal first cousin who is an Arab. Shall I give her in marriage to a mawla (i.e., a non-Arab client)?’ [Ibn Hanbal] said, ‘No.’ The man said, ‘But she is sickly (da’ifa).’ Ahmad said, ‘Do not give her in marriage (to him).’ [On another occasion, another man asked Ibn Hanbal] about someone who marries off his daughter to a mawla? He (Ibn Hanbal) replied: I would separate them. Then he (Ibn Hanbal) said: An Arab (married to) an Arab (is) suitable (kaf’) and Quraysh (married to) Quraysh (is) suitable (kaf’). Then he (presumably the interlocuter) asked: What would you think if a Zangi (Negro) married one of the offspring (walad) of Fatima [the daughter of Muhammad]? He (Ibn Hanbal) disapproved of it, and said: that is the doctrine of the Shu’ubiyya [a Persian sect that believed in racial egalitarianism].Nimrod Hurvitz, The Formation of Hanbalism, Routledge, pp. 31-32,
>>18685025We’ve never loved the Arabs nor did we ever larp as them at large. There are unironically larger segments of white american society that love Israel fiercely more than what we’ve ever done for the Arabs.There are people that larp as Arab background tho but this is demographic specific.
The way to think about it is that Islam became used to subjugate them over time by other people using it as a method of justification.
>>18685745First off I know who you are and nice gish gallop you copy pasted from wikiislam. You made this claim in response to him>>the prophet literally said that no race or ethnicity is superior to another in his last sermon.>This is not true.It is and you lied "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood." - https://www.iium.edu.my/deed/articles/thelastsermon.html>it seperates people by whether they are Arab or not and with special rights for certain Arabic tribes like the QuraishYes! And one of the very first thing you started with was the Israelites being chosen who are not Arab. Your own wiki starts out with "Many passages of the Qur'an and the hadith call for the equality of all peoples in Islam" before inserting their non charitable contradictory interpretation "Yet at the same time, Islamic scriptures contain agitation against the Jews which would be considered today to be anti-Semitism..." How can Islam be against their ethnicity when God made them made exalted among the nations of the world and sent numerous prophets among them and even the Messiah? Even your wiki acknowledges that "there are verses and hadiths that discourage racism" before whining with "such sentiments are somewhat undermined by some other sahih hadiths where we find prejudice against some Arab groups, and black people are used as negative imagery" so essentially their idea is that Islam is racist and not racist at the same time, sees Arabs as superior and not superior at the same time, etc. This is what dishonest people do when trying to force a contradiction where there is none.
>>18685965Address the legal precedent. Can a non-Quraish tribe member become a Caliph? Was it not the case that a black slave was worth less than slaves of certain Arabic tribes?
>>18684921You think muhammad would be happy knowing arab supremacy was relatively short lived but he's still being worshipped (lol) regardless?
>>18685760Sure you did, from 1948 until a few years ago when Erdogan started broadcasting Ertugrul.
>>18685965Keep in mind that in Islam the real Jews just like the real Christians are considered Muslims. Consdiering the Koran is the eternal and unchanging text made before creation, this also means that Arabic is the eternal language of the text and message. Remember hadith and sirah take precedent in arranging the actual order of Islamic teachings. Teachings can be abrogated and are.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnH9PrzN7o
>>18686040What I mean by the real Jews and real Christians are Muslims, I mean that they are those who follow Islam. Whereas what actual Jews and Christians who predated Islam are corruptions. Due to Qadar all had to have willed that corruption btw.
>>18686029>Can a non-Quraish tribe member become a Caliph?Look at this man in the eye and tell him he can't be Caliph because he's not an Arab
>>18684950It is important to seperate Arabs from what became codified in the Quraysh culture that would become standardized in Islam. Arabization was a slow and uneven process even in the Arabian penninuslan and even to this day there are a lot of tribes that preserve their own cultures. Many peoples like Syrians for example never fully Arabized except for elites. Arabization is still enforced with violence in many places like in Sudan.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz5vvR43X1khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZviCoHFpf3Yhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sppGTEd0MVA
>>18686062Early Turks and in many Sultans in North Africa sold themselves as defenders of the faith. Later South Asian people used a totally different account of kingship built from an account of state craft with other influecnes. In the case of the Ottoman, their justification came from enforcing Islamic law rather than insisting that they were caliphs in the strict classical sense. They selected the Hanfi legal school and tailored it to justify their rule too. This was also used often to justify capturing slaves and takfir poliicies to go after any Islamic sects or aqidah and legal schools that were seen as unorthodox to them. Later on they develoepd an account derived from Persian and argubably late antiqutiy Zoroastrianism about Kingship.
