How ISIS replenishes its ranks - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15028902
@Palmyrene
How do they prove its in simple and straight language?

Read it.


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.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

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.

It doesn't.
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.

Where?
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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khamr

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?
:lol:

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'. :lol:

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.
#15028909
@Palmyrene
To cut the long circles.
If you bothered looking at the wiki page you quoted and actually read it, you'll know it doesn't contradict what I say, and it does prove you wrong.

The Hanafis and Shafi'is agree with the other schools of thought that Khamr is forbidden.
Khamr is anything that results from the process of Takhmir or what is produced by khamir.
Which means it is alcohol.

All schools of thought, including these two, agree that alcohol is forbidden and generally anything that influences the mind and causes someone to be drunk and lack self-awareness is forbidden.

This is called an Asel. A primary rule.

What they disagree on is, which BTW is mentioned in the page, is how much you can drink before it becomes forbidden or punishable, and how and what is the punishment for it.

Meaning, is it forbidden to taste it? or is it forbidden to get drunk by it?
And how many lashes you get as punishment, is it 40 or 80, and is it hard ones or light ones.

Those are called Foro'.

A primary rule or principle is an Asel.
A secondary rule based on a primary rule is called Fer'.

Osol means origins or foundations.
Foro' means branches or subsections.


So, you haven't brought any evidence to support your argument. Try again, and next time, read your sources before you cite them.
#15028923
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
Read it.


I have.

Except that's not true and we both know it.


No it is. You simply don't know anything about Sunni schools or culture. You're looking from an outside perspective, not an inside perspective.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


I will prove it, along with other things.

It doesn't.
As I've demonstrated dozens of times. Someone choosing to ignore parts isn't the same as them having their own version.


They aren't ignoring it, alcohol isn't an example of that and I never used it as an example of interpretation. I've given you scholars who think the Quran should be viewed as a literary text, one that thinks ayats are signs, and another who thinks the Quran should evolve with Arabic. Furthermore, these are just each one aspect of their theologies.

And the reason why it lacks a central authority is that it considers the Quran to be the central authority.


So for all practical purposes there is no central authority since people interpret the Quran differently. Common Sunni Muslims today have their own interpretations about Islam.

Dude, you just don't understand the culture cause there is a Sunni Muslim culture (it's kind of sad sectarianism has gotten so bad that different religious groups have different cultures).

They could sue to buy their freedom. They don't just gain it automatically.


They did specific cases.

Where?
You haven't provided a single example of this "interpretation" of yours. All you said and repeated is that some people ignore it.


Oh my god. Everything I've been saying is about interpretation.

And I've already given you the largest example as well as a few notable people.

Provide an example of how someone could interpret some of the verses I posted in any different way.


I've just given you Hanafi scholars seeing beer as permissible.

Much of it doesn't have room for interpretation.

Contradictions usually exist in the Foro'.


Not really.

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.


I've just given you an example of an ancient Egyptian tradition that is seen as an Islamic tradition. And the traditions of the Ahwar can be traced to Assyria.

Furthermore, if you go far enough, "Allah" is a pagan concept because, prior to Islam, it was the chief pagan god of Arabia.

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?


Evangelicals exist and in pretty big numbers as well as influence but that doesn't mean Christianity is predisposed to extremism or that Evangelicals are that popular.

Radical groups have and will always exist in religions. The Salafis just have an advantage that extremist groups in other religions don't: funding and support.

To make you understand, during the intermezzo between the Abbasid Caliphate and the Seljuk Turks, Shia Islam basically dominated the region. Why? Because the Fatimids provided a key role in supporting and funding Shia rebels and groups in the Middle East at the time.


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.


Ibn Khaldun did directly address the practices of the local populations frequently. He even listed the specific tribes and their customs. So you're objectively wrong.

What crimes? You're talking about traditions not actions.

You haven't read your sources.
They don't support your argument.


I have. That's why I posted them anyways.

All you cited were people disagreeing on secondary rules, none even came close to the primary ones.


Hell yeah they did. Otherwise you don't know what Osol is.

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.


1. Well Evangelicals are applying the Bible in real life so I guess Christianity should be killed. Evangelicals literally banned abortion in Alabama even for rape. Some Islamic countries don't even do that.

2. I never gave an example of people ignoring the Quran. You keep on talking about alcohol despite me never using it as an example of interpretation.

And when these groups come, they wont tell your neighbor about God punishing hem, they'll do the punishment themselves.


Yeah no. If you raise socio-economic conditions high enough no one will care or put in the effort to do so.

Sure you'll have people protesting or lobbying like you see in America or the West but there wouldn't be an actual tangible effect.

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.


No they won't. Salafism, without Saudi funding, won't be as powerful as it is now. If the Muta'zila never persecuted people who disagreed with them, the Hanbali movement wouldn't exist at all.

Ironically, both of these extremist groups gained power due to state interference. That is the common denominator.

Simply because they always had.


No they haven't.

In his local community, not in the wider peninsula.


Yeah in the wider peninsula. It wasn't only in his local community. By the time Muhammed converted everyone in Medina and Mecca, missonaries were spreading Islam across the Peninsula and it was so popular other people started claiming they were prophets too and made their own Qurans.

The most violent part? Dude, half of it is violent. You don't need to reach the crucifixion part to start calling it extreme.


Are you talking about the Bible or the Quran. I'm going to assume you're talking about both.

Are you sure you read the history of that era?


Clearly I did if I knew this information and you didn't.

Ask any historian about what I said. They'll back me up on it. There's an Arab history student named John7755 on alternatehistory.com (a hobbyist site that lot's of historians frequent) who is knowledgeable on the subject. He's Saudi but also atheist and likes Iran so he's safe.

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.


The reason I don't quote them is because I'm on mobile and they do touch on Osol.

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're just going into circles and not reading what I said.

The reason why I can't give an example is because I write this on my phone.

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.


You don't read what I say or understand it at all.

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.


Read his actual books and arguments please. Like, I can't post his evidence or anything because I'm on mobile so just read up on him.

Also, isn't that the guy who doesn't believe in the Sunnah?


Read on him. You're just being intentionally obtuse by this point.

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.


You don't know what my claim is.

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.


I'm on a phone. It's not an excuse either.


No, it doesn't. When you have a phrase like Don't do this thing, there isn't any ambiguity in there.


Apparently there is because millions of people see it differently.

Your claims about the Quran don't actually hold up to daily life in Sunni communities.

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?


I never said it meant intoxicants. I said "what does the Arabic word khamar refer to?" and that was a rhetorical question.

Continue reading. Or, more accurately, read the article.
It says why you're wrong.


It doesn't. It may be immoral to drink non-grape wine intoxicants but there isn't a punishment involved.

So your boogeyman Sunnis aren't going to kill you because you drank beer once.

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.


No it doesn't. There's literally technicalities attached to it.

All, so far, does.


No it doesn't. You don't just scream about how all evidence is irrelevant because they're westerners and then do a 180 and say that they support you and are relevant.

We live in the digital age, and those before lived in the printing age.


:eek:

Do you seriously think every medieval Arabic text is available online?

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?
:lol:


It doesn't. You either don't know how to read or you don't know what my claim is.

:lol:

Disagree. A brick wall wouldn't make ridiculous claims as you're doing.


I'm talking about the Sunni Muslims who already make their own interpretations.

This isn't a claim, this is reality. It doesn't matter what the Quran says, Sunni Muslims already make their own interpretations.

History is indeed not cyclical, but the Islamic world is simply stuck in an ideological struggle for the past 1200 or so years.


No, it isn't. You'd have to have a really shitty understanding of Islamic history (which you do) to come to that conclusion.

But I'm sure when you were "reading" Islamic history, you didn't notice any of the wars or what were they fought over.


I'm well aware. I just don't take them at face value just like how I don't take propaganda at face value. The war against Lebanon wasn't some grand quest to unite the Arab world. Similarly, Caliphs had ulterior motives for taking the territory they did. Economic ones mostly.

Except people aren't "re-interpreting" their religion, they're simply not applying it.


Yes they are. My grandpa interprets Osol all the time.

Those scholars write research and papers, try citing those.


I posted their wikipedia articles. Read those.

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".


Yeah but the way they apply it is different. They use signs as a way to say that the Quran is open to interpretation.

Also, Ayat is already plural.


It's different in English.

No, that's what is called Bid'a in Islam. It's neither Osol nor Foro'. :lol:


It isn't. Otherwise Sunni Muslims are doing bida all the time.

It already is.


It isn't. It's analyzed as the word of god not a piece of literature.

Not Ismailis, nor Zawarqa were founded by Imams anywhere near or close to Ali, not even in the same century in fact.


I meant reverence of someone close to Ali.

For fuck's sake just read your own god damn sources before you post them.


I did if I obviously posted it.

He's a Quranist. He literally defines himself as a non-Sunni.


That's not the case in his blog or his other stuff.

They hardly ever do.


Yeah they do.

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.


You yourself literally claimed that they weren't Sunnis because they touched on Osol. Now you're saying that they are Sunnis and touch only on Foro? You're being hypocritical.
#15028927
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
To cut the long circles.
If you bothered looking at the wiki page you quoted and actually read it, you'll know it doesn't contradict what I say, and it does prove you wrong.

The Hanafis and Shafi'is agree with the other schools of thought that Khamr is forbidden.
Khamr is anything that results from the process of Takhmir or what is produced by khamir.
Which means it is alcohol.

All schools of thought, including these two, agree that alcohol is forbidden and generally anything that influences the mind and causes someone to be drunk and lack self-awareness is forbidden.

This is called an Asel. A primary rule.

What they disagree on is, which BTW is mentioned in the page, is how much you can drink before it becomes forbidden or punishable, and how and what is the punishment for it.

Meaning, is it forbidden to taste it? or is it forbidden to get drunk by it?
And how many lashes you get as punishment, is it 40 or 80, and is it hard ones or light ones.

Those are called Foro'.

A primary rule or principle is an Asel.
A secondary rule based on a primary rule is called Fer'.

Osol means origins or foundations.
Foro' means branches or subsections.


So, you haven't brought any evidence to support your argument. Try again, and next time, read your sources before you cite them.


The article literally says beer is ok or is just considered immoral with no punishment.
#15028938
@Palmyrene
No it is. You simply don't know anything about Sunni schools or culture. You're looking from an outside perspective, not an inside perspective.

Says the guy who can't read Arabic.

Thinking about it, you actually did say once to Zionist nationalist that you don't know how to read Arabic.
It came to me a little ago.

They aren't ignoring it, alcohol isn't an example of that and I never used it as an example of interpretation. I've given you scholars who think the Quran should be viewed as a literary text, one that thinks ayats are signs, and another who thinks the Quran should evolve with Arabic. Furthermore, these are just each one aspect of their theologies.

The Quran is already viewed as a literally text. Infact, it's being viewed as the main one and the best one.
In the Sunnah, it is mentioned that God challenged that Arabs, a literary culture, by giving them a book which is masterful.
This is the miracle of Quran they refer to, and this is why God challenges people to try to come up with something like the Quran in it.

I've just given you Hanafi scholars seeing beer as permissible.

