[blackjack21]

I wonder why that is? Weren't there alot of pagans, gnostics, and other interesting sects there? Why did they disappear? Hmm...

The standard of living of classical civilization beat iron age civilization, so they dropped paganism for Roman polytheism/pantheism, and then on to Christianity.

None of those are native and the pagans you see now are recent converts and don't follow the same religion as historical pagans.

Christianity isn't native to Europe. It came out of Judea. Same with Judaism. Islam is also not European, and there are a lot of Muslims in Europe, so the idea that Europe isn't tolerant of non-native religions is absurd.

You forgot to put popular in quotations.

Unneeded. Christianity taught charity, which wasn't widely practiced among Pagans. So the better living standards of classical civilization and the charitable nature of Christianity probably made paganism and iron age civilization substantially less popular. America used to be populated by hunter-gatherer tribes, but most people today would consider that a vagabond life of homelessness and poverty.

Pretending that Islam is uniquely intolerant while professing the superiority of Western Christianity is exactly that.

Christianity is altogether too tolerant these days. Tolerance isn't necessarily a superior thing.

Not after Christianity. Only recently do you see many religions in Europe and most of them either aren't native or are revivalist.

Christianity itself is not native.

Sub-Sahara Africa and the Americas called, they want their religions back.

The United States has freedom of religion. If you think you can make it rain by dancing, have at it. If you don't like someone, you can make a voodoo doll of them and stick pins in it. Nobody will stop you in the US, unless your religion involves human sacrifice or something--but even then, you can do that if you call it abortion.

It's comparable to the Sunni Shia conflict not some great act of progress.

One aspect of the Reformation was an anti-clerical thrust that involved teaching peasants to read so that they could read the bible themselves. Grammar schools, Gutenberg's press and Manutius' movable type revolutionized printing. So the Reformation spawned mass literacy. It was a huge leap forward for humanity.

I'm also pretty sure there's alot more than 17. The 17 I listed were Copts, Maronites, Orthodox, Assyrians, Muwahhiden, Kurds, Yazidis, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, Chaldeans, Mandaeans, Shabakis, Feylis, Bahai, Armenians, Yarsanians, and Jews but there's probably alot more than that I don't know about.

Indeed. Almost all of them have had really bad luck with extremist sects of Islam.

Actually the enlightenment came as a result of the reformation.

Quite right. In fact, one of the effects of mass literacy was the re-introduction of Greek texts, translated into native tongues. Additionally, the restoration of some Greek texts lost at Alexandria that were copied into Arabic and re-introduced to the West. Mass literacy also led to great leaps in mathematics. Europe abandoned the Roman numeral system for the Indo-Arabic numeral system, and quickly improved on Algebra--developing variables, derivatives/integrals or calculus, etc. Modern accounting was born at the time--the double ledger, double entry book keeping system. Quite a lot happened as a result of the Reformation.

The key driver of enlightenment in Europe was the people getting essentially tired of the Corruption of the clergy and their constant abuses of power. We just need to wait a little longer for that to start happening in the middle east.

We're already seeing it again in the United States and Europe as people have decided they've had enough of the post-World War II governments of technocrats who think they are entitled to rule against the will of the people.

I suggest you don't take the accusations of Westerners, who couldn't point to Lebanon on a map, to heart.

I can. My grandfather used to live in Beirut for a few years when he was part of a US delegation to the Central Treaty Organization--the so-called Baghdad Pact.

And I'd like to define progress because religions don't really progress, they just take the backseat from time to time.

A lot of the modern welfare state in the US is from the "Social Gospel" movement, which relied heavily on Christian charity.

That makes no sense. Just because Britain was Protestant at the time doesn't mean the Enlightenment was caused by the Reformation.

Yes. It does. Elementary schools were developed to teach people to read, so that they could read the Bible themselves and not rely on clerics. Before the Reformation, most people were illiterate. After the Reformation, mass literacy became common. That's why a push toward more less autocratic governments became common.

No it can't. No one is going to blow themselves up if they're content with life.

"Content" is a pretty hazy concept. Osama bin Laden wasn't exactly wanting for any material goods, and yet he ended up leading people who were similarly relatively well off but leading lives they felt had no purpose to do horrible things. Mohammed Atta, for example, was trained as an architect. It does take some wit to learn how to pilot an airliner.

Islam spread initial by conquest while Christianity was absorbed by other empires as a state religion.

Christianity was originally spread by the Apostles, such as St. Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus. On the contrary, Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire for hundreds of years.

In fact, the core of the Enlightenment (to the extent that Paris, the intellectual center of the Enlightenment was called "the city of lights") happened in Catholic France.

The enlightenment depended on the Renaissance. Quite a bit happened in Italian city states. Da Vinci was Italian, not French. So was Michelangelo. So was Galileo. Luca Pacioli, Leondardo da Fibonnacci, etc. You're glossing over quite a bit here. Columbus, Vespucci, Caboto, Verrazzanno, Marco Polo, etc. In fact, a big impetus for the discovery of the "New World" was that navigators were trying to get around the high transit taxes imposed by the Muslim states. It was simply cheaper to circumnavigate the globe. So they did, and that spawned a few significant changes, I would say.

When they did interviews with the parents of these middle classmen, the parents all discussed how they were shut-ins, had very little friends, weren't in a relationship, etc.

Kind of like mass shooters...

Ideology only blinds people who have nothing to lose.

Osama bin Laden? Vladimir Lenin? Che Guevara? Joseph Mengele?

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

The church wasn't weakened, it grew stronger in reaction to the Reformation not to mention all the new Churches that were being founded. Britain started the Anglican Church after it converted to Protestantism.

Furthermore I highly doubt you have any actual evidence supporting this claim.

And somehow you think that was a good thing for the previously centralized church power?

What's the proof? That era began the demize of the HRE and the Churhc authority in general. It's common knowledge.

The emperor is a completely different kind of religious authority compared to Europe or the Middle East.

The old Chinese traditions and religions died out through war.

1. They have Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes, and Machiavelli all discovered so-called "enlightenment values" before the Enlightenment.

I don't know Leibniz, but Aquinas and Machiavelli were no where near those values.
And Descartes was very close to the era.

First off, its later not latter. Secondly, during the Enlightenment period we saw the emergence of the Westphalian state, otherwise known as the nation-state, which was built on ideas of nationalism. Third, romanticism is not nationalism, it's just an extrapolation upon the previous concepts of nationalism in the Enlightenment.

The nation-state as a widely adopted and accepted concept came as a result of the French revolution.
Wanna guess when that was?

Not the 36-line bible which cane shortly after the Gutensburg Bible nor the Eggestein Bible.

You're grasping for straws.
The bible translation from Latin into all local languages and the public's access to it only came after the reformation.
All bibles before the reformation, including the 36 line bible were held by churches and monasteries.
The 36 line bible, though indeed was not in Latin, was not only a limited bible printed for churches, and was also made in Germany, the place where the reformation movement began, right before the movement's birth.

It is simply a fact that the reformation is what opened the bible for translation and wide spread distribution.
Everything you put so far backs this up.

And let's not forget that you can often interpret those in different ways.

Sure, I'm sure God was just joking about the Crucifixion parts and all the killing stuff. You know, just light divine humor to entertain the reader.

Yeah no. Don't even try to convince me otherwise because I've lived amongst Sunnis my entire life and talked to alims on the issue, and they all oppose it.

What PEW says are the thoughts of Muslims in Europe is irrelevant both to the my experiences and theirs.

PEW didn't just gather Data in Europe, all over the world.

You're getting it in reverse, it's your experience that is irrelevant.

I'm sure ISIS banning hijabs is a direct application of theology.

ISIS enforced Niqabs.
With death often being a punishment for breaking it.
They banned revealing Hijabs.

Or the fact that many Islamic laws give out interest loans but with a different name.

Such as?
I've seen many Islamic banks and know full well what Islamic finance is, Morabaha is similar but allowed in Islam.

I was referring to the Quran. And even amongst Sunnis there are now discussions about what is and isn't a valid Hadith.

You ever came across someone accusing Shias of perverting the Quran?

You don't understand. Religion evolves based on the whims of the people, not the other way around. It doesn't matter what the theology says. Sunnism is structured in a way that scholars can come along and offer their ideas and Sunnis can choose. That's the way it's supposed to theoretically work.

No, you don't seem to understand.
Islam is evolving, sure, and yes on the whims of the people.
Sunni Islam however is not evolving, you know why?
Because a religion evolving is a religion removing and adjusting parts of it over time, and that's what the Shias do; Infact, that's why they're called Shias, because they adjusted the religion so they became different from the mainstream, i.e Sunnis.
Sunni Islam is the conservative mainstream traditional version of Islam, while the dozens of sects who are often accused of perversion and all are the ones doing the whole evolution thing.

You can even know that from the names, Sunni Islam is based directly on the Sunnah.

No. I want proof of this:

You kidding right?
You're now trying to claim the Sunnis don't believe the Quran is the word of god and the Hadith an explanatory accompanying source to it?
The thing that is even in the definition of the word Sunni.

You just spent a whole paragraph talking about Raqqa and Jaziera. You know, two places in Syria which is facing sanctions. Far more heavier sanctions than Iran. At least Iran has Europe, Syria's got jackshit.

Sanctions on Syria are recent, not decades old.

And given you claimed that Raqqa was Hanbali you've got some explaining to do.

It is.

After they're dead. Furthermore the Quran says that if someone misleads you in the case of Islam, you won't be held accountable for following that person.

