How do they prove its in simple and straight language?
That's irrelevant (especially to theology). The point is that Sunni communities cherry pick what aspects of the Prophet you should copy.
Except that's not true and we both know it.
reforming Sunni Islam or Islam is pretty easy.
What Sunni Islam is depends on who you are talking about. As I've said before, Sunni Muslims make their own individual interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah (of which are legitimate due to the lack of central authority in Sunni Islam). One Sunni Muslim could apply Islam completely differently from another. The Mutazila certainly thought their Islam was better than others.
As I've demonstrated dozens of times. Someone choosing to ignore parts isn't the same as them having their own version.
And the reason why it lacks a central authority is that it considers the Quran to be the central authority.
I'm referring to historical examples and stories of slaves converting to Islam and gaining their freedom or taking their masters to court and gaining their freedom by pointing out their mistreatment.
They could sue to buy their freedom. They don't just gain it automatically.
I have already explained how you're just waaaay too dense to properly understand it.
You haven't provided a single example of this "interpretation" of yours. All you said and repeated is that some people ignore it.
Provide an example of how someone could interpret some of the verses I posted in any different way.
Much of it doesn't have room for interpretation.
There's a difference in not believing a part of the Quran and believing that a certain surah or hadith negates the surah you're discussing or makes it ok.
Which is what most Sunni Muslims do. They use the contradictions of the Quran and hadith to their advantage.
Contradictions usually exist in the Foro'.
No contradictions have been noted in the Osol, or the basics essentially.
You can try to find some, there aren't any.
Then you should know Islam is cultural not religious. Hell some Egyptians follow supposedly "Islamic" traditions that are in actuality ancient Egyptian traditions. Islam has basically become a part of the culture.
The reason why it's called Islamic culture is because it is shaped by Islam.
Go ahead and bring an example. I bit ya I can trace it back to a part of Islam.
Of course the establishment and scholars, who recieve money from Saudi Arabia and have the most to gain from the current system, are going to be extremist.
So if everything is the fault of the Saudis, how do you explain the groups that were even more radical before Saudi Arabia even existed?
How about Ibn Khaldun or the Caliphate's official records? And no, the Caliphate isn't going to lie about what went on the records so liberals in the future will support Islam. That's a dumb notion.
1- Ibn Khaldun didn't address practices directly, he discussed structures and institutions.
2- Caliphate records does show these crimes.
3- It is a dumb notion, noting that you're the one who claimed it. The caliphates glorified and took pride in their crimes.
I've given you my evidence. People make their own interpretations anyways and come to their own conclusions about Islam. I've even given you scholars who believe this.
You haven't read your sources.
They don't support your argument.
All you cited were people disagreeing on secondary rules, none even came close to the primary ones.
It doesn't matter what's said in the Quran. People already make up their own ideas. There's nothing you can do about too. You can go to my neighborhood, scream at them about how God's going to kill them for making their own interpretations and will not give an iota of a fuck.
People ignoring the Quran and the Sunnah doesn't mean that the Quran and the Sunnah stopped existing, and when some group starts enforcing it, the results will be the same as we see today.
And when these groups come, they wont tell your neighbor about God punishing hem, they'll do the punishment themselves.
No ifs. It will. Whether I do it or not. When Saudi Arabia and the Gulf falls, Salafism falls with it. Salafi terrorism isn't sustainable, it requires constant funding. If that funding goes away they're done.
Salafism and the wider Hanbali movement existed far before Saudi Arabia existed and will exist long after these states fall. Because as long as the source of the ideology exists, it'll keep rising again and again.
How would you know if the Salafis will operate regularly?
Simply because they always had.
There was a good portion of the poor population that supported him though. His ideas of wealth redistribution and charity were very appealing to the disenfranchised and many Sahaba were former slaves, criminals, merchants (once a upon time capitalists were disenfranchised), etc.
In his local community, not in the wider peninsula.
My point is that pointing the most violent part of a religion and saying that this is the religion is a tad extreme.
The most violent part? Dude, half of it is violent. You don't need to reach the crucifixion part to start calling it extreme.
Actually yes it is. The entire reason why the Hanbali movement was created is because the Muta'zila establishment began silencing and imprisoning anyone who refused to believe in their ideas. Like they would imprison and torture people till they said that the Quran was created for example (which is stupid because most people believed that the Quran was created at the time anyways).
So it was due to authoritarianism and persecution of differing ideas which gave the Hanbali movement it's current legitimacy. This is a thoroughly socio-economic consequence.
Are you sure you read the history of that era?
The Egyptian, Algerian, and Pakistani all touch on Osol' and they are all relevant to my argument.
I looked up all the ones you cited, none of them touch on the Osol.
And the reason why you keep avoiding quoting them is because you know they didn't.
No, they don't. You made an initial claim that the Quran says something and then you posted verses which you think supports that claim.