Much of it doesn't have room for interpretation.

From the page you cited:
The Holy Prophet said: every intoxicant is khamr, and every khamr is forbidden

“In their argument by way of reasoning they said that the Koran has explicitly laid down that the Illa (underlying cause) of prohibition of khamr (wine) is that it prevents the remembrance of God and breeds enmity and hatred…[this is] found only in a certain quantity of the intoxicating liquor not in what is less than that; it follows therefore that only this quantity be prohibited..”

Drinking grape-derived wine (punishment applicable on drinking “even a drop”).[23]
Intoxication from non-grape intoxicants (certainly prohibited from a religious-moral perspective, but may or may not qualify for criminal punishment)


They don't see it as permissible. Read your own sources.

Not really.

If you want to claim there are in the Osol, give examples.
And no excuses.

I've just given you an example of an ancient Egyptian tradition that is seen as an Islamic tradition. And the traditions of the Ahwar can be traced to Assyria.

Furthermore, if you go far enough, "Allah" is a pagan concept because, prior to Islam, it was the chief pagan god of Arabia.

All of Islam is copy pasted from Assyria and Judaism. That doesn't mean the modern justification for these practices isn't Islamic.
Which is why whatever example you come up with, I can easily get something from the Quran or the Hadith for it.

And which example? You just said some Egyptian practices without mentioning any.

Evangelicals exist and in pretty big numbers as well as influence but that doesn't mean Christianity is predisposed to extremism or that Evangelicals are that popular.

Radical groups have and will always exist in religions. The Salafis just have an advantage that extremist groups in other religions don't: funding and support.

To make you understand, during the intermezzo between the Abbasid Caliphate and the Seljuk Turks, Shia Islam basically dominated the region. Why? Because the Fatimids provided a key role in supporting and funding Shia rebels and groups in the Middle East at the time.

So I should make my question in a simpler form. ok.

Salafis and various Hanbali movements controlled vast empires through history. How do you explain that?

Since you seem to think that the main problem now is Saudi support.

Ibn Khaldun did directly address the practices of the local populations frequently. He even listed the specific tribes and their customs. So you're objectively wrong.


Source?

What crimes? You're talking about traditions not actions.

The various massacres, conquests, enslavements, etc done by the various caliphates were recorded and celebrated.

Hell yeah they did. Otherwise you don't know what Osol is.

If I'm the one who doesn't know what they are, why are you the one putting an is to a plural word?
:lol:

Also, quote them.
You already quoted texts elsewhere, no excuse now. You can put it in separate posts.

Christianity should be killed.

It should, along with all religions.
There are people working on that, no worries.


Yeah no. If you raise socio-economic conditions high enough no one will care or put in the effort to do so.

Sure you'll have people protesting or lobbying like you see in America or the West but there wouldn't be an actual tangible effect.

Qatar is the richest country in the world.

Yeah in the wider peninsula. It wasn't only in his local community. By the time Muhammed converted everyone in Medina and Mecca, missionaries were spreading Islam across the Peninsula and it was so popular other people started claiming they were prophets too and made their own Qurans.

Missionaries were going to kings and princes. Not to regular people.
Only in Yemen were there large enough movement of missionaries for conversion to start from the bottom, and the reason they focused on Yemen is to make use of their siege weapons.

Clearly I did if I knew this information and you didn't.

The inclination in my question was that your "information" is heavily twisted.

The reason I don't quote them is that I'm on mobile and they do touch on Osol.

Quote them in separate posts.
They don't touch on the Osol.

Read his actual books and arguments please. Like, I can't post his evidence or anything because I'm on mobile so just read up on him.

Read on him. You're just being intentionally obtuse by this point.

I am, but it seems there is nothing there to support your claims, so I'm asking you to specify atleast which paper or thesis you're talking about.

Apparently there is because millions of people see it differently.

Your claims about the Quran don't actually hold up to daily life in Sunni communities.

Except anyone who actually lives in the middle east, socialized or socialize with everyday Sunnis, etc will know that my claims are the ones most accurately representing reality.

It doesn't. It may be immoral to drink non-grape wine intoxicants but there isn't a punishment involved.

So your boogeyman Sunnis aren't going to kill you because you drank beer once.

Ok, and?
How does this support your claim and refute mine?

I believe it's my second or third post in this thread where I already said that an Asel would be a basic rule while things like punishment, application etc are all Foro'.

Here, let me find the times I mentioned this.

Here is one example I gave:
They don't disagree on the part where adultery is forbidden, nor do they disagree on that it's punishable.
They disagree on what the punishment is, and should it be applied regularly or should it only apply when there is a caliphate, i.e. an official Islamic state, only (legitimacy of authority basically).
These are the ones you're trying to frame as "reformers", and the ones you cited with one exception are of this type. They disagree on the Foro' (The secondary rules), not on the Osol (the primary rules and teachings).
Both sides agree that it's forbidden and punishable, they just disagree on the punishment essentially.


Ok, turns out the one I remember was in the other threat. So this example from last page should do it.

You don't just scream about how all evidence is irrelevant because they're westerners and then do a 180 and say that they support you and are relevant.

They are still irrelevant since they're fringes, not mainstream.
But after looking into it, it turns out they disagree with you. So it was fun to add that in.

Do you seriously think every medieval Arabic text is available online?

If I, a lazy person, can find it, I'm sure a researcher can too.


No, it isn't. You'd have to have a really shitty understanding of Islamic history (which you do) to come to that conclusion.

I have a shitty understanding of Islamic history? Not you who don't seem to know about the consistent struggle and dozens of wars fought over the centuries between these factions, no, it's obviously me not knowing or understanding it. :knife:

I'm well aware. I just don't take them at face value just like how I don't take propaganda at face value. The war against Lebanon wasn't some grand quest to unite the Arab world. Similarly, Caliphs had ulterior motives for taking the territory they did. Economic ones mostly.

The wars I am talking about regarding the ideological struggle between the various Islamic factions weren't driven by states, rather almost all started as civil conflicts then spiraling out of control.

I posted their wikipedia articles. Read those.

Those don't discuss the ideas and work they did, at best just mention it.
So you need to quote the relevant text.

If I was discussing Hafez Al Assad, I can't just throw around Patrick Seale's wiki page as a source because it mentions his book, I need to quote the book if I want to use it.
The same applies to you, you need to quote or cite the material you're talking about.

It's different in English.

It's not. Auto correct even removes the s.
:lol:

It isn't. Otherwise Sunni Muslims are doing bida all the time.

2 points.
1- Not all of them.
2- Some indeed are, just listen to the scholars, including the Azhar scholars you cited by the way.

It isn't. It's analyzed as the word of god not a piece of literature.

Addressed early on in the post.

That's not the case in his blog or his other stuff.

Quote it. Because he disregards the Sunnah and follows the Quran alone.

You yourself literally claimed that they weren't Sunnis because they touched on Osol. Now you're saying that they are Sunnis and touch only on Foro? You're being hypocritical.

1- I didn't claim they weren't Sunnis, What I did say is that if they touched on the Osol, in time, they'll diverge enough from the Sunnah until they become a different sect.
I infact stated this multiple times.
Underline the If.

2- After reading up on it, turns out they don't touch on any Asel, rather stick to Foro'.

3- More accurately, you need to pay more attention.

The article literally says beer is ok or is just considered immoral with no punishment.






Also what I said in the post:
The Hanafis and Shafi'is agree with the other schools of thought that Khamr is forbidden.
Khamr is anything that results from the process of Takhmir or what is produced by khamir.
Which means it is alcohol.

All schools of thought, including these two, agree that alcohol is forbidden and generally anything that influences the mind and causes someone to be drunk and lack self-awareness is forbidden.

This is called an Asel. A primary rule.

What they disagree on is, which BTW is mentioned in the page, is how much you can drink before it becomes forbidden or punishable, and how and what is the punishment for it.

Meaning, is it forbidden to taste it? or is it forbidden to get drunk by it?
And how many lashes you get as punishment, is it 40 or 80, and is it hard ones or light ones.

Those are called Foro'.

A primary rule or principle is an Asel.
A secondary rule based on a primary rule is called Fer'.

Osol means origins or foundations.
Foro' means branches or subsections.



And in the example from the last page:
They don't disagree on the part where adultery is forbidden, nor do they disagree on that it's punishable.
They disagree on what the punishment is, and should it be applied regularly or should it only apply when there is a caliphate, i.e. an official Islamic state, only (legitimacy of authority basically).
These are the ones you're trying to frame as "reformers", and the ones you cited with one exception are of this type. They disagree on the Foro' (The secondary rules), not on the Osol (the primary rules and teachings).
Both sides agree that it's forbidden and punishable, they just disagree on the punishment essentially.

See, you really don't know what you're talking about.
You're just arguing without even bothering to research the terms and concepts.
#15028943
From the other thread:

An Asel is a foundation, and a Fer' is a anything that can be based on that Asel.
An Asel is a clear rule or claim ordained by God either in the Quran, or in a Hadith Qudsi, and a Fer' is everything that is based on that Asel.



In the example previously mentioned about Anal sex for example.
The ban is an Asel clearly mentioned and detailed in the Quran. It's an Asel.
The rule that a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a non Muslim man is an Asel, mentioned in the Quran clearly.
The inclinations from both these bans and how the combine together in this matter is a Fer'. It's up for interpretation and Qiyas and Ijma', however the original rules are not.

Scholars in the Sunni world occasionally disagree on the Foro' (فروع), not on the Osol (اصول).
The Osol are specified in the Quran and the hadith and unchanging, because, to put it simply, god said it there for it can not change.
For example, anal sex is strictly forbidden in the Quran. It's an unchanging rule that God himself has ordained and all must under all circumstances abide by it. (it's considered a major sin in Sunni Islam, Kaba'r)
This is called Asel (أصل), singular for Osol. An Asel can not be changed.
Scholars disagree on the Foro', in this case for example, whether having anal sex with your wife nullify your marriage (this a real debate that exists between scholars), and if it does nullify your marriage, then does any sexual interaction after it counts as adultery.
The disagreement is based on the ban in the Quran and the hadith the says that anyone who enters his wife from her anus is cursed by god, and in Islam a curse by god means that one is expelled from god's mercy. So if he's cursed by god, does this mean that he no longer counts as a Muslim (since that's what cursed means)? Because if he no longer is a Muslim and his wife is a Muslim, then their marriage breaks another rule which is that a Muslim woman is forbidden to marry someone who is not a Muslim, which means their marriage is nullified as it became illegitimate.




On the Arkan al Iman part after it:
Those are Osol, mentioned both in the Quran and the Hadith, with the sentence in the Quran being that denying any of those is amount to infidelity since infidelity (Kufr) in Islam is the denial of one or more of the pillars of faith.
Those are Osol and act as a foundation; What can be measured and based on them are Foro' unless otherwise stated in the Quran in a clear way. (Noting that Osol are the pillars of Islam, ordained by God to Mohammed in Mekka, while Foro' generally come from Madinah and the Hadith)
#15028948
@anasawad

Let's start fresh and from the beginning. Go to your window, open it, and smell the air, then go back and read this. We will start again:

Let me explain exactly what occurred in Sunni thought for the past thousand of years or so because now I understand where you're coming from and I've realized my realistic and practical perspective on Islam isn't working on you. I thought it would because you're atheist but apparently you debate and use the same arguments a religious person would. Therefore, I will debate you like a religious person.