Actually no, you get less punishment but punishment nonetheless.
It's actually in the very first verse of the Quran to ever be written by Mohammed, and it puts a responsibility on the Muslim to know his\her religion.
Also why it's "rewarded in heaven" to read the Quran.

Yeah it's a loophole but a good one nonetheless.

Not a loophole.
A loophole in this context means you get to benefit from the various aspects of temporary marriage, you don't. You just get a regular marriage that is canceled shortly after with all the rules and duties attached to that.
Even your own citation says that.

That has nothing to do with muta'a which is temporary marriage.

You mentioned pre-marital sex and demanded proof it's forbidden. Not me.

You can regard beer as permissible. Russian Sunni Muslims drink alcohol with the ruling that it's permissible as long as you don't drink wine.

It's not.
Clearly stated, all alcohol is forbidden. No exceptions were made in any of the verses or hadiths regarding it.

Yeah no. Your claims completely contradict my experiences. It's like you live in la la land.

I doubt you had much experience to begin with, 15 year old Syrian guy.
Pretty much every stat there is show the reality of beliefs in the Islamic world.

I'm not going to tell you their names so you can go pester them or something and say "hey Palmyrene told them this, is it true?" or something stupid like that. Because they have online presence and if you talk to them it'll be embarassing.

A mufti or a Mullah is an official figure, and if you want to claim that one made a decree regarding religion, then you must show your sources.

They'll probably call you out on this by bringing up a fiqh book written in the 1800s but to drive the point home, exactly. That's exactly what I was trying to tell you the entire time! Scholars can interpret the texts however they would like.

Fiqh is the study of the Quran and Sunnah, it's not based on random sources, and it has rules on how to do it.
Furthermore, No, you can't interpret the text however you want; If you want, there wont be a need for an entire field of study for it with specified rules and methods and orders going back to the time of the prophet. (i.e Fiqh)

Now don't worry, I know you're just parroting Reza Aslan's arguments here.

In the context of everything that matters, yes it does. If an interpretation gets loads of popularity, like it or not, that's Islam.

I'm sure you can go tell that to actual Muslims in the Islamic world. You wont have any troubles at all.

This is exactly why Saudi Arabia is succeeded despite thousanda of Muslim scholars coming together to discredit their ideology.

Thousands of Muslim scholars discredited their ideology?
They discredited some decrees, but the overall "ideology" is recognized as just another Salafist movement.
Primarily because the exact same teachings are practiced by not only many others but even in places like al-azhar.

God doesn't exist and all Muslims can speak for God through their interpretation so I guess everyone is an authority.

Muslims believe in God, it's why they're called Muslims.
And in Islam, a Muslim can not "speak for god", only spread the pre-ordained message of god.
The order is spread the message not represent it.

And you think that theology effects people and that doesn't change which is retarded because ignores not only all of Islamic history, Islam, and scholars, but all religion.

If the theology is constant and unchanging, then the effects will be similar through the ages.
Only if it changes does its effect change.

And we can look at Islamic history for proof actually, and it proves my view. The only parts of the Islamic world that did change theologically and philosophically are the Shia parts because the only reason they're called Shia is because they've changed.

Being a Sunni means that, by definition, you're following the Sunnah with no changes.
It's literally in the name.

They aren't. Authorities don't have absolute control over their populations, they influence them.

If I have power over you, you have no choice but to obey me; If I have influence over you, I can suggest a path for you to take and you're free to take it or not.
That's a big difference.
Authorities always have power by definition of authority. However, authorities don't always have influence.

What rules? I have different rules from other people.

I don't care about what rules you make for yourself. In Islam, god has ordained certain rules that everyone must follow, and if you don't follow most of them, primarily the big ones (كبائر) then you're, according to the Quran, not a Muslim.

Tough luck.

Who said those are my beliefs?

You're the one defending them, not me.

They allied specifically because there were similarities.

Where and when?

Decrees don't suddenly make everyone support it.

He only made that decree because a majority did support it, so it was an appeasement.

I'm 99% sure you just read into Salafi scholar.

Like you're mad Salafi right now.

Actually, those are the rules that existed all the way back since the time of the Sahaba, and hasn't changed so far.

How long do you think sanctions have been going on?

Syria wasn't under Sanctions before the war. It could trade with the outside world.
Islamists began growing shortly after the war began, so the time window between the sanctions and the spread of Islamists is, at most, a couple of years.

Most Islamic states do deal with alcohol. Do you seriously think all those coffeehouses sell only coffee?

Have you been to religious areas?
They don't sell alcohol, even if it's allowed by the state.

[Palmyrene]

The standard of living of classical civilization beat iron age civilization, so they dropped paganism for Roman polytheism/pantheism, and then on to Christianity.

Yeah no. History doesn't work like that, at least in reality. Roman polytheism is characterized by how it incorporated pagan gods into their pantheon abit subverient to their own domestic gods.

This was why the Jews were such a big deal because they refused to worship Roman gods and put Roman idols in the temple.

What you are putting foward is called a narrative, not a reality. This is the equivalent of saying the Native Americans just happily moved somewhere else after the colonists came.

Christianity isn't native to Europe. It came out of Judea. Same with Judaism. Islam is also not European, and there are a lot of Muslims in Europe, so the idea that Europe isn't tolerant of non-native religions is absurd.

I'm not talking about Europe which quite literally just a landmass with no will of it's own. I'm referring to "Christdom" or Christianity.

And Muslims are not native to Europe and have only migrated there recently and even then they face xenophobia. Pagans are but they're gone and most of them didn't convert to Christianity willingly.

Unneeded. Christianity taught charity, which wasn't widely practiced among Pagans.

They had entire festivals dedicated to giving to the poor.

The only bad pagans in the world are probably the Arab pagans since they buried infants alive so thank god they don't exist.

So the better living standards of classical civilization and the charitable nature of Christianity probably made paganism and iron age civilization substantially less popular.

1. The terms "classical civilization" and "iron age civilization" are terms that most people who would've in either period wouldn't have been familiar with so they wouldn't think to themselves "hmm iron civilization isn't as good as classical".

2. Iron age civilization includes classical civilization.

3. Christianity was only popular because the state adopted it and enforced.

America used to be populated by hunter-gatherer tribes, but most people today would consider that a vagabond life of homelessness and poverty.

This is relevant how?

Christianity is altogether too tolerant these days. Tolerance isn't necessarily a superior thing.

Christianity still isn't tolerant it just doesn't have political influence in Western countries.

If you look at Eastern Europe and Sub-Sahara Africa where it does have political power, it's not very tolerant.

Christianity itself is not native.

That's not my point.

The United States has freedom of religion. If you think you can make it rain by dancing, have at it. If you don't like someone, you can make a voodoo doll of them and stick pins in it. Nobody will stop you in the US, unless your religion involves human sacrifice or something--but even then, you can do that if you call it abortion.

Not relevant. This doesn't address anything I said.

One aspect of the Reformation was an anti-clerical thrust that involved teaching peasants to read so that they could read the bible themselves. Grammar schools, Gutenberg's press and Manutius' movable type revolutionized printing. So the Reformation spawned mass literacy. It was a huge leap forward for humanity.

1. Catholics already had public educational institutions which copied the madrasa system of Muslims so peasants already had a system of schooling. Protestants basically just copied the Catholic system of schooling for their schools.

2. Literacy was already high in other parts of the world like in China, Japan, and the Caliphate and public schooling was first pioneered by Muslims. Protestants were way too late.

Indeed. Almost all of them have had really bad luck with extremist sects of Islam.

Even the secular states are bad. The secular states take advantage of the infighting between groups to get more power. Syria and Iraq are like this.

I can. My grandfather used to live in Beirut for a few years when he was part of a US delegation to the Central Treaty Organization--the so-called Baghdad Pact.

I was exaggerating. My point was that Westerners often make uneducates judgements on things they don't understand. I call it a sort of privilige.

A lot of the modern welfare state in the US is from the "Social Gospel" movement, which relied heavily on Christian charity.

?

Yes. It does. Elementary schools were developed to teach people to read, so that they could read the Bible themselves and not rely on clerics. Before the Reformation, most people were illiterate. After the Reformation, mass literacy became common. That's why a push toward more less autocratic governments became common.

Mass literacy would've happened anyways regardless of the Reformation.

Also autocratic governments kept on being created regardless of literacy. They still are now.

"Content" is a pretty hazy concept. Osama bin Laden wasn't exactly wanting for any material goods, and yet he ended up leading people who were similarly relatively well off but leading lives they felt had no purpose to do horrible things. Mohammed Atta, for example, was trained as an architect. It does take some wit to learn how to pilot an airliner.

Osana bin Laden was a bourgeois who wanted his own "hierarchy" or "government" so to speak. Not much different than any cult leader in that sense. You're right that content-ness isn't based solely on material need. Capitalism has it's way of alienating people.

Christianity was originally spread by the Apostles, such as St. Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus. On the contrary, Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire for hundreds of years.

In the end Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire regardless.

The enlightenment depended on the Renaissance. Quite a bit happened in Italian city states. Da Vinci was Italian, not French. So was Michelangelo. So was Galileo. Luca Pacioli, Leondardo da Fibonnacci, etc. You're glossing over quite a bit here. Columbus, Vespucci, Caboto, Verrazzanno, Marco Polo, etc. In fact, a big impetus for the discovery of the "New World" was that navigators were trying to get around the high transit taxes imposed by the Muslim states. It was simply cheaper to circumnavigate the globe. So they did, and that spawned a few significant changes, I would say.