>>18686029>Can a non-Quraish tribe member become a Caliph?That depends on the interpretation https://islamqa.org/hanafi/muftisays/9289/ personally I don't believe so under regular circumstances>Was it not the case that a black slave was worth less than slaves of certain Arabic tribes?Could be, and? You still lied about the prophet not saying that.>>18686040>Keep in mind that in Islam the real Jews just like the real Christians are considered MuslimsYes they were non Arab believers. Israelites are not Arab>the Koran is the eternal>this also means that Arabic is the eternal language of the text and message.There has never been from the Muslims anyone who ever said that the letters, that are the ink of the Mushafs, are eternal without beginning. So the affirmation of Letters and Voice for Allah (Al-Harf was-Sawt) with the meaning that the ink used to write the Mushafs and the voices of people who recite the Quran are therefore eternal is a false innovation that none of the Imāms of the religion ever stated. Additionally, the denial of the fact that Allah speaks with a voice and to believe that His Speech is a singular entity (or meaning) present with His Self (معنى واحد قائم بالنفس) is an innovation and a falsehood not mentioned by any of the Salaf or the great Scholars. (Majmū’ Al-Fatāwa of Ibn Taymiyyah, 6/528)
>>18686077They had their own native title for kingship. The sultan-caliph was bown a khan first and foremost. You forget whence the Turks came and how they lived. It was called Ottoman Empire for a reason. Not to mention that when it came to "heterodox" Islam, they did what their ancestors had done but on a larger scale. Balance Sunni and native Turkic nobility with Shia-leaning Sufi mystics and non-Turkic nobility some of whom the Sultan adopted as his spiritual sons. Again the steppe traditions are strong because Genghis Khan's kheshigg had similar privileges and duties to Mehmed II's Janisseries. The Mamelukes who faced them and lost were being more than a little hypocritical when they accused Selim of bringing down an army of infidels against them. After all, their forefathers weren't Muslim either, and what difference is there really between a Mameluke and a Janissary?
Muhammad in Islamic view is seen to have said that. Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledg- ed allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)Sahih Muslim 1602We see here that black people were worth less than others. Pic is of an academic book exploring the various ways they justified their slavery and how Black People or Raisin Heads as they called them were inferior.
>>18686080The view that about the nature of Allah's uncreated Speech differes from theological sects in Islam. Atharī, Ashʿarī, and Māturīdī traditions disagree heavily on this. Views that support that it is in Arabic comes from “We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an so that you may understand” (Qur’an 12:2). If you are an Athari you should hold that . Atharī ns generally affirm that the Koran, including the Arabic words revealed by Allah, is genuinely Allah’s uncreated speech. Ashari disagree Allah has an eternal attribute of speech, called kalām nafsī, is not composed of Arabic letters, sounds, grammar, or temporal sequences. Athari hold that is subtle polytheism though. Nonetheless, there are official narrations and explanations that Arabic will be the language spoken in paradise. Here is an example.https://hadithanswers.com/the-language-of-jannah/Here is an example of contemprpary view saying plainly that Arabic is the language of paradise. This is from the official Mufti of the Federal Territories of Malaysia. This one is actually enforced as something you theoretically have to subscribe to be a Malaysian citizen. https://www.muftiwp.gov.my/en/artikel/irsyad-al-hadith/3121-irsyad-al-hadith-series-343-arabic-language-is-the-language-of-paradise?utm_source=
>>18686089>so buttmad he doesn't even want to reply anymoreWhere is the prophet saying anything about their inherent worth as human beings there? Yeah two black slaves during that specific negotiation were traded for 1 believer in order to free him, so what?