Specifically, let's talk about the door of Ijtihad. Direct quotes from the scriptures don’t always answer all questions. So there is interpretation involved where you look at something related and connect it to your question using logic and consensus. This is called Ijtihad.

This happened quite extensively in the early centuries of Islam spearheaded by 4 Imams and their schools of thought. At some point it was agreed that most of what needed to be interpreted had already been interpreted and no major changes to the core structure of the religion was to follow. This is event is called the closing of the doors of Ijtihad. While the reason for this is less theological and more political, this is what happened.

Now, you probably agree with this. There's no need for ijtihad and you probably think doing it now is bid'a. However the closing door thing has always been crazy to me because it’s impossible to ignore the need for ijtihad (given the way Islam is an answer for all times and all places). For example, we need ijtihad when it comes to changing technology and laws/policies that affect our everyday lives:

When the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded his Companions to pray `Asr in the dwellings of Banu Qurayzah, some of them understood the instruction as a command to go there quickly and others got the exact wording of the instruction as a direct command.

While the former prayed `Asr at their place and further proceeded to the dwellings of Banu Qurayzah, the latter waited till they reached the dwellings and prayed there.

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not reproach any of them since each group used their ijtihad.

In recent times, there are lots of voices, some asking for ijtihad to be abandoned, while others crying for its doors to be opened in front of everyone.

But it is not for either.

Ijtihad is for the moderates who follow the real guidance of Islam.

The Muslim nation is not void of mujtahideen, for in each time there are many scholars and mujtahideen who are entrusted with preserving God’s religion, defending His laws, and offering solutions to people....


The act of re-interpreting the Sunnah and the Koran in Islam is referred to as “tafsir” (Al’Awani, 1995: 25). The principles on which tafsir is based are not connected to matters of belief. Ijtihad is a particularly acceptable act for a Muj’tah’id, or a scholar, to engage in when there are “matters on which there is no clear guidance in the Qur’an and the Sunnah” (Al’Awani, 1993: 25). Ijtihad, when there is no clear guidance in the Koran, therefore becomes a critical deconstructive force for a Muj’tah’id to re-interpret principles in Islam. A force that involves not only a Muj’tah’id’s critical exegesis of the Koran, but rather:

“the act of making a judgement, whether through considering the explicit meaning of a text or analyzing it with respect to the pertinent principles and proofs...[and in this sense is] one of the most important types of juristic reasoning... one which the early Muslims followed” (Al’Awani, 1993: 25–26).


This act of making judgement requires knowledge of pertinent linguistic and variant grammatical implications when analyzing and understanding the Koran. This judgement allows the Muj’tah’id to exceed the parameters of critically explaining, expanding, and interpreting the text and therefore endows him and/or her with the ability to go beyond critical analysis.

The Muj’tah’id is authorized to make ethico-political judgments with respect to the re-interpretation of Islamic principles, provided the Muj’tah’id supports the re-interpreted principles by the necessary textual evidence and Koranic justifications for the Muj’tah’id’s ethical-political re-orientation of the Islamic principles in a particular direction.

The Muj’tah’id is able re-interpret the principles, if the principles are not already oriented in the particular ethico-political direction a Muj’tah’id believes they should be oriented towards. In this thesis, I will show the textual evidence for my argument regarding the existence of anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian principles, concepts and practices in Islam. As well, I will provide the Koranic justifications for my re-orientation of these principles in order to demonstrate the interpretative tradition of Islam.

One might ask: What does a Muj’tah’id do then with principles that pertain to matters of belief and which a Muj’tah’id, as noted earlier, is forbidden from practicing ijtihad with respect to? The Muj’tah’id is to “adopt the manifest meanings and what is properly and strictly sanctioned by the purport of the text” (Al’Awani, 1993: 25). The reason for the forbiddance of ijtihad in such cases is that these types of Koranic verses address matters the details and the knowledge of which is reserved for God alone. One example of such a verse is in the second chapter of the Koran. The chapter is titled ‘The Cow’. It begins with the verse “Alif Lam Mim”[70]. The verse is comprised of three Arabic letters ‘Alif’, ‘Lam’ and ‘Mim’, and which do not form an Arabic word. The details of this verse, of which there exist ample similar Koranic examples, are “beyond the reach of human perception included in the term al ghayb” (Al’Awani, 1993: 27). Al-Ghayb means that the true meaning of the verse belongs to God. In this light, no Muj’tah’id possesses the ability to delve into interpreting such verses as ‘Alif Lam Mim’. While a Muj’tah’id is permitted to comment on these types of verses, the Muj’tah’id’s comments are bound to and cannot contradict what has been generally stated in other verses in the Sunnah and the Koran in regards to the interpretation of this verse. That is, ‘Alif Lam Mim’ cannot contradict enshrined principles of the faith such as the oneness of God. God says in the Koran of these types of ambiguous verses:

“But no one knows its interpretation except God. And those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it’” (The Holy Koran, Chapter 3: Chapter of ‘The Family of Imran’: Verse 7).


God therefore strictly demands in the verse above from a Muj’tah’id that when an ambiguous verse as ‘Alif Lam Mim’ appears that the Muj’tah’id simply accepts its ambiguousness. In a sense, a Muj’tah’id’s task here is therefore one that exceeds that of conducting a discursive analysis of the text. That is, a Muj’tah’id’s duty exceeds studying, analyzing, and comprehending the circumstances behind the revelation of a verse as ‘Alif Lam Mim’ or the linguistic boundaries of the very verse itself. The Muj’tah’id accepts the verse as God’s verse or as ‘is’. That is, the verse is not to be analyzed, understood or misunderstood, but appreciated as it is beyond a Muj’tah’id‘s grasp and comprehension.

In light of the mentioned verse above, it is clear that the Koran that it is a complicated* text. This makes it more necessary for the reader to comprehend the Koran’s complexity as a text. To quote Seyyid Hossein Nasr on this matter:

“Many people, especially non-Muslims, who read the Quran for the first time are struck by what appears as a kind of incoherence from the human point of view. It is neither like a highly mystical text nor a manual of Aristotelian logic, though it contains both mysticism and logic. It is not just poetry although it contains the most powerful poetry. The text of the Quran reveals human language crushed by the power of the Divine word. It is as if human language were scattered into a thousand fragments like a wave scattered into drops against the rocks at sea” (Nasr in Brown, 1992: 90).


Language in the Koran is therefore language that is not fixed in meaning. Rather, the Koran’s language is endlessly reinventing itself anew. God’s words remake* the rules and limits of Arabic as a language. In fact, as Nasr notes, God replaces human Arabic with a Divine form of Arabic that is seemingly incoherent, poetic, and mystical. The Koran offers a descriptive account of tales of past prophets and callings upon the reader to contemplate the very truth of the Divinity of the words and the language used.

The degree of detail in the Koran transforms the Koran into a text whose principles can never be fully analyzed and understood by a Muj’tah’id. It becomes a text that requires a Muj’tah’id‘s endless struggle. Ijtihad in a sense is God’s perpetual challenge to a Muj’tah’id. In this challenge, during a Muj’tah’id‘s interaction with the Koran, a Muj’tah’id encounters and reads a variety of different meanings for the same Koranic words. The different meanings offer varying principles and consequently result in different interpretations of Islam. Examples of such words are ‘ayn’ or ‘qar’, which were discussed in chapter two, and upon which Koranic principles are laid and based. The Muj’tah’id’s task consists of offering varying insights, reasoning(s), and advancing proofs regarding Koranic principles. In doing so, the Muj’tah’id is continually engaging in an act of destabilizing dogmatic principles interpreted by other Muj’tah’ideen.

This analysis leads to this question: Who is entitled to conduct ijtihad and who is permitted to become a Muj’tah’id? Ijtihad is considered to be a divinely decreed right and gift from God to Muslims en masse. As Taha Jabir Al’Awani argues in the Ethics of Disagreements in Islam (1993): The Koranic “legal intellectual effort is required by the divine injunction: ‘Learn a lesson, then, O you who are endowed with insight’” (26; The Holy Koran, Chapter 59: Chapter of ‘Banishment’: Verse 2). Ijtihad is then a necessary right ordained and tantamount to duty for Muslims through the Koranic verse Al’Awani indicates above. This right exists for all Muslims according to their individual abilities and upon scholarly study. God intends ijtihad as a merciful mechanism to accommodate Muslims. In this regard, God states in the Koran:

“Shouldst thou not bring them a sign, they say, ‘Hast thou not yet made choice of one?’ Say, ‘I only follow what is inspired to me by my Lord [i.e. in the Koran]. These are perceptions from my Lord, and a guidance and a mercy to a people who believe’. And when the Koran is read, then listen thereto and keep silence; haply ye may obtain mercy” (The Holy Koran, Chapter 7: Chapter of ‘The Elevated Places’: Verse 201).


In the verse, God acknowledges the Koran as a merciful text, a gift to Muslims. Moreover, God advises Muslims to partake in ijthad with the Koran, not necessarily by literally re-interpreting it, but by actively listening to it as highlighted in the verse above. That is, God ordains that Muslims understand the Koran as opposed to blindly ascribe to its message. Furthermore, God advocates that Muslims neither dogmatically accept nor rely upon a Muj’tah’id‘s interpretation of the Koran. Muslims are not to take ijtihad for granted. God even vows to guide Muslims in explaining the Koran. That is, God vows to support and enlighten any Muslim who engages and struggles with the Koran and not only Muj’tah’ideen. As God says in the Koran: “We explain the signs in detail for those who reflect” (Chapter 10: Chapter of ‘Yunus’: Verse 24). God’s insistence that capable Muslims use ijtihad as a mechanism to re-interpret Islamic principles in accordance with their spatial, temporal, political, and social conditions and circumstances highlights the relative ease which ijtihad offers and brings for Islamic practice. In fact, God expects differences in Islamic principles due to the practice of ijtihad in different spatial, temporal, political, and social circumstances. Below are two Koranic verses that address this matter:

“Not all of them are alike” (The Holy Koran, Chapter 4, Chapter of ‘The Women’: Verse 113)


And

“unto every one of you We [God] have appointed a different law and way of life and if God had pleased, God would have made you a single Ummah [community], but that God might try You in what God gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds. To God you will all return, so that God will inform you of that wherein you differed” (The Holy Koran, Chapter 5, Chapter of ‘The Dinner Table’: Verse 48).


In the above verses, God acknowledges that Muslims are created equal but not alike. God did not intend for Muslims to be organized into a single community, but rather that each Muslim individual and community vie with the other in virtuous deeds while also appreciating the differences that set them apart. The difference in laws as a consequence of ijtihad, and which the second verse refers to, does not imply that Muslims ought not appreciate Islamic interpretations of past Muslims or laws of other communities. Rather it encourages Muslims to do right by themselves for their own conditions, while drawing upon lessons from the past in order to appreciate and contextualize past achievements and interpretations of Islam (Esposito, 2002: 159). God confirms that the Koran is an adaptable text through ijtihad and for all time:

“Will they not ponder on the Koran? If it had not come from God [i.e. adaptable for all time], they could surely find in it many contradictions” (The Holy Koran, Chapter 4, Chapter of ‘The Women’: Verse 82).