I don't see how that's relevant to what I said...

Osama bin Laden? Vladimir Lenin? Che Guevara? Joseph Mengele?

Nothing to lose.

And I don't think Lenin was very ideological neither was Mengel.

[noemon]

While I agree with the gist of what Palmyrene is saying and trying to communicate, I need to stand here:

1. Catholics already had public educational institutions which copied the madrasa system of Muslims so peasants already had a system of schooling. Protestants basically just copied the Catholic system of schooling for their schools.

2. Literacy was already high in other parts of the world like in China, Japan, and the Caliphate and public schooling was first pioneered by Muslims. Protestants were way too late.

Education as we know it today, based on the 7 Liberal Arts was created in Classical Athens, then copied by Rome, then popularised by the Byzantine Empire and eventually adopted by Europe and the Arab/Muslim world from Constantinople. Basically almost every Greco/Roman child(including girls during Byzantium) for the past 3000 years has had some kind of education on Maths, Grammar, Rhetoric, Astronomy/Astrology, Logic, Music & Geometry. These subjects and the University system as we know it in the modern day were standardised and formalised in Constantinople.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
And somehow you think that was a good thing for the previously centralized church power?

More churches isn't liberation. Having several centralized churches just makes them more oppressive because they're competing to maintain their adherents.

What's the proof? That era began the demize of the HRE and the Churhc authority in general. It's common knowledge.

Common knowledge doesn't necessitate truth. It was once common knowledge that the earth was the center of the universe.

And the HRE dissoluted in 1809. That's 200 years after the Reformation.

The old Chinese traditions and religions died out through war.

Pardon?

I don't know Leibniz, but Aquinas and Machiavelli were no where near those values.

Have you actually read Aquinas? And have you read any other work of Machiavelli other than The Prince (which was satire btw)?

And Descartes was very close to the era.

But not in the era.

The nation-state as a widely adopted and accepted concept came as a result of the French revolution.

It was the result of Napoleon's empire and the goal to make sure no such empire ever comes back. You'd be grasping for straws by trying to tie it to the French Revolution.

You're grasping for straws.
The bible translation from Latin into all local languages and the public's access to it only came after the reformation.

It didn't.

All bibles before the reformation, including the 36 line bible were held by churches and monasteries.
The 36 line bible, though indeed was not in Latin, was not only a limited bible printed for churches, and was also made in Germany, the place where the reformation movement began, right before the movement's birth.

Simply because they were held by churches and monasteries doesn't mean they weren't publicly available.

Sure, I'm sure God was just joking about the Crucifixion parts and all the killing stuff. You know, just light divine humor to entertain the reader.

You're missing the point completely. The bible has stuff which are just as bad and many Christians still defend it yet there are also many Christians who interpret that stuff differently.

What you're referring to are events or things Muhammad has done by why he did them remains up to interpretation and that's what many Muslims do. Specifically, they put Muhammad's actions in the context of the time period.

PEW didn't just gather Data in Europe, all over the world.

No, they didn't. The specific PEW poll you're referring to polled Western Muslims only and the PEW commentated that it couldn't get valid results from other Muslim countries due to the nature of the government's there (they didn't say this outright but implied it)

You're getting it in reverse, it's your experience that is irrelevant.

Yet your experiences are the gold standard.

ISIS enforced Niqabs.
With death often being a punishment for breaking it.
They banned revealing Hijabs.

They banned niqabs and hijabs after a group of niqabi women used their niqabs to hide weapons, disguise their identity, and kill several ISIS soldiers.

https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-ea ... 34281ecf80

Such as?
I've seen many Islamic banks and know full well what Islamic finance is, Morabaha is similar but allowed in Islam.

No one is saying you don't know what Islamic finance is. What I'm saying is that Islamic scholars even criticize Islamic banks for not being Islamic enough.

You ever came across someone accusing Shias of perverting the Quran?

Yes but that's irrelevant.

No, you don't seem to understand.
Islam is evolving, sure, and yes on the whims of the people.
Sunni Islam however is not evolving, you know why?

It is. I've seen it with my own eyes. Sunni Islam is no different from other parts of Islam. In fact, it's the easiest to evolve if you don't follow Salafi or Hanbali madhab.

You kidding right?
You're now trying to claim the Sunnis don't believe the Quran is the word of god and the Hadith an explanatory accompanying source to it?
The thing that is even in the definition of the word Sunni.

No. I want proof that they are absolutist. This is what you were claiming.

Sanctions on Syria are recent, not decades old.

Never said they were.

It is.

Please read the stuff I wrote above.

Actually no, you get less punishment but punishment nonetheless.

The point is that you won't know whose right and whose wrong until then.

And several scholars use this verse to lower sectarianism so on the practical side of things it good.

I don't know why you're opposed to Sunni Islam evolving. So much stuff is going on and you're saying it's "not true Sunni Islam" yeah well Shia Islam is not true Shia Islam you said it yourself.

Not a loophole.

It is.

This kind of marriage at all isn't allowed yet they found a way.

It's not.
Clearly stated, all alcohol is forbidden. No exceptions were made in any of the verses or hadiths regarding it.

Well they found a way.

I doubt you had much experience to begin with, 15 year old Syrian guy.
Pretty much every stat there is show the reality of beliefs in the Islamic world.

Uh huh.

A mufti or a Mullah is an official figure, and if you want to claim that one made a decree regarding religion, then you must show your sources.

A public figure that knows me. The guys I'm referring to were my Islamic studies teachers and I still go to school so I'm not doing anything.

Now don't worry, I know you're just parroting Reza Aslan's arguments here.

Is that the Christianity dude?

I'm sure you can go tell that to actual Muslims in the Islamic world. You wont have any troubles at all.

I've discussed this with my family and friends.

Thousands of Muslim scholars discredited their ideology?
They discredited some decrees, but the overall "ideology" is recognized as just another Salafist movement.
Primarily because the exact same teachings are practiced by not only many others but even in places like al-azhar.

Have you read the same thing I did?

Muslims believe in God, it's why they're called Muslims.
And in Islam, a Muslim can not "speak for god", only spread the pre-ordained message of god.
The order is spread the message not represent it.

No one really knows for certain the pre-ordained message of god. It's up to interpretation.

If the theology is constant and unchanging, then the effects will be similar through the ages.
Only if it changes does its effect change.

If you think Sunni Islam hasn't changed at all then you don't know any Islamic history.

If I have power over you, you have no choice but to obey me; If I have influence over you, I can suggest a path for you to take and you're free to take it or not.

No one has full power over others. You can always disobey a command no matter what. It's about influence not total power.

I don't care about what rules you make for yourself. In Islam, god has ordained certain rules that everyone must follow, and if you don't follow most of them, primarily the big ones (كبائر) then you're, according to the Quran, not a Muslim.

Tough luck.


You're the one defending them, not me.

Yeah I'm going to end this conversation because it's going nowhere.

Where and when?

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

Martin Luther wrote positively about Islam.

I'm not going to answer everything else because I have a headache and this conversation will never end nor go anywhere. I'm not going to write all of this on my phone.

Just answer the questions I asked you before.

[Palmyrene]

While I agree with the gist of what Palmyrene is saying and trying to communicate, I need to stand here:



Education as we know it today, based on the 7 Liberal Arts was created in Classical Athens, then copied by Rome, then popularised by the Byzantine Empire and eventually adopted by Europe and the Arab/Muslim world from Constantinople. Basically almost every Greco/Roman child(including girls during Byzantium) for the past 3000 years has had some kind of education on Maths, Grammar, Rhetoric, Astronomy/Astrology, Logic, Music & Geometry. These subjects and the University system as we know it in the modern day were standardised and formalised in Constantinople.

I'm not referring to the subject material but the way the schooling system was organised which was based on the madrasa system.

The madrasa system was the institutionalization of the halaqa system or circle or ring system. The halaqa system may have been based on Byzantine forms of education in the Levant and North Africa but the madrasa system was not.

[noemon]

I'm not referring to the subject material but the way the schooling system was organised which was based on the madrasa system.

What do you mean?

Primary, secondary, tertiary education as a system is a Greco-Roman(Byzantine) creation.

but the madrasa system was not.

How do you assert that?

Influences on Muslim education and culture
The Greco-Byzantine heritage of learning that was preserved through the medium of Middle Eastern scholarship was combined with elements of Persian and Indian thought and taken over and enriched by the Muslims. It was initiated as early as the Umayyad caliphate (661–750), which allowed the sciences of the Hellenistic world to flourish in Syria and patronized Semitic and Persian schools in Alexandria, Beirut, Gondēshāpūr, Nisibis, Haran, and Antioch. But the largest share of Islam’s preservation of Classical culture was assumed by the ʿAbbāsid caliphate (750–c. 1100), which followed the Umayyad and encouraged and supported the translation of Greek works into Arabic, often by Nestorian, Hebrew, and Persian scholars. These translations included works by Plato and Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ptolemy, and others. The great mathematician al-Khwārizmī (flourished 9th century) compiled astronomical tables, introduced Hindu numerals (which became Arabic numerals), formulated the oldest known trigonometric tables, and prepared a geographic encyclopaedia in cooperation with 69 other scholars.

