Hope, brothers
>>5514765someone send that islamicstatenasheeds archive.org download link
>>5514765Nasheed time
salil al sawarim nasheed ul'ubahwa darbul qitaly tariqul haya
>>5514765Achi post moar
>>5514765
>>5514768Abu Hallad Al-Qatani is the GOAT of nasheeds, don't @ me
>>5516037garbage
What's the best place to find nasheed lyrics?
>>5516037
>>5516680
does anyone have the Masked Man Bane edit
Someone should've told Abu Yasser you didn't need to go this fucking hard on backing vocals!!
>>5519143Original untouched nasheed
>>5519271I never understood why they didn't officially released this nasheed and like a dozen others
>>5520022Like this one for example. You can't even find it on the internet anymore
I'm sick and tired of these weakly disguised sea-shanty threads.
>>5522316https://vocaroo.com/1hKUqFxegPOr
>>5523004https://vocaroo.com/1aj2srcWMHYLhttps://files.catbox.moe/7sitk1.mp3
More unreleased stuff because why not
This is my favourite one. wish they would just release it
>>5521215Not him, but that's a good one you posted.
there is a shit ton on fb, wont let me post tho
>>5524262search Nasheed - Qad Azamna fb and first link, should take u there, account post all of em
>>5514765Isn't it funny how all these (((international))) jihadist groups never fired a single bullet against the kikes?
>>5524274meanwhile in realityhttps://files.catbox.moe/y5ekiy.mp4https://files.catbox.moe/z2uolw.mp4
>>5524274Jihadists from Sinai launched many attacks on Israel and destroyed gas pipelines into Israel.
>>5520022it's really sad, the unreleased ones are the best ones lmaothere's this specific one, اوجد الله الخلائق it's legitimately the best nasheed i've ever heard but it was only used in like two videos that had narration over them so the quality is horrendous, beyond tragic.>>5523604it is him, it's likely from his early stuff where he mostly did a low cadence (mic quality too), his later stuff was more high pitched and it's more popular.>>5523595one of the only ones i've never heard before, got more?
>>5524274
>>5514768>>5514770Looking for a 4min one that has one of these logos.
Anyone have sauce on this song? please and thank you.
>>5525594fken based
>>5524926I meant I was not the guy you replied to.That webm is for sure Yasir.
>>5514765You guys want a world where all the fun things are gone.I hope the kurds and some allies dispose of you.The sooner the better.
>>5524926Sure, here's some
>>5514765No JesusNo HopeKnow JesusKnow hopeSimple as
>>5526175Pislamists are literally vermin like rats or roaches.
awomen
>>5526175>>5526186triggered crosstroon kek
>>5526117go back to /gif/ the ''fun'' you speak of is all over the catalog you troon
Can someone post the Houthi ones? They've been shoah'd from the internet.
>>5530688This is one I have
>>5530688>>5530690I re-encoded this one to make it higher quality. The original is here: https://files.catbox.moe/2mw0p8.mp4
>>5518084anyone has this, please?
>>5530688https://files.catbox.moe/onwtn9.mp4https://files.catbox.moe/lacpme.mp4https://files.catbox.moe/0z6r7c.mp4https://files.catbox.moe/hhql9i.mp4https://files.catbox.moe/ij9b0n.mp4https://files.catbox.moe/7i325b.webmhttps://files.catbox.moe/t4bi8k.phphttps://files.catbox.moe/ntpjrc.mp4https://files.catbox.moe/3yu8kx.mp4
>>5530688Finally found the one I wantedhttps://files.catbox.moe/91de60.mp4
When will the rawafidh stop calling their brain rot music anasheed
>>5532118Did they steal the flow from Abu Asim?
>>5526117kurds are retarded commies. Isis was curbstomping them until they got bombed by everyone. Now the turks are doing it instead.
>>5532118lyrics?
>>5533089The gist of it is that a group of friends are happy for the recovery of someone named Ahmed and are congratulating him for regaining his health
>>5533879Wholesome. Imagine getting sick and recovering and your friends write a song about it
>>5533886Its not uncommon for half your neighborhood to come visit you or send food if you become really sick in the middle east. Its considered a cultural and religious obligation.
>>5514765Anyone know if there's a YT link to this one?
>>5526175Muslims believe in Jesus.
>>5526175Jesus was a Prophet of God who told you to worship 'MY GOD AND YOUR GOD' nowhere even in your corrupt bible does he ever mentioned to worship him or take him as a God. How many times has he mentioned he is powerless without the 'father'? Did he not inform you he is not all knowing and the knowledge of the Hour rests with the 'Father' alone? Return to worshipping the One feeds you without associating others wit him. ONE God without any partnership or families and cousins. You and I will return to him and we will be informed of our actions. Repent and seek His forgiveness, and your reward will be doubled, the fire awaits those who die associating partners with ALLAH, exalted and glorified be He from having any son or family.
>>5533852beautiful lyrics
>>5516037the guy's beard in the balaclava cracks me up everytime
>>5534657They don't believe Jesus is God.
I feel like Abu Asim was a source of inspiration for Abu Yasser
does anyone have that Nnasheed being sang in hebrew with some idf soldiers being stabbed as footage?
>>5536457here, but perhaps someone will have a better version
>>5530688>>5530690>>5530883>>5531591>>5531844Anybody has the one from the demonstration? It was like a minute long, I recall seeing it on Twitter. They were chanting something along the lines of "I can't live like this, give me a rifle- we don't care we'll declare a world war". Thanks if anyone posts it.
Does anyone have one called "isma3 okhaya" or something like that? Was purged from the internet.Also the other one that talked about Basar al assad and jews. Also puirged from youtube. Was very rithmic and at some point says something about "jahud".
>>5538312do you mean lahud?
got any hamas ones?
>>5514765>religion of pissyou faggots disgust me.
Where do you guys find these?
>>5539049Mostly archive.org
>>5524411https://www.newsweek.com/isis-fighters-regret-attacking-israel-apologize-defense-minister-591020HAHAHAHA
>>5537290https://files.catbox.moe/jgzqum.MP4
>>5539327>https://www.newsweek.com/isis-fighters-regret-attacking-israel-apologize-defense-minister-591020But they'll stab random civilians in Europe...>>5539387Thanks.
>>5539327>some jew said it so it's true
>>5514765Would any of you guys happen to have some of those gmod isis-style webms? I lost mine when I cleaned out my webms folder.
>>5525402where is the full verison?
>>5536948I think of is referring to another one, I remember they even did a roblox parody of it
WHat's the name of this song?https://archive.org/details/HamasNasheed_20
>>5542507
https://voca.ro/1nLcKiloEKfQSong starts at 01:00, anyone got a name or something ?
Gay faggot thread is gay faggot thread.
>>5543518https://voca.ro/105n6xmCBngC
There's a couple of French Nasheeds I've heard here before but foolishly didn't save, does a brother have them?
>>5545106here's one >>5537998if you want them in the highest quality search for al hayat on archive.org
>>5545106
>>5545426do you have the hamas nasheed with saddam hussein
>>5545432
what is the name of this nasheedhttps://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/q3lg3k/succesfull_isis_suicide_car_bombing_somewhere/
>>5546963This one >>5535986
>>5547790what about this one?>>5542553
>>5547791It's number 6 from this album. It's called "اضرب صاروخ القسام" https://archive.org/details/a6yaf_alestesuhad_2
kill muslims
>>5515127This, someone send the archive.org link with all the ISIS nasheeds
Anyone got kanuri nasheeds ? I remember hearing one a long time ago and I still think about it sometimes
>>5518084
>>5548742what abou this one?https://twitter.com/i/status/1758907631777816929
>>5550513Here. would love to get a better source for this nasheed other than youtube if anyone got it
>>5514765Does anyone has the video of the "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" with a nasheed song? please
>>5514778name song please
heil israel btw
Here's a Chinese nasheed. Anyone got anymore in mandarin or Japanese nasheeds?
>>5514765Looking for a 3-4min one.
>>5552407filename
>>5552911That's the only Chinese one they officially released, and they never made a Japanese one. Here's some Uyghur ones
Is this the christian equivalent of a nasheed?
>>5539327https://qu.ax/GKaC.jpg
>>5519148>>5522285>>5526364>>5527547does anyone know why ajnad uses different color covers?
>>5553563Look I'm into incest porn, but this is ridiculous, she's a virgin ffs.
>>5534657Wrong. Muzzies believe in "Isa", whoever the fuck that is. They got it from some rock out in the middle of the Dead Sea. They stole stories of apocryphal books and wove them into the Quran, stories from books where Jesus killed some kid for bumping into Him and another for spilling His water. Of course they would use some text like that so they could say, "Look, Jesus sinned. Now it's cool if Muhammad sinned." But even worse, they'll say none of the prophets sinned, so they can keep Muhammad's cock down their throat forever more.>>5534671Hey, a parrot. Neat. Too bad parrots can only speak but never can they read. If you could read, you would see many times where Jesus claimed divinity. The Jews even tried to stone Him for it. Jesus is the physical manifestation of God's Word. God's Word is part of His own being, just as your word is a part of you. It represents you. If your word is false, you are false. Your word is still subservient to your mind, just as the Word of God was subservient to the Father. Jesus is not a partner with God. He IS God.
>>5553862This one is the official color of their logo which includes their name at the bottom >>5519148 ,and every time they release a new nasheed they change the bottom text with the name of the nasheed and give it a different color as a sort of a distinct artwork
Niggers
Islamization of europe bi izniLah
>>55548722 more weeks
>>5554187If Jesus is the word, then what is the holy spirit? Why have a trinity instead of a duality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r4hU3IUJfshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5kmznDY9zAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRlMdx5C24M&list=LL&index=27
>>5554187fuck off crosscuck, your gospels were written by a bunch of anon pedo preists hundreds of years after the death of Jesus pbuh.
>>5556946NTA but muzzniggers base their entire worldview on the sayings of an illiterate child-raping pedo bedouin. You deserve everything that's happening to you and will continue happening to you in the Middle East and Bibi is currently waiting for a Trump presidency so he can finally go hogwild on the Palestinians. No one actually cares about the genocidal rape of Gaza.
>>5556946But Islam is literally just a bastardized fanfiction of Christianity coupled with the plagiarism of other local apocrypha and cultures. Out of the three abrahamic religions, it's definitely the most amateur in concept and writing.
>>5531591>https://files.catbox.moe/t4bi8k.phpwhy is this php and not mp4 or webm?
>>5557013>slam is literally just a bastardized fanfiction of Christianityread Byzantine response to Islamhttps://answering-islam.org/history/byzantine_responses.html
>>5557013>>5557013Islam's theology and doctrine has almost nothing to do with your crosstroon fiction written by paul and his buddies. The only similarities between the Quran and the bible are some of the ancient stories and the figures. Even the way the Quran is written is nothing like the bible which reads like a novel whereas the Quran reads like an epic. It is Christians who copied Muslim theologians like Aquinas ripping his arguments for God from Al-Ghazali and Averros.>No one actually cares about the genocidal rape of Gaza.Millions are protesting for Palestine, millions of them non-muslims. You know who really no one gives a fuck about? Armenians getting ethnically cleansed by Azeris and the retarded evangelicals in the west still support Israel that arms the Azeris. >donald trump if you can hear this please save me no one's gonna save you and your dying religion
>>5536948Based! fuck Jews!
>>5544272
Islam continues because of generational angst and trauma. There's no soul to it, no moral center. Any ideology that cuts off its people from justice is evil. Islam uses God as an excuse to do every evil impulse that comes to man's heart, whether that's child abuse, pedophilia, adultery, wife-beating, murder, lying, any sin you can name. And what's worse than this, it promotes these as good things. It's corrupted the souls of millions of people, and tries to build a prison of evil around whole nations. This is why arab nations have oil monarchies in the modern day. When your foundational beliefs are so mired in destruction, you cannot create anything of worth. Even for the believers that there was an Islamic golden age, what achievements came of it? What lasting and widespread benefits for the Arab people have there been? They see their chains as freedom from chaos, that the certainty of murder for unbelief is better than having to contend with uncertain questions, answers, and truths. Or, even worse, they see one book as the answer to all of man's questions, and whoever studies this one short book the most gains the most insight into the universe. The result has been eternal blindness for the arab, he cannot see the world, he cannot see others, he cannot even see himself. He only sees the half-thought up dogmas of a warlord, and prays that that is all he ever sees.And thus, sadly, there will be no prosperous world for the muslims. They are their own greatest enemy, and their own worst persecutors. They stone their daughters and cut off their own heads in the name of empire, the worship of their personal Julius Caesar who founded their theocracy-based empire, and call it piety. Maybe Islam was seen as a better alternative to the constant tribal warring clans the empire was founded on, but the moment they accepted it, unknowing of what the religion actually was, their reward was a life of slavery for them, their children, and their children's children.
>>5559105Soul and a moral center is when you have suicide, std, mental illness, and broken family epidemics. I dont think any Muslim wants to live like a westoid buddy, your decadent culture is so disgusting that even people in warzones like Afghanistan and Iraq refused to adopt it despite having 20 years to do so.
>>5557001>>5557013>>5559105Let the dune coons have one thread where they can larp as mighty or "winners" guys, they've already been so thoroughly humiliated as a civilization by the outside world and still are.
>>5554187jesus is not god and will never be god. if god was in the form of a man, that would be a weak god. even in the bible jesus never said he was god.jesus is only a prophet to god, and will always be one.
>>5559105do you think this shitty copypasta will deter muslims from practicing their religion everyday? fuck off crosscuck, you worship a man on a stick.
>>5559105Based and TKD (total kebab death) my brother.
kuffar seething as usual you love to see it. Die in your rage lmao
>>5554187>>5557001>>5557013kill yourself. id ragdoll you IRL you stupid polytheist crosscuck white boy.
>>5559472>>5559529sob some more for me depressed kaafirs
>>5559567Autism.
>>5559608The best thing about that webm is that they were all your fellow muzzies.
>>5559694Those are american soldiers, look at the camo.