In spite of the fact that Muslims are afforded this Divine gift of interpretation most Muslims today have become complacent in their right to ijtihad. This complacency can be traced historically, as I note in chapter two, to when the “Gate of Ijtihad” was closed during the reign of the Abbasids in the tenth century (Esposito, 1984: 19, emphasis added). The consensus of the ulama (as I've previously established) at the time of Abbasids was that an Islamic way of life had already been established and thus there was no need for further ijtihad or investigation. That is, that “there could be no justification for independent judgment or rational inquiry” in Islam (Mehmet, 1990: 60). The consequence of this closing off of ijtihad’s gates was that future generations of Muslims were bound to dysfunctional taqlid. That is, the “unquestioned acceptance and memorization of precedents and interpretations of past” Muh’tah’eideen (Mehmet, 1990: 60). Furthermore, with the closing of the gates of ijtihad:

“...the ulama assumed a monopoly control of public education, morality and opinion, and, in the process, advanced the cause of jahiliyya (mass ignorance), fatalism and underdevelopment as effectively as imperialism and colonialism” (Mehmet, 1990: 61).


As a result of this monopolistic control over ijtihad most Muslims nowadays are caught in a state of intellectual paralysis that has “afflicted both their resolve and their decisive intellectual endeavor” (Al’awani, 1993: 8). This nearly total absence of ijtihad amongst Muslims nowadays is all the more troubling considering that the gate of ijtihad was reopened in the nineteenth century.

At its opening, “Islamic modernists, notably Afghani, Abduh and Iqbal, clamoured for freeing Islamic knowledge from its ‘dogmatic slumber’ as a precondition for adapting it to the requirements of life in a modern world” (Mehmet, 1990: 61). Islamic modernists understood the dire consequences Muslims and the Islamic world faced due to the closure of the gate of ijtihad. Muslim modernists fought for the gate’s reopening, realizing the dire consequences should the new generation of Muslims continue to be forbidden from partaking in ijtihad. Yet despite this call by Islamic modernists, save for a “few notable Islamic scholars...[as] Ibn Timiya (1262–1328)... Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti (1445–1505)...[and] Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406)” (Mehmet, 1990: 61), few others have dared to conduct ijithad or claimed their authority as Muh’tah’eideen. The result is the continued state of intellectual paralysis that nowadays exists amongst a predominant majority of Muslims. It seems, as opposed to the acceptance of this divine gift, Muslims have predominantly opted for a strict dogmatic adherence to past interpretations by past Muh’tah’eideen. Muslims opted to dismissing the divine gift of interpretation when the fact is that it is with ijtihad that Muslims:

“will undoubtedly release an abundance of energies [, hima,] in the Ummah [Muslim Community] — energies which are now dissipated and wasted in the theaters of futile internal [, as external] conflicts” (Al’awani, 1992: 9).


And thus, Muslims, specifically Sunni Muslims because it's pretty hard to do so as a Shia without going directly against your imam, must reach:

“out of the intellectual paralysis which afflicts the Muslim mind...by tackling the roots of this intellectual crisis and rectifying the methodology of [Muslim] thought ...[arming Muslims through] a renewed stress on intellectual formation and the recovery of a sense of [ethical-political] priorities” (Al’Awani, 1993: 9).


There you go. Now critique it.

-----------------------------

Says the guy who can't read Arabic.

Thinking about it, you actually did say once to Zionist nationalist that you don't know how to read Arabic.
It came to me a little ago.


I do know how to read Arabic.

When did I say that?

The Quran is already viewed as a literally text. Infact, it's being viewed as the main one and the best one.
In the Sunnah, it is mentioned that God challenged that Arabs, a literary culture, by giving them a book which is masterful.
This is the miracle of Quran they refer to, and this is why God challenges people to try to come up with something like the Quran in it.


That's not what meant. I mean that it is a literary text and thus analyzed with contemporary literary theory which means that stuff like the "death of the author" and "suspension of disbelief" apply to it.

They don't see it as permissible. Read your own sources.


Do they forbid or punish drinking beer or vodka or araq? No. They don't. I've read my sources and they support my point that they've interpreted the verse to only specify grape wine, not any other intoxicant.

If you want to claim there are in the Osol, give examples.
And no excuses.


I have above.

All of Islam is copy pasted from Assyria and Judaism. That doesn't mean the modern justification for these practices isn't Islamic.
Which is why whatever example you come up with, I can easily get something from the Quran or the Hadith for it.

And which example? You just said some Egyptian practices without mentioning any.


I don't recall the actual study, but archeaologists have found similarites to ancient Egyptian agricultural techniques and festivals which are practiced by Egyptian and some Palestinian Fellaheen.

So I should make my question in a simpler form. ok.

Salafis and various Hanbali movements controlled vast empires through history. How do you explain that?

Since you seem to think that the main problem now is Saudi support.


1. Salafis have never controlled vast empires. You're reaching. They were originally modernists.

2. Hanbalis got power after Mu'tazila persecution of differing beliefs. That's why.

Source?


He literally listed every single Berber and Arab tribe in North Africa. The map I sent you was exactly that.

The various massacres, conquests, enslavements, etc done by the various caliphates were recorded and celebrated.


Those aren't "Islamic traditions and practices". That's like saying slavery is a part of American culture.

If I'm the one who doesn't know what they are, why are you the one putting an is to a plural word?
:lol:

Also, quote them.
You already quoted texts elsewhere, no excuse now. You can put it in separate posts.


I don't really remember what they said.

They are still irrelevant since they're fringes, not mainstream.
But after looking into it, it turns out they disagree with you. So it was fun to add that in.


They do agree with me and you've literally attacked them for interpreting Osol.

And they aren't irrelevant to my point because my entire claim is that you can interpret the Quran at all.

If they can do it then that's proof in it of itself.

If I, a lazy person, can find it, I'm sure a researcher can too.


You can't find every single medieval Arabic text in the world online :lol:

I have a shitty understanding of Islamic history? Not you who don't seem to know about the consistent struggle and dozens of wars fought over the centuries between these factions, no, it's obviously me not knowing or understanding it. :knife:


If you really knew Islamic history then you'd understand why the Hanbali movement rose, how this was connected to the socio-economic status of the Caliphate at the time, and the reason for their creation.

The fact that you're takaway from this is that "Islam will always be extremist" shows your own immaturity and lack of knowledge on the matter.

The wars I am talking about regarding the ideological struggle between the various Islamic factions weren't driven by states, rather almost all started as civil conflicts then spiraling out of control.


No, they were driven by socio-economic conditions.

This is like saying the Cold War was about ideology.

Those don't discuss the ideas and work they did, at best just mention it.
So you need to quote the relevant text.


There's entire sections dedicated to their bibliographies.

It's not. Auto correct even removes the s.


No it doesn't. Ayats. Ayats. Ayats. Ayats.

Auto correct doesn't. I'm using Android.

2 points.
1- Not all of them.
2- Some indeed are, just listen to the scholars, including the Azhar scholars you cited by the way.


Most of them do.

Addressed early on in the post.


You didn't address it enough.

Quote it. Because he disregards the Sunnah and follows the Quran alone.


Yeah he does but he sympathizes with Sunni thought and thinks it's easier to be a Quranist if you're Sunni than Shia.

1- I didn't claim they weren't Sunnis, What I did say is that if they touched on the Osol, in time, they'll diverge enough from the Sunnah until they become a different sect.
I infact stated this multiple times.
Underline the If.


You didn't say if. Quote me where you said if and tell me the post so I can check if you edited it. I'll apologize if I am mistaken.

2- After reading up on it, turns out they don't touch on any Asel, rather stick to Foro'.

3- More accurately, you need to pay more attention.


They do touch on Osol'.

See, you really don't know what you're talking about.
You're just arguing without even bothering to research the terms and concepts.


Read what I said before.
#15028957
@Palmyrene
I'll read the above post latter on.
For the quotes:

Do they forbid or punish drinking beer or vodka or araq? No. They don't. I've read my sources and they support my point that they've interpreted the verse to only specify grape wine, not any other intoxicant.

The verse doesn't mention any punishment.

Also:
In their argument by way of reasoning they said that the Koran has explicitly laid down that the Illa (underlying cause) of prohibition of khamr (wine) is that it prevents the remembrance of God and breeds enmity and hatred…[this is] found only in a certain quantity of the intoxicating liquor not in what is less than that; it follows therefore that only this quantity be prohibited..



I don't recall the actual study, but archeaologists have found similarites to ancient Egyptian agricultural techniques and festivals which are practiced by Egyptian and some Palestinian Fellaheen.

How does agriculture relate to religion?

And which festivals?
Most are either Islamic or Christian (Coptic) with only 2 celebrating the history of Egypt.
The only non-Islamic one is the spring festival, which is mostly practiced by the Copts, while Muslims are discouraged to participate. (Some do, but the official stance is they shouldn't).

Hanbalis got power after Mu'tazila persecution of differing beliefs. That's why.

Hanbalis were in control in the early Ayubbid empire and remained common among the lower classes as the upper class took Sufism.
Hanbalis also control pre-civil war Seljuk empire. And much of the Mamluk empire.

He literally listed every single Berber and Arab tribe in North Africa. The map I sent you was exactly that.

I know, though not all of them but anyways.
But he didn't discuss Islamic lifely practices as you claim.

Those aren't "Islamic traditions and practices". That's like saying slavery is a part of American culture.

I didn't say they were.
I said that in history, Islamic empires recorded their actions and glorified them.
You mentioned traditions.

Practices, on the other hand, are included as they recorded who they enslaved, how many, who they killed and how many, etc.

They do agree with me and you've literally attacked them for interpreting Osol.

You know we can simply go back to the last page right?


The ones that weren't destroyed can be found.

If you really knew Islamic history then you'd understand why the Hanbali movement rose, how this was connected to the socio-economic status of the Caliphate at the time, and the reason for their creation.

The fact that you're takaway from this is that "Islam will always be extremist" shows your own immaturity and lack of knowledge on the matter.

The fact that you missed their multiple take overs says you didn't read history to begin with.

No, they were driven by socio-economic conditions.

The Seljuk empire decended into civil war at its hight.

This is like saying the Cold War was about ideology.

For the major powers, it was.
The battlefields are different.

There's entire sections dedicated to their bibliographies.

As said, it doesn't discuss it.
Every author has that, yet the entire book isn't discussed, it's mentioned.

You didn't say if. Quote me where you said if and tell me the post so I can check if you edited it.



And all Shi'a sects were at some point Sunnis, until they diverged enough to become their own sect.

All are foro', not relevant to my argument.
Also, much of the teachings groups like ISIS applies are taught in Al-Azhar, so don’t try to use them as a source for “Liberalizing the religion”, they aren’t. They just disagree on some Foro’, yet agree on all of the Osol, since neither would touch.