The transmission of Classical culture through Muslim channels can be divided into seven basic types: (1) works translated directly from Greek into Arabic, (2) works translated into Pahlavi, including Indian, Greek, Syriac, Hellenistic, Hebrew, and Zoroastrian materials, with the Academy of Gondēshāpūr as the centre of such scholarship (the works then being translated from Pahlavi into Arabic), (3) works translated from Hindi into Pahlavi, then into Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic, (4) works written by Muslim scholars from the 9th through the 11th century but borrowed, in effect, from non-Muslim sources, with the line of transmission obscure, (5) works that amounted to summaries and commentaries of Greco-Persian materials, (6) works by Muslim scholars that were advances over pre-Islamic learning but that might not have developed in Islam had there not been the stimulation from Hellenistic, Byzantine, Zoroastrian, and Hindu learning, and, finally, (7) works that appear to have arisen from purely individual genius and national cultures and would likely have developed independently of Islam’s Classical heritage of learning.

Aims and purposes of Muslim education

Islam placed a high value on education, and, as the faith spread among diverse peoples, education became an important channel through which to create a universal and cohesive social order. By the middle of the 9th century, knowledge was divided into three categories: the Islamic sciences, the philosophical and natural sciences (Greek knowledge), and the literary arts. The Islamic sciences, which emphasized the study of the Qurʾān (the Islamic scripture) and the Ḥadīth (the sayings and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) and their interpretation by leading scholars and theologians, were valued the most highly, but Greek scholarship was considered equally important, albeit less virtuous.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

More churches isn't liberation. Having several centralized churches just makes them more oppressive because they're competing to maintain their adherents.

More Churches means a weaker central authority.

It replaced one major authority over all to several competing with each other in the same landmass.
It became weaker.

And the HRE dissoluted in 1809. That's 200 years after the Reformation.

The dissolution of the HRE started internally, then it was finished off by the French.

Empires don't fall overnight.
The Roman empire spent 300 years in its decline period, and the Persian empire spent 200.

Have you actually read Aquinas? And have you read any other work of Machiavelli other than The Prince (which was satire btw)?

Some parts, and many critiques of him. He wasn't presenting any enlightenment principles.
And yes, I've read most of Machiavelli's works. He didn't hold these principles.

But not in the era.

Part of the foundation.

It was the result of Napoleon's empire and the goal to make sure no such empire ever comes back. You'd be grasping for straws by trying to tie it to the French Revolution.

The nation state came from the French revolution, not the actions of Napoleon.
That was part of the revolution.

It didn't.

You know you can easily go and look up the translations of the bible right?
It takes a couple of minutes.

Simply because they were held by churches and monasteries doesn't mean they weren't publicly available.

All the bibles were Latin.
The reformation began in Germany where the translation to local languages began.
The 36 line bible was simply one of the first ones and part of the foundation for the reformation.

You're missing the point completely. The bible has stuff which are just as bad and many Christians still defend it yet there are also many Christians who interpret that stuff differently.

More accurately, you don't know what the bible or the Quran is.
The bible is a collection of stories, recorded, translated, and collected by people, centuries after the chirst, regarding religion and God.

The Quran is the believed to be the direct unchanging word of god.
If you can't see the difference that makes, then you're hopeless.

What you're referring to are events or things Muhammad has done by why he did them remains up to interpretation and that's what many Muslims do. Specifically, they put Muhammad's actions in the context of the time period.

Mohammed's actions are part of the Hadith. All the Osol, which most of the laws and foundations come from, are in the Quran.

No, they didn't. The specific PEW poll you're referring to polled Western Muslims only and the PEW commentated that it couldn't get valid results from other Muslim countries due to the nature of the government's there (they didn't say this outright but implied it)

Cut the bullshit.
They didn't survey "just" western Muslims, they surveyed all throughout the world and did extensive research regarding the beliefs all across.
And there isn't just one, there are dozens of stats from them regarding these things.

Yet your experiences are the gold standard.

That's not my experience, that's the Quran and the rules set forth by the prophet and his companions.
When you're discussing a religion where god directly ordained certain rules and orders (i.e Islam in the Quran), personal experiences and opinions are irrelevant.
In the context of that religion, God directly said it.

They banned niqabs and hijabs after a group of niqabi women used their niqabs to hide weapons, disguise their identity, and kill several ISIS soldiers.

According to your source;
I am right that they did enforce that, and they only banned it in specific security centers in one city, while still enforced in public in the general city.

Yes but that's irrelevant.

It is relevant.
Because what you're describing is why Shias are accused of this, and why they're even called Shias in the first place.
They're the divisions to "stray" from the Sunnah of the prophet.

It is. I've seen it with my own eyes. Sunni Islam is no different from other parts of Islam. In fact, it's the easiest to evolve if you don't follow Salafi or Hanbali madhab.

Oh please, seen it with your own eyes? What now you're 80.

Sunni Islam is the least one to change over the past 1400 years.
We can literally take the religion over several stages of time and we'll keep seeing the same theology and laws in all of them.
Because, again, it's in the name. Sunni, Sunnah, it's the part that follows the original text.

No. I want proof that they are absolutist. This is what you were claiming.

They are.
God, in Islam, is absolute, and his words are thus for absolute.
If they weren't, then we would've had dozens of versions of the Quran with every local village having its own Quran.

The point is that you won't know whose right and whose wrong until then.

When it comes to Islam, the one following the Quran is right and everyone else is wrong.
It even says so in the Quran.

And several scholars use this verse to lower sectarianism so on the practical side of things it good.

And then they turn around and say Shias are the "Dalleen", the stray ones, stray from God's orders.

I don't know why you're opposed to Sunni Islam evolving.

I'm not, but it's simply unrealistic to expect it to, and it's clearly propaganda by Islam apologists in the west that you're copying and say it does.
Sunni Islam is, by definition, the mainstream that sticks to the original rules and texts. The factions that doesn't do that become Shias, also by definition.

So much stuff is going on and you're saying it's "not true Sunni Islam" yeah well Shia Islam is not true Shia Islam you said it yourself.

Where is it going on?
Every movement in the middle east that is working to counter it isn't working to reform the religion, it's working to reform the state and reduce religion in it. You know why? Because everyone understands the Sunni Islam follows the Sunnah, thus by definition not open to change and everything can only be based on those two sources.

Also, there is no such thing as "True Shia Islam", that's an oxymoron.

This kind of marriage at all isn't allowed yet they found a way.

By working in the means of regular marriage, abiding by all its rules and duties, then just divorcing?
You do realize the rules, responsibilities, and duties of Temporary marriage are different from the regular one.

Well they found a way.

They didn't. They just stopped abiding by the clearly stated rule in the Quran.

Breaking the rule isn't "finding a way", it's just that, breaking the rule.

A public figure that knows me. The guys I'm referring to were my Islamic studies teachers and I still go to school so I'm not doing anything.

Then I'm sure you can ask them for others who made the same decrees as they did, and give the sources to it.
Because it's not based on Quran and Sunnah, which means I doubt it's allowed.
The only way they can base their decree on other sources is if they weren't Sunnis, but Shias.

Have you read the same thing I did?

I occassionally follow up with the official statements by the various international Islamic committees and institutions, have studied them when I was in Islam, and was taught all about it when I was a kid.

If you want to try to push the narrative that the wider Muslim world discredited their school of thought, then I'm sure you'll be able to give an official decree by Ijma' (i.e. How things are decided in Sunni Islam).

No one really knows for certain the pre-ordained message of god. It's up to interpretation.

It's not.
Fiqh 101, Osol are not open for interpretation. Foro' are open for interpretation through Qiyas and Ijma'.

No one has full power over others. You can always disobey a command no matter what. It's about influence not total power.

Some people do, especially by force.
Influence is different from Power.

May I guide you to the dictionary?

Martin Luther wrote positively about Islam.

Even what you cited implies they were allies due to shared enemies.

[Palmyrene]

What do you mean?

Primary, secondary, tertiary education as a system is a Greco-Roman(Byzantine) creation.

The madrasa system doesn't behave in that fashion. The closest western equivalent to the madrasa is probably the University but even that pales in comparison.

How do you assert that?

The section you quoted does not contradict what I said. I specifically said the halaqa system is similar Byzantine education systems in the Levant but the madrasa system is the institutionalization of the halaqa system.

[ingliz]

Yeah it was.

Wrong!

A Gutenberg Bible.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
More Churches means a weaker central authority.

It doesn't. It just means there's more central authorities which isn't much of an upgrade.

The dissolution of the HRE started internally, then it was finished off by the French.

Citation please.

Some parts, and many critiques of him. He wasn't presenting any enlightenment principles.
And yes, I've read most of Machiavelli's works. He didn't hold these principles.

Oh really? Have you read Discourses on Livy?

Part of the foundation.

Anasawad all prior philosophers lay the foundations for others.

The nation state came from the French revolution, not the actions of Napoleon.
That was part of the revolution.

Are you dumb? First off that makes no sense because what came after the French Revolution was the Napoleonic Empire which wasn't a nation state.

It was only after the Peace of Westphalia, which saw the dissolution of the Napoleonic Empire, that saw the creation of Westphalian sovereignity or, in other words, the nation state.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty

You know you can easily go and look up the translations of the bible right?
It takes a couple of minutes.

How's that relevant to anything?

All the bibles were Latin.
The reformation began in Germany where the translation to local languages began.
The 36 line bible was simply one of the first ones and part of the foundation for the reformation.

No the 36 line bible was made before the Reformation.

More accurately, you don't know what the bible or the Quran is.
The bible is a collection of stories, recorded, translated, and collected by people, centuries after the chirst, regarding religion and God.