>>5559714Absolutely mashallah brother
>>5559767laugh a little, and weep much kaafir
>>5514765>>5559567Ah, the religion of PEACE
>>5561210who said its a religion of peace you stupid kaafir? why are you repeating jewish accusations about Islam being all about peace and then proceed to get angry that it is not in fact what jews say it is? where do you see this in our scripture or our history? we have enslaved and killed you for 1400 years you clueless kaafir, impossible to find a kaafir with mature thinking all of you are like children, no knowledge of anything.
>>5554819What's the nasheeds file on archive.org
>>5559767translation of what he's saying?
>>5554642The spirit is God's spirit. What is hard to understand about this? The Father sent His Word and His Spirit to be with us; His Word taught us how to live, how to pray, etc and His Spirit gives us knowledge and wisdom and guides us. But they're still God. They will never not be God. They are as much a part of Him as any aspect of you is a part of you, but not your whole being.>>5554642Stop parroting Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik. John says Jesus has created everything from the beginning. We know God creates using His words. Who is His Word made flesh? Jesus. Thomas called him, "My Lord and my God." Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am." The Jews hated Him. They considered Him to be committing blasphemy by equating Himself to the Father and were going to stone Him for it. But you already know this.I challenge you Muslims to produce one page of the injeel. One reference to it even in antiquity before the time of Muhammad. Produce one text before Muhammad that shows prophets followed Islam. Give just one historical record of a Jewish group rebelling because the Old Testament was "changed" or one historical record of the Greeks rebelling because the New Testament was "changed."You can't. You never will. The Bible IS preserved, despite people trying to add to it. The tens of thousands of manuscripts may have occasional alterations here and there, but the majority didn't and the core text is easily discerned. We can be assured of the preservation of the Bible. Islam is not a religion of God; it's a religion of Muhammad, who spread it by the sword, by forcing people to accept it or pay the jizya in an economy controlled by the Muslims, or convert, but if you convert, you better not leave. God is not the judge in Islam; the Muhammadan becomes judge, jury and executioner, leaving no room for repentance, even though Islam calls for it.Absolute desert goat brained..
>>5562682Bible is not perserved, there are no copies of the manuscript from the time of Jesus pbuh. The earliest source of the bible are fragments in greek and latin found here and there dating to 200-300 AD. Which isnt even in the original langauge of the text let alone a part of the original text. And was written in various areas of the world over time by anonymous authors then "attributed" to the disciples.How on earth is this perserved?Muslims dont need to reproduce the injeel we already believe it was lost to time. We just need to prove whatever you have is not reliably preserved, and it isnt.
>>5561275You should probably adopt that 'we be peace and shieeet' thing because for half a year nowI have to listen to arabs shriek like a gaggle of women that a bunch of jews are genociding them. Cringiest shit ever.
>>5562794It is preserved. Every manuscript matches, despite age, despite location of discovery. Tens of thousands of manuscripts and fragments telling the same story over centuries. You're lying to yourself. Also, it's apparent you don't understand how little of any written text survives from that era because time. They didn't have the preservation tools necessary to preserve the originals, and they didn't need to, because they kept on copying them. Losing the old ones didn't matter because they had the same text already.The problem with the injeel is there's no evidence of it pre-Muhammad. There's no one that talks about it, in or out of Arabia or the Middle East, because it simply doesn't exist. I could say Muhammad fucked a goat and there's nothing you can do about it. I don't have evidence, of course, but you've just proven that with Islam you don't need any evidence. Just a claim. That's enough. So now we can add goat fucker right beside pedophile when talking about Muhammad, may poop be upon him.
>>5562878>its the same as the original because I SAY SOall the fragments that match are from the church and are centuries older than christ. You didnt even have a complete bible from fragments until 500 ad. Stop coping. The injeel has no bearing on this argument, even if muslims didnt believe in the injeel it still wouldnt make a difference to the historical unreliability of the bible. You seem to be undeniable about just how much meaning and context can disappear from bad translations and centuries of copying with no record.
>>5562878>Losing the old ones didn't matter because they had the same text alreadyNot him but that's just bullshit, anon. There's so many things added to the original texts over the centuries it's ridiculous. Shit like Mark's gospel having extended endings, the Comma Johanneum, the Pericope Adulterae, the confession of the Ethiopian eunuch, 1 Timothy 3:16, John 1:18, the list goes on and on. If we didn't have older manuscripts we'd never know about these adulterations of the text.
>>5514765fuck your skyman
>>5562936>it's the same as the original because everything we have from any time period or country matches what was written before and afterFTFYI can't even call you braindead. That would imply there's a brain. You've demonstrated there's nothingness upstairs and we haven't even gotten to the fact that there are no complete Quranic manuscripts even today, and every Quranic manuscript we have now offers differing texts."Even though every shred of Biblical manuscript you find matches completely with what we have today, you can't trust it because we don't have the full thing. No, it doesn't matter that we don't have any shred of evidence about the injeel before Muhammad; having zero evidence is better than having actual evidence. Also, even though we have zero complete Quranic manuscripts and the pieces we do have don't match, that doesn't matter either! It's still much more reliable than your book that has more thorough and more corroborating evidence than ours by far."
>>5562954We have 7th century manuscripts of complete Surahs that do match, Birmingham and San'aa manuscripts for instance. And in the same language no less. the Uthmani codex is objectively perserved. Ontop of having a robust oral tradition with the ijaza system that goes back to the Prophet pbuh. None of this is true for the bible. Theres a reason Christians believe the bible is inspired by God and not Gods word, its to weasle their way out of any errors or unreliable aspects of its scholarship.
>>5562936>You didnt even have a complete bible from fragments until 500 adThis isn't accurate, the NT cannon was not compiled from manuscripts. It was fixed by the church, most of its elements do not have fragment or surviving manuscript to back it up. NT canon was fixed at around 400 AD>>5562954None of the gospels were written during the time of Jesus pbuh and therefore cannot be considered eye witness accounts. They're not referenced directly by the earliest church fathers and the earliest reference to the gospels is around 200 AD. >"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors" Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633 It is also well known that Diocletian cracked down heavily on Christian institutions, specifically targeting Churches and scripturas, so much was purged that I find it hard to believe the bible remained unaltered in such awful conditions for textual preservation.
>>5552403Bumping for request
>>5559567>kill yourself. id ragdoll you IRL you stupid polytheist crosscuck white boy.
>>5563243>>5561307
أناشيد D:
>>5551202my only source for it was on youtube, but looks like the like i had saved was taken down. its a shame
>>5564942*looks like the link
>>5564942just look up the title of the webm lolhttps://youtu.be/3DdMYbsrzoY
>>5565029>>5564943>>5564942>>5564654>>5564253>>5563581>>5563523>>5563520>>5563519>>5563262>>5563243>>5563217>>5562981>>5562970>>5562954>>5562938>>5562937>>5562936>>5562878someone send the file that has all the isis nasheeds in it
>>5565062لا أحد يهتم +https://files.catbox.moe/8hufqj.jpg
>>5564942Well I did find the original album that it was featured in, but the audio quality is not that much different from the one you find in youtube because it was released with a low bitrate to begin with. you can find it here at number 5 https://archive.org/details/Ya-Watani
>>5562970Not disputing that the Uthmanic Quran is more or less what we have today but the Birmingham manuscript is a fragment. And the ijaza system, hadith science, fiqh, sirah, the grammatical rules that tafsir exegetes use to understand the Quran and other fundamentals of Islam developed gradually over the first 2-3 centuries of Islamic history, often with big textual gaps. If a 70 year gap between Jesus and the Gospels demolishes Christianity like dawah bros want people to think then what about a 200 year gap between Muhammad and the sira literature and major hadith collections?>Theres a reason Christians believe the bible is inspired by God and not Gods word, its to weasle their way out of any errors or unreliable aspects of its scholarshipTheir position on the word of God is a more coherent one than yours. They say the word (logos actually, which does not only mean word) of God proceeds eternally from God, is co-equal and co-eternal with Him and took the form of a man. You say God's word is a book which is eternal. Is the Quran which is kalamallah, not the physical books, co-eternal with God? You believe so. Is it fully identical with God? If you say no then how is that not shirk by Islamic standards? And if the Quran is the eternal word of God then how can one verse abrogate a previous verse and how can the Quran quote texts like the Talmud or figures like Satan? Are the words of rabbis and demons also eternal?Strip away the aesthetic differences and you affirm basically what they affirm but their formulation of logos is much more internally consistent, Islamic doctrine on the Quran is a fucking mess.
>>5567279>If a 70 year gap between Jesus and the Gospels demolishes Christianity like dawah bros want people to think then what about a 200 year gap between Muhammad and the sira literature and major hadith collections?Also on this point, a good amount of the Quran is not comprehensible without that sira and hadith literature. The Quran itself doesn't tell you who's the one frowning in Surah 'Abasa or who Abu Lahab is or even who Muhammad is. And it doesn't even give you all the basic rituals. So this is not a minor point, the Quran itself can be dated pretty early but everything around it which you need to actually understand and apply it is a lot more unreliable.
>>5565029>>5566703thanks for the info
>>5567279>Not disputing that the Uthmanic QuranSo its textually preserved then?The San'aa manuscript alone contains around 86% of the Quran in undamaged paper. There are many more all existing within the same century, that also match each other. The Quran is objectively preserved. The earliest gospel manuscripts are greek fragments which barely make up 30% of NT, date to 200-300 AD, this is not a 70 year gap. There is also a serious lack of references and quotations of these gospels by early church fathers, if any. Nor is there any form of record keeping or chains of narrations to solidify the oral tradition in the absence of textual record. The Hadith science alone is more rigorous than early biblical scholarship by far>big textual gapsSuch as? The earliest Hadith books were not 200 years old, Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik used the Hadiths extensively in their legal works and fatawa. These all date to the 7th and 8th century. Most of the Hadiths in Musnad by Abu Hanifa and Al-Muwatta by Imam Malik did end up in the major compilations by Al-Bukhari and Muslim. What al Bukhari did was heavily vet the existing narrations for weaknesses in their chains of narrations and narrators in order to make sure only the most robust traditions passed on to the next generations. Does Christianity have anything that holds a candle to this?The rest of your post is a gishgallop on metaphysics, which has nothing to do with textual preservation. Allah's word is unchanging and recorded in the tablet of creation(lawh al mahfuthz), which is an eternal record of Allah actions and decrees.If Allah abrogates a verse it is not because he made a mistake or the nature of his speech changed, it is because the revelation is made for Humans which do change as do the events that act on them. The Christian position on aborgation is the absurd one. That The monotheistic and henotheistic God of Israel did not know that he was Trinity and made a serious mistake or he simply changed his nature
>>5567289>Also on this point, a good amount of the Quran is not comprehensible without that sira and hadith literatureThis isn't true at all, the parts of the Quran that need a specific skill set to interpret properly are the ones that deal with Islamic jurisprudence and Sharia.>who Abu Lahab is or even who Muhammad isHow can you read the Quran and not know who either of these are?>grammerI think you are confused, it is the Quran the laid down the rules of grammar for Arabic, not the other way around. The earliest Arabic books on grammar were written by Muslim scholars in order to standardize Arabic to avoid misunderstandings by all the non-native Arabs joining Islam.
>>5567373>So its textually preserved then?Yes, I'm not disputing that the Quran has basically been preserved and the academic position is the same. I just wish Muslims would stop citing the Birmingham Manuscript as an argument for that because it's a dumb one, the Birmingham MSS is nowhere near complete.>Nor is there any form of record keeping or chains of narrations to solidify the oral tradition in the absence of textual record. The Hadith science alone is more rigorous than early biblical scholarship by farYou're probably right about the state of biblical manuscripts, I'm saying 70 only based on what I've heard, and you may have noticed I'm not a Christian. But though the isnad system is pretty remarkable as an example of premodern people attempting to do source criticism, it didn't stop obviously fake narrations from being accepted. You'll notice if you read enough hadiths that many of them follow the rule of threes and other well known storytelling conventions and there are quite a few which seem far too long and detailed to actually have been transmitted orally. The hadith about Heraclius converting is one example and also an example of how wildly ahistorical some of them are, if that incident had actually happened then it would've precipitated a major political crisis in Byzantium. His questions and answers to Abu Sufyan also don't make much sense in the context of Orthodoxy and even Abu Sufyan's answers don't always make sense in the context of Islam, like when he says he knows of nobody apostatizing. He was related to an apostate lol. Just one example but it's a good one, I've never seen any reference to a scholar who said that hadith isn't sahih.
>>5567373>textual gapsIt's my understanding that Muwatta Malik is almost entirely fiqh related narrations and in any case it is much much smaller than the 6 books. With Bukhari we're talking about a gap of ~240 years and Bukhari is the earliest of the Sitta. 70 or 300, if you want to make a big issue of one huge gap then it should apply to the other as well.>abrogationIf God's speech is eternal then it shouldn't be capable of change. The "nature" of God's speech is way too vague a way to put it and the abrogated/abrogating verses do contradict each other and show a change in content. And again I'm not a Christian but your point about how Christians read the Old Testament is a crazy misunderstanding of how most Christians have read it throughout history, they have many allegoric and symbolic ('typological') christological readings of the Old Testament. Many of which are fairly consistent, the Old Testament and New Testament are textual bodies within the same symbolic continuum so you see the same central motifs like the passover lamb, the messiah, priesthood, the Temple etc. in both. Islam doesn't have that with Judaism or Christianity, its symbolic content stands on its own to a much greater degree and when those motifs are present in Islam they're often interpreted in very novel ways like the tafsir exegetes that say masih refers to wandering the earth or others who say it refers to wiping and then instead of getting into the priestly context of anointing the forehead with oil say it refers to some miracle Jesus did. I see both religions as exoteric and containing some mostly hidden truth but it's difficult not to get the impression that Islamic sources don't understand much about Judaism or Christianity.You also didn't address my points about how the portions of the Quran which quote Satan or writings you yourself believe are manmade can be eternal, or whether the Eternal Quran is totally identical with God and if not how this is consistent with tawheed.