If you reject what the prophet says or think parts of the Quran can be nullified or changed, congrats, you’re now a Shi’a. Because to be a Sunni is to believe in the Sunnah. That’s what the word means.

If you started a school of thought and diverged from the Sunnah, you become to be considered a Shi'a.

It does in the Sunnah, saying it has completed religion, and if you follow the Sunnah (the collection of Hadiths, i.e. what the term Sunnis refer to, the followers of the Sunnah).
It also mentions there won’t be any more prophets in the Sunnah, so if you follow it, that's it.
Unless you want to follow the Imama which does say that the religion is not complete, and it will only be fully completed with Al-Mehdi. But that wont make you a Sunni, it'll make you a Twelver Shi'a.


Those two are in the same paragraph.
I didn't say Muslims are incapable of reform. I clearly stated dozens of times that there can be reform.
And those who do reform the religion and establish a new school of thought are what people usually refer to as Shi'a.

There is no mechanism in the Sunnah to change the foundations of religion


There is a reason why the sects that does major reforms are all sects who has a mechanism to change or nullify the Quran in them, and all either abandon the Sunnah completely or nullify a huge part of it.

The only thing you posted was a few posts about some scholars disagreeing with Salafism without going into any of the material. And in the only post where it does slightly go into the material, it argues in the Foro' not in the Osol.

As stated before, you haven't shown the material of these scholars, which I'm fully aware why.
And in the only instance where an example was given, they disagreed in the Osol not in the Foro'.
#15028960
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
I'll read the above post latter on.
For the quotes:


The verse doesn't mention any punishment.


Ok? So?

How does agriculture relate to religion?


It doesn't. It relates to culture.

And which festivals?
Most are either Islamic or Christian (Coptic) with only 2 celebrating the history of Egypt.
The only non-Islamic one is the spring festival, which is mostly practiced by the Copts, while Muslims are discouraged to participate. (Some do, but the official stance is they shouldn't).


I'm not sure. It had something to do with roses I think.


Hanbalis were in control in the early Ayubbid empire and remained common among the lower classes as the upper class took Sufism.


Sufism was common amongst the lower classes of Egypt near the 18th to 19th century so you need to specify what time period you're referring to.

Hanbalis also control pre-civil war Seljuk empire. And much of the Mamluk empire.


You mean they had influence. They didn't outright control anything.

I know, though not all of them but anyways.
But he didn't discuss Islamic lifely practices as you claim.


Killing minorities and torturing them isn't "Islamic lifely practices". And he did. Why else would he discuss the customs of the various tribes, the Persians, the Africans, etc. and talk about their nature and behavior?

I didn't say they were.
I said that in history, Islamic empires recorded their actions and glorified them.
You mentioned traditions.


Then that's irrelevant to the conversation because, in response to something I said, you stated that scholars glorified "Islamic traditions and practices".

Now you're saying you didn't say that when you did.

Practices, on the other hand, are included as they recorded who they enslaved, how many, who they killed and how many, etc.


Those aren't practices or traditions. Like I said, this is like saying slavery or war is a part of American culture.

You know we can simply go back to the last page right?


Go ahead.

The ones that weren't destroyed can be found.


What is this responding to?

The fact that you missed their multiple take overs says you didn't read history to begin with.


You mean courting and converting the upper class, something the Muta'zila did to become the official ideology of the Abbasid Caliphate and the Sufis did too.

Another key part in the Hanbali rise were the Crusaders as well. For the first time in history, the Caliphate was penetrated by Christians and this lead to a rise in the popularity of the extremism and fanaticism of the Hanbali movement.

You know how 9/11 lead to a major rise in conservatism and authoritarianism in the US? Imagine that but bigger. That's one of the bigger reasons why Hanbalis got so much power.

The Mu'tazila and the Abbasids by this point were seen as despots and weak because they were unable to properly deal with the invaders (like the liberals were in the US) and so the Hanbalis were seen as righteous and strong.

The Seljuk empire decended into civil war at its hight.


Kinda irrelevant. And the Seljuks fell due to a succession crisis, not an ideology one.

For the major powers, it was.
The battlefields are different.


No it wasn't. The US and USSR operated similarly and had similar interests (as in, they both wanted to expand their influence). The only difference is that the Soviets had bureaucrats instead of capitalists to please.

As said, it doesn't discuss it.
Every author has that, yet the entire book isn't discussed, it's mentioned.


Which one are you talking about?

Those two are in the same paragraph.


Where's the if?
#15028961
@Palmyrene
Let me explain exactly what occurred in Sunni thought for the past thousand of years or so because now I understand where you're coming from and I've realized my realistic and practical perspective on Islam isn't working on you. I thought it would because you're atheist but apparently you debate and use the same arguments a religious person would. Therefore, I will debate you like a religious person.

You are arguing in religion, as such, any counter-argument must be made from that religion.
In my own belief, both your ideas and theirs need to be abolished.
Fuck reforms, destroy the whole thing.

Also, the fact that you think I'm defending Islam just shows how much you're not following.

Specifically, let's talk about the door of Ijtihad. Direct quotes from the scriptures don’t always answer all questions. So there is interpretation involved where you look at something related and connect it to your question using logic and consensus. This is called Ijtihad.

This happened quite extensively in the early centuries of Islam spearheaded by 4 Imams and their schools of thought. At some point it was agreed that most of what needed to be interpreted had already been interpreted and no major changes to the core structure of the religion was to follow. This is event is called the closing of the doors of Ijtihad. While the reason for this is less theological and more political, this is what happened.

Ijtihad is based on Qiyas and Ijma'. It's not a random process.

Now, you probably agree with this. There's no need for ijtihad and you probably think doing it now is bid'a. However the closing door thing has always been crazy to me because it’s impossible to ignore the need for ijtihad (given the way Islam is an answer for all times and all places). For example, we need ijtihad when it comes to changing technology and laws/policies that affect our everyday lives:

So, basically, after all of this, and you still haven't gotten your head around the very basic thing I've been telling you for days.
Ijtihad is Qiyas and Ijam', and it's done in the foro'. That's why I mentioned 10 billion times that scholars disagree in the foro' not in the osol.

The act of re-interpreting the Sunnah and the Koran in Islam is referred to as “tafsir” (Al’Awani, 1995: 25). The principles on which tafsir is based are not connected to matters of belief. Ijtihad is a particularly acceptable act for a Muj’tah’id, or a scholar, to engage in when there are “matters on which there is no clear guidance in the Qur’an and the Sunnah” (Al’Awani, 1993: 25). Ijtihad, when there is no clear guidance in the Koran, therefore becomes a critical deconstructive force for a Muj’tah’id to re-interpret principles in Islam.

Again, Qiyas and Ijma'. Just look'em up.
Thats how Ijtihad is done.

Infact, let me do the work for you:
qiyās (Arabic: قياس‎) is the process of deductive analogy in which the teachings of the Hadith are compared and contrasted with those of the Qur'an, in order to apply a known injunction (nass) to a new circumstance and create a new injunction. Here the ruling of the Sunnah and the Qur'an may be used as a means to solve or provide a response to a new problem that may arise. This, however, is only the case providing that the set precedent or paradigm and the new problem that has come about will share operative causes (عِلّة, ʿillah). The ʿillah is the specific set of circumstances that trigger a certain law into action.

Ijmāʿ (Arabic: إجماع‎) is an Arabic term referring to the consensus or agreement of Islamic scholars on a point of Islamic law.:472 Various schools of thought within Islamic jurisprudence may define this consensus to be that of the first generation of Muslims only; or the consensus of the first three generations of Muslims; or the consensus of the jurists and scholars of the Muslim world, or scholarly consensus; or the consensus of all the Muslim world, both scholars and laymen. Sunni Muslims regard ijmā' as the third fundamental source of Sharia law, after the Qur'an, and the Sunnah. The opposite of ijma (i.e., lack of consensus on a point of Islamic law) is called ikhtilaf.


Ijtihad (Arabic: اجتهاد‎ ijtihād, [idʒ.tihaːd]; lit. physical or mental effort, expended in a particular activity is an Islamic legal term referring to independent reasoning or the thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question. It is contrasted with taqlid (imitation, conformity to legal precedent). According to classical Sunni theory, ijtihad requires expertise in the Arabic language, theology, revealed texts, and principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh), and is not employed where authentic and authoritative texts (Qur'an and Hadith) are considered unambiguous with regard to the question, or where there is an existing scholarly consensus (ijma). Ijtihad is considered to be a religious duty for those qualified to perform it. An Islamic scholar who is qualified to perform ijtihad is called a mujtahid.



The Muj’tah’id is authorized to make ethico-political judgments with respect to the re-interpretation of Islamic principles, provided the Muj’tah’id supports the re-interpreted principles by the necessary textual evidence and Koranic justifications for the Muj’tah’id’s ethical-political re-orientation of the Islamic principles in a particular direction.

Here you go. What 've been saying all along.

One might ask: What does a Muj’tah’id do then with principles that pertain to matters of belief and which a Muj’tah’id, as noted earlier, is forbidden from practicing ijtihad with respect to? The Muj’tah’id is to “adopt the manifest meanings and what is properly and strictly sanctioned by the purport of the text” (Al’Awani, 1993: 25). The reason for the forbiddance of ijtihad in such cases is that these types of Koranic verses address matters the details and the knowledge of which is reserved for God alone. One example of such a verse is in the second chapter of the Koran. The chapter is titled ‘The Cow’. It begins with the verse “Alif Lam Mim”[70]. The verse is comprised of three Arabic letters ‘Alif’, ‘Lam’ and ‘Mim’, and which do not form an Arabic word. The details of this verse, of which there exist ample similar Koranic examples, are “beyond the reach of human perception included in the term al ghayb” (Al’Awani, 1993: 27). Al-Ghayb means that the true meaning of the verse belongs to God. In this light, no Muj’tah’id possesses the ability to delve into interpreting such verses as ‘Alif Lam Mim’. While a Muj’tah’id is permitted to comment on these types of verses, the Muj’tah’id’s comments are bound to and cannot contradict what has been generally stated in other verses in the Sunnah and the Koran in regards to the interpretation of this verse. That is, ‘Alif Lam Mim’ cannot contradict enshrined principles of the faith such as the oneness of God.


This right exists for all Muslims according to their individual abilities and upon scholarly study



Boldened the important parts.


The problem with your view is you seem to think that Ijtihad is this magical tool where you can do whatever you want and make any claim you want without having to support it because interpretation is just random like that.

It isn't.
It's heavily bounded in a specific framework.
That framework is the Osol, i.e. the foundations of the religion, coming from the Quran.
The text you cite doesn't disagree with this.
#15028964
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
You are arguing in religion, as such, any counter-argument must be made from that religion.
In my own belief, both your ideas and theirs need to be abolished.
Fuck reforms, destroy the whole thing.


1. Anarchism is not a religion so it's not necessary to be abolished.

2. If you aren't arguing in religion and you don't care, then why the fuck do you not understand what I'm saying?

Is it impossible for you to remove yourself from the context of the religion itself if you think it's not real?