The Quran is the believed to be the direct unchanging word of god.
If you can't see the difference that makes, then you're hopeless.

So you think the Quran doesn't have stories or that Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God?



The Quran takes so much stuff from the Bible that the Byzantines thought for hundreds of years that it was just a heretical sect of Christianity and the Bible is seen by Christians as the word of God.

Mohammed's actions are part of the Hadith. All the Osol, which most of the laws and foundations come from, are in the Quran.

Some of Mohammed's actions are discussed in the Quran. If you've read it you would know what I'm talking about.

Cut the bullshit.
They didn't survey "just" western Muslims, they surveyed all throughout the world and did extensive research regarding the beliefs all across.

They didn't do extensive research they're pollers. They get the data and publish it.

They don't make conclusions.

That's not my experience, that's the Quran and the rules set forth by the prophet and his companions.

That's not what I was referring to.

You basically say that Sunni Islam is in this specific way and you decide that Sunni Muslims belong to this hivemind where they follow your specific interpretation. This is false.

And even if Sunni Islam is as rigid as you claim it is (it isn't), most Sunni Muslims don't follow it "correctly" so there isn't an issue here either. Eventually, if material conditions improve, they'll just become atheists.

According to your source;
I am right that they did enforce that, and they only banned it in specific security centers in one city, while still enforced in public in the general city.

Doesn't change the fact that it's not supposed to be banned period. That goes against Islam.

[Qupte]
It is relevant.
Because what you're describing is why Shias are accused of this, and why they're even called Shias in the first place.
They're the divisions to "stray" from the Sunnah of the prophet.[/quote]

That's not the reason why Shias are hated. Most Sunni Muslims don't know anything about Shias outside of stereotypes. They don't know jackshit about it.

It's not relevant to what I said.

Oh please, seen it with your own eyes? What now you're 80.

What?

Sunni Islam is the least one to change over the past 1400 years.

Considering that most Muslim reformers (and historically modernists) are Sunni I'm going to say no.

They are.
God, in Islam, is absolute, and his words are thus for absolute.

His words are up for interpretation.

I'm not, but it's simply unrealistic to expect it to, and it's clearly propaganda by Islam apologists in the west that you're copying and say it does.

What Islam apologists? Most "Islam apologia" in the West only goes as far as saying Muslims are people too because the conservatives there think Muslims aren't.

They don't delve into theology only other Muslims do.

Most Islam reformists are Sunni, they've always been. Sorry but your talk strikes me as chauvinism. Pure chauvinism. You're very disconnected from the realities at hand.

Where is it going on?
Every movement in the middle east that is working to counter it isn't working to reform the religion, it's working to reform the state and reduce religion in it. You know why? Because everyone understands the Sunni Islam follows the Sunnah, thus by definition not open to change and everything can only be based on those two sources.

The people who work to counter extremism are reformists or "moderates" but you'd call the moderates non-Sunni because they aren't extremist and only Salafi are the true Sunnis according to you.

Also, there is no such thing as "True Shia Islam", that's an oxymoron.

I'm talking about the original Shia. The successiom crisis ones.

They didn't. They just stopped abiding by the clearly stated rule in the Quran.

They came up with their own interpretation. Your puritanism doesn't matter. Rules are arbitrary anyways.

Then I'm sure you can ask them for others who made the same decrees as they did, and give the sources to it.

Well it's summer vacation so you may have to wait.

I occassionally follow up with the official statements by the various international Islamic committees and institutions, have studied them when I was in Islam, and was taught all about it when I was a kid.

That didn't answer my question.

If you want to try to push the narrative that the wider Muslim world discredited their school of thought, then I'm sure you'll be able to give an official decree by Ijma' (i.e. How things are decided in Sunni Islam).

I'm not going to put more effort into this conversation. I'm not interested in continuing it.

Some people do, especially by force.
Influence is different from Power.

Even if you put a gun to someone's head that doesn't guarantee they'll do what you say. They could prefer to die than do what you want or fight you.

It's about influence. The most powerful people gain power through charisma not force and charisma is about suggestion.

May I guide you to the dictionary?

May I?

Even what you cited implies they were allies due to shared enemies.

No.

During the development of the Reformation, Protestantism and Islam were considered closer to each other than they were to Catholicism: "Islam was seen as closer to Protestantism in banning images from places of worship, in not treating marriage as a sacrament and in rejecting monastic orders".[7]

[Palmyrene]

Wrong!

A Gutenberg Bible.

A bit too late there.

[ingliz]

A bit too late there.

Have you conceded the point?

If not, I disagree.

You talk tosh with conviction, I give you that, but it's still tosh and needs to be shown up as such.

[Palmyrene]

Have you conceded the point?

Well I've clarified it.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene
Read:
الاستدلال على المعاني في تفسير الطبري. كتاب نايف الزهراني
مجموع الفتاوى
تفسير ابن كثير

For interpretation of the Quran:
Hadith:

من قال في كتاب الله برأيه، فأصاب، فقد أخطأ

From the Quran:

فَإِذْ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِالشُّهَدَاءِ فَأُولَئِكَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْكَاذِبُونَ النور/13

On Osol and Foro':

فمن أثبته وتكلم به من أهل السنة يقصد بالأصول: الأمور العظيمة، التي يتوقع من عموم المسلمين معرفة مرتبتها من الدين، وجاء الدين بتعظيمها وتفضيلها على غيرها، ورتب على تركها ذما ووعيدا، أو ما يقارب ذلك من المعاني، ثم جعلوا الفروع ما دون ذلك، وهذا جامع ما فهمته من كلام من أثبت التقسيم، والله أعلم.

ومن نفاه من أهل السنة إنما نفاه لأمور، كلها رد فعل لما ترتب على التقسيم من أمور تخالف الشرع، وذلك على تقسيم أهل البدع، كمن قال الدين فيه "قشر ولباب " أو من قال " انه لا عذر بالجهل في اصل الدين والتوحيد وقد يعذر المرء في فروعه وشرائعه" إلى غير ذلك، وإنما يفهم هذا بفهم معنى المصطلح عند المتكلمين.

أن الفروع هي ما اشترك في اثباتها العقل والنقل، والأصول هي ما استقل بها العقل وهو منقول عن الجويني في التلخيص (3/333)، وتارة يقولون أن الأصول هي أمور العقيدة، وأما أمور الفقه فهي من الفروع كما جاء في نهاية السول (1/29)، وليس الإشكال فقد في مجرد التقسيم ، إنما فيما رتب على هذا التقسيم.

https://ar.islamway.net/article/54044/% ... 9%88%D8%B9
From a Sunni perspective.

أَلَمْ تَرَ كَيْفَ ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا كَلِمَةً طَيِّبَةً كَشَجَرَةٍ طَيِّبَةٍ أَصْلُهَا ثَابِتٌ وَفَرْعُهَا فِي السَّمَاءِ

أن هذا مصطلح روعي فيه المعنى اللغوي للكلمتين، فالأصل هو كل ما ينبني عليه غيره ويندرج تحته سواء أكان حسياً أم معنوياً، والفرع ضده، أي كل ما ينبني على غيره، فالأب أصل والابن فرع، وجذع الشجرة أصل وأغصانها فروع، وهذا المصطلح في كل شيء بحسبه، ويقصد بالأصول في الإسلام الكليات والثوابت والقواعد العامة للدين، وقد بينا طرفاً من ذلك في الفتوى رقم: 15781، والفتوى رقم: 29077، وللفائدة انظر الفتوى رقم: 6787، والفتوى رقم: 19438.

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.

If we take another example on the pilars of faith

الإيمان بالله وملائكته وكتبه ورسله واليوم الآخر والقضاء والقدر خيره وشره

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)

الم (1) ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ (2) (البقرة)

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ (7) (آل عمران)

أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا (82) (النساء)

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا آمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِاللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا (136) (النساء)

وَهَذَا كِتَابٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ مُبَارَكٌ فَاتَّبِعُوهُ وَاتَّقُوا لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ (155) أَنْ تَقُولُوا إِنَّمَا أُنْزِلَ الْكِتَابُ عَلَى طَائِفَتَيْنِ مِنْ قَبْلِنَا وَإِنْ كُنَّا عَنْ دِرَاسَتِهِمْ لَغَافِلِينَ (156) أَوْ تَقُولُوا لَوْ أَنَّا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْنَا الْكِتَابُ لَكُنَّا أَهْدَى مِنْهُمْ فَقَدْ جَاءَكُمْ بَيِّنَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةٌ فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَصَدَفَ عَنْهَا سَنَجْزِي الَّذِينَ يَصْدِفُونَ عَنْ آيَاتِنَا سُوءَ الْعَذَابِ بِمَا كَانُوا يَصْدِفُونَ (157) هَلْ يَنْظُرُونَ إِلَّا أَنْ تَأْتِيَهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ أَوْ يَأْتِيَ رَبُّكَ أَوْ يَأْتِيَ بَعْضُ آيَاتِ رَبِّكَ يَوْمَ يَأْتِي بَعْضُ آيَاتِ رَبِّكَ لَا يَنْفَعُ نَفْسًا إِيمَانُهَا لَمْ تَكُنْ آمَنَتْ مِنْ قَبْلُ أَوْ كَسَبَتْ فِي إِيمَانِهَا خَيْرًا قُلِ انْتَظِرُوا إِنَّا مُنْتَظِرُونَ (158) (الأنعام)

وَإِذَا تُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُنَا بَيِّنَاتٍ قَالَ الَّذِينَ لَا يَرْجُونَ لِقَاءَنَا ائْتِ بِقُرْآنٍ غَيْرِ هَذَا أَوْ بَدِّلْهُ قُلْ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أُبَدِّلَهُ مِنْ تِلْقَاءِ نَفْسِي إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَى إِلَيَّ إِنِّي أَخَافُ إِنْ عَصَيْتُ رَبِّي عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ (15) قُلْ لَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ مَا تَلَوْتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَا أَدْرَاكُمْ بِهِ فَقَدْ لَبِثْتُ فِيكُمْ عُمُرًا مِنْ قَبْلِهِ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ (16) فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ (17) (يونس)

^ This is one is very important in this topic.