>>5567388>This isn't true at all, the parts of the Quran that need a specific skill set to interpret properly are the ones that deal with Islamic jurisprudence and Sharia.As a thought experiment, set aside all of the sira you've grown up on and then go read the opening of Surah 'Abasa and tell me what it means.>How can you read the Quran and not know who either of these are?The only reason we do know anything about them beyond a name in the case of Abu Lahab and a name and a few scattered details in the case of Muhammad is because of literature that is a lot more textually unreliable than the Quran, that's my whole point. Yes the Quran can be dated very early but that doesn't necessarily mean the world because the Quran alone isn't enough for fiqh, for basic rituals like salat and Hajj, or for the life of Muhammad.>I think you are confused, it is the Quran the laid down the rules of grammar for Arabic, not the other way around. The earliest Arabic books on grammar were written by Muslim scholars in order to standardize Arabic to avoid misunderstandings by all the non-native Arabs joining Islam.Unless I'm very mistaken this is the opposite of the mainstream academic consensus.
>>5567401>Bukhari we're talking about a gap of ~240 yearsActually it would be ~520 if you want to go with the earliest full manuscript of Bukhari and not the traditional date of authorship but even 240 is close enough to 300 that it illustrates hypocrisy in how you guys deal with Christian textual issues vs your own.
>>5567393>>5567401>The hadith about Heraclius converting is one example and also an example of how wildly ahistorical some of them areWhich hadith would this be?>the Birmingham MSS is nowhere near complete.Didnt say it was, just that it was a manuscript with a full surah intact and dated to be extremely early. The other anon I was responding to claimed that we didn't have any early Islamic manuscripts from the 1st century Hijri, which was completely false. There are numerous ones in fact.>>5567401>if you want to make a big issue of one huge gap then it should apply to the other as well.This is the Hadith not the Quran. We're talking about the preservation of revelation, the hadith is not revelation. >they have many allegoric and symbolic ('typological') christological readings of the Old Testament.Can you point me to one, I still don't understand how the God of Israel went from being entirely a monotheistic deity to somehow becoming a trinity. Somehow throughout thousands of years Judaism, they never interpreted as such until 200 AD Christians came along? >Quran which quote Satan or writings you yourself believe are manmade can be eternalWhere is the contradiction? Any decree Allah makes is eternal in the sense it is recorded. Why would Allah quoting somebody be any different? Satan's speech or manmade speech is not eternal in and of itself. When Allah quotes them it eternalizes what they have said in his book as an example for the reader, but only because Allah said it. The Quran is Allah's word and Allahs word carries Allah's attribute of being eternal, why would this be inconsistent with tawheed?
>>5567407>opening of Surah 'Abasa and tell me what it means.I would have to assume its the Prophet Muhammad pubh, where Allah speaks directly to a person it is to his Prophet unless the context of the Surah specifies otherwise. >The only reason we do know anything about them beyond a name in the case of Abu LahabMore details on the background of Abu lahab doesnt change or contradict whats in the Surah, I think you are nitpicking here. There are far,far more details on the prophet pbuh than just a name in the Quran though, Thats not accurate.>Quran alone isn't enough for fiqh, for basic rituals like salat and HajjI agree, but what does this have to do with my post? The original argument was about textual preservation, and I argued even the Hadith(secondary sources) are far more preserved than Christian texts(primary sources). >Unless I'm very mistaken this is the opposite of the mainstream academic consensus.Can you point me to a book on Arabic grammar or an Arabic grammar standard that predates Islam?
>>5567428>Which hadith would this be?Bukhari Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 6 apparently. I'm surprised you're not aware of it, it's in most modern books of sira. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7>The other anon I was responding to claimed that we didn't have any early Islamic manuscripts from the 1st century HijriAh okay, I should've read the context instead of just jumping in.>This is the Hadith not the Quran. We're talking about the preservation of revelation, the hadith is not revelation.The hadith are necessary to contextualize and practice the Quran. You can't do asbab al-nuzul without hadith and sira, can't in most cases know which verses abrogated which, can't pray without them, don't know the rules of fasting, the rules of zakat, the rules and rites of hajj, even the shahada. All 5 pillars are incomplete without them and the Quran is incomplete as a book without them. The Quran on its own is an often beautiful work of poetry and it gets you to some basic principles of the 5 pillars and to tawheed (although not to the detailed categories of tawheed like tawheed ar-ruboobiyah) but that's it.>Can you point me to oneIt's difficult to treat them as isolated units I think and most Christians do a bad job at understanding them, explaining them and thinking about them since modern Christianity is way way more literal and less allegorical than late antique and medieval Christianity was. I usually recommend people read Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses because it's specifically OT exegesis and it's extremely heavy on allegory. But one example would be the paschal lamb and scapegoat, Christians read those both as types of Jesus. A lamb that's slaughtered and eaten in remembrance of the lamb whose blood saved the Israelites from God's wrath in Egypt and a goat who takes on the sins of Israel. You may not agree with Christianity, I certainly don't fully, but that's consistent symbolic exegesis. What can the symbolic reason behind the paschal lamb and scapegoat be in Islam?
>>5567455>I would have to assume its the Prophet Muhammad pubh, where Allah speaks directly to a person it is to his Prophet unless the context of the Surah specifies otherwise.This is an exegetical principle you're taking from other sources though, the Quran itself doesn't state that it only addresses Muhammad unless explicitly doing otherwise. Those (O Muhammad)s you see are tafsir, they're not in the original text. >More details on the background of Abu lahab doesnt change or contradict whats in the Surah. There are far,far more details on the prophet pbuh than just a name in the Quran though, Thats not accurateWell Abu Lahab was just an example, what about the battles? A good chunk of the Quran is according to tafsir exegetes talking about Badr and Uhud but you would know nothing about the battles if you only had the Quran itself to go on. And the Quran does give you more details on Muhammad than just a name but as I say they're a few scattered details. You don't get anything remotely close to the detailed account of his life that sira gives you or to the massive collection of his sayings and habits that the hadiths gives you.>The original argument was about textual preservation, and I argued even the Hadith(secondary sources) are far more preserved than Christian texts(primary sources).I think that's an incoherent and useless distinction when so much of Islam depends on texts outside the Quran. And as you yourself said, Christians (and Jews for that matter) don't think of their texts in the way Muslims think of theirs, there is not the idea that the Tanakh and Gospels are the direct speech of God.
>>5567428>The Quran is Allah's word and Allahs word carries Allah's attribute of being eternal, why would this be inconsistent with tawheed?Is Allah's word fully identical with Allah though? The problem I'm getting at is that the eternal Quran idea is very close to what Christians say about Jesus, and this was also a Mutazilite argument against the eternity of the Quran btw. You have God's speech being eternal, eternity being a divine quality. His speech proceeds from Him presumably, since the speaker must precede the speech, but since they're both eternal this has to be an eternal precession. And if God's speech is God but also eternally proceeds from God and is co-equal with Him then I fail to see how it's any different than the Father-Son relationship in Christianity. Aside from the incarnation but even with that you have the idea in Atharism that Allah has directionality and a body. With some slight rephrasing the eternity of the Quran is a doctrine very similar to a doctrine you guys universally consider shirk.
>>5567478And just so it's clear my position here isn't that Islam is polytheistic and that's bad, it's that "monotheism" and "polytheism" are incoherent concepts to begin with when you get into high level theology about Divine attributes and speech or high level metaphysical philosophy about ontology, emanations and so on.
>>5567467>>5567459>I'm surprised you're not aware of itI have, but I've never read a version where Heraclius becomes a Muslim. He doesn't convert although he alludes to wanting to do it. However the Hadith about Ibn Jahsh's apostasy is considered doubtful and weak, so it is not considered evidence strong enough to contradict the what Abu Sufyan said in the Sahih Hadith. >hose (O Muhammad)s you see are tafsir, they're not in the original text.I know, but who else does Allah speak to in first person in the Quran by default? Everyone else is usually referred to by name or within a specific context or being quoted.>the massive collection of his sayings and habits that the hadiths gives you.Again I agree with you. Is the Hadith infalliable, no. Is it the next best thing when it comes to religious texts, yes. Hadith science and Isnad are highly praised as being as accurate as one could get in early history by the likes of Bernard Lewis, John Davenport, Johann Fück and many more but I think you know this. Its a false equivalency so say that Islamic religious texts are even remotely on the same level of reliability as Christian or Jewish ones. Speaking of grammar, the original Christian and Jewish texts were written in dead languages(ancient syriac, aramic, hebrew) that were all later revived and had their grammars and linguistic rules standardized with the help of neighboring languages that didnt die, Arabic being of them(see Jacob of Edessa). So these texts which popped up centuries after Christ, not only were translated from the original texts written in dead languages(before any of them had standardized grammar), but those original texts don't exist anymore so we cant even cross examine the accuracy of the ancient translation let alone all the scribal errors that could've happened in those 200-300 years. Sorry but this isn't even remotely the same as Islamic texts.
A religion for uncivilized mud people
>>5567501>I've never read a version where Heraclius becomes a MuslimThere isn't a hadith where he fully becomes one afaik but he summons all the Byzantine notables and tells them to convert and then says he was just trolling. That would've been enough for a major political scandal and probably a war had it really happened, this is an empire that repeatedly ripped itself apart in civil wars over minor points of theology. >Hadith science and Isnad are highly praised as being as accurate as one could get in early history by the likes of Bernard Lewis, John Davenport, Johann Fück and many more but I think you know thisYes and I wouldn't disagree that it was remarkable as an attempt at source criticism for the time, I did say that earlier. But for the time is key there, it's clearly not a reliable guide to evaluating those texts today because there are universally agreed on sahih hadiths that are obvious bullshit.>Sorry but this isn't even remotely the same as Islamic texts.It's the same in the sense that there's a large gap between the founder of the religion and crucial texts that the religion depends on. I don't accept your primary source/secondary source distinction, that seems like an attempt to wave away the textual issues that hadith and sira literature have. And both Christians and Muslims will point to the other side's textual issues while ignoring their own, that's what really bothers me here. If you guys were consistent and honest you'd admit that you, like anyone trying to dogmatically rely on books from 1000 years ago, are in a shaky textual situation. And that your religion's theology, law, exegetical systems etc. developed over a prolonged period of time.
>>5567478Im no expert on Islamic metaphysics, but I believe the rebuttal against the mutazilite argument is centuries old at this point. Ash'aris and maturidis answer it by making a distinction between Allah's essence and his attributes. You're gonna have to delve deep into their works if you want a more detailed answer. But the gist of it is that while Allah's speech is eternal, it is not considered to be part of His essence. Al Ghazali holds a similar view in his Incoherence of Philosphers.
>>5567522>Ash'aris and maturidis answer it by making a distinction between Allah's essence and his attributesI should read a lot more Asharii and Maturidi stuff since I've mostly read Atharis and their answer to all of these high level questions is usually just don't think about it too much. And it's kinda unfair to say before I have read them but I feel like making any distinction at all between the Divine essence and the Divine attributes already puts you in shaky territory as far as tawheed goes because you're making divisions within what Christians would call the Godhead. And if the Trinity or Platonic or Kabbalistic emanatory systems are shirk then idk how that would not also be shirk. There are certain hadiths which seem to imply the Divine attributes can conflict with one another too, which is something you also see in Kabbalah. An example would be the famous hadith from Aisha about how dua can repel the decree so that the two struggle against each other until the Day of Resurrection. That's God's mercy struggling with his foreordainment, a division not just in the sense that there's a distinction between essence and attributes instead of divine simplicity but also a distinction in terms of activity. My mercy prevails over my wrath is also hard to interpret otherwise if you want to take a metaphysical reading of it.
>>5567529And like I said it's not the idea of division within the Godhead that I have a problem with when it comes to Islamic theology, it's the concept of tawheed itself. Because I think any kind of strict monotheism breaks down when you get into more philosophically heavy metaphysics. And also that it severely mischaracterizes paganism, there aren't many intelligent pagans who would dispute than their "idols" are human constructions that have no power in and of themselves. The kind of paganism the Quran seems to argue directly against isn't Neoplatonism or Vedanta or other metaphysically coherent forms of "paganism" but a degenerate, simplistic paganism where signifiers are taken to be identical to what they signify.
>>5567512>sahih hadiths that are obvious bullshit.The Byzantine story is considered Athar, not Hadith. Since the person speaking according to the narrator is not the Prophet, but a Companion of the Prophet(Abu Sufyan), with another narrator (Ibn An-Natur) talking about he heard(?) about Heraclius and the nobles. The Books of Hadith generally compile anything attributed to credible people(companions and Tabi'een), not just sayings of the Prophet. It also includes weak narrations sometimes but it points that out to the reader. >But for the time is key there, it's clearly not a reliable guide to evaluating those texts todayI dont follow, what else would be a better source to evaluate the texts today? What historical text is even remotely as reliable as Hadith to understand the original message of Islam? >I wouldn't disagree that it was remarkable as an attempt at source criticism for the timeYou say that then go to disagree and/or equate them with Christian or Jewish texts, when Its obvious that theyre not even remotely in the same league. Im not sure what more I could say to prove this.