Also, the fact that you think I'm defending Islam just shows how much you're not following.


I never said you were, just that you make arguments similar to that of a religious person. Specifically a Salafi.

Ijtihad is based on Qiyas and Ijma'. It's not a random process.


Never said it wasn't.

So, basically, after all of this, and you still haven't gotten your head around the very basic thing I've been telling you for days.
Ijtihad is Qiyas and Ijam', and it's done in the foro'. That's why I mentioned 10 billion times that scholars disagree in the foro' not in the osol.


Keep on reading what I said.

Btw, did you read the scholar I quoted?

Here you go. What 've been saying all along.


Keep on reading.

The problem with your view is you seem to think that Ijtihad is this magical tool where you can do whatever you want and make any claim you want without having to support it because interpretation is just random like that.

It isn't.
It's heavily bounded in a specific framework.
That framework is the Osol, i.e. the foundations of the religion, coming from the Quran.
The text you cite doesn't disagree with this.


Keep on reading.

You don't need to quote parts of it. Just read the whole thing, understand it, then respond to it.

Also there's several texts cited. Which one are you talking about?
#15028966
Ok? So?

The disagreement by the Hanafis comes mainly in the punishment.
The punishment wasn't part of the verse to begin with, nor is in the Quran.

Sufism was common amongst the lower classes of Egypt near the 18th to 19th century so you need to specify what time period you're referring to.

The aforementioned Ayyubid empire.

You mean they had influence. They didn't outright control anything.

No, I mean they were in control.
That's why the first civil war took place in the Siljuk empire, it's uprisings turned civil war. And that's where the conversion towards Jafari Shi'asm began.

Then that's irrelevant to the conversation because, in response to something I said, you stated that scholars glorified "Islamic traditions and practices".

Historians working for these empires glorified their actions. It was said in the context of discussing the actions of the various Islamic empires and how they glorify their actions.
You responded with that empires wont write history so Islam looked good in the future, I responded by saying they were glorifying their own actions and conquests.

Then you brought up traditions to move the goal post.

Those aren't practices or traditions. Like I said, this is like saying slavery or war is a part of American culture.

Except war is still part of American culture. And slavery was part of American culture.
Infact, the remnants of those cultural items are still being removed gradually.

What is this responding to?

The books that weren't destroyed can be found online in digital format.

You mean courting and converting the upper class, something the Muta'zila did to become the official ideology of the Abbasid Caliphate and the Sufis did too.

A

Sometimes they did, other times they took over.

Kinda irrelevant. And the Seljuks fell due to a succession crisis, not an ideology one.

The fall of the empire came latter on.
It had 2 major civil wars and 1 minor civil war before it fell.
The civil wars were strictly ideological since they were sectarian civil wars.

Where's the if?


If you started a school of thought and diverged from the Sunnah, you become to be considered a Shi'a.
#15028967
2. If you aren't arguing in religion and you don't care, then why the fuck do you not understand what I'm saying?

I fully understand what you're saying, and I'm saying it's bullshit and doesn't match with the real world.

Is it impossible for you to remove yourself from the context of the religion itself if you think it's not real?

You're arguing about reforming a religion.
A 5 year old can understand that if you want to reform religion, you need to look into possible mechanisms of reform in that religion.
How hard is it to understand this?

Keep on reading.

You don't need to quote parts of it. Just read the whole thing, understand it, then respond to it.

Also there's several texts cited. Which one are you talking about?

Read all of it.
It doesn't support your claim.

Or, more accuretly, it says exactly what I've been saying for pages in a more fancy way. And you, for some reason, think that it supports your argument, which is fucking stupid.
#15028978
anasawad wrote:I fully understand what you're saying, and I'm saying it's bullshit and doesn't match with the real world.


You're not talking about the real world, you're talking about theology.

If it's the real world then most Sunnis make their own interpretations.

Whether that's allowed in the Quran or not shouldn't matter to you especially if don't care about it.

You're arguing about reforming a religion.
A 5 year old can understand that if you want to reform religion, you need to look into possible mechanisms of reform in that religion.
How hard is it to understand this?


I have though and I've given several examples and recently even more of them as well as an argument why Islam is open to interpretation (the latter of which you didn't fully read).

Instead, you got bogged down on whether they were Westerners or whether they were a part of the establishment or whether what they said lined up with the Quran or whether they were Sunni or Shia.

First off, I outright stated that they were all from Islamic countries. Secondly, why does it matter if they're part of the establishment if the point of this conversation is to see if hypothetically it is possibly to reform Islam? Thirdly, pretending that Osol and Foro matter to scholars who don't see the distinction or find that they are superseded by other aspects of the Quran (Sufis are literally exactly this) is ridiculous. Fourth, it shouldn't matter whether the establishment sees them as Sunni or Shia, the point is how they identify as.

Read all of it.
It doesn't support your claim.


The conclusion the author makes is that Islam is open to interpretation. He says it right here:

In this thesis, I will show the textual evidence for my argument regarding the existence of anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian principles, concepts and practices in Islam. As well, I will provide the Koranic justifications for my re-orientation of these principles in order to demonstrate the interpretative tradition of Islam.


So you haven't read it because if you did you'd find it far more objectionable.

Because the text I'm quoting is about making anarchism compatible with Islam.

So basically you're saying you agree with that.

Or, more accuretly, it says exactly what I've been saying for pages in a more fancy way. And you, for some reason, think that it supports your argument, which is fucking stupid.


No it doesn't.


The disagreement by the Hanafis comes mainly in the punishment.
The punishment wasn't part of the verse to begin with, nor is in the Quran.



They think beer isn't prohibited. I'm pretty sure that's the important part.

The aforementioned Ayyubid empire.


But you specifically mention Hanbali being present in the lower classes. The Hanbali school of thought was only common amongst the upper classes.

No, I mean they were in control.
That's why the first civil war took place in the Siljuk empire, it's uprisings turned civil war. And that's where the conversion towards Jafari Shi'asm began.


No it wasn't. The civil war was caused by the increasing decentralization of the Seljuk empire and their increasing unwillingness to deal with the Crusaders.

Historians working for these empires glorified their actions. It was said in the context of discussing the actions of the various Islamic empires and how they glorify their actions.
You responded with that empires wont write history so Islam looked good in the future, I responded by saying they were glorifying their own actions and conquests.


Then you completely missed the point of what I said. That was an after thought so I can make sure you don't make that argument.

Also you mentioned how empires glorified Islamic practices and traditions, not their actions.

Do you understand English?

Except war is still part of American culture. And slavery was part of American culture.
Infact, the remnants of those cultural items are still being removed gradually.


My point is that they aren't traditions or common practices.

The books that weren't destroyed can be found online in digital format.


Not all of them. In fact, most of them aren't available digitally.

Sometimes they did, other times they took over.


They didn't have legitimate power to do that. Like all sects they relied heavily on patroning upper classmen and minor notables or marrying their shiekhs into them like the Sufis. Most Islamic sects at the time abstained from directly interacting with politics; they mostly served as advisers.

The fall of the empire came latter on.
It had 2 major civil wars and 1 minor civil war before it fell.
The civil wars were strictly ideological since they were sectarian civil wars.


They weren't ideological. Literally no sectarian war is ideological in nature.

Most uprisings are started by something along the lines of one person belonging to a specific sect killing another person in a specific sect and so on. It's not ideological.

If you started a school of thought and diverged from the Sunnah, you become to be considered a Shi'a.


No you don't. I've already stated that what matters is what you personally identify as and, in the case of Sunni Islam, what the people identify with. If all Sunnis suddenly turned Quranist and still identified with Sunni Islam, then, like it or not, that's Sunni Islam now.
#15028983
You're not talking about the real world, you're talking about theology.

A theology and religious doctrine that is widely accepted and applied in the real world.

Whether that's allowed in the Quran or not shouldn't matter to you especially if don't care about it.

It does matter.
If it can be reinterpreted randomly based on the whims of any random guy in the street, then we wont have to worry about it. But when the real doctrine is static, then the minute someone fully follows it, it becomes a problem for everyone.

I have though and I've given several examples and recently even more of them as well as an argument why Islam is open to interpretation (the latter of which you didn't fully read).

I've fully read it, and highlighted the parts that matters the most to the discussion.

And this is the only one you gave.

Instead, you got bogged down on whether they were Westerners or whether they were a part of the establishment or whether what they said lined up with the Quran or whether they were Sunni or Shia.

This bullshit strawman is of your making.
I only mentioned westerners in the context that these ideas are most commonly found in the west in the Anglo countries.

Thirdly, pretending that Osol and Foro matter to scholars who don't see the distinction or find that they are superseded by other aspects of the Quran

Even the text you cited guides to them.
It does matter to those scholars, because those are the very basics in Al-Fiqh.

The conclusion the author makes is that Islam is open to interpretation. He says it right here:
So you haven't read it because if you did you'd find it far more objectionable.

Because the text I'm quoting is about making anarchism compatible with Islam.

So basically you're saying you agree with that.

I have read it, and I bolded the parts that matter, because they confirm to everything I've said so far.
Infact, it's surprising that you agree with it since it, in passing by, refutes everything you've been saying for the past pages.

Read the bolded parts.

They think beer isn't prohibited. I'm pretty sure that's the important part.

This is the statement:
In their argument by way of reasoning they said that the Koran has explicitly laid down that the Illa (underlying cause) of prohibition of khamr (wine) is that it prevents the remembrance of God and breeds enmity and hatred…[this is] found only in a certain quantity of the intoxicating liquor not in what is less than that; it follows therefore that only this quantity be prohibited..


They don't. They just disagree with the amount for it to be forbidden.

But you specifically mention Hanbali being present in the lower classes. The Hanbali school of thought was only common amongst the upper classes.

It was present heavily in the lower classes. It often managed to gain power through uprisings and bottom-up conflicts.

They did the same in both the Ayyubid and Siljuk empires.

No it wasn't. The civil war was caused by the increasing decentralization of the Seljuk empire and their increasing unwillingness to deal with the Crusaders.

It was a war between Sunnis and Shi'as.
And the Siljuks did fight the crusaders.

Also you mentioned how empires glorified Islamic practices and traditions, not their actions.

I mentioned how they glorified their actions and conquests in their writings of history and recordings.
It's in the same page for fuck's sake.

My point is that they aren't traditions or common practices.

Slavery wasn't common practice in the US?

Not all of them. In fact, most of them aren't available digitally.

They are. You can look for them in the various archives online.
They photograph each page and put them in PDF files.

They didn't have legitimate power to do that.

Legitimate power? You kidding right?
They often led uprisings and civil strifes.

ike all sects they relied heavily on patroning upper classmen and minor notables or marrying their shiekhs into them like the Sufis. Most Islamic sects at the time abstained from directly interacting with politics; they mostly served as advisers.

Most Islamic sects guided politics.

They weren't ideological. Literally no sectarian war is ideological in nature.

The only reason it's called sectarian is because it was ideological.
Otherwise, it wouldn't be called sectarian.
:knife:

Most uprisings are started by something along the lines of one person belonging to a specific sect killing another person in a specific sect and so on. It's not ideological.