The racist insult raisin head is actually found in Islamic matarials. This is an authentic hadith, classed sahih.arrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet (ﷺ) said to Abu-Dhar, "Listen and obey (your chief) even if he is an Ethiopian with a head like a raisin."Sahih Bukhari 696This is from a major historical piece but also builds in sirah.t is related by Damrah b. Rabi`ah-Ibn `Ata'-his father:Ham begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham's descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that wherever his descendants met the children of Shem, the latter would enslave themal-Tabari (d. 923), William M Brinner, ed, The History of al-Tabari [Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk], vThe focus on enslaving blacks actually lead to the Zanj revolt. Zanj is another racist term. Basically, during the Abassaid Empire, they would castrate black slaves and then force them to work. A huge revolt occured and the slaves began to castrate and kill their masters. It was put down but the Abassaid never recovered.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-l6_5dp-fo
>>18686103>The view that about the nature of Allah's uncreated Speech differes from theological sects in Islam.Yes and very widely so. Which makes your sweeping statement quite weird. Also Atharis believe that God's attribute of speech is eternal and that the Quran is an instance which was spoken in time and yet still uncreated.>Arabic is the language of paradiseI have no problem with this, it doesn't make Arabic an eternal language
>>18686105Consdiering Mutazlite's are heretical with the only the earlier believers in free will being the earliest heresy that means nothing, and you could not even legally be called a Muslim in countries that have institionalized Islamic law. That is just a contradiction Muslims make in reconciling their religion with the attributes of God. I am going by the Athari account because it is the traditional view. >>18686105Clearly you are arguing in bad faith. He literally is saying that they worth less than the other. Here is more legal precedent.I [Sahnun] said: What if he said to an Arab man, ‘Oh Ethiopian!’ or ‘Oh Persian!’ or ‘Oh Roman!’ or ‘Oh Berber!’? Will the hadd [referring to the hadd punishment known as hadd al-firyah – that is, the punishment of 80 lashes for slander] be implemented according to Malik?He [Ibn al-Qasim, Imam Malik’s companion for twenty years] said: Yes [the hadd will be implemented].I said: What if he said to a non-Arab [mawla], ‘Oh Persian!’, while he is a Roman? Or he said to a Berber, ‘Oh Ethiopian!’ or ‘Oh Persian!’? Or he said to a Persian, ‘Oh Roman!’ or ‘Oh Nabatean!’? Will the hadd be implemented in this case according to Imam Malik or not?
He said: Malik said: When it is said to a Persian, ‘Oh Roman!’, ‘Oh Ethiopian!’, or something similar, then there is no hadd with regard to this. And it was differed upon about Malik regarding whether or not the one who says to the Roman or Berber, ‘Oh Ethiopian!’ would have the hadd upon him. And I think that there is no hadd upon him [the criminal] except if he says to him [the victim], ‘Oh son of a black person!’ while he [the victim] is white. If there are among his [the victim’s] forefathers none who are black, then the hadd is implemented. And if he [the criminal] described him [the victim] as an Ethiopian, saying, ‘Oh son of an Ethiopian!’, and he [the victim] was a Berber, then the Ethiopian and the Roman [descriptions] in this case are the same [that is,] if he [the victim] was a Berber – and it [i.e. this ruling] is the best of what I have heard from the speech of Malik. And it [i.e. this ruling] was confirmed with me unless it were said to him [the victim], ‘Oh son of a black person!’, for that would be clear slander if there were no black person among his forefathers.I said: What if he said to a Persian or Berber, ‘Oh Arab!’ He said: There is no hadd upon him in this case.