>>5567531>And also that it severely mischaracterizes paganismIt doesn't, its just that when it speaks to Pagans it primarily speaks to the Arab pagans, the Arabs never really came into contact with neoplatonism until after Islam translated the works of the ancient greeks. The way I see it, complicated metaphysical, theological questions fall into the same category as complex fiqh questions, mostly for humans to figure out. >And that your religion's theology, law, exegetical systems etc. developed over a prolonged period of time.Where do Muslims deny this? Fiqh and Aqedah do evolve with time since humans and their matters are subject to change as a function of time. This is a strawman. The belief is that the Quran is a complete guide into the basics of the religion, enough for the layman and even the illiterates to achieve salvation. If your Niyya(intention) is honest and you make a mistake in Aqeedah(theology) or out of ignorance, Allah is not going to damn you. Regardless of your position, if you have a doctrine meant for the masses, 99% will simply rely on it dogmatically because there is no way everybody could be a metaphysical scholar or a philosopher. Either due to material constraints or simply due to lacking the mental facilities. This is not unique to Islam, but also paganism and other religions.
didn't know goatfuckers browsed 4chan
>>5567670nasheed threads have been here since like 2016 newfag
>>5567550>You say that then go to disagree and/or equate them with Christian or Jewish textsI equated them in a very specific and fair sense. When academics like Lewis and Davenport say that they're about as reliable as you could've gotten in that time period they are not saying that hadith science has any utility for judging texts TODAY. We have the historical critical method now, we don't need the ilm al-rijal and the rest of it. It was an incredible system for its time so trust it implicitly for all time is a bad argument. >What historical text is even remotely as reliable as Hadith to understand the original message of Islam?The Quran itself is much more textually reliable, the texts its quoting or retelling (the Talmud, the Alexander Romance, Syriac literature like the legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, the infancy gospels) can tell us quite a bit about the era in which Islam emerged. And we don't have a ton of early non-Muslim texts addressing Islam from the period of the Salaf but there are some, The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos gets into the conquests and Shoemaker (A Prophet Has Appeared), Hoyland (Seeing Islam as Others Saw It) and Penn (When Christians First Met Muslims) have all put together sourcebooks/studies. There is also archaeological work that can be done and the evolution of for example Muslim coinage (which featured representational art and even Zoroastrian imperial imagery early on) might be able to tell us something about how early Islam's self-understanding evolved. I'm not saying I'm extremely familiar with the state of sources and literature but there are certainly options or the critical study of early Islam wouldn't be a field when it is. And "what better source is there?" is a dumb question, it's not a serious approach to ask for a source that you can read uncritically and trust implicitly (as long it lives up to a medieval set of rules on reliability of transmission).
>>5567716I don't care how long they've been here, I don't want to see any goatfucker threads.
>>5567582>the Arabs never really came into contact with neoplatonism until after Islam translated the works of the ancient greeksThis could well be the case but my understanding is that essentially nothing is known about Arab polytheism besides through Islamic sources, especially Hisham ibn al-Kalbi, and some archaeological findings and I'm personally skeptical, based on the traditional Muslim account, that Arab polytheism had no higher metaphysical elements or at least no contact with "pagan" doctrines that did have elevated metaphysics. It's specifically 360 idols that Muhammad clears from around the Kaaba, that is not a number you arrive at accidentally and I haven't seen 360 being used in ways elsewhere in the Islamic sources in a way that would make me think it was being used as shorthand. I know the academics are leaning towards or maybe have even settled on the idea that pre-Islamic Arabia was less illiterate and backwards than it's portrayed in the Islamic accounts and that pre-Islamic Arab Monotheism, what you think of as hunafa, started developing in the 300s AD which would've involved intellectual contact with more philosophically developed cultures. The fact that the Quran is quoting so much Jewish and Syriac literature would also indicate that to anyone who doesn't automatically resort to miracles (and it's not a particularly impressive miracle even if he really was illiterate since texts spread primarily orally back then, he had every opportunity to hear those stories without being able to read all the shit the Quran quotes).
>>5567582>>5567767>The way I see it, complicated metaphysical, theological questions fall into the same category as complex fiqh questions, mostly for humans to figure out.You would presumably still consider Mutazilites hellbound kafirs, not to mention "goofy Sufis", the Ikhwan al-Safa and other groups who were even more mystical and/or Platonizing than them, they were basically just rationalists. Maybe I'm making the wrong assumption and you're cool with all that stuff, and it certainly seems to me based on my reading that the hardcore fundie crowd today has a very naive picture of just how much the medieval ulama lived up to their standards of strict orthodoxy. I.e. that what's called bidah and kufr these days, by both camps, was a lot more of grey area back then and a lot more citing and intellectual engagement happened across sectarian, creedal and philosophical lines. But I've yet to talk to a modern Muslim, Athari or Asharii, who wasn't pretty strict on this stuff.>Regardless of your position, if you have a doctrine meant for the masses, 99% will simply rely on it dogmatically because there is no way everybody could be a metaphysical scholar or a philosopher. Either due to material constraints or simply due to lacking the mental facilities. This is not unique to Islam, but also paganism and other religions.This is very true but it's also not a good argument for individually believing something doctrinally. If you aren't a simple person who needs the milk then go for the meat, just because the 99% are always going to be too poor or busy or stupid to understand what the 1% can doesn't mean you should aim to be part of the 99. And this is also why I said earlier that I think both Christianity and Islam are exoteric presentations of some aspects of the truth, in the case of both Jesus and Muhammad there are indications that they were keeping certain teachings back and practicing certain things.
>>5567767>It's specifically 360 idols that Muhammad clears from around the Kaaba, that is not a number you arrive at accidentally and I haven't seen 360 being used in ways elsewhere in the Islamic sources in a way that would make me think it was being used as shorthandAlso on this point, if there was some sort of Pythagoreanism esque numerological mysticism element to Arab polytheism then this would make a lot of Muhammad's behavior in the hadiths make a lot more sense. Christian apologists who want to use it to frame Muhammad as possessed or an OCD case have pointed out for a long time how much number stuff there is in the hadiths and it's true, I don't think their conclusion is the only one that can be drawn but he's constantly telling people to do things a certain number of times, doing or saying things himself a certain number of times, and giving numbers to spiritual things that fall into the same numerological patterns. Pay attention to the numbers for a while, you will notice a ton of 3s, a ton of 7s (this is planetary), a ton of 11s and multiples of 11 (this is magical) and a ton of odd numbers in general.
>>5567768>You would presumably still consider Mutazilites hellbound kafirsSome of the Mutazilites beliefs when it comes ot interpeting the Quran and linguistic works did become mainstream or accepted by Mainstream Islam. But its not for me to say whether they are hell bound kuffar or not. Even more so for the Sufis, which are far more tame than the Mutazilites. >HunafaJust like the Arab pagans, information on their beliefs are very limited. I dont have a strong opinion on them nor do I know if they were inspired by Judaism or other monotheistic faiths. The Nabateans, which were the Arabs most likely to have came in contact with Greek philosophy generally remained pagan while some northern tribes became Christian but held some beliefs considered heretical by the Byzantines and Catholics. >This is very true but it's also not a good argument for individually believing something doctrinallyIt wasn't an argument for a truth claim, it was just heuristic when it comes to dealing with revelation. If you believe God sent revelation down for humans to follow, it doesn't logically follow that God would make it intellectually inaccessible to 99% of his target audience. It could very well be that both the tail ends of the distribution get value out of revelation in their own ways. Its a reoccurring motif in Islamic scholarship that the Quran and verses can hold multiple meanings. Just like Fiqh, it makes sense that Aqeedah and metaphysics of the religion would become more elaborate as its scholarly tradition becomes richer and more fleshed out. >Pay attention to the numbers for a while, you will notice a ton of 3s, a ton of 7s (this is planetary)Well aware of this, most Muslims are, but this is still speculation.
>>5567759>The Quran itself is much more textually reliable>And "what better source is there?" is a dumb questionI think you misunderstood my point. I was talking about contemporary sources about the the Prophet pbuh and early Muslim traditions that can be used to interpret the original message of the Quran, especially form a religious perspective. In this regard, hadith remains supreme, and its used extensively by early Islamic scholars giving it much more religious legitimacy than secondary sources. It doesn't help that most other sources from the era are generally less reliable too which further discourages Muslims from taking them seriously.But even when it comes to critical study of early Islam, the hadith still remains central to understanding early Arabia and contemporary customs/traditions of the Arabs. This doesn't mean that I don't believe there is truth in secondary sources, and that they couldn't help you get a more complete picture especially when it comes to history.
>>5567762cope, mald, seethe and dilate newfag
>>5567795>Even more so for the Sufis, which are far more tame than the MutazilitesThis I would disagree with pretty strongly, Sufism was never as monochrome as any camp seems to want to make it out to be and I know of course that it was connected to Asharii (and even Athari, Ibn Taymiyya was a Sufi) orthodoxy and isn't separable from fiqh. But you do get people like Hallaj saying things like I am the truth or saying that the true tawaf is around the Kaaba of the heart or Ibn Arabi and his followers who taught the unity of being. Or Sufis like Yunus Emre and Abdelkader who believed in a Perennialist meta-truth existing beyond the separate religions. And from the reading I've done there doesn't seem to have been a clear line between the more orthodox Sufis and those guys, al-Ghazali liked Hallaj for instance. It's also a tradition that really does tend to syncretize more readily than mainstream creed and law, although ofc it can't be fully separated from those as I said. So yeah idk, it wasn't some endless hippie bliss out like the wine moms who love mistranslations of Rumi want to believe and it wasn't some weird fringe sect like the Wahabbis want to believe but it also wasn't people who just practiced zuhd. The Mutazilites afaik were just Hellenizers and rationalists, that seems a lot less problematic from a fundamentalist standpoint than Perennialism or nondualism or some of the wilder ecstatic practices or even just basic Sufi concepts like the abdal.
>>5567795>Well aware of this, most Muslims are, but this is still speculation.Sure but safe speculation, 7 in any metaphysical context is usually astrological or at least has astral connotations in additions to others. And obviously we know the Islamic sources are working off the classical planets system of astrology/astronomy because of all the references to 7 heavens, reading those as references to other dimensions is baseless modern apologetics. The hadiths about some earthly rivers having their origin in Paradise is another astrological motif btw, one that goes all the way back to ancient Egypt. The narration about the angelic Kaaba in the 7th heaven is also really interesting in that context, the idea that God mirrors himself in the world of matter through a process of unfolding or emanation or "translation" is also really common. The Nile and Jordan were both believed to be mirrors of heavenly rivers. Most likely also the meaning of the Magen David/Seal of Solomon and the Shatkona, or one of the main ones anyway.>The Nabateans, which were the Arabs most likely to have came in contact with Greek philosophy generally remained paganWould be interesting to see how philosophical their beliefs were then. Do you have any idea if Ibn Wahshiyya gets into the pre-Islamic beliefs of the actual Nabateans in his book? I know that's the major source for what the Harranians believed (they're another example of how "pagan" doesn't necessarily = simplistic idol worship btw).
>>5567795>>5567819>If you believe God sent revelation down for humans to follow, it doesn't logically follow that God would make it intellectually inaccessible to 99% of his target audience. It could very well be that both the tail ends of the distribution get value out of revelation in their own ways. Its a reoccurring motif in Islamic scholarship that the Quran and verses can hold multiple meanings. Just like Fiqh, it makes sense that Aqeedah and metaphysics of the religion would become more elaborate as its scholarly tradition becomes richer and more fleshed out.This is a very fair and realistic way to look at it and I wish it was more common among both Christians and Muslims. But it does entail seeing orthodoxy as only conditionally or partially true and not writing off esotericism as egghead nonsense or heresy or satanism, which I'm not saying you're doing but the 99% of Christianity and Islam at least in the modern day definitely have a tendency to.>But even when it comes to critical study of early Islam, the hadith still remains central to understanding early Arabia and contemporary customs/traditions of the Arabs. This doesn't mean that I don't believe there is truth in secondary sourcesNo doubt the hadiths are critically vital and I'd also say that in terms of getting a symbolic/esoteric read on Islam there's a level where the textual authenticity doesn't actually matter, I'd say the same about the Gospels. These textual bodies and orthodox narratives crystallized into the forms they did so for me it's more interesting to ask what the motifs and symbols and allegorical elements of the narrative mean on a deeper level than whether they really happened. A lie can contain a lot of truth and sometimes people need truthful lies. But if we want to use that positivist historical critical lens then we need to recognize that they have textual issues just like Christian texts do, relying on any text that old dogmatically is always going to be a matter of faith.
>>5514765>>5514767>>5514768>>5514769>>5514770>goat fuckers>ow IQ>inbred>child rapist / child brides>pedophile false prophet>shit skinned>war ridden shit hole nations>famine fucked>refugees of the world>curb stomped by literal jews>always acting like the victim yet 90% of the worlds terrorists belong to themNothing great about Islam and nothing great will ever come of it.
>>5568220Another clear astral element is the Miraj, that is not essentially very different from Merkabah mysticism or the Hermetic ascent through the spheres. From what I understand the source texts are even ambivalent whether it was a physical journey or a visionary one, which you could line up with Hermeticism pretty closely since that was a mental/philosophical ascent for them.
>>5568219>This I would disagree with pretty stronglyYou're right, the Sufis at some point in their Aqeedah do push the boundaries of monotheism far more than the Mutazilites do, like in their doctrine of monism. I guess I was thinking more the lines of classical tasawuf that fell in line with the orthodoxy more or less when it came to theology and focused more on zuhd and dhikr.>>5568220>reading those as references to other dimensions is baseless modern apologeticsThe Quran references the 7 heavens as verticalyl stacked layers[67:3] and [71:15], not as planets. The planets are mentined by a different name("Kawakib") and they are described as 'swimming' much in the same linguistic sense a ship swims in an ocean. I guess there is somewhat of a similarily between that and the ptolemic model but there is still a distinction. I am also not sure if the classical astrological model(ptolemic?) consideres other scattered stars as an 8th element. > The hadiths about some earthly rivers having their origin in Paradise is another astrological motif btwWould help if you mentioned the reference which makes it easy for me to look it up and read the exact version you're referencing(wording can make a big difference). But I will assume its Sahih Muslim 2839. The Hadith doesn't mention the origin of the river, it might imply that they have a metaphysical relationship with paradise if you want to take it literally though. Or it might just be the case that there are rivers in paradise with the same name and similar characteristics(there is a fair bit of emphasis on rivers in Islamic texts which makes sense given the geography).