الر تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْكِتَابِ وَقُرْآنٍ مُبِينٍ (1) (الحجر)

Also important in this topic.

وَيَوْمَ نَبْعَثُ فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَجِئْنَا بِكَ شَهِيدًا عَلَى هَؤُلَاءِ وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ (89) (النحل)

Regarding the Quran being of god to show things clearly to people.

وَبِالْحَقِّ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ وَبِالْحَقِّ نَزَلَ وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا مُبَشِّرًا وَنَذِيرًا (105) وَقُرْآنًا فَرَقْنَاهُ لِتَقْرَأَهُ عَلَى النَّاسِ عَلَى مُكْثٍ وَنَزَّلْنَاهُ تَنْزِيلًا (106) (الإسراء)

وَاتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ كِتَابِ رَبِّكَ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَلَنْ تَجِدَ مِنْ دُونِهِ مُلْتَحَدًا (27) (الكهف)

قُلْ لَوْ كَانَ الْبَحْرُ مِدَادًا لِكَلِمَاتِ رَبِّي لَنَفِدَ الْبَحْرُ قَبْلَ أَنْ تَنْفَدَ كَلِمَاتُ رَبِّي وَلَوْ جِئْنَا بِمِثْلِهِ مَدَدًا (109) قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ مِثْلُكُمْ يُوحَى إِلَيَّ أَنَّمَا إِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ فَمَنْ كَانَ يَرْجُو لِقَاءَ رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا وَلَا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَدًا (110) (الكهف)

وَكَذَلِكَ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا وَصَرَّفْنَا فِيهِ مِنَ الْوَعِيدِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ أَوْ يُحْدِثُ لَهُمْ ذِكْرًا (113) فَتَعَالَى اللَّهُ الْمَلِكُ الْحَقُّ وَلَا تَعْجَلْ بِالْقُرْآنِ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ يُقْضَى إِلَيْكَ وَحْيُهُ وَقُلْ رَبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا (114) (طه)

وَلَقَدْ أَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكُمْ آيَاتٍ مُبَيِّنَاتٍ وَمَثَلًا مِنَ الَّذِينَ خَلَوْا مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِينَ (34) (النور)

الم (1) تَنْزِيلُ الْكِتَابِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ مِنْ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (2) أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ بَلْ هُوَ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَبِّكَ لِتُنْذِرَ قَوْمًا مَا أَتَاهُمْ مِنْ نَذِيرٍ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَهْتَدُونَ (3) (السجدة)

وَلَقَدْ ضَرَبْنَا لِلنَّاسِ فِي هَذَا الْقُرْآنِ مِنْ كُلِّ مَثَلٍ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ (27) قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا غَيْرَ ذِي عِوَجٍ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ (28) (الزمر)

وَيَقُولُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَوْلَا نُزِّلَتْ سُورَةٌ فَإِذَا أُنْزِلَتْ سُورَةٌ مُحْكَمَةٌ وَذُكِرَ فِيهَا الْقِتَالُ رَأَيْتَ الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ مَرَضٌ يَنْظُرُونَ إِلَيْكَ نَظَرَ الْمَغْشِيِّ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الْمَوْتِ فَأَوْلَى لَهُمْ (20) طَاعَةٌ وَقَوْلٌ مَعْرُوفٌ فَإِذَا عَزَمَ الْأَمْرُ فَلَوْ صَدَقُوا اللَّهَ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ (21) فَهَلْ عَسَيْتُمْ إِنْ تَوَلَّيْتُمْ أَنْ تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَتُقَطِّعُوا أَرْحَامَكُمْ (22) أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فَأَصَمَّهُمْ وَأَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ (23) أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ أَمْ عَلَى قُلُوبٍ أَقْفَالُهَا (24) (محمد)

وَالطُّورِ (1) وَكِتَابٍ مَسْطُورٍ (2) فِي رَقٍّ مَنْشُورٍ (3) (الطور)

فَسَبِّحْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الْعَظِيمِ (74) فَلَا أُقْسِمُ بِمَوَاقِعِ النُّجُومِ (75) وَإِنَّهُ لَقَسَمٌ لَوْ تَعْلَمُونَ عَظِيمٌ (76) إِنَّهُ لَقُرْآنٌ كَرِيمٌ (77) فِي كِتَابٍ مَكْنُونٍ (78) لَا يَمَسُّهُ إِلَّا الْمُطَهَّرُونَ (79) تَنْزِيلٌ مِنْ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (80) أَفَبِهَذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَنْتُمْ مُدْهِنُونَ (81) (الواقعة)

بَلْ هُوَ قُرْآنٌ مَجِيدٌ (21) فِي لَوْحٍ مَحْفُوظٍ (22) (البروج)

(وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ)

استقرت الدراسات في علوم القرآن على تقسيم التفسير إلى ثلاثة أقسام:

تفسير بالرواية ،ويسمى التفسير بالمأثور.

وتفسير بالدراية ويسمى التفسير بالرأي.

وتفسير بالإشارة ويسمى التفسير الإشاري .

https://islamonline.net/24799
https://www.alukah.net/sharia/0/31093/

Are you dumb? First off that makes no sense because what came after the French Revolution was the Napoleonic Empire which wasn't a nation state.

It was only after the Peace of Westphalia, which saw the dissolution of the Napoleonic Empire, that saw the creation of Westphalian sovereignity or, in other words, the nation state.

Then, in 1789, women and men in France started to make an incendiary claim. They argued that the French people, not the king, ought to be the source of political authority. This position is encapsulated in Article 3 of the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen’, the French Revolution’s foundational document. In it, the French people asserted that, henceforth, ‘all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation’. The previous bearer of this authority, Louis XVI, would soon go on to lose his head as well.

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-provocation-o ... ermination

https://fee.org/articles/how-nationalis ... evolution/

So you think the Quran doesn't have stories or that Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God?

They don't.
The bible was written by the apostles, translated and adjusted through the institution of the Church over many centuries.
Even the parts of the Bible that are "of god" are the words of others about what the Christ said, not the the direct quotes of the Christ.
This is Bible school 101.

The Quran takes so much stuff from the Bible that the Byzantines thought for hundreds of years that it was just a heretical sect of Christianity and the Bible is seen by Christians as the word of God.

The Hebrew bible and the Judaic scripture in general.
Christianity was much less involved in the creation of Islam compared to Judaism and the various Assyrian scripts.
Islam even takes the creation story of the Assyrians and many words in the Quran are Assyrian in matter of fact.
To the point, reading the Quran and comparing it to Judaism and general Judaic scripts gives a much better understanding on the thought processes and aspirations at that time, Compared to comparing the Quran to the Christian "Newer" bible.

They didn't do extensive research they're pollers. They get the data and publish it.

True, and we can use this data to see how much does the Islamic world believe in the Quran.

You basically say that Sunni Islam is in this specific way and you decide that Sunni Muslims belong to this hivemind where they follow your specific interpretation. This is false.

That's what we call a strawman.
I didn't say Sunni Muslims are a hive mind, nor did I imply it.
I very clearly stated multiple times in many words that Sunni Islam does not have a mechanism for radical or fundamental evolution since it doesn't have an editing mechanism, there for Sunni Muslims, if they want to follow their religion to its fullest, will always end up holding the same beliefs and have the same basis for all their laws and actions.
Those who don't follow their religion to its fullest extent are fine by me, and when it comes to this discussion regarding the view of the Quran (i.e. God) on them, they'll be punished, according to God's promise to them.( and everyone else who also doesn't follow his words. )

And even if Sunni Islam is as rigid as you claim it is (it isn't), most Sunni Muslims don't follow it "correctly" so there isn't an issue here either. Eventually, if material conditions improve, they'll just become atheists.

Hopefully they do become atheists, the world will be a much better place.
But in general, yes, a great portion of Sunnis do not apply or even follow their religion. i.e. Sunni Muslims by name.
On the exact opposite end, a likewise great portion of Sunnis do follow their religion and do either directly apply it or support ones who do, and those are a problem because, as stated earlier, it doesn't change much and that inclines they'll apply the same barbaric laws that existed centuries ago.

All the bans and rules that existed 1400 years ago are still there you know.

Doesn't change the fact that it's not supposed to be banned period. That goes against Islam.

Actually no, it doesn't.
See, if you read the article it clearly states in security centers, and states that it's for protection.
In Islam, and in the Quran specifically, Muslims can break the rules only if their life depends on it; As such, from an Islamic point of view, they can make that ban in security areas to protect their lives.
However, once that danger is gone, the original Islamic rules must apply again.

Emphasise the "life depends on it" part.