I said: What if he said to an Arab, ‘Oh Qurayshi!’, or to a man of Mudar [the tribe], ‘Oh Yemeni!’, or said to a man from Yemen, ‘Oh Mudari’ He said: I see all of this as the cutting-off of lineage, and I think that it warrants the hadd just as Malik says regarding the cutting-off of lineage [a different hadd punishment than the 80-lashes hadd punishment for slander – i.e. lying about lineage (“cutting off lineage”, or qatt al-nasab) is not necessarily slander (qadhf), while saying someone is the “son of a black person” or describing an Arab as a non-Arab is], because the Arab’s lineage is traced through his forefathers, so whoever attributes him [the Arab] to other than his forefathers has done away with his [the Arab’s] lineage, [and] thus the hadd is upon him. […] I said: And if he said to an Arab, ‘You are not from the Arabs’, will he not suffer the hadd according to Malik? He said: Yes [the criminal will suffer the hadd]. […]This is all from Imam Malik, you know the one founded the Maliki school of Islamic law. The literal law of the land in some places in Western Asian and some Gulf States
Here are some more from other legal traditions.He (Ibn Hanbal) acknowledged the Arab’s due, and their superiority (fadlaha) and their priority (sabiqataha) and he loved the . . . he (Ibn Hanbal) did not adhere to the doctrine of the Shu’ubiyya [a Persian sect that believed in racial egalitarianism] and the contemptible (among) the mawali [non-Arabs] that disliked the Arabs and did not concede to them their [Arabs] superiority. He (ascribed to) them (Shu’ubiyya) innovation, hypocrisy and controversy.Ibn Abi Ya'la, Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, 1, al-Maktaba al-Shamila, p. 30; translated in Nimrod Hurvitz, The Formation of Hanbalism,Imam Shafi'i said, "People do not become ignorant and do not disagree except due to their leaving the tongue of the Arabs and their adoption of the tongue of Aristotle"Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Sawn al-Mantiq wal-Kalam an Fanni al-Mantiq wal-Kalam, al-Maktaba al-Shamila, p. 48This is from Ibn Tammayah that you love to refer to.The Arabs are more intelligent than those other than themselves and are more capable in delivery and expression . . . verily, what the people of the sunnah are upon is the belief (i’tiqaad) that the Arab race is better (afdal) than the Non-Arab race. Whether (the Non-Arabs) are Hebrews, Aramaic, Romans, Persians and other than them . . . not simply due to the fact the prophet peace be upon him is from them – even though this is [a point] of superiority – but instead, they themselves are superior within themselves . . . [for] Allah the Most High has designated the Arabs and their language with rulings that are peculiar and unique.”Ibn Taymiyyah, Iqtida Sirat al-Mustaqim, 1, al-Maktaba al-Shamila, pp. 419-46
>>18686103Ever since the retard fakhr al din al razi came with his bullshit and did tajsim of abu hasan al ashari and all of the early ashari imams every asharoid/maturidioid has been dense as fuckThe Atharis do not hold that the quran being allahs uncreated speech is contingent on it being in the mushaf or in the human sight it has multiple other spaces، فَالصَّلَاةُ بِجُمْلَتِهَا طَاعَةُ اللَّهِ، وَقِرَاءَةُ الْقُرْآنِ مِنْ جُمْلَةِ الصَّلَاةِ، فَالصَّلَاةُ طَاعَةُ اللَّهِ، وَالْأَمْرُ بِالصَّلَاةِ قُرْآنٌ وَهُوَ مَكْتوبٌ فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ، مَحْفُوظٌ فِي الصُّدُورِ، مَقْرُوءٌ عَلَى اللِّسَانِ، وَالْقِرَاءَةُ وَالْحِفْظُ وَالْكِتَابَةُ مَخْلُوقٌ، وَمَا قُرِئَ وَحُفِظَ وَكُتِبَ لَيْسَ بِمَخْلُوقٍبِصِفَتِهِ، وَيُقَالُ لَهُ: أَتَرَى الْقُرْآنَ فِي الْمَصَاحَفِ؟ فَإِنْ قَالَ: نَعَمْ، فَقَدْ زَعَمَ أَنَّ مِنْ صِفَاتِ اللَّهِ مَا يُرَى فِي الدُّنْيَا، وَهَذَا رَدٌّ لِقَوْلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: {لَا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ} [الأنعام: ١٠٣] فِي الدُّنْيَا {وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ} [الأنعام: ١٠٣] وَإِنْ قَالَ يَرَى كِتَابَةَ الْقُرْآنِ فَقَدْ رَجَعَ إِلَى الْخَلْقِhttps://shamela.ws/book/9697/275So you see, the Athari position is that the quran is written into the mushaf, orally transmitted, not that its visually literally present as Allahs speechAsharism and maturidism is literally the presuppostion of doom and despair
>>18686141Are you retarded? What are these sources? Why are you listing shamelas source like its a book? What is “ibn tammayah”? And suyutis passage is about lisan al arab which has nothing to do with ta’assub, lisan al arab is a key to understanding the deen because the deen should be understood in the terminolgoy the prophet asws understood, please learn to speak and understand because nobody in this thread knows what ur even trying ro say with these terrible translations