>>5568227>jew boi pretending not to be a kvetching jew nowLOLLLLLLL how embarrassing
>>5567670Everyone likes the forbidden music
>>5568259>The Quran references the 7 heavens as verticalyl stacked layers[67:3] and [71:15], not as planetsThat's what the Ptolemaic system was though, sealed (but porous if you know what you're doing) layers one on top of or beyond the other, each having one planet, with earth at the center.https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/ptolemaic_system_psf7999927724135214065.png>they are described as 'swimming' much in the same linguistic sense a ship swims in an oceanPractically the entire Ancient Near Eastern world believed that there was a huge heavenly ocean above the dome of the sky (which was solid like in Q34:9 btw) and that continued to be a trope in medieval Jewish hekhalot writing. I've seen some arguments that the Islamic sources also take it to be true. Also I couldn't cite you but there was some "scientific" speculation about the spheres containing liquid.>Would help if you mentioned the referenceYeah I know, sorry. I read so much shit that I don't always hang onto things I should hang onto and it can be hell trying to find a specific hadith again. It must be one of these I'm thinking of though, the source is Hosseinizadeh, Abdol Majid (15 December 2012). "The Four Rivers of Eden in Judaism and Islam" Al-Bayan: Journal of Qur'an and Hadith Studies. 10 (2): 33–47>A hadith from Muhammad reports that four rivers emerge from heaven: Euphrates, Nile, Sayhān and Jayhān; Hosseinizadeh stresses that the latter two are not necessarily Sayhūn (Syr Daria) and Jayhūn (Amu Daria).[23] In a hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas Tigris is also included into the rivers of Paradise, Sayhān is identified as Hinds, Jayhān as Balkh.[23]
>>5568259>it might imply that they have a metaphysical relationship with paradise if you want to take it literallyThis is what I'm getting at, not the idea that the Quran contains scientific errors so it can't be true. That sort of atheist shit is a very literalistic and surface level critique itself that I have no interest in. True lies like I said before, what do these cosmological ideas tell us in metaphysical terms? And it usually turns out they can tell us quite a bit and leave us with a much stranger read on mainstream religions than we're used to.
>>5568259>You're right, the Sufis at some point in their Aqeedah do push the boundaries of monotheism far more than the Mutazilites do, like in their doctrine of monism. I guess I was thinking more the lines of classical tasawuf that fell in line with the orthodoxy more or less when it came to theology and focused more on zuhd and dhikr.I need to read more about the development of Sufism and I know the flowering of classical Sufism took a few centuries and at least some of the major really early guys were more or less just ascetics. But idk, by the time you get into Sufism proper it becomes something that is inevitably different I think, afaik even the most creedally cautious Sufis from the classical period had ideas about sainthood, spiritual states, ontology, intercession, organized tariqas and fana that Salafis would at the absolute best be highly skeptical of and at worst call bida and kufr. This includes the Qadiriyya too and that was Ibn Taymiyya's tariqa. So the "not all Sufism is bad, the ones who focus on zuhd and true tasawwuf from the Sunnah are okay" seems like a copout to me because where do you find examples of Sufis practicing tasawwuf that you consider legitimate according to the Sunnah? Idk if you're even a Salafi, I doubt it since you have a very open and thoughtful view on the religion, but I'll pose question anyway as a rhetorical one to the Salafis who say this. It seems to me that unless you want to consider just about all of the ulama in many eras to have been deviants and/or kuffar then you need to modify your view of what's permissible according to the Sunnah a bit. There really was not a point at the high middle ages where most Sufis were just like Ibn Uthaymeen or some Salafi zuhd dude like that, it was a much larger thing.
>>5568289>That's what the Ptolemaic system was thoughIslamic cosmology doesn't tie heavens to the planets though nor does it say each planet has a layer or heaven specific to it, but rather that the planets(and other celestial bodies) swim in their own paths/course[21:33], the term for course here is not heaven. In 67:5 and 37:6 the Quran does emphasize that the visible stars are part of the 'nearest heaven'. The term for stars is also "Kawkab" here. 41:12 says that the nearest heaven also contains lamps for 'beauty' and 'protection', this could also include the sun and the moon. In the ptolemic model, the sun and the moon are not in the same sphere and the stars are fixed and only in the outermost layer. When you put all this together the dimensions argument is more than baseless apologetics imo. Quran generally describes the stars, planets, and the sun and moon as moving celestial bodies, and uses the term "Kawkab" interchangeably for them, however it does not refer to their orbits or paths as a sphere or a heaven on its own.
>>5568274LMFAO SALTY SANDPAJEETTEARS
I have been searching for one but I unfortunately never find the version I heard a long time ago (2019 I think). The only lyrics that I remember are "taqatdaaam, taqatdaaaam"
>>5568530You may be looking for
>>5568542
>>5568542>>5568543Yeah I've found those but it ain't it. I don't think it was a D production
Sorry but if Allah didn't get Mohamed a son that means everything outside Quran is wrong. Every Muslim should read the Quran and make his own rules, hadiths and fight others to impose it. If it's Allah's will you will win and expand it until another Muslim get its better. If you think i am wrong fight for your version and let Allah decide it.
>>5568608He did have 3 sons, none of them lived long though. >make your own rules and fight for it, if you win its Allahs willAlready happened, the Sunnis won.
>>5554872What is this from? Audio quality is dogshit but conceptually it's really cool.
>>5568716Found it on youtube. Here is the link : https://youtu.be/u_x3THcuH4E?feature=shared
>>5568626No, Suni is not winning. The numbers are fake. North Africans are abandoning the religion rules by the millions and mostly are a secularized version of it. In the levantine part this also happens and nationalism has taken the role.The ones in Europe are financed by Saudi Arabia. When oil stops, Islam and non Europeans out in the biggest progroms ever.
>>5568320That's a fair point, the sphere of fixed stars being the closest doesn't fit the Ptolemaic model. Really need to learn Arabic one of these days. There are certainly elements in the Quran, like all these old religious texts, that don't cohere with modern science and cosmology though and I'm utterly put off by the Maurice Bucaille approach where you jump through endless apologetic hoops and create totally novel readings to prove that not only is the Quran scientifically legit but it's talked about these modern scientific discoveries. That approach reeks of desperation and inferiority to me and it's also just a bizarre approach to religious texts imo, why do they need to be science manuals? When it comes to religions I'm a lot less interested in whether every little thing in their books lines up 100% with modern science than in what they're saying philosophically and there is always an implicit philosophic element to cosmology.
>>5568320>>5569513It's a different dilemma when you're compelled by an orthodoxy to believe that Islam is exclusively true and that the Quran is word for word from God and 100% accurate ofc. But those last two points, that it's God's speech and 100% accurate, I think can be combined in some ways that are less obvious. Is it that big of a problem if God is using false stories or frameworks to illustrate a point either about the individual spiritual journey or ontology or anything else? That "true lie" approach that I mentioned before. And there's even a pretty obvious out in fiqh, lying to people to reconcile them is halal. And clearly there is a uniquely intimate connection between God and the human soul since the ruh is the breath of God, not "merely" his speech. If we originate with God in that very intimate way then is it the strangest thing to say that certain elements within Islam are His pious lies designed to reconcile us to Him, draw us back in to the point of our origin? I don't think the Quran as a text goes against that idea either, it's obvious to anyone who's done research and isn't a dawah intellectual gymnastics champ that the Quran is quoting from tons of pre-Islamic literature and lore and the Quran itself lays out parables and calls them parables. Parables by definition are not literally true.There are some indications that that noble lie idea might be the case in Islamic sources themselves, there's a hadith quoted in Gai Eaton where Muhammad tells someone something and the guy is like "but if people knew this they wouldn't pray" and Muhammad gives some wise reply to that. Might be fuzzily remembering this but there certainly are textual indications here and there that he was keeping some things back.
does anyone have ma vengeance 2!
>>5569143Yeah none of this true lmao. Post source or stop coping.
>>5569563You are a bot and I have divine conection with God. That's the source.
>>5569513The Quran is not a scientific nor technical book, its message has little to do with the temporary scientific paradigms that we believe or have believed in.>>5569596nah you're a retard with no proof.>>5569514parables are not necessarily false by definition actually. Any story with a motif and a moral to be taken out of it can be a parable. And pre-Islamic literature is not necessarily all false, Muslims just believe it was corrupted with time and/or badly preserved. So there is no issue with the Quran quoting('id say paraphrasing is more accurate") it. That being said, there is also no record of Allah telling lies to get a point across(why would he need to?), not in Islamic literature at least. Its a stretch to compare the permission of lying in hope of reconciliation(white lies) for human conflicts between each other with the way God conducts himself or the way the Prophet spread the message of Islam. There is also no record of him lying to people so they would listen to it. There is emphasis on the Prophets nickname "Al Sadiq Al Amin" meaning the "Honest and Trustworthy" in Islamic literature. Had the Quraysh Arabs caught him using 'white lies' it would've gravely impacted his ability to preach his message. I think it makes more sense that the Prophet and God would be held to a much, much higher standard than the average person. > “There are four characteristics, whoever has them all is a pure hypocrite, and whoever has one of them has one of the characteristics of hypocrisy, until he gives it up: when he is entrusted with something, he betrays that trust, when he speaks he lies, when he makes a covenant he betrays it, and when he disputes he resorts to obscene speech.” (Narrated by al-Bukhari (34) and Muslim (58)I am not familiar with the Hadith that you're talking about from Gai Eaton.
>>5569702Even trying to deconstruct them as only ever being temporary scientific paradigms strikes me as insecurity. If we never make some discovery that tells us the sky is solid somehow, so what? Is the point of Q52:44 to describe the atmosphere? It's not so what does it matter if it isn't scientifically accurate and never becomes so? That's fixating on the shell at the expense of the kernel.>There is emphasis on the Prophets nickname "Al Sadiq Al Amin" meaning the "Honest and Trustworthy" in Islamic literatureThat's what I'm getting at though, there's such a thing as a lie which conveys a greater truth. Is the parable of the sowers any less meaningful because the sowers in question don't literally exist? It also seems to me that one of the central paradoxes of the Abrahamic tradition necessitates a nobly or playfully "lying" God. That paradox being that God by definition is beyond anything that can be compassed by language or rational understanding and yet in the Abrahamic tradition He speaks directly to man using language. I don't see how that leaves open the possibility of revelation being any more than conditionally true, true enough to be a reliable guide but not the whole truth. A clear example of this with Islam is the Athari theology of the attributes, Tahawi says that they're incomparable. I.e. Ar-Rahman has no relationship to the kind of mercy humans understand or show between each other. In that case why use the word? Well maybe it's good enough, maybe it's a word that comes close enough to giving people the right impression and which is a good enough lamp that can get you to the destination, a destination where you won't need to use these approximations anymore.>I am not familiar with the Hadith that you're talking about from Gai Eaton.He doesn't properly cite them but it's towards the end of Islam and the Destiny of Man where he's discussing last things (death, resurrection, hell and heaven).
>>5569860>That's what I'm getting at though, there's such a thing as a lie which conveys a greater truthAnd as a secular example of this, say one man says "it rained this morning" and it did in fact rain that morning. Another man tells a parable about people and events that never literally happened but this parable teaches an important spiritual or moral lesson. Which of the two men is more truthful? Does the second man need a big disclaimer in flashing red letters saying THIS DIDN'T LITERALLY HAPPEN in order to be the more truthful of the two?I think the central point I'm making is that focusing on literal meanings, literal truth (in the sense of whether something actually took place in the material/manifest world), and putting too much emphasis on specific linguistic-doctrinal formulations (since doctrines are necessarily crystallized in language) is locating truth at a much lower ontological level than it should properly be located at, which is a level of being far beyond the one we're talking about when we discuss what the atmosphere is made of.Also I forgot to complete my point about the paradox of Revelation in the Abrahamic tradition, in addition to God being beyond description and yet describing Himself we have God being beyond rational understanding but urging us to use reason to discover Him.
>>5569860>>5569863If you want to be technical about it. The opposite of being truthful is not lying, its not telling the truth. There is a semantic difference that is somewhat meaningful in this context. In the sense that if someone were to tell you something that is partially true, is that a lie? Even if its the only portion you are capable of understanding? If revelation only contained information that is comprehensible and relatable for humans while leaving out the things beyond their understanding, is that still a false parable? The way I see it, it might as well be the truth for humans as you are not capable of understanding any more than what God has allowed you to understand. Im not sure lying/white lies is the correct terminology here to describe this approach.
>>5569870Lying is definitely a sensational way to put what I'm talking about, you're right. Since it has connotations of malicious deception and that's not what I'm saying revelation is doing or that Jesus and Muhammad were doing. But I think it helps point out the existence of different levels of meaning and truth and the fact that something can be true on one level, maybe the more important level, and false on another. I would agree that that isn't lying in the sense that should be condemned.Maybe a better example would be drawing a 2D map to represent a 3D territory. That can be true in the sense that it's a good map that will get you to where you need to go but it's not able to truly encompass the territory, maps by definition can't do that. But they don't need to, they only need to be good maps.