That's not the reason why Shias are hated. Most Sunni Muslims don't know anything about Shias outside of stereotypes. They don't know jackshit about it.

It's not relevant to what I said.

That is why the conflicts happen.
As far as the common man goes though, once the conflict begins they're just enemies and the bloodshed drives the hatred. But as far as scholars and leaders go, that's where the hatred originate.

Considering that most Muslim reformers (and historically modernists) are Sunni I'm going to say no.

They're not.
The "reformers" in Sunni Islam don't try to change the fundamentals of the religion because they know that's forbidden.
And the ones who do are simply denounced from the religion and their followers are called Shias.
Like how the Abadis became to be considered Shias instead of being a Sunni sect.
They're nothing like the Jafari sect which represent the majority of Shias, and their original name was Ahl Al- Da'wa and they were Sunnis, but they tried to reform the religion internally and diverged away from the Sunnah (i.e. the teachings of the prophet) and thus stopped being Sunnis and became just another divergent division of Islam, i.e. where the term Shias of Islam comes from.

A Sunni is someone who abides by the Sunnah. If you diverge from that, you're no longer a Sunni, you're effectively a Shiite.

Most Islam reformists are Sunni, they've always been. Sorry but your talk strikes me as chauvinism. Pure chauvinism. You're very disconnected from the realities at hand.

They're only "reformists" as far as trying to put excuses not to apply their religion. Not reformists in the real meaning of the word.

The only one disconnected from reality here and grasping for straws to justify your stances is you.

The people who work to counter extremism are reformists or "moderates" but you'd call the moderates non-Sunni because they aren't extremist and only Salafi are the true Sunnis according to you.

Counter extremism people are just ones who tell people to simply not apply their religion because they don't have the right to do so as there should be a state to apply it. An Islamic state that is, i.e. a Caliphate.
Just listen to any of those Sunni Imams who talk about these things.

I do recall an Indonesian one where he asks his audience in a mosque about homosexuals.
He and the audience agree it's forbidden.
He and the audience agree that it is god's orders that they are executed.
But he then tells the audience not to do because they're not an authority and they have no right to do so, only an Islamic authority in an Islamic state can apply these punishments. i.e. a caliphate.
I'll look it up. And this line of most widely common among these "reformists".
They don't try to change the rules because an Asel can not be changed, they only do what they can do which is not building an Islamic state so that these rules can not have an authority to apply them.

In case you're wondering, this is what the Quran says about anyone trying to change it or twist it;

فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ (79) وَقَالُوا لَنْ تَمَسَّنَا النَّارُ إِلَّا أَيَّامًا مَعْدُودَةً قُلْ أَتَّخَذْتُمْ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ عَهْدًا فَلَنْ يُخْلِفَ اللَّهُ عَهْدَهُ أَمْ تَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ (80) بَلَى مَنْ كَسَبَ سَيِّئَةً وَأَحَاطَتْ بِهِ خَطِيئَتُهُ فَأُولَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ (81) (البقرة)

eternity in hell.

إِنَّ الصَّفَا وَالْمَرْوَةَ مِنْ شَعَائِرِ اللَّهِ فَمَنْ حَجَّ الْبَيْتَ أَوِ اعْتَمَرَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يَطَّوَّفَ بِهِمَا وَمَنْ تَطَوَّعَ خَيْرًا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ شَاكِرٌ عَلِيمٌ (158) إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَى مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ أُولَئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ (159) إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا وَبَيَّنُوا فَأُولَئِكَ أَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنَا التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ (160) (البقرة)

Cursed for eternity.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَشْتَرُونَ بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا أُولَئِكَ مَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ إِلَّا النَّارَ وَلَا يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللَّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَلَا يُزَكِّيهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (174) أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلَالَةَ بِالْهُدَى وَالْعَذَابَ بِالْمَغْفِرَةِ فَمَا أَصْبَرَهُمْ عَلَى النَّارِ (175) ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّهَ نَزَّلَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِي الْكِتَابِ لَفِي شِقَاقٍ بَعِيدٍ (176) (البقرة)

Burning fire and torment for all those who deny or twist the words of God.

وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ مَنْ إِنْ تَأْمَنْهُ بِقِنْطَارٍ يُؤَدِّهِ إِلَيْكَ وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ إِنْ تَأْمَنْهُ بِدِينَارٍ لَا يُؤَدِّهِ إِلَيْكَ إِلَّا مَا دُمْتَ عَلَيْهِ قَائِمًا ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا لَيْسَ عَلَيْنَا فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ سَبِيلٌ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ (75) بَلَى مَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ وَاتَّقَى فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ (76) إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَشْتَرُونَ بِعَهْدِ اللَّهِ وَأَيْمَانِهِمْ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا أُولَئِكَ لَا خَلَاقَ لَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ وَلَا يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَلَا يَنْظُرُ إِلَيْهِمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَلَا يُزَكِّيهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (77) وَإِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَفَرِيقًا يَلْوُونَ أَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالْكِتَابِ لِتَحْسَبُوهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ (78) مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُؤْتِيَهُ اللَّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا عِبَادًا لِي مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَكِنْ كُونُوا رَبَّانِيِّينَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ الْكِتَابَ وَبِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ (79) وَلَا يَأْمُرَكُمْ أَنْ تَتَّخِذُوا الْمَلَائِكَةَ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ أَرْبَابًا أَيَأْمُرُكُمْ بِالْكُفْرِ بَعْدَ إِذْ أَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ (80) (آل عمران)

Infidelity.

وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ لَتُبَيِّنُنَّهُ لِلنَّاسِ وَلَا تَكْتُمُونَهُ فَنَبَذُوهُ وَرَاءَ ظُهُورِهِمْ وَاشْتَرَوْا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا فَبِئْسَ مَا يَشْتَرُونَ (187) (آل عمران)

Damnation.

مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا (46) (النساء)

Cursed by God.

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ لَا يَحْزُنْكَ الَّذِينَ يُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْكُفْرِ مِنَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا آمَنَّا بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَلَمْ تُؤْمِنْ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَمِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا سَمَّاعُونَ لِلْكَذِبِ سَمَّاعُونَ لِقَوْمٍ آخَرِينَ لَمْ يَأْتُوكَ يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ يَقُولُونَ إِنْ أُوتِيتُمْ هَذَا فَخُذُوهُ وَإِنْ لَمْ تُؤْتَوْهُ فَاحْذَرُوا وَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ فِتْنَتَهُ فَلَنْ تَمْلِكَ لَهُ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَنْ يُطَهِّرَ قُلُوبَهُمْ لَهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا خِزْيٌ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ (41) (المائدة)

Great torment in the afterlife.

وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أُولَئِكَ يُعْرَضُونَ عَلَى رَبِّهِمْ وَيَقُولُ الْأَشْهَادُ هَؤُلَاءِ الَّذِينَ كَذَبُوا عَلَى رَبِّهِمْ أَلَا لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ (18) الَّذِينَ يَصُدُّونَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَيَبْغُونَهَا عِوَجًا وَهُمْ بِالْآخِرَةِ هُمْ كَافِرُونَ (19) أُولَئِكَ لَمْ يَكُونُوا مُعْجِزِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَمَا كَانَ لَهُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مِنْ أَوْلِيَاءَ يُضَاعَفُ لَهُمُ الْعَذَابُ مَا كَانُوا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ السَّمْعَ وَمَا كَانُوا يُبْصِرُونَ (20) أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ خَسِرُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَضَلَّ عَنْهُمْ مَا كَانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ (21) لَا جَرَمَ أَنَّهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ هُمُ الْأَخْسَرُونَ (22) (هود)

Also, this is why many Sunni scholars claim Shias are infidels and why these extremists kill Shias, they believe Shias are infidels because Shias reform and adjust the religion internally.

I'm talking about the original Shia. The successiom crisis ones.

That's just one division.
They're not theologically or philosophically the same as the ones at the moment.

They came up with their own interpretation. Your puritanism doesn't matter. Rules are arbitrary anyways.

What is there to interpret in Al-Osol ?
If the Quran said don't do this specific thing or you will be punished in hell and then repeated it dozens of times.
What possible interpretation other than this is banned could there be?

This isn't my "puritanism", this is the Quran's puritanism.
I left the religion some good while ago; That, however, does not mean I stopped knowing all the things I studied about it from all the major sects. Nor does it stop me from remembering the years I spent studying the Quran.

And in Islam, rules aren't arbitrary, they're God's rules.
You seem to think that I'm debating you from my own perspective or beliefs, I'm not. I'm arguing on what does Islam, Sunni Islam to be specific, says.
In Sunni Islam, the rules are ordained by God to be followed with little room for discussion.
In Shia sects, primarily Jafari and Zaidi sects, the Imama comes into play, which pretty much says that the religion isn't complete yet and the Imams both major and minor will complete it.
Major Imams are inspired directly by god and act as following Anbia to Mohammed who was a Rasoul (though both translate to prophets, in Arabic the difference is big) where in these Imams can, under a divine claim, null, rewrite, adjust, add, or delete parts of the Quran (i.e. why Jafaris, Zaidis, Abadis, and Thawahris have variations in their qurans compared to the Sunni ones), while minor Imams can only null parts of the Quran in accordance with the principles of Imama.

Even if you put a gun to someone's head that doesn't guarantee they'll do what you say. They could prefer to die than do what you want or fight you.