Of course it is not visually present. This whole debate is connected to whether a contradiction arises because of the eternal tablet. The Koran states “In fact, this is a glorious Koran, recorded in a Preserved Tablet” (Qur’an 85:21–22).The Koran 13:3 states: “Allah eliminates and confirms what He wills, and with Him is the Mother of the Book” (Qur’an 13:39). The issue is that Koran is uncreated. Allah is uncreated, now also the Tablet is. However, the Tablet records eveyrthing Allah wills. Everything happens because Allah wills it and is predetemriend before existence in the Tablet. Qur’an 57:22 states that events are recorded before their occurrence: Such as“No calamity occurs on earth or in yourselves without being written in a Record before We bring it into being” (Qur’an 57:22) Everything that Allah wills is preredorded in it. Qur’an 6:59 describes the comprehensiveness of the divine record: “Not a leaf falls without His knowledge, nor a grain in the darkness of the earth, nor anything fresh or dry, but is written in a clear Record” ( Koran6:59) To understand why we have to unpack more.
>>18686130Why are you bringing the malikis as a Hujjah? Malik used qiyas and raiyy and relied the keast in the quran and sunnah and more so with amal ahlul madina out of the 4 imams save abu hanifa, this is not any decisive evidence and nobody cares about taking malik as a Hujjah not especially after he said that a father can forcefully give off his child daughter for marriage
>>18686148Don't lie to me, please. >>18686157The nature of the predetermination is very deep.A particularly important hadith states: “Allah ordained the measures of the creation fifty thousand years before He created the heavens and the earth,” while His Throne was over the water (Muslim, 2007,Allah ordained the measures of the creation fifty thousand years before He created the heavens and the earth,” while His Throne was over the water (Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj, 2007, Hadith 2653b)and the Preserved Tablet is uncreated. A theological problem arises if “uncreated” means eternally and independently existent. There would then appear to be three distinct eternal realities: Allah, Allah’s speech, and the Tablet upon which that speech is written. If everything uncreated is divine, the Tablet would seem to possess a divine status. If it is not divine, Islam would nevertheless contain an eternal reality existing alongside Allah. Either conclusion conflicts with the strong doctrine of tawḥīd according to which Allah alone exists without beginning and everything other than Allah is created.The problem becomes more complicated because the Qur’an says that the glorious Qur’an is “in a Preserved Tablet” (Qur’an 85:21–22). If both the Qur’an and Tablet are uncreated but remain distinguishable, there are at least two eternal objects in addition to Allah. If the Qur’an and Tablet are identical, however, the Tablet would become God’s speech rather than the created receptacle that records it
If the Qur’an is contained in the Tablet, God’s eternal speech would apparently depend upon a second eternal object. This produces a dilemma: either multiple eternal beings exist, threatening divine unity, or the distinctions among Allah, the Qur’an, and the Tablet collapse. This also problematic because ethics is now nonsensical as is salvation, corruption of texts and so on.This is not an unavoidable contradiction within Islamic theology, however, because the Qur’an never states that the Tablet is uncreated. Qur’an 85:22 calls it “preserved
>>18686157>The issue is that Koran is uncreated. Allah is uncreatedListen little ashari can you stop trying to sneak and make presuppositions? Where did i claik that the quran is uncreated? Where is the Hujjah for this besides ijma al zanni of atba tabiun which i dont accept as a hujjah? This entire argument youve made here can simply be torn apart by claiming the Quran is muhdath al abu dawud al zahiri did and ibn hazm al zahiri did and it still holds that the Quran is Allahs speech It being present in the eternal tablet is completely irrelevant because that premise holds any little argumentative value against who says the Quran is eternal, which pay attention asharoid, no later athari does and theres no clear position of this from the likes of ahmad ibn hanbal becausethey did tawaquffAlso, quran 57:22 concerns the will of the creature not the will of the divine, please, again, stop spamming non sequiturs and presuppositions asharoidAllahs actions are Muhdath, and that encompasses the action of revelation, now what?