I posted several verses on each topic for a start, and actually, they say it for themselves very clearly, and using very simple, easy, and daily use language in doing so.
You keep refusing to give an example. I gave many verses, quote one and try to give any different interpretation.
You interpreted the verses and thought that they support your claim. If you didn't, then you wouldn't have posted those specific verses at all.
There are two possibilities here for you to come to this conclusion;
Either you don't know how to read Arabic, or you're a hypocrite.
I'd say you don't know how to read Arabic because no idiot will read those verses and think there was "interpretation "involved in presenting them.
Well the Algerian dude thought the Quran should evolve with the Arabic language itself. Apparently this is "Foro'" to you?
And how did the Arabic language evolve recently?
Did words like Khamr, for example, change its meaning? Did the word Zena change meaning?
Ooh, right, it didn't change.
Also, isn't that the guy who doesn't believe in the Sunnah?
I have demonstrated how.
You haven't provided a single example, nor demonstrated how in any way.
I've been pushing you on it for the past several posts and you kept dodging it.
People utilize the contradictions of the Quran and the ambiguity that results from these contradictions to introduce new theories.
Mention one of those contradictions.
I've not only studied the Quran, but I've taken 100s of notes on it, and all the contradictions are primarily present in the stories and prophecies.
Not a single one was in any of the basic rules and principles, i.e. the Osol.
Actually complex texts often have the most clarification while simple texts often have the most ambiguity.
No, it doesn't. When you have a phrase like Don't do this thing, there isn't any ambiguity in there.
Take the rule "Don't Drink Intoxicants" for example. Well what is an intoxicant then? What is it's definition? What does the Arabic word, khamar, specifically refer to?
Khamr means alcohol, it comes from the word Khamira.
The verse says don't drink alcohol, not intoxicants in general.
Noting that the word is Khamr خَمر not Khomr or Khamar خُمُر- خُمْر.
Changing the vocalization gives you a different word.
Didn't they teach you that in the first grade in Arabic class?
Hanafi scholars uphold the unlawfulness of khamr, but restrict its definition to fermented juice of grapes or grapes and dates. As a result, alcohol derived by means of honey, barley, wheat and millet such as whisky, beer and vodka are permitted according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, although all forms of grape alcohol are banned absolutely.
So clearly, a guy who drinks beer is a-ok.
Continue reading. Or, more accurately, read the article.
It says why you're wrong.
Scholars interpreting Foro' isn't proving your point. Scholars interpreting the prohibition on alcohol to be specifically wine not beer isn't proving your point. Regular Sunni Muslims making their own interpretations isn't proving your point, etc.
You just put a paragraph out of context about wine and beer, go back and read the full article.
It says why you're wrong.
Infact, in the very beginning of it.
None of my evidence proves your point.
All, so far, does.
Getting your hands on the original copies of works isn't easy and interpreting them, finding out the time period they're in, etc. etc. is hard as fuck.
We live in the digital age, and those before lived in the printing age.
I gave you one. I'll find others.
You mean you gave one about Alcohol which the very same article you cited refutes you multiple times, both in its very beginning and in the paragraph right after the one you quoted?
You're screaming at a brick wall.
Disagree. A brick wall wouldn't make ridiculous claims as you're doing.
It isn't. History is not cyclical at all. I absolutely hate that mentality and if that's what you gain from Islamic history then you clearly don't know anything about it because the conditions and results are different every single time.
History is indeed not cyclical, but the Islamic world is simply stuck in an ideological struggle for the past 1200 or so years.
But I'm sure when you were "reading" Islamic history, you didn't notice any of the wars or what were they fought over.
It works because people already do it.
Except people aren't "re-interpreting" their religion, they're simply not applying it.
I cited their entire wikipedia articles.
Those scholars write research and papers, try citing those.
Saying ayats are signs is foro'?
Although I'd say going as far as they do is stupid, but the Quran states that both the Quran, the Ayat in it, and all of god's creation are miracles or signs of god. So not really sure how they're "disagreeing there".
Also, Ayat is already plural.
Saying the Quran should evolve side-by-side with the Arabic language is foro'?
No, that's what is called Bid'a in Islam. It's neither Osol nor Foro'.
Saying that the Quran should be analyzed as a piece of literature is foro'?
It already is.
Someone close to Ali.
Not Ismailis, nor Zawarqa were founded by Imams anywhere near or close to Ali, not even in the same century in fact.
Literal scholars interpreted the prohibition on alcohol differently.
For fuck's sake just read your own god damn sources before you post them.
He still identifies as Sunni to my knowledge.
He's a Quranist. He literally defines himself as a non-Sunni.
People disagree on Osol all the time. My parents have religious arguments about Osol.
They hardly ever do.
Can you give an example of these arguments? Because I doubt you know what the word means.
Evident by the comment a couple of quotes before.
They do touch Osol.
I've looked them up, and none of what I found touches on the Osol. If you think they do, quote the text where they do.