Or when there is a perception of the authorities going astray, or a perception of a part of the population corrupting the nation.
Religious zeal has far larger effects than you realize.
Constantly parroting the phrase socio-economical wont make it go away.

No you don't. I've already stated that what matters is what you personally identify as and, in the case of Sunni Islam, what the people identify with.

No, it doesn't. Because unlike in many fields, here the label is bestowed by mainstream scholars based on what they perceive you to be, not what you identify as.

If all Sunnis suddenly turned Quranist and still identified with Sunni Islam, then, like it or not, that's Sunni Islam now.

If all Sunni Muslims turned Quranists, then Sunni Islam ceases to exist and Quranism becoems the mainstream.
Words have meaning.
A Sunni is someone who follows the Sunnah and the Quran.
A Quranist is someone who doesn't recognize the Sunnah and only takes the Quran.

Those aren't national or ethnic labels, those are ideological ones.
If in a community of communists all started turning to capitalism, they are no longer communists, they become capitalists.
Communism is still communism, they'd just have left the ideology.
#15028989
anasawad wrote:A theology and religious doctrine that is widely accepted and applied in the real world.


The way it manifests in the world is completely different from it's theology. And it's applied in different ways with different understandings. No amount of theology technobabble will change that reality.

It does matter.
If it can be reinterpreted randomly based on the whims of any random guy in the street, then we wont have to worry about it. But when the real doctrine is static, then the minute someone fully follows it, it becomes a problem for everyone.


The same can be said of Christianity and there are groups with great deals of power and influence that follow it to it's extreme (Evangelicals).

Also the real doctrine isn't static because a doctrine is defined by it's people irrespective of the doctrine itself. The Soviet Union clearly isn't as committed to communism as it was before during it's decline yet it still called it's system communism. The same can be said for China.

I've fully read it, and highlighted the parts that matters the most to the discussion.


I've posted it specifically to restart the discussion because it's a trainwreck so that isn't an excuse.

All of it is relevant because the discussion has been redone.

And this is the only one you gave.


There's at least three other scholars and quotes directly from the Quran there so you're wrong.

This bullshit strawman is of your making.
I only mentioned westerners in the context that these ideas are most commonly found in the west in the Anglo countries.


Clearly not since you later went on to say that they are normal.

Even the text you cited guides to them.
It does matter to those scholars, because those are the very basics in Al-Fiqh.


No it doesn't. It comes to a radically different conclusion.

I have read it, and I bolded the parts that matter, because they confirm to everything I've said so far.
Infact, it's surprising that you agree with it since it, in passing by, refutes everything you've been saying for the past pages.


All of it matters because it was a restart to our conversation on a new and fresh level.

It also allows me to rephrase my arguments.

This is the statement:


Those were two different scholars and the statement you're referring to seem to reference wine rather than non-grape liquor.

It was present heavily in the lower classes. It often managed to gain power through uprisings and bottom-up conflicts.


No they didn't. Generally religion amongst the lower classes or peasants is not well documented, but religion, like it is today, is often eclectic in that it's full of superstition and consists of many influences other than scholars.

Amongst the lower classes, religion, as it is now, was about identification and culture rather than ideology. The only thing we know for sure is that Sufism was widespread during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The only documentation we have of Hanbali spreading or taking power are royal records of courting nobles and other upper classmen who then enforced Hanbali religious policies under the guise of "populism".

They did the same in both the Ayyubid and Siljuk empires.


No, they didn't. You're going to have specify a specific event.

It was a war between Sunnis and Shi'as.
And the Siljuks did fight the crusaders.


There was always conflict between Sunnis and Shias and almost none of them were ideological. Even in the beginning.

And the Seljuks didn't outright declare war on the Crusaders. The Seljuks did not have the capacity to mobilize large armies. Instead, you saw minor skermishes between Seljuk tribesmen and Crusaders.

I mentioned how they glorified their actions and conquests in their writings of history and recordings.
It's in the same page for fuck's sake.


I mean before then. You mentioned Islamic traditions and practices abd mentioned how they glorified them.

Killing people isn't an Islamic tradition any more than it is in other countries.

Slavery wasn't common practice in the US?


Is it now?

They are. You can look for them in the various archives online.
They photograph each page and put them in PDF files.


If you think the books you find online are all the medieval Arabic books in the world you're so naive.

Legitimate power? You kidding right?
They often led uprisings and civil strifes


Can you please point to the exact period in history you're referring to? Thank you.

Most Islamic sects guided politics.


They didn't directly interfer in politics, they served to influence it. That is completely different from guiding it.

The only reason it's called sectarian is because it was ideological.
Otherwise, it wouldn't be called sectarian.
:knife:


No. Sectarian means it's a conflict between different sects but that doesn't mean the motivations of the conflict are ideological.

Or when there is a perception of the authorities going astray, or a perception of a part of the population corrupting the nation.
Religious zeal has far larger effects than you realize.
Constantly parroting the phrase socio-economical wont make it go away.


Authorities are only seen as going astray if things are doing bad. I.e. look at every revolution against a monarchy in existence.

And the perception of a part of a population corrupting the nation is just a combination of nationalism and bigotry. It would exist regardless of religion.

No, it doesn't. Because unlike in many fields, here the label is bestowed by mainstream scholars based on what they perceive you to be, not what you identify as.


No it isn't. Most regular Sunni Muslims don't view Quranists as Shia. Just because some Muslim scholars say they are doesn't mean they are. Similarly, Druze and Yazidis are seen as Shia by scholars yet they aren't by most Sunni Muslims.

Regardless, caring about what others think of you is not healthy. If Sunni scholars declared that you were a poo poo head would you believe that you're a poo poo head? Are you a poo poo head now?

If all Sunni Muslims turned Quranists, then Sunni Islam ceases to exist and Quranism becoems the mainstream.
Words have meaning.
A Sunni is someone who follows the Sunnah and the Quran.
A Quranist is someone who doesn't recognize the Sunnah and only takes the Quran.


Shia Islam was literally about wanting Ali as Caliph and then it turned into the Zoroastrian shit you see today. Words have no meaning. Etymologies have no meaning. English is the best example of this. Words in English mean things that their etymologies don't. Hell, look at any Arabic dialect.

Those aren't national or ethnic labels, those are ideological ones.
If in a community of communists all started turning to capitalism, they are no longer communists, they become capitalists.
Communism is still communism, they'd just have left the ideology.


China still claims it's communist even though it clearly isn't. North Korea still does even though it clearly isn't. Syria is still a republic even though it clearly isn't. Etc. Etc.
#15029107
@Palmyrene
The way it manifests in the world is completely different from it's theology. And it's applied in different ways with different understandings. No amount of theology technobabble will change that reality.

Then you haven't been following events or reports on the middle east or the Islamic world in general if you believe that.

Also the real doctrine isn't static because a doctrine is defined by it's people irrespective of the doctrine itself.

It isn't, the doctrine is in the Quran and the Sunnah.

I've posted it specifically to restart the discussion because it's a trainwreck so that isn't an excuse.

All of it is relevant because the discussion has been redone.

Ok then, and I've bolded the parts of my answer to you.

No it doesn't. It comes to a radically different conclusion.

bolded the parts.

All of it matters because it was a restart to our conversation on a new and fresh level.

It also allows me to rephrase my arguments.

Again, bolded the parts that tells you why your argument about Islam is wrong.

Those were two different scholars and the statement you're referring to seem to reference wine rather than non-grape liquor.

1- Intoxicant liquor.
2- Already quoted the relevant parts, read them.

The only documentation we have of Hanbali spreading or taking power are royal records of courting nobles and other upper classmen who then enforced Hanbali religious policies under the guise of "populism".

We have uprisings and civil strifes done by Hanbalis. We can infer from those that there were people following them.

No, they didn't. You're going to have specify a specific event.

Look at the period when the Ayyubids were rooting out the Fatimids in Egypt.
And the first and second Siljuk civil wars.
Those are specific periods and events.

There was always conflict between Sunnis and Shias and almost none of them were ideological. Even in the beginning.

So even the Raddah wars, the Khawarij, etc none of those were ideological?

Is it now?

Now, no. But it was common practice enough that its remnants are still there and the culture is still struggling to solve the problems caused by it.
So, yea. It was part of the culture and a common practice.

If you think the books you find online are all the medieval Arabic books in the world you're so naive.

Not all books online are ancient.
All ancient books are recorded, photographed, and publish online in archives.

You can look it up you know.

Can you please point to the exact period in history you're referring to? Thank you.

See, early civil strifes in the Ayyubid empire.
The two Siljuk civil wars.

They didn't directly interfer in politics, they served to influence it. That is completely different from guiding it.

Sectarian conflicts often start bottom-up. As in, they start by local conflicts among the people and spiral out of control.
They rarely start from the top.

No. Sectarian means it's a conflict between different sects but that doesn't mean the motivations of the conflict are ideological.

It does, otherwise, they'll be called civil wars or conflicts.


Shia Islam was literally about wanting Ali as Caliph and then it turned into the Zoroastrian shit you see today.

Shi'at Ali means followers of Ali or the division of Ali.
Jafari and Imami Shi'a came latter on, and it means followers of Imam Jafar or Followers of the Imami school of thought.

Words have no meaning.

:lol: :knife:

China still claims it's communist even though it clearly isn't. North Korea still does even though it clearly isn't. Syria is still a republic even though it clearly isn't. Etc. Etc

China follows state capitalism.
Syia is a Fascist republic.

Both are exactly as they clsim to be, and as outlined in their manifestos.
Only North Korea is an outlier, as it is in many other things.
#15029156
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
Then you haven't been following events or reports on the middle east or the Islamic world in general if you believe that.


I live there and I've lived amongst my entire life.

Terrorist groups just a minority, just like Evangelicals, and only have power due to Saudi funding and support.

It isn't, the doctrine is in the Quran and the Sunnah.


No religious doctrine is tied to it's books. It's people decide the doctrine because it's the people who choose to follow the doctrine in the first place.

Ok then, and I've bolded the parts of my answer to you.


It isn't an answer because it doesn't address the conclusion of the argument itself.

Which is, that Islam is open to interpretation. The things you bolded are basically laying the groundwork for when it does claim (with evidence from scholars and the Quran) that the Quran is open to interpretation.

bolded the parts.


Again, bolded the parts that tells you why your argument about Islam is wrong.


The core argument of the essay is that Islam is open to interpretation. If you found that it wasn't then you've clearly missed something.

You haven't read the entire thing because, if you did, you'd find alot more objectionable than you do now.

1- Intoxicant liquor.
2- Already quoted the relevant parts, read them.


The relevant part is the fact that non-grape wine or liquor is allowed to be drunk and has no punishment attached to it.

We have uprisings and civil strifes done by Hanbalis. We can infer from those that there were people following them.


You mean the ones in the 10th century? You know, when they took advantage of popular grievances such as economic inequality and mistreatment to give them power in revolts?

Look at the period when the Ayyubids were rooting out the Fatimids in Egypt.
And the first and second Siljuk civil wars.
Those are specific periods and events.


I don't see how the Ayyubids count as an ideological conflict when Saladin had his own ambitions and goals in mind.