>>18686130You can't even reply to posts properly nor track the conversation. Atharis affirm speech as an eternal attribute of God and the Quran as a temporal instance of speech that is uncreated . Your ability to speak is not the words you actually speak and believing that God creates his speech leads to an infinite regress of "Be" commands what is so hard for you to understand?>He literally is sayingNope! Quote to me the exact part where the prophet says anything about their inherent worth as human beings there purely based on their race. And I know you can't that's why you're coping with even more irrelevant gish gallop >the eternal tabletGod was at first alone and then he wrote everything in the record. meaning there was a point in time where the tablet was not
That heretical sect tried to solve this issue. They said Allah possessed numerous attributes that were eternal realities distinct from God’s essence, then multiple eternal entities would appear to exist. This is most likely something derived from Eastern Orthodox Chirsitan theology likely. A type of energy and essence distinction. Divine speech was therefore understood as an action God produces rather than a separately existing eternal attribute. On this account, Allah alone is uncreated, while the Koran and the Tablet, are created.The Abbasid caliph al-Maʾmūn adopted the created-Qur’an position and instituted the miḥna, or theological inquisition where he persecuted those who stated it was uncreated, in 833 CE. Judges and scholars were questioned about whether the Koran was created. This however, meant that it was contingent and ran aganist the Koran and critiques argued underminded the whole religion. . Later on other Calpiphs would adopt the other and persecute those who called the Koran created. The contemporary view of it being created was basically codified by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal but later sects developed different new reasons.
>>18686168he's not ashari btw, it's just a raging christard
>>18686164Non sequiturs of doom and despair holyyy shitttttt>and the Preserved Tablet is uncreated. A theological problem arises if “uncreated” means eternally and independently existent. There would then appear to be three distinct eternal realities: Allah, Allah’s speech, and the Tablet upon which that speech is written. Allahs speech is not eternal as in depending on an external property nor is it eternal as in Allah is constantly saying a word over and over again, for 1: the Quran is muhdath, please pay attention retard i wont repeat this. This dismantles the syllogism of two eternal beings and “eternity” here is used ambiguosly. Allahs speech is eternal in that he always held the attribute of speech within his essence. Similar to how Allah does not need events to exist for him to hold the property of predetermination, similar to how Allah does not a spatial object to hold the attribute of ‘Uloo. Allah simply exists with these attributes and they are essential to him as an Entity.>A theological problem arises if “uncreated” means eternally and independently existent. There would then appear to be three distinct eternal realities: Allah, Allah’s speech, and the Tablet upon which that speech is writtenFallacy of arbitrary definition. Non Sequitur Fallacy, Appeal to ignorance (since you claim the tablet must be uncreated due to it not being stated it is which is very retarded btw)The Quran is emergent. This is the position of contemporary atharis including ibn tayniyyah and the positions of dawud al zahiri and ibn hazm, emergent beings are not “uncreated” and we do not say the quran is created under this because we do not use aristotleian terminolgy or the terminology of any philosopher lol
>>18686174??? Why the hell is a christian involving himself in matters between asharis and maturidis and atharis and mutazila
>>18686180They are very deceptive like that. I know this guy in particular he has a very distinctive posting style. This is just a very common christian apologist tactic because they want to impose their logos theology into the Quran and make Jesus a God. Sometimes you will see them pretending to be Shia too
>>18686173Al ma’mun repented btw like every other abbasid caliph, the mutazila didnt try to solve anythjng they just made everything worse, they claimed any distinction between two attributes implies iftirāq within Allah which makes him a body, they also tried to say the quran isnt present in the mushaf at all, they simply adopted the terminology of ahlul kalam and didnt prove a basis for any of them from the quran and sunnah.