>>5569702>>nah you're a retard with no proof.Turkey is a secular state thanks to Ataturk. Turks attack other muslims based on their ethnic appearance like syrians and afhgans.Morocco works with Israel, religious orthodoxy is despised and any of the ones in contact with Spain are becoming more western every year.Algerie is french with north-african ethnics and Islamic background. The military has the power and they despise Morocco on a nationalist basis.Tunisia just wants to become an European state and their citizens despise islam orthodoxy.Libya is a mess right now but Muammar Gaddafi was a nationalist and libyans wanted him.Egypt has movements to return to preIslamic past to the point of returning to Coptic and they are building the new Cairo in a Egyptian Empire and European ascethic.ISIS is financed by Israel, Saudi Arabia and USA. Any of the countries affected by it were nationalsocialist with islamic secularism. Only Sirya and Iran have survived and they want a westernaized countries. Iran is not Sunni but is like Syria on national socialist islamic secularist.Saudi Arabia is just a cleptocracy of the local and national elites that have sold the country to jews.The little states around it are also like Saudi Arabia.Afghanistan now wants turism and foreign currency for their country. They cant live without western world. They are going to change some of the policies to sustain their goverment.In Europe, Islam is going to be forbidden and nationalist groups are going to start attacks on nonwhites and suni muslims.Most of it is what I talked with muslims and secularized muslims in Spain. What I see on the streets and what I read on the news.The only retards that follow it are the most raped and retard ones like pakistanis and malayian mahometans on the philipines and islands arond there. Nationalist monvements and wars are going to start and religion takes a second place. Maybe you are from this group and thats why you are so offended.
anybody got the gif of the symbol in the top right being replaced by the waving isis flag then going back to the symbolI wanna make a high effort shitpost with it but can't find it for the life of me
>>5570480>Turkey is a secular state thanks to Ataturk.Nobody elected Ataturk, but you know who the turks did elect? Adnan Menderes in the 1950s then he went on to reverse many of Ataturk's changes like the call to prayer and the military executed him for it in 1960, but they were too scared from the population to reverse it back to what it was. Then the Turks elected Erbakan who was a literal Islamist in the 90s. Then they elected Erdogan from the Islamist AKP party and he has been ruling the country for 20 years. >Morocco Morroco is a shithole dictatorship, the people didnt vote for it and dont like it. >Libya Libyans hated Gaddafi, thats why millions of them protested in the streets in 2011. And now half the country is run by Islamists lol>Algerie They hate the french with a passion they fought them for 200 years and even insult them in their national anthem. The people who fought the french colonialists were literal Islamists. >Egypt The last fairly elected Egyptian leader was an Islamist from the Muslim Brotherhood lmao. Copts have lower birth rates than Muslims and higher apostasy rate. Its over for them>ISIS Hasnt been relevant for 5 years dumbass>LevantLiterally run by Islamist militias. See Lebanon, Iraq, Northern Syria. >Tunisia After decades of forced military secular rule, the first party they vote for is Islamist, Ennahda party. You are not informed, you are a low iq poltard and think what people say on pol is real life. >In Europe, Islam is going to be forbidden and nationalist groups are going to start attacks on nonwhites and suni muslims.You wont do shit. Your country is full of old people and women who vote against you. The muslims are citizens protected by law. Kosher conservatives will never change the constitution, all they care about is corporations and Israel>Maybe you are from this group and thats why you are so offended.Im not, I also never lived in Europe.Idc what happens to Europe I hope it nukes itself or goes into ww3
>>5570737>The people who fought the french colonialists were literal IslamistsWhere did you hear this lol, they were socialists.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_(Algeria)
>>5570788Maybe scroll down and read the "Anti-Colonialism and Islamism" section. The Algerians elected an Islamist from the FLN in the 1960s, Ahmed Ben Bella. If it werent for Abdelhamid Ben Badis reviving Islamism in the early 1900s and forming the AUMA, the FLN would've never had as much support as it did, especially in southern Algeria. The anti-colonial resistance to France in Algeria is much older than the FLN, and it was always heavily Islamist, who do you think Emir Abdelkader was? The same is true in Tunisia(Sheikh Abdelaziz Thaalbi), Morocco(Abd el-Krim), Libya(Omar Mukhtar), Egypt(Hassan el Banna). Westerners have been involved in the middle east for centuries and they still dont know shit about it.
>>5570828The Arabs know the west pretty well, they know its degenerate and run by Jews. Your ignorance is not out of dominance, its born out of arrogance. Its why after all those years of colonialization and wars in the middle east, you have nothing to show for it. Your culture is not respected.
>>5570804i wouldn't say Ben Bella was an Islamist. He was sympathetic to the Islamists during the war because he needed them, so they voted for him. But he largely ignored them after he got elected. he then got coup'd by his own people in the FLN for being too corrupt and the Islamists supported it because they felt he betrayed them. your point about Algeria being mostly Islamist is correct though. In the 90s we elected the FIS and won like 80% of the seats. The military and fln panicked and shutdown the election, banned the party, and started a civil war. only retards think Islam is forced on people in the middle east, only secularism is. Nobody likes commies or westerners. nationalists are tolerated so long as they are not anti-Islam. nationalism in the middle east peaked in the 1960s, right now its not so popular. t. algerian
>>5570858>you have nothing to show for itThe mind of the sandnigger never ceases to amuse. As if it's the white man's problem that you mud people can't build a civilization worth a damn. Those years of colonization taught us that there is absolutely nothing worthwhile in that desert shithole other than oil.
A cult for low IQ mud people
>>5570872>we had no legacy but its actually your faultNice cope retard. Romans and Greeks actually had influence in the middle east and Hellenized the region. Modern Europeans had no influence because they are culturally inferior and decadent Jew worshipers. Even Arabs in your countries have little interest in your culture. I know that you know that the west is culturally dying, and you're coping about it.
>>5570882You are writing all of this in my language you subhuman retard. Cope seethe ect ect, filtered, faggot.
>>5570892I speak 3 languages mr.amerimutt, maybe you should try it some time. Dont forget to pay your 40% taxes to Jews + tip kek
>>5570737Kek. Holly cope.I didnt talk about Islam in general but Sunni Islam and that was because you started the conversation saying it was the correct version. Then I present you with the facts that muslims are not following Sunni Islam and how there countries are not following its rules and why. The aren't fighting for the following of its rules nor they want to follow them.Their countries and people had and have to make the develpments europeans made for 600 years in a century to cope with technological and societal development of europeans or perish.They are in a shit position incapable or feeding themselves even in the case of Morroco and Algeria with the best fields. Egypt is going to starve if the current commerce lines are interrupted or oil stops flowing to the fields that feeds them. That means civil war and religious wars inside and nationalist wars with Israel or Arabia or Sudan or else.I live in Spain. Poor and dumb north Africans behave like niggers in USA. The smart work and want to escape the islamic hellhole their countries are. Islam is unexistant. Even in the retarded videos of muslims praying they are not capable to exist without drugs and gibs of Saudi Arabia and jews. Literally breaking the laws of Sunni Islam by doing it and corrupting themselves. Voting here is fake. You say i believe in propaganda but you argument with your propaganda>>5570804That countries are not midle east nor by voting do shit. They can cope with ther dessert rules in overpopulated industrial societies.To summarize, nobody is following the Quran nor the rest of its mumbo jumbo. The smart ones become national socialist secularist and try to solve the issues in their countries. The rest hold to a past that isnt there nor can be sustained without returning to medieval populations and having all non muslims converted or killed so there isnt potential corruption. Even there, nationalist and ethnic conflicts will arise.
>>5570882Europe is Roma and Hellas. Literally doing the same but with modern technology. Fascism was the conclusion and would have made Europe the ruler of Earth if not by the parasites. Infected and parasited by jews and its religions and secularized versions but the fundamentals are still there so there was nothing to impose but old jewish parasitical religions no match to Islam.Muslim world is also infected with a jewish invention but worse because it enslaves the retards and destroys their countries to become the ultimate globalist to serve the jews. Their followers are so retarded and numbed down that they cant build or create anyting. They need conquered people to do the thinking and 3 or 4 generations in Islam, it destroys even the best people genes and fenotypes. Islam is so evil that its own followers become repugnant physically and mentally. If your religion were to be right, its people would be handsome and healthy to the point that conversion would be made on the basis of improving oneself and it descendants.
>>5570938>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sexual_assault_in_EgyptThis wasn't done by Islamists, but counter-protesters and egyptian security forces dumbass. Maybe read the shit you cite. The rape rate in egypt is still far lower than the US and UK so this is an awful argument. >re-pubescent childrenThis is false, all the 4 madhabs agree marriage can only be consumated post-puberty. >8, Hadith Number 3371No rape mentioned here dumbass>preying on young boys>heres a degenerate heroin addict being a pederastBtw the taliban executes these guys>Bribery is rampant, top to bottom political and financial corruption is the normNone of these countries are run by Islamists though? You're seething and making shit up.
>>5570918>The aren't fighting for the following of its rules nor they want to follow them.Every country I mentioned elected Sunni Islamists you dumb euro brainlet. >Voting here is fakeIf its fake why do these secular militaries have to coup it everytime? >muslims aren't real, they dont follow Islam, they all do drugs and alcohol!source?
>>5570944Europe isn't Roma and Hellas, its anglo globohomo. Its neoliberalism and NATO. Globomo defeated facism in ww2 and nuetered it. Now you have an identity crisis and nobody knows what the west stands for anymore. >They need conquered people to do the thinking and 3 or 4 generations in IslamThis is the exact opposite of reality. Sassanids were a decadent empire with no notable thinkers pre-Islam. I bet you cant name any. All the persians ones you know (Avicenna, Averros, Khawarizmi) were born under Islamic rule, spoke Arabic, wrote their books in Arabic, and were taught in Arab Universities. Same is true in Andalusia, levant, and Egypt. You're from Spain right? You and I know visgothic kingdom was a shithole before the Moors took it over. But non of the notable thinkers of spain were locals, they were generally other muslims. Spain had a brief golden age after robbing latin america, then remained a shithole like it has always been. >destroys their countries to become the ultimate globalist to serve the jews.No its because the west(and the Jews) are terrified of Islam, every time they elect Islamists they have to coup them. They know the only thing that unites the middle east is Islam. Isn't funny how despite decades of forced secularization by western backed military dictatorships, they cant seem to get rid of Islamism?
>>5570965Voting inst following the rules. If the population were really Sunni Islamic they dont need voting nor democracy, its religious officials would be ruling and the fake goverment couped by the population.Here in Europe retard.Muslims in Europe retard. You are so fucking dumb.Of course the rest doesnt matter at it shows you weak argumentation.>>5570984All wrong.Europe is Roma and Hellas parasited by jews and its religions and secularized versions. They are still there even if the globohomo paraites are able to make propaganda to antagonize to you so you dont rebel.Decadent empires didnt polute their blood nor degenerate it enough to not be able to produce geniusies. When islam came it destroyed corrupt institutions but didnt destroy the blood. With new energy and a destroyed empire, their populations could be able to rebuild and prosper using the new tools and old useful ones.Averroes is a jew. Any of the others were not muslim muttoid but just the ethcnic of the conquered in a new position to developt without the restrictions of castes of corrupt people ocupating roles unfit to them by nepotism and power roles. Of course, the more mutts the less geniuses so for centuries muslims have become degenerate and corrupt to blood level. So evil their physionomy and mental capacities shows it.If Islam does anything it would make oil imports to Europe, China, India and others nonregular and unable to sustain its economies. That means scarcity and regime change or war with Islam. And you are a people so different to the former that ethnic and racial conflic can be justified and promoted. You also are a backaward people with medieval religion so evil that we dont need propaganda to make people see you as the enemy.
>>5571018>Voting inst following the rules.This isn't true. The First 4 caliphs were all voted and given 'Bay'ah' aka allegiance by the people. Islam doesn't require democracy but an Islamist democratically elected is not against the rules. I just brought it up as proof that people want it. It flew over your 80 IQ head. >>5571018>Decadent empires didnt polute their blood>persians>north africans>pure bloodI am arguing with a literal retard. Do you know how many ethnicities and powers intermixed with Persians in the last 2000 years? None of these places had 'pure blood', you are a low IQ poltard with no understanding of genetics. >Averroes is a jewHe was a north African Muslim, either Berber or Arab. Definenetly not Jewish. >the rest are not MuslimThey call themselves Muslim in their own works you dumb fuck
>>5570984>Same is true in Andalusia, levant, and Egypt. You're from Spain right? You and I know visgothic kingdom was a shithole before the Moors took it over. But non of the notable thinkers of spain were locals, they were generally other muslims. Spain had a brief golden age after robbing latin america, then remained a shithole like it has always been.Fake. Visigoth Spain was in a point of civil war and regime change when Arabian muslims came. It was weak to handle the muslims but they couldnt change the institutions nor the people. Most of it converted and it was just HispanoRomans with Quran. They even declared its own Caliphate and was destroyed by its own corruption. For 700 houndred years we expelled the muslims even if they were ethnically the same. Jews and muslims worked together so much that they were given position of power during islamic rule and expelled during Christian rule.Spain became so strong that in the golden age it could destroy the ottoman naval force in Lepanto and made Islam lose the control of the mediterranean sea. Even with a foreing dinasty centered in Europe and South America it could make Islam lose any power it had in western Europe.Even with jews using dutch, french and english to destroy us they needed 400 years to end an empire that even in the XX century got territories in Morroco.
>>5571028Spanish golden age lasted 200 years and then they got btfo. Andalusia lasted way longer than that lmao. You guys thought you were hot shit and tried to fight other Europeans and got rekt. Its your own fault, not the Jews. >LepantoThe Ottomans rebuilt their fleet and took back their territory, this did not end Ottoman control of the Mediterranean. They took back Tunisia, Cyprus, and even defeated the Portuguese in Morocco after Lepanto.
>>5571027The firts 4 caliphs used warfare to expand religion and dint vote to anything. They were killed by ruthless family.They are under the same banner. That means peoples are moving form place to place so fast and mixing that they coulndt be clusters of unmixed pure ethnics and the elites werent more that the moors we see today.North Africans of Roman, german and north african desent became arabs and half blacks the moment a half moon waved on their soil. The positions of power, institutions and anything was destroyed. All became arabic and followed islam to the last coma.>>5571039Andalusia was financed and promoted by all the muslim world and all the slaves it could pay. Iberian Chirstian kingdoms were alone even if it was a Crusade against the muslims. Spanish golden age brought the european expansion and technological advencements of Europe. Andalusian development brought misery and slavement and death.The ottoman empire lost all to European powers. They are sectioned in the fake countries the english and french made. The dont follow the religion except the part the allow themselves to be evil and are so evil they are degeerate to gene level. You take little parts of my argument and try to contraargument without taking the hole.
>>5571059>You take little parts of my argument and try to contraargument without taking the hole.You have no proof or citations. You just say they were pure blood but don't back it up except in your retarded ESL giberish. The Arabs are tribal, they dont intermarry easily with other populations. They prefer their own. North Africans were irrelevent centuries before Islam came and turned them into a part of a superpower. Berbers were a bunch of disunited tribes getting taxed by Byzantines and getting nothing in return. Islam made them conquerors.>Andalusian development brought misery and slavement and death.Andalusia brought science and philosophy to Europe during the dark ages, all the Spanish did was steal gold from the native americans, then lose almost every war with their neighbors and become a shit hole. >Iberian Chirstian kingdoms were alone even if it was a Crusade against the muslimsTariq Ibn Ziad and moors had less soldiers and reinforcements than the Christian Iberians, he destroyed them in 7 years, and established an Islamic state that lasted almost 800 years. Stop coping you had 3:1 advantage in Battle of Gaudalete and still lost badly. >The ottoman empire lost all to European powersThen they lost all their colonies in the middle east, oops. They didnt gain anything.
