I put scholars in quotations just because idk how many of the people I will list would formally consider themselves as such. Anyways I know a lot of the anti-Islam posting on /his/ is from either paid shills or ignorant neo-crusaders, but I still find it surprising how I’ve never seen any contemporary western Muslims of significance name dropped on here. I reverted about a year ago and the names I’ll list went a long way towards teaching me about the religion.>Sh. Abdal Hakim Murad>Sh. Hamza YusufProbably two of the best western contemporary scholars. They go a long way in debunking the idea that Islam is a “brown” or “Arab” religion. Very knowledgeable in their fields and both are big proponents of tasawuf, which I think westerners miss out on a lot when presented with the default salafi image of things>Dr Yasir Qadhi>Dr Jonathan AC BrownThese 2 are really good for anyone looking for a “scholarly” approach to the religion. Dr Yasir Qadhi has a hundred something part playlist on the seerah of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on YouTube that’s a great resource for anyone looking into that type of thing. Dr Jonathan Brown’s book “misquoting Muhammad” is a great breakdown of the history of Islam & the 4 madhab tradition. >Dr Ali AtaieThe best person I’ve seen in regards to “proving” the Quran. Linking biblical prophecies to our prophet, arguing for the preservation of the Quran from the time of the prophet, & dismantling common orientalist arguments. Any sort of question that a Christian can ask a lay Muslim that he can’t answer that may make him question his faith, this is the guy with the correct answer to it>Martin LingsHis seerah is basically the go to for English speakers today.Honorable Mentions>Hasan Spiker>Sh. Yahya Rhodus>Dr. Umar Faruq Abdullah>Sh. Ibrahim Osi EfaTLDR: Resources to explain Islam to westerners
>>18422423 They don't qualify as a scholar just because they study the bible or koran aka QuranThey're just religious nuts that spend too much time studieing ancient fables, folklore & mythology, and that is not scholarly
>>18422423Arabs are scammers you'd have to be a fool to trust them, same goes for Jews and Indians too.
>>18422428Yeah I know the lot of them aren’t teachers at Al Azhar or anything, but they’re people who you can watch on YouTube and learn a good deal from, and they aren’t exactly what you would call “YouTubers” or “influencers” either. Idk what to call them exactly but they serve the role of informal teachers for me.
>>18422446dawahgandist conmen?
>>18422423Could any of these scholars explain to me why was it okay for Moh to rape a 9 year old?
>>18422423
>>18422474They aren’t dawahbros by any means, but some people from that scene did have an influence on me converting >>18422478It wasn’t rape & child marriage was a regular custom in the whole world at the time. Thomas Aquinas placed the minimum age for marriage at 7>>18422479Not a serious argument, but for the sake of argument neither Muslims nor the Bible consider the New Testament to be the actual holy book revealed to Jesus, peace be upon him. Im sure you can find something more in depth on this by Dr Ali Ataie
>>18422499>It wasn’t rapeCan 9 year olds consent to sex?>No.So it was rape then.>child marriage was a regular custom in the whole world at the time.Nope, it was the Middle Ages, even then a 50 year old man having sex with a 9 year old would've been seen as fucked up. The 1st century Jewish standard was that girls could only be bethroted at 12 at the earliest, so even by 1st century Jewish customs it would have been completely unacceptable.> Thomas Aquinas placed the minimum age for marriage at 7So even by Aquinas' standard Mohammed's marriage to Aisha at 6 was wrong? Damn.
>>18422499>but for the sake of argument neither Muslims nor the Bible consider the New Testament to be the actual holy book revealed to JesusSo how come the Quran command Christians to follow this supposedly uncorrupted version of the Gospel that somehow managed to survive and be accesible to Christians up until the 7th century and yet not a single shred of evidence survives today?
>>18422513The age of consent in Delaware was 7 in 1880, if there were ever some universal standard for this type of thing it surely didn’t exist in the 7th century. Also, neither the enemies of Islam in Arabia nor the enemies of Rome/Europe ever criticized Muhammad (peace be upon him) on the basis of Aisha’s age. They criticized the religion on the basis of polygyny. If marrying at that age was as savage as you paint it to be, surely there would be sources from that era criticizing it. >>18422516Maybe to follow the part in their scriptures where it says to follow the unlettered prophet who is to come? Ie Muhammad peace be upon him. Also it says in the very next verse (5:48) that the Quran supersedes all the previous dispensations. You can also perceive it as to not infringe upon the rights of people of the book in following the previous dispensations. For example if a Muslim man were married to a Christian woman, he couldn’t stop her from partaking in the Eucharist. But that’s more of a fiqh thing than a ruling straight from the Quran.