Ibn Taymiyya held that Allah has always possessed the capacity and attribute of speech but that particular divine speech acts occur when Allah wills. We are also not talking about the material sings of the Koran. Thus, the divine attribute or kind of speech has no beginning, while an individual speech act is temporally particular. If it is emergnet the Koran is created. If Allah’s speech were created, Allah would either have created it within Himself, created it in another object, or created it without any bearer. The first possibility would make Allah occupy a location in which created things come into existence. Some Athari believe Allah occupies existence as well such as sitting on his throne.The second would mean that the Qur’an was literally the speech of the created object in which it appeared, just as speech produced in a human being is that person’s speech. The third would make speech exist without a speaker. If Allah acquired speech after previously lacking it, then Allah would have changed from being in some way.None of those are fallacies by the way. Muhammad did not have terms like we do of course. For example, he did not have the concepts of rights or any simliar to it. He was literal warlord from late antiquity and the early medieval period. He just had people he wanted to slave and though were inferior.
>>18686183This is EXACTLY why i mostly avoid debating on 4chan, 4chan is the site where people other then shias do taqiyya and can freely lie however they want.
BtW Tammiyah claimed that attribute or kind of divine speech is beginningless. This then leads to all the so called problems of infinte regresses, he just kinda made that up though, which do matter here because Islam as a classical theistic religion like Christianity, Dvaita Vedanta, and Judaism are built on substances and essences that cannot permit that type of metaphysics becuase if it does it then leads to God's essence not being necessary.
>>18686186>If it is emergnet the Koran is created.And as usual you have no argument for this nor did you address the problem your reasoning causes even for your own religion lol>>18686188It's really not worth engaging with these people for their sake because they aren't doing this to seek the truth but just to endlessly argue. They are simply resistant to reason. Which is why you will see him spamming completely irrelevant points and running away from questions. I personally only respond because they are here to misguide others. btw you will also see these freaks pretending to be Quranists
>>18686186>Ibn Taymiyya held that Allah has always possessed the capacity and attribute of speech but that particular divine speech acts occur when Allah wills. yes this is called Tajaddud i dont need a christard to teach me>Thus the divine attribute or kind of speech has no beginning, while an individual speech act is temporally particular. If it is emergnet the Koran is created.No bro it being emergent doesnt necessitate it has to be created because like i said we arent obligated to accept the terminology you use or the terminology of any philosopher, this is the brick wall you hit when trying to make any argument, you are just simply making statements without supporting them.>the first possibility would make Allah occupy a location in which created things come into existence. Some Athari believe Allah occupies existence as well such as sitting on his throne.Again you are trying to sneak in your terminology because what does it mean for Allah to “occupy” a place? Yes Allah exists with a place and that place didnt exist within the six spatial directions its a relative place, every existent being necessarily has to exist in a place for it to have Wujud. When we say Allah exists with a place we do not refer to nothingness or physical space, the space is relative and is formed by what faces Allah and what Allah faces by a direction, theres no defect in this and theres nothing wrong with this. And sitting is the opinion of a minority and most of it came from disconnected reports or tawil.>If Allah acquired speech after previously lacking it, then Allah would have changed from being in some way.We clarified this, the quran whether its emergent or not does not concern Allah having acquired speech or not, and “change” again is ambigous, stop spamming ambiguos words without supporting them, if we concede that Allah does experience change outside of his essence which he dose via tajaddud there is again no defect in that
>>18686190I just explained 5 MESSAGES ABOVE how this doesnt lead to an infinite regression lol, for something tk be beginningless it does not to be constantly productive and he djdnt make anything up, you literally will never be able to proce any of this
>>18686201>And as usual you have no argument for this nor did you address the problem your reasoning causes even for your own religion lolThis is how you make any kalamist or christard eat their words, question them on the use of every logical term because they are rats that try to sneak past you with presuppositions when in truth none if their arguments have actual value>It's really not worth engaging with these people for their sake because they aren't doing this to seek the truth but just to endlessly argue. They are simply resistant to reason.You are right akhi barakallah fik, i thought id help you because i thought you would get shubhat from this guy and because it angers me to see a muslim get attacked by any deviant/kaafr, may Allah keep you steadfast
>>18684921The Arab population was very big, especially when compared to nearby ethnicities. Islam just united them very suddenly in a region where there were almost no states, so the united Arabs could easily rip the throats out of every nearby ethnicity that wasn't united.
>>18686218*wasn't very big