>>5571059NTA but european 'exploration' brought misery and death to the native americans lol. Atleast the moors didnt genocide anyone like europeans did.
>>5571081What does fiqh say to do with a non-kitabi people who refuse to convert of their own free will? Kill the men and enslave the women and kids, that is genocide by the official definitions. And genocide in the sense of complete physical extermination is done all non-Muslims in Islamic eschatology.Idk why Muslims insist on co-opting Western critiques of things like genocide, slavery, capitalism and colonialism when your own religion sanctions all of that and you never had any kind of indigenous critique of it. It's selective and self-serving borrowing from the Western intellectual tradition, same shit when you guys use poststructuralism postmodernism to deconstruct European ideologies and frameworks without ever having the intellectual courage and honesty to take seriously what those philosophies should inevitably lead you to believe about Islamic systems of knowledge.
>>5570858I deleted that post because I actually am against most of what we've done to you at least over the last 30 years but if you want to shittalk your betters then fine.Muslims shrieking about degeneracy and decadence is always hilarious. Your religion literally sanctions rape of slaves, prisoners of war and pre-pubescent children and you have rampant pederasty.https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/167863/https://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/sahih-muslim-book-08-marriage/sahih-muslim-book-008-hadith-number-3371https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMp2wm0VMUsBut yeah, tinder is a lot worse than that. Intellectually let's see who's more degenerate, point me towards the Islamic thinkers doing more than autistically shaking back and forth repeating Quran and Sunnah like a verbal comfort blanket. Most of your medieval thinkers worth a damn were hellenized and today you don't even have that. Bribery is rampant, top to bottom political and financial corruption is the norm, and the minute your leash comes off you drink, flaunt your wealth in tasteless ways, drug and party with the best of them and are pajeet tier predators to women and kids. This includes muh based Islamists, women were gangraped at the pro-Brotherhood protests in Egypt.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sexual_assault_in_EgyptAnd even if we really were so much more degenerate then that makes the fact that you can't do shit against us even more pathetic on your part. And in case your response is something about demographics, making your battered wife shit out 9 (also her age) incest babies while you live on the dole in your slums hardly makes you Khalid and is something all thirdies are more than capable of. Pajeets and non-Muslim Africans do the same and nobody considers that some glorious conquest.
>>5571143>>5571143Again, Im not the anon hes responding to. But the moors didnt genocide the Iberians meanwhile the Spaniards did genocide the indigenous caribbeans americans(they also ethnically cleansed spain from non-Christians). Its just rich to hear a Spaniard say the moors brought death and misery when the spanish did far worse.
>>5571178And it's equally rich from a Muslim, go pick up a book of fiqh and then tell me with a straight face that genocide is wrong. Doesn't even have to be an advanced one, you can find the kind of shit I'm talking about in introductory level texts taught by deradicalization people like Seeker's Guidance.
>>5571180Are you illiterate? Im not Muslim.
>>5571180The Encompassing Epistle and The Accessible Conspectus are the ones I'm thinking of, probably in both but if it's only in one of the two then I forget which. I'm sure there are pdfs, go find them and read the jihad sections and then post here. They're tiny books and that chapter is the smallest or one of the smallest, probably like 10 pages total. Read the Arabic too and tell me how bad the translation is if you really wanna play that game.
>>5571185You didn't say you weren't Muslim, you just said you weren't the anon he's responding to.
>>5571146stop deleting and reposting your shit after I respond to it.>>5570957>>5571143this >>5571081 isn't me. This is my response >>5571076. You're also wrong about genocide being condoned, well atleast in the way holocaust/full extermination kind of way, rather than modern definition which are much more broad. There have been plenty of examples of non-kitabi people being given dhimmi status in Islamic history. Are you not aware of Zoroastrians and Hindus? They were not systematically killed due to refusal of conversion despite being non-kitabi. The classical Fiqh position is to fight those who disbelieve in Allah until they let up or convert. Let up does not mean death but rather cease to fight back due to demilitarization, treaty, or defeat. There have been very few examples of the men being killed and the women being enslaved such as Banu Qurayza, but that has more to do with treason than being non-kitabi(they werent even non-kitabi they were Jewish). Ibn Taymiyah says the following in his Al-Siyasah al-Shar'iyyah>it is forbidden to kill non-combatants, such as women, children, the elderly, and monks who do not take part in fighting.Ibn Qudamah has a similar opinion in Al-Mughni. Why would these classical scholars tell muslims to spare non-combatants if they will execute them anyway after the fighting? Thats not to say classical fiqh adheres to 21st century definitions of genocide, apartheid, or rules of war. That isnt my argument. But relevant nuance, since you did claim Islam would kill all the men from non-kitabis. Im pretty sure Zoroastrians being given dhimmi status by the companions of the prophet is a legal precedent in Fiqh that non-kitabis aren't to be fully exterminated.
>>5571209>stop deleting and reposting your shit after I respond to itI'm doing it believe it or not because I don't enjoy speaking to you people like this. I've seen great examples of humanity and courage and virtue from Muslims and there are a lot of things about historic Islamic civilization and even Islam as a religion that I respect. But it burns my blood the way modern third worlders have pride in inverse proportion to their actual accomplishments. You Muslims who do nothing about the fact that you're intellectually barren, corrupt, sexually violent slum dwellers following an outdated tradition that can't cope with modernity and then whine about the evil West and larp as your favorite heroic jihadis are exactly like Hindutva idiots. Right down to doing intellectual gymnastics to justify drinking animal piss.>There have been plenty of examples of non-kitabi people being given dhimmi status in Islamic history. Are you not aware of Zoroastrians and Hindus?You're talking about what actually happened and you're correct about that. I'm talking about what the religion allows. I named two books here, go and check for yourself. >>5571186Never brought up Banu Qurayza, I'm aware Jews are kitabis and that was a tribal society and not a developed civilization anyway so it's a much different case.>Ibn Qudamah has a similar opinion in Al-MughniI'll see if it's translated and check it, in the meantime check my two and we'll compare notes.
>>5570957Missed your response the first time.>This is false, all the 4 madhabs agree marriage can only be consumated post-puberty.I linked you a fatwa from a very mainstream fatwa site (who normally translate them into English, I wonder why they didn't do that here). Maududi held the same position and I've had a Salafi student of knowledge tell me personally that the position of the Salaf was that consummation is halal when the child is fat enough not to be harmed by intercourse. Which is based on this hadith as far as I can tell.https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3903And the mainstream position from what I understand isn't post-puberty, it's the onset of puberty. Why were the "men" executed from Banu Qurayza all those with pubic hair? That's what the usual dividing line is from what I know, first menstruation for "women" and first pubic hair growth for "men".>No rape mentioned here dumbassYeah I'm sure all those women who'd just seen their town conquered and their husbands killed were really in the mood and were freely consenting. The cope about concubinage is just fucking delusional. Next you're going to tell me they can go to a qadi if they've been raped or beaten, as if the qadi is going to treat their testimony as equal to that of their owner.>Btw the taliban executes these guysAfghanistan is one country and if you all think it's such a great example of God's law then why are you flooding here and not there?>None of these countries are run by Islamists though?Zia ul-Haqq's Pakistan and Omar al-Bashir's Sudan were un-corrupt societies according to you?
>>5571232>I've had a Salafi student of knowledge tell me personallyThis was JabalAnNur from the Lighthouse of Truth sub btw, go ask him if you don't believe me.
>>5571216>modern third worlders have pride in inverse proportion>do nothing about your slumsIf you read my posts and think its about delusional pride you are not reading them carefully. Any Muslim with self awareness knows that the muslim world is in dire straits. But it was way worse a 100 years ago, when it was under official colonialization. When the French, Italians, soviets, english would kill anyone with impunity especially the scholars and intellectuals. 200 years of bitter anti-colonial resistance, with periodic massacres, humiliation, and genocidal policies. They finally win their independence only to find out they are a part of a global order that they had no input in. And every time they vote for a candidate more in tune with the will of the people or they try to rise up they are crushed by corrupt military dictatorships that massacre tens of thousands of people. While the world looks the other way or backs it. What kind of intellectualism, scientific renaissance, and material success do you expect to flourish in such conditions? Not to be doomer but you're the delusional one. You wouldn't last a minute in their shoes, to say they do nothing is just intellectually dishonest on your part. >check my two and we'll compare notesUmar ibn AlKhattab granted zoroastrians dhimmi status dude. That alone is legal precedence in Fiqh, how is this not an acceptable rebuttal? You do realize that the actions of the 4 caliphs and the companions in general count as legal precedences in Fiqh right?
>>5571239>When the French, Italians, soviets, english would kill anyone with impunity especially the scholars and intellectuals. 200 years of bitter anti-colonial resistance, with periodic massacres, humiliation, and genocidal policies. They finally win their independence only to find out they are a part of a global order that they had no input in. And every time they vote for a candidate more in tune with the will of the people or they try to rise up they are crushed by corrupt military dictatorships that massacre tens of thousands of people. While the world looks the other way or backs it. What kind of intellectualism, scientific renaissance, and material success do you expect to flourish in such conditions?I understand all that and I think it's fucked and should stop. I would also say that Western violence is hardly historically unique and that for fundamentalist Muslims in particular to complain about this stuff is absurd because Islam is not a religion that teaches moral equality across religious divides and it's a religion that explicitly sanctions offensive conquest. But yes I think neocolonialism and Zionism are bad and I recognize that it plays a role in why they are the way they are today.>to say they do nothing is just intellectually dishonest on your partThey do nothing in proportion to how much they blame the West for it all and they do nothing worthwhile in proportion to the extent to which they see sharia as a golden solution. It is not possible to combine efficient administration of a modern state, economy and military with sharia, that's an outdated legal code that belongs to medieval tribal societies.>Umar ibn AlKhattab granted zoroastrians dhimmi status dude. That alone is legal precedence in FiqhThen why were major scholars 1000 years later (Ahmed bin Zayn al-Habashi) saying you could execute mushrik men and enslave the women and children? He's not a minor figure, The Encompassing Epistle is one of the standard Shafii fiqh 101 texts.
>>5571250>The Encompassing Epistle is one of the standard Shafii fiqh 101 texts.And I strongly suspect the same shit is in Reliance of the Traveller btw, Nu Ha Min Keller left the sections on slavery and iirc also jihad untranslated because they're "outdated" but the Arabic is in there so you can go and check.
>>5571250>Then why were major scholars 1000 years later (Ahmed bin Zayn al-Habashi) saying you could execute mushrik men and enslave the women and children? He's not a minor figure, The Encompassing Epistle is one of the standard Shafii fiqh 101 texts.And on top of this, why even have the status of non-dhimmi kafir if you're just going to ignore it? Based on Quran and Sunnah™ alone it's pretty fucking hard to defend the notion that Hindus are anything but mushriks but the minute Muslims got to India Hanafis ruled they were kitabis because it would've imploded Muslim rule in India to do otherwise. Point being, why is God's perfect law so vicious and impractical that Muslims repeatedly had to expand the category of dhimmi in order to maintain their empire? Same shit for taxation, a 2.5% flat tax is not enough to run a highly developed state so very early on in Islamic history you had the caliphates getting into financial trouble and trying to prevent people from converting since they needed the jizya money. It's a system that can only ever work if you're able to maintain constant blitz expansion and probably not even then. If it was that unworkable in the fucking 800s then how do you think it'll go today?
>>5571232>>5571250>And the mainstream position from what I understand isn't post-puberty, it's the onset of puberty.No, you're right. what I meant is the onset of puberty. For girls thats generally tanner stage II. Not post-puberty which is late teens. >Zia ul-Haqq's Pakistan and Omar al-Bashir'sThere really isn't much data for me to look into here here and decide whether or not their policies had a positive or negative effect on corruption. But this is a reoccuring theme in the middle east, Islamists being elected due corruption of secular leaders. Hamas in Gaza, Enahda in Tunisia, FIS in Algeria, etc etc. >extent to which they see sharia as a golden solution.If secularism took off in the middle east and the broader western world managed to win them through culture this wouldnt be the case. And they had decades to do it. Instead they chose to betray their own principles, launch wars in the region and support Zionism. This hypocrisy did not go unnoticed and combined with the failure and corruption of local secularists, it should be easy to see why they think the way they do. Maybe you'll get another shot if the Islamists fail to build anything decent in the next few decades.>>5571268Dont gishgallop me I cant reply to 10 arguments at once. Zakat is the wealth tax, consumption taxes and tarrifs are different and can be levied by the state. Up until the 1800s they were the primary form of taxation in the west in fact. Income taxes and double digit tax rates are a very recent thing, 20th century. It was sustainable in the 800s. >>5571253I will check it out. Perhaps there are exceptions or caveats I dont know, but Im well aware of exceptions and legal precedence being made for Zoroastrians and Hindus which is why I brought them up as an example. Whats your background anyway, are you the same spiritual/gnostic inclined dude I talked to earlier ITT?