>>18422559>if there were ever some universal standard for this type of thing it surely didn’t exist in the 7th century.Mohammed is supposed to be the universal standard, according to Islam at least. So according to YOUR fucked up religion people like Epstein, whose youngest victim was 13 years old mind you, didn't do anything wrong. Mohammed would've fit just fine on Epstein's island. Holy shit what a joke of a religion. >Also, neither the enemies of Islam in Arabia nor the enemies of Rome/Europe ever criticized Muhammad (peace be upon him) on the basis of Aisha’s age. Well I'm an enemy of Islam, and I'm critizing for this right now. What's your answer to that, bitch?>They criticized the religion on the basis of polygyny. Polygyny is also kind of retarde tbf.>If marrying at that age was as savage as you paint it to be, surely there would be sources from that era criticizing it.No? Why would they? They were Medieval people, ignorant of many things, they thought the Sun revolved around the Earth ffs, because they didn't know any better nor did they have any way of doing so. Why would we have to be forced to only find objectionable what people from his own time did? It's the 21st century my guy, we know far more than any of them ever could even dream of.>Maybe to-Ok so you're speculating now, not an actual answer, cool, carry on.>follow the part in their scriptures where it says to follow the unlettered prophet who is to come?Where does it say that?>Also it says in the very next verse (5:48) that the Quran supersedes all the previous dispensations. Yeah the Quran contradicts itself, nothing new there.>You can also perceive it as to not infringe upon the rights of people of the book in following the previous dispensations. Why would the Quran even care about that in the first place? Didn't it come to correct previous scriptures? Why all of a sudden does it care about preserving the rights of Christians? You're just tying yourself into knots.
>>18422569You’re just strawmanning and moving the goalpost. First the issue was rape, then it was child marriage based on the customs of the time, now it’s your opinion on what’s right and wrong. > Well I'm an enemy of Islam, and I'm critizing for this right now. What's your answer to that, bitch?May God have mercy on you> Where does it say that?Isaiah 29> Why would the Quran even care about that in the first placeBecause they’re people of the book, closer in kin to the Muslims than the idolaters> Ok so you're speculating nowTo an extent yeah, Im not a scholar or anything. If you had any genuine curiosity to know a few of the guys i mentioned in the OP could teach you a thing or two
>>18422585>You’re just strawmanning and moving the goalpost. First the issue was rape, then it was child marriage based on the customs of the timeAll child marriage implies rape, dummy.>now it’s your opinion on what’s right and wrong.Yes, my opinion that raping children is wrong against your religion which it says it's ok, correct.>May God have mercy on youI don't want your fucked up God's "mercy" if he sanctions children being raped.>> Where does it say that?>Isaiah 29Elaborate.>Because they’re people of the bookRhetorical question. The answer is that the Quran is self-cotradictory, first it proclaims that Christians and Jews will be judged if they rely on anything other than their own scriptures, and it even commands Muslims to consult Christians and Jews and their scriptures if they have doubts about something about the Quran, and on the other it claims to supercede previous Scriptures. Lunacy.>> Ok so you're speculating now>To an extent yeahNot to an extent, you're completely speculating. Meaning that you're now advocating for a religion which right now you're not even sure can give you answers to begin wtih.>If you had any genuine curiosity to know a few of the guys i mentioned in the OP could teach you a thing or twoWhy are you okay with belonging to a religion which sanctions child rape anon?
>>18422499whataboutism at its finest. it may trap those who try to salvage the nonexistent prestige of christardation, but to me comparing islam to medieval christianity just shows that both were the same kind of scum.
>>18422423well...first of all salafists are the true muslims. all others constantly seek excuses not to do what they were clearly commanded to do but are afraid to.besides scholars simply don't matter. what the masses of howling warsheep believe matters, and if there's a difference between what they believe and what the scholar says, we can safely ignore the latter because it's the masses that are the problem.
>>18422499you've been scammed into giving "zakat" to shady "islamic charities" that are fronts for human and drug trafficking by obvious pakistani fraudsters gg
>>18422423>>Sh. Abdal Hakim Murad>Sh. Hamza Yusuf>Probably two of the best western contemporary scholars. They go a long way in debunking the idea that Islam is a “brown” or “Arab” religionvery convincing with those names