Idk what you mean by civil war as I couldn't find any info on it online. Are you referring to their conquest by the Ayyubids and Khwarezm?

So even the Raddah wars, the Khawarij, etc none of those were ideological?


The Ridda Wars were basically a popular revolt that saw Arabian tribes basically take advantage of the fact that the most charismatic and major leader of Islam (Muhammed) is dead. The tribes took advantage of the fact that they swore allegiance to Muhammad and not Abu Bakr to rebel against the Caliphate and maybe even take over the Caliphate

The Khawarij were also thoroughly political and were basically an unaligned group between the Sunnis and Shias who wanted them both dead. They also originally belonged to a specific tribe.

Choosing Islamic Arabia as evidence of "ideological conflict" is pretty bad because the only conflicts you have are a politically charged succession crisis and a rebellion. Not much there.

Now, no. But it was common practice enough that its remnants are still there and the culture is still struggling to solve the problems caused by it.
So, yea. It was part of the culture and a common practice.


That doesn't count as "a part of the culture".

Not all books online are ancient.
All ancient books are recorded, photographed, and publish online in archives.


That's a very ignorant statement. There are so many medieval books not just medieval Arabic books that are unavailable online and you have to go directly to a library or a mueseum to view them.

You can look it up you know.


No you can't. You've just been looking up the famous or popular ones. The works that are most useful for academic work are obscure.

See, early civil strifes in the Ayyubid empire.
The two Siljuk civil wars.


Which civil strife? You mean between the Syrian and Egyptian emirs?

Sectarian conflicts often start bottom-up. As in, they start by local conflicts among the people and spiral out of control.
They rarely start from the top.


That's kinda irrelevant because I'm discussing how sects influence politics in the Islamic world.

You're also missing out on a lot of sectarian conflicts if you only focus on the bottom. Because there are sectarian conflicts that were orchestrated by the top.

It does, otherwise, they'll be called civil wars or conflicts.


No they wouldn't. If it involves sects it's sectarian.

See? The word "sect" is in both of them.

Shi'at Ali means followers of Ali or the division of Ali.
Jafari and Imami Shi'a came latter on, and it means followers of Imam Jafar or Followers of the Imami school of thought.


Doesn't change the fact that it started as supporting Ali as Caliph.

And Shia Islam can start being just supporting Ali and end weird as fuck, then Sunni Islam can start out being about the Sunnah and end up with Quranism or whatever reformists support.

:lol: :knife:



China follows state capitalism.
Syia is a Fascist republic.


Do they claim that? No. They don't.

Syria never claimed to be fascist and even Ba'athism doesn't either. In all of it's works Ba'athism never proclaims itself as fascist; you need to have a critical eye and look at other fascist works to compare them. Then you'll see that it's fascist.

China still claims it's communist. The ruling part still calls itself the Chinese Communist Party.

Both are exactly as they clsim to be, and as outlined in their manifestos.


1. What manifesto for China are you talking about? Mao thoroughly claims he's communist and China doesn't even follow his works. They follow the idea that they need to achieve communism from a different direction.

Only North Korea is an outlier, as it is in many other things.


It isn't. Venezuela is still socialist despite Sweden having more government control of the economy than them for instance.
#15029186
@Palmyrene
No religious doctrine is tied to it's books. It's people decide the doctrine because it's the people who choose to follow the doctrine in the first place.

All doctrines are decided by people, and when they want it be based on religion, they go to that religion's scripture.

It isn't an answer because it doesn't address the conclusion of the argument itself.

Which is, that Islam is open to interpretation. The things you bolded are basically laying the groundwork for when it does claim (with evidence from scholars and the Quran) that the Quran is open to interpretation.

It is.
You're claiming that anyone can randomly interpret the religion without any conditions.
I bolded the parts where even your source tells you that it has to be based on something already in the Quran or the Hadith, and that it is done under certain conditions.

Which is what I've been saying all along, and you've been disagreeing with it.

The core argument of the essay is that Islam is open to interpretation.

Open to interpretation under a set of rules and within a specific foundation, As both me and your article claim.

You haven't read the entire thing because, if you did, you'd find alot more objectionable than you do now.

Take easy genius, it's only a couple of pages, you didn't bring a book into it.

Most of the things said in the article are thing I've already said my self here.
You simply ignored the parts of it that goes against your argument and took the parts you liked, which is why you ended up having a skewed understanding of the piece.
A habit not strange to you I can tell.

The relevant part is the fact that non-grape wine or liquor is allowed to be drunk and has no punishment attached to it.

The argument both in real life and presented in the page is whether it is allowed in general or allowed in certain quantity, and whether it is punishable or not.
The part about the punishment is simply because there are no verses in the Quran mentioning any punishment.
And I quoted the part where it says that yes, even the Hanafis, believe that while wine is not allowed at all, others are only allowed under a specific quantity, meaning it's not allowed to get drunk off of them, but you can taste them.

Does this contradict what I've been saying? No.
Because the basic rule, taken from the Quranic verses and the Hadith, is that you shouldn't drink. This is what the Asel here is.
The fer', i.e. where the interpretation comes in, is based on the verses and the hadith mentioned in that very same page on top, and the arguments made on it is whether it should be punished or not since there is no punishment mentioned and what degree should the ban cover. As mentioned in the same page.

There is no disagreement over the Asel, there are disagreements over the Fer' in it.

You not understanding this is your problem, not mine.
Try reading the basics of Fiqh before you start blabbering on the subject.

when they took advantage of popular grievances such as economic inequality and mistreatment to give them power in revolts?

10th, 11th, and 12th centuries.
And those periods were periods of economic growth and prosperity. Simply the ideological divide and the perceptions were growing as time went by.
Especially considering that this is the period where some groups were starting to abandon the Abd Al Malek ibn Marwan Quran as critics of it were arising.
If you weren't aware of this before, the Quran you see today wasn't always like that, infact, the eldest version is believed to be almost double the size; This is because Osman Ben Affan edited the Quran, and burned much of it, then Abd Al Malek in the Ummayad empire came along and burned that Quran and gave a new version as well. (this 3rd version is currently in the British library, and you can look it up online, there are significant differences between the Osmani Quran and the Marwani Quran.)
The period between the late 9th century and the mid 12th century was a period of an internal religious dispute as the Khawarij (latter on to be called the Imami Shi'a, and not the same Khawarij as the ones in the early days, Khawarij is a word just like Shi'a is, it's a category) were starting to rise again; As with everything, every action has a reaction, and as the Imamis started to spread, the religious pull from the other side started to increase, generally led by hardliners and mainly Hanbalis.

This period was the begining of modern Islamic history as the foundations for all major sects and movements started then.
This is why trying to bring the original Shi'a of Ali into a discussion about Shi'a schools of thought is useless. Those don't exist anymore, and anyone who knows anything about the topic knows those are a minor and irrelevant thing.


The Ridda Wars were basically a popular revolt that saw Arabian tribes basically take advantage of the fact that the most charismatic and major leader of Islam (Muhammed) is dead. The tribes took advantage of the fact that they swore allegiance to Muhammad and not Abu Bakr to rebel against the Caliphate and maybe even take over the Caliphate

The Khawarij were also thoroughly political and were basically an unaligned group between the Sunnis and Shias who wanted them both dead. They also originally belonged to a specific tribe.

Choosing Islamic Arabia as evidence of "ideological conflict" is pretty bad because the only conflicts you have are a politically charged succession crisis and a rebellion. Not much there.


1- The early Khawarij weren't political, they were religious wars.
They started after Osman bin Affan made his Quran, or "collected the Quran". That's why they described him as an infidel and promised to hellfire.
The conflict was between those who hold the first version of the Quran against those who hold the new rewritten version of the Quran.

And note, it wasn't re-interpreted, it was entirely re-written.
We also have some of the remaining of these scriptures that survived, and we can see how the old text (the first version) was erazed and a new version was written over it.

We know for example that Al-Ahzab Sura was around the same size as Al-Baqara, with several of the prophet's companions confirming that, yet over half of it was either lost or erased.

Noting, this is why the foundations (Osol) of the Quran are surprisingly consistent, an empire erased all the inconsistent parts and made it so consistent. This is why it's so hard to reform in Sunni Islam as it stands right now, the only way to reform is to be able to edit the Quran and reduce that consistency.

2- Al Redda wars were religious wars as well.
They were against those who left Islam entirely.

That doesn't count as "a part of the culture".

It does, it was part of the south's society and culture.

That's a very ignorant statement. There are so many medieval books not just medieval Arabic books that are unavailable online and you have to go directly to a library or a mueseum to view them.

:knife: :knife:
Those libraries, like the British Library, photograph these scripts or pages, put them in PDF files or in slides, and make them available to the public.

Pretty much everything is digitized, even ancient scripts and tablets can be found in this form.

No you can't. You've just been looking up the famous or popular ones. The works that are most useful for academic work are obscure.

All the ones that survived are currently digitized in this form.
Literally, all of them, even scripts that were on stone tablets.

No they wouldn't. If it involves sects it's sectarian.

See? The word "sect" is in both of them.

If it's sectarian, then it means it's religiously motivated. If it's otherwise, then we say it's a civil war or strife.
Basics.

Doesn't change the fact that it started as supporting Ali as Caliph.

Two different fucking sects.

For fuck's sake how are you unable to understand these basic concepts?

Do they claim that? No. They don't.

Actually they do.
Read the new CCP laws and manifestos. They follow state capitalism right now, have been for several decades as part of the reforms.
And in the Baath manifesto you can see that they want to create a nationalist socialist republic, which is exactly what Syria is.
A nationalist socialist republic is a fascist republic. You know, the whole national socialism thing, fascism.

Syria never claimed to be fascist and even Ba'athism doesn't either. In all of it's works Ba'athism never proclaims itself as fascist; you need to have a critical eye and look at other fascist works to compare them. Then you'll see that it's fascist.

Baathist claims they're national socialists, Which is another term for fascists.
It's mentioned several times in their manifesto.

China still claims it's communist. The ruling part still calls itself the Chinese Communist Party.

State capitalism is a school of thought within Communism.

1. What manifesto for China are you talking about? Mao thoroughly claims he's communist and China doesn't even follow his works. They follow the idea that they need to achieve communism from a different direction.

Yes, they abandoned Maoism and adopted State Capitalism. Both are communist schools of thought.
This is what the movement of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" was all about.


Venezuela is still socialist despite Sweden having more government control of the economy than them for instance.

Ok, and?
Venezuela is socialist, though it has corruption but yes it is still socialist.
And Sweden is a social democracy.

Both are exactly what they claim to be.

The only outlier country is north Korea since it claims to be a republic when it's, in reality, an absolute monarchy.
#15029190
Palmyrene wrote:doctrine

A real reformation of the Islamic religion would require a repudiation of large parts of Muhammad’s legacy, which is akin to reforming Christianity by repudiating Christ.


:)
EU-BREXIT

Nigel Farage discusses Boris Johnson’s Brexit dea[…]

(I liked your words sincerely this time..) OK so[…]

I voted EXIT EU. I am happy to take on all the ram[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbQwAQ0tDTQ CNN P[…]