>>5571274>Dont gishgallop meYou're right, bad habit. >consumption taxes and tarrifs are different and can be levied by the stateMy bad then, I didn't realize there were other legitimate categories of taxation besides zakat and jizya in fiqh. It is true though that the Ummayads ran into taxation related difficulties pretty early on and that that was a huge part of the debate over whether to allow non-Arab converts to stop paying jizya.>I will check it out. Perhaps there are exceptions or caveats I dont know, but Im well aware of exceptions and legal precedence being made for Zoroastrians and Hindus which is why I brought them up as an exampleI would assume that this is more the theoretical here's what you do if you run into people who aren't kitabis thing but in practice that category got expanded as Islamic empires did. Since trying to wipe out/enslave gigantic territories is not a good recipe for military and governing success. Could be wrong and there could be some other explanation but I'm not lying about what I've read and heard at least.>Whats your background anyway, are you the same spiritual/gnostic inclined dude I talked to earlier ITT?I've been all over the map and yes I'm that guy and also a murtad if that's what you were wondering. Long story but I got drawn in by Tim Winter and some other guys like that, the Perennialist adjacent stuff. And by the Quran itself, which I still respect a lot. I was pretty serious about it for a good stretch of time, and I took a much more mainstream approach than the esotericism and my entry point might make you guess. But I reached a point where I was sick of doing dishonest intellectual gymnastics and having my moral goalposts shifted. Among other things, the rigorism and obsession over externals whose symbolism isn't even understood felt very pharisaical and I had to make a conscious effort to not write off Athari literalism and anthropomorphism as braindead.
>>5571293>I would assume that this is more the theoretical here's what you do if you run into people who aren't kitabis thingNow that I say this though, I actually cannot remember if that book even limits it to kitabis. It's been a while.
>>5571293>allow non-Arab converts to stop paying jizyaI've heard of this I found it disgusting and hypocritical, but I dont believe there is any support for it by legitimate scholars. >taxation related difficultiesCould just be bad financial planning, I mean even taxes that made Americans against the British were single digit. It was definenetly normal/sustainable to have fairly low taxation rates up until very recently. >I'm that guy and also a murtad if that's what you were wondering. Yeah seemed like it, arguments with poltards are not the same. They dont care about intellectual rigor and are just motivated by racial and nationalistic complexes. I do share your frustration with the lack of intellectualism and rigor in the muslim world in general fwiw. Although I'm not as big on western morality. Im in my early 20s so I still have alot to read and internalize before I can put out meaningful intellectual works of my own, maybe I can put a dent in the stagnation that afflicts the region.
>>5571315>I dont believe there is any support for it by legitimate scholarsThere most certainly isn't as far as I'm aware, I was bringing it up just to make the point that the rules on taxation in fiqh only really work at a tribal level but from what you told me maybe that's not the case.>It was definitely normal/sustainable to have fairly low taxation rates up until very recentlyI wasn't aware the taxes on the Americans were that low and I'd be curious to see if that was a single tax or all of them together but yeah, lower than now. The modern state does much more compared to an 18th century state though and I highly doubt you could turn shit like education back over to the church/ulama and maintain competitiveness.>They dont care about intellectual rigor and are just motivated by racial and nationalistic complexesI have a little bit of that too as you've seen, I guess I'm bitter about how I let myself get caught up in an overly xenolatric view of the Islamic world, in braindead dawah bro intellectual backflipping and throwing out a lot of what's extremely valuable in the Western heritage like Hellenism. But yeah, I've done enough research and known enough Muslims personally to know that there's tons of good in addition to tons of bad and I don't see you guys as subhumans, or those of you I do see as subhuman I see as subhuman through circumstance rather than genetic destiny.>Although I'm not as big on western moralityI don't think you can reduce the Western ethical tradition to a single thing called Western morality. And I also don't think the ethically laissez faire attitude of your average man on the street is representative of much, your average person never understands or thinks about much of anything and there's always been plenty of laxity moral and religious on both sides of the Med. A lot of what the sharia as the solution to modernity crowd likes to pin on uniquely Western thought I would put down to the dislocating effects of modernity too.
>>5571330>A lot of what the sharia as the solution to modernity crowd likes to pin on uniquely Western thought I would put down to the dislocating effects of modernity tooIn other words, I think in many cases the ideology follows the technological, economic and social trends and that those trends were going to happen sooner or later. You can't take the breakdown of the family for instance and pin it on people not unthinkingly hewing to revelation, that's simple-minded and it ignores that larger (i.e. tribal) family structures were breaking down in the West due to state centralization and economic development well before any of the ideologies you guys dislike had gone so far or even existed.
>>5571331>I think in many cases the ideology follows the technological, economic and social trends and that those trends were going to happen sooner or later.I think the exact same thing actually. Womens and labour rights for example almost always followed after periods of economic dependence on them as units where they gained enough leverage to get more power through already established institutions.(labor after black plague, women after ww1). The western world didnt suddenly wake up and say hmm we've been mistreating women theyre actually equal to men. But rather the material conditions became different and the smart and attentive ones amongst them noticed first and made it into an ideological talking point to capitalize on the new trend. Then the laymen and mediocre scholars come afterwards and create a historical narrative and story to suit their human desire for narratives and order amongst the chaos that is history. I believe the material world, and all that is in it, is predetermined. If you had a divine calculator to calculate every force acting on every molecule in this world a million years ago, you could without a doubt predict everything in the future. So its a requirement that any divine dogma/revelation has to withstand the test of time and come out on top despite any crackdowns or unfavorable changes in material conditions. That has to be factored in, when God sent down said revelation. Ibn Khaldun often said that a civilization is always one generation away from glory, and I share that sentiment. Helps me not get too doomer.
>>5571349>Womens and labour rights for example almost always followed after periods of economic dependence on them as units where they gained enough leverage to get more power through already established institutions.(labor after black plague, women after ww1). The western world didnt suddenly wake up and say hmm we've been mistreating women theyre actually equal to men. But rather the material conditions became different and the smart and attentive ones amongst them noticed first and made it into an ideological talking point to capitalize on the new trend. Then the laymen and mediocre scholars come afterwards and create a historical narrative and story to suit their human desire for narratives and order amongst the chaos that is historyYes, exactly. I wouldn't go as far as to say ideas don't have any impact of course and as you've seen I'm too far into esotericism and religions (and have seen too much with both of those) to really be a materialist. But fitting ideas into the material context of your time is essential and will keep you grounded.>I believe the material world, and all that is in it, is predetermined. If you had a divine calculator to calculate every force acting on every molecule in this world a million years ago, you could without a doubt predict everything in the futureI've had that thought too, before I ever considered Islam (which actually complicates things by introducing at least a measure of free will into the equation). If every event in the manifest world is simply one long chain of material causation as positivism would have us believe then is there any room for free will, however conceptualized? It's a good question and I'd have to say no but ultimately I intuitively don't believe we're just puppets and if we are it reduces the whole divine drama that Abrahamic religions propose to a very sadistic and absurd mockery.
>>5571349>So its a requirement that any divine dogma/revelation has to withstand the test of time and come out on top despite any crackdowns or unfavorable changes in material conditionsI think Islam itself bears the traces of the material conditions of its origins though. There are a lot of areas of fiqh that are just not applicable to modern times and there are people who want the sharia who would agree with that, Wael Hallaq being the best example. I don't think Islam is unique in this though, it's a matter of being able to separate what's timebound or culturebound from what's eternal and that takes a bit of daring and a bit of thinking and a lot of learning. Which you also need to produce worthwhile intellectual contributions speaking of that. It's hard, maybe impossible, to be an original thinker while also following a dogma to the letter. And to bring it back to material conditions, while ofc Islam was always dogmatic, I do get the sense that the Salafi variety of Islamic dogmatism is an intellectual reaction to the Islamic world's material subjugation and to modern trends that undercut things that had been taken for granted before then. The latter very much also applies to Christian fundamentalism, Protestants in the 1700s took certain things for granted in a much more causal and natural way that Protestants in the late 1800s had to double down on very hard and consciously because of various political, economic and intellectual trends that were delegitimizing them.
>>5571363> at least a measure of free will into the equation>I dont believe we're just puppetsThats why I said the material world, not the spiritual. They feed into each other in reflexive ways thats too complex for me to lay out on a 4chan post. And is already hard for me to wrap my head around but I'd say occasionalism is one of the better frameworks out there, at least from the Islamically compatible ones. Think about it this way, If you were in a cave and had three different holes to go into to move to different caves. And every new cave you go into also had different options. There is a limited number of permutations between the caves which means the designer of the caves could still know all the possibilities before hand, despite the limited amount of free will you had to take routes in the caves. And we know there is an end to the caves because all material things perish. It wouldnt be hard to think a civilization could take the long way to reach a certain cave called glory while others could take the short route. And some may never reach it and take a route without that cave. I dont think determinism and free will are all that mutually exclusive. >to really be a materialistSome of your later arguments were pretty materialist I'd say. Like when were bombarding me with questions about how a modern caliphate would work logistically and economically. Its not for me to know entirely, but material conditions constantly change and they may return to favor the Islamists, or the Islamists will change to deal with the material conditions in ways we couldn't predict. Its not an unreasonable position to have, especially if you believe in the example I gave above.
>>5571383>There is a limited number of permutations between the caves which means the designer of the caves could still know all the possibilities before hand, despite the limited amount of free will you had to take routes in the caves. And we know there is an end to the caves because all material things perishIkwym about not being able to explain it with a 4chan post and I also know from experience the feeling that it's a spiritually dangerous conversation to be avoided. But that said I would say this metaphor doesn't work because it's not just divine foreknowledge involved in qadr but also divine foreordainment. So you do get into a situation where it's pretty difficult to avoid seeing it as God creating people specifically for Hell, willing them to commit sins, and then punishing them for sins He Himself willed them to commit. And I'm aware that that's a heretical position, the "Forcers" (idk the Arabic off the top of my head) held it, but Tahawi at least does not at all give you an intellectually satisfying out. Basically just says we really choose our actions, God really predestines them, believe both and don't think about it. >Like when were bombarding me with questions about how a modern caliphate would work logistically and economicallyWhen I say materialism I mean positivism or dialectical materialism in a Marxist sense and I don't think basic questions of practicality would necessarily fall into either of those categories. Ultimately I don't believe the material world is the most real level of existence that we have access to but rather that it's the least real. But holy lies and the truth of the neophyte is the lie of the zelator. Something can be false or irrelevant on one level of being and true on another. And I personally have a very hard time believing that the intricacies of tax codes are too important one way or another on the highest, but then neither is civilizational competition or politics or profane life in general.
>>5571395It is a limited metaphor, I just came up with it on the spot to explain what I'm trying to say. But to stick with it a bit longer; preordinance is not someone taking routes for you. Rather the kind of person you are while you go through the routes. The implication is that you still have enough free will to make your choices despite the preordained things such as wealth(risq), race, gender, etc. No where does it say that certain beliefs(in this context routes->ends) are preordained, in Islam. And I don't think any scholars hold that view. Some may argue that certain genders or people of certain backgrounds are more likely to do certain things, but I ask do you know this from revelation or some kind of inherent knowledge? Or are they materialistic beliefs based on empiricism? Such as studies, statistics, and so on and so forth?>I don't think basic questions of practicality would necessarily fall into either of those categoriesI would say they do actually. You are approaching a materialistic problem through material lenses; Practicality through empirical and social sciences such as economics and politics. These questions are irrelevant if you either believe the spiritual realm decides the material or if you believe the material is predetermined(despite limited variation).
>>5571414>No where does it say that certain beliefs(in this context routes->ends) are preordainedBut your actions are in a kind of grey area where they both are and aren't right? God does preordain our actions but we also really choose them and somehow both things are true, that was my understanding. "Forcers" who emphasize preordainment at the expense of choice are heretics and "choosers" who do the reverse are heretics. Which to me reminded me of a lot of the christological compromises that Christian orthodoxy (small o) ended up making, not really a position that's coherent on its own terms but just "don't fall into either of these two extremes and hold two rationally incompatible principles in your mind at once without trying too much to reconcile them". I know Ashariis and Maturidis, (and I assume also Mutazila) have some more philosophically heady solutions but I haven't looked into too much of their stuff yet.>You are approaching a materialistic problem through material lenses; Practicality through empirical and social sciences such as economics and politics. These questions are irrelevant if you either believe the spiritual realm decides the material or if you believe the material is predetermined(despite limited variation).Tie your camel and then pray. If the spiritual realm decides the material or if the material is predetermined or if the material is ultimately illusory then you can take that to mean doing anything is pointless. It's all predetermined so don't bother getting out of bed tomorrow. For better or worse we live with at least the potential to access multiple levels of being and we have to approach each one at its own level.
>>5571431>Tie your camel and then pray. If the spiritual realm decides the material or if the material is predetermined or if the material is ultimately illusory then you can take that to mean doing anything is pointlessAlso while I've certainly seen enough to make me believe in some kind of metaphysical reality, it generally doesn't turn out too well when people or movements try to base their actions solely on idealism (in the sense of philosophical idealism) or belief or omens or shit like that. And this crosses lines of belief and practice, look where a movement like ISIS driven more by faith and apocalypticism ended up and then look where more careful, strategic and limited movements like the Taliban ended up.
>>5571431>But your actions are in a kind of grey area where they both are and aren't rightAre you certain that any pre-ordained factors such as wealth are enough to overpower your free will? How would you know that? I understand the suspicion, but I'm also in a position where I cant find a convincing argument that proves it does. In a materialistic setting we draw an arbitrary line where your actions are discredited. Such as being peer pressured into something(not an excuse) but being insane or intoxicated is. In the spiritual realm I'm not sure how to find such line occasionalism goes into more detail about this, Al Ghazali is credited with being the first to talk about it in his Tahafut al Falasifa. You said you havent read Ash'ari answers maybe start with his position? >Tie your camelThis isn't what I'm arguing against. You do what you can, in Islam the scholars call this "Akh-th bil Asbab"(taking the necessary means). So if a civilization were to take the correct means then they are one generation away from glory or they delay that and take the long way there or never reach it. I do admit that the relationship between the spiritual and material is reflexive. To reiterate my position, I believe the material world is still predetermined in the sense there is a finite amount of parallel worlds or routes to be taken, and Allah knows all of them. And your choice is limited within certain parameters preset for you. So no, I would not advocate for an idealist approach while ignoring material reality. But I view the overall picture as predetermined, I mean anyone believing in eschatology has to think this to remain logically consistent. If you believe that the world will end in a certain way, then you believe, regardless of the choices people make today it will have the same end. Islam does war against trying to predict The Hour, perhaps its to avoid falling into this type of deterministic trap. Its getting late, I'll reply tomorrow if the thread is still here
>>5533354I love hajji finkelstein so much its unreal