It's about influence. The most powerful people gain power through charisma not force and charisma is about suggestion.

Power is The authority to change the behavior of others and make them do things that they might not do otherwise.
Influence is the ability to alter other people’s perceptions of a situation.

Power is forced while influence is voluntary.

A dictionary, it's useful.

May I?

May you what?

During the development of the Reformation, Protestantism and Islam were considered closer to each other than they were to Catholicism: "Islam was seen as closer to Protestantism in banning images from places of worship, in not treating marriage as a sacrament and in rejecting monastic orders".[7]

Because both includes major Judaic teachings. That doesn't mean they were close in theology or philosophy, i.e. what you're arguing for.




EDIT:
Note:
Either way, If you don't want to discuss theology, don't start an argument on it.
I, for one, have a major interest in these things.
I was hoping that I get to discuss Zoroastrianism and Persian philosophy with Annatar one day as I remember hem stating he studied it, but we're too lazy to actually spend time write threads about it, or atleast I am I assume. He probably is just busy.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
Read:
الاستدلال على المعاني في تفسير الطبري. كتاب نايف الزهراني
مجموع الفتاوى
تفسير ابن كثير

For interpretation of the Quran:
Hadith:


From the Quran:




On Osol and Foro':




https://ar.islamway.net/article/54044/% ... 9%88%D8%B9
From a Sunni perspective.



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.

If we take another example on the pilars of faith

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)










^ This is one is very important in this topic.


Also important in this topic.


Regarding the Quran being of god to show things clearly to people.
























https://islamonline.net/24799
https://www.alukah.net/sharia/0/31093/

Still there's interpretation. Considering the amount of scholars and Muslims who make their own interpretations I'm going on their side not yours.

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-provocation-o ... ermination

https://fee.org/articles/how-nationalis ... evolution/

So? That concept has 1. nothing to do with the Westphalian state or nation state and 2. doesn't indicate nationalism. What counted as a nation was very vague at the time in France and national identity even more so.

They don't.
The bible was written by the apostles, translated and adjusted through the institution of the Church over many centuries.
Even the parts of the Bible that are "of god" are the words of others about what the Christ said, not the the direct quotes of the Christ.
This is Bible school 101.

The Bible is still considered the word of God and a divine book. The nature of whether it's content is valid does not change that.

The Hebrew bible and the Judaic scripture in general.
Christianity was much less involved in the creation of Islam compared to Judaism and the various Assyrian scripts.
Islam even takes the creation story of the Assyrians and many words in the Quran are Assyrian in matter of fact.
To the point, reading the Quran and comparing it to Judaism and general Judaic scripts gives a much better understanding on the thought processes and aspirations at that time, Compared to comparing the Quran to the Christian "Newer" bible.

Well yeah you're right but it does take stuff from Christianity by association.

True, and we can use this data to see how much does the Islamic world believe in the Quran.

I'm not sure that was a question. PEW tends to ask specific moral or policy questions. Connecting such unrelated questions to the Quran is making an unverifiable correlation.

The correct way to go about it is to ask Muslims basic questions about the Quran in an indirect way (for just a simple example, what your thoughts on alcohol are) and compare it to the Quran.

That's what we call a strawman.
I didn't say Sunni Muslims are a hive mind, nor did I imply it.
I very clearly stated multiple times in many words that Sunni Islam does not have a mechanism for radical or fundamental evolution since it doesn't have an editing mechanism, there for Sunni Muslims, if they want to follow their religion to its fullest, will always end up holding the same beliefs and have the same basis for all their laws and actions.

It does. Interpretation. You just reject for some reason.

There is no central authority in Sunni thought to tell them that one interpretation is more right over the other.

Actually no, it doesn't.
See, if you read the article it clearly states in security centers, and states that it's for protection.
In Islam, and in the Quran specifically, Muslims can break the rules only if their life depends on it; As such, from an Islamic point of view, they can make that ban in security areas to protect their lives.
However, once that danger is gone, the original Islamic rules must apply again.

When I first posted that I ended up realizing exactly this thing and I just decided not to edit it. Really regretting it now.

That is why the conflicts happen.
As far as the common man goes though, once the conflict begins they're just enemies and the bloodshed drives the hatred. But as far as scholars and leaders go, that's where the hatred originate.

I don't understand the last sentence.

They're not.
The "reformers" in Sunni Islam don't try to change the fundamentals of the religion because they know that's forbidden.

My point is that most reformers who do change the fundamentals come from Sunni Islam.

And the ones who do are simply denounced from the religion and their followers are called Shias.
Like how the Abadis became to be considered Shias instead of being a Sunni sect.
They're nothing like the Jafari sect which represent the majority of Shias, and their original name was Ahl Al- Da'wa and they were Sunnis, but they tried to reform the religion internally and diverged away from the Sunnah (i.e. the teachings of the prophet) and thus stopped being Sunnis and became just another divergent division of Islam, i.e. where the term Shias of Islam comes from.

A Sunni is someone who abides by the Sunnah. If you diverge from that, you're no longer a Sunni, you're effectively a Shiite.

That is not how the term "Shia" is used today. First off, the term "Shia" has baggage, shitloads of baggage; you know this and even extremist Sunni Muslims know this which is why even Sunnis claim some reformers are kafir or something instead of Shia. Secondly, even historically this was not the case as several sects other than the Sunnis and Shia existed during the heyday of the Caliphate.

Counter extremism people are just ones who tell people to simply not apply their religion because they don't have the right to do so as there should be a state to apply it.

That is not what they claim. They claim what they're saying is Islam.

And given how this would be technically an interpretation, then you have no right to say they're wrong.

I do recall an Indonesian one where he asks his audience in a mosque about homosexuals.
He and the audience agree it's forbidden.
He and the audience agree that it is god's orders that they are executed.
But he then tells the audience not to do because they're not an authority and they have no right to do so, only an Islamic authority in an Islamic state can apply these punishments. i.e. a caliphate.
I'll look it up. And this line of most widely common among these "reformists".
They don't try to change the rules because an Asel can not be changed, they only do what they can do which is not building an Islamic state so that these rules can not have an authority to apply them.

Those are not the reformists, those are the moderates.

That's just one division.
They're not theologically or philosophically the same as the ones at the moment.

That was my point.

What is there to interpret in Al-Osol ?
If the Quran said don't do this specific thing or you will be punished in hell and then repeated it dozens of times.
What possible interpretation other than this is banned could there be?

This isn't my "puritanism", this is the Quran's puritanism.
I left the religion some good while ago; That, however, does not mean I stopped knowing all the things I studied about it from all the major sects. Nor does it stop me from remembering the years I spent studying the Quran.

And in Islam, rules aren't arbitrary, they're God's rules.
You seem to think that I'm debating you from my own perspective or beliefs, I'm not. I'm arguing on what does Islam, Sunni Islam to be specific, says.
In Sunni Islam, the rules are ordained by God to be followed with little room for discussion.
In Shia sects, primarily Jafari and Zaidi sects, the Imama comes into play, which pretty much says that the religion isn't complete yet and the Imams both major and minor will complete it.
Major Imams are inspired directly by god and act as following Anbia to Mohammed who was a Rasoul (though both translate to prophets, in Arabic the difference is big) where in these Imams can, under a divine claim, null, rewrite, adjust, add, or delete parts of the Quran (i.e. why Jafaris, Zaidis, Abadis, and Thawahris have variations in their qurans compared to the Sunni ones), while minor Imams can only null parts of the Quran in accordance with the principles of Imama.

Anasawad, in a discussion about how religions may evolve, the rules of the religion don't matter insofar as the people who follow said religion and people are very flexible.

Religion changes in accordance to people, not the other way around. You seem to not understand that.

Power is The authority to change the behavior of others and make them do things that they might not do otherwise.
Influence is the ability to alter other people’s perceptions of a situation.

That's not true. Power can do what you said influence can do and vice versa. Do you think that propaganda is not power? Do you think that a manipulator or an emotionally abusive partner doesn't have any influence over their victim? Gaslighting is a core part to abusive relationships and that's fundamentally about altering perception. Or how about narratives? Controlling the narrative and ideas that people can have is power and yet that can be put under influence in your definition.

Perception determines our behavior. How we see things determines how we think and what we do. Power is influence.

May you what?

Point you to a dictionary. You seem in dire need of it.

Because both includes major Judaic teachings. That doesn't mean they were close in theology or philosophy, i.e. what you're arguing for.

That isn't the reason. Not even the wikipedia article says so.

EDIT:
Note:
Either way, If you don't want to discuss theology, don't start an argument on it.
I, for one, have a major interest in these things.
I was hoping that I get to discuss Zoroastrianism and Persian philosophy with Annatar one day as I remember hem stating he studied it, but we're too lazy to actually spend time write threads about it, or atleast I am I assume. He probably is just busy.

I started an argument about whether terrorism was caused by material or ideological conditions. I did not want to start an argument on theology.

Theological arguments just make me want to kill myself because they're so pointless and arbitrary. For a materialist like me, it's a waste of time.

Side note I take alot of my own personal "theology" from Persian philosophy. Because I'm a Persophile and like Persian stuff.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

Still there's interpretation. Considering the amount of scholars and Muslims who make their own interpretations I'm going on their side not yours.

And those interpretations are limited in their scope since they have to be based on the fundamentals.
That's what we're arguing for.
Those fundamentals are called Osol in Islam.

So? That concept has 1. nothing to do with the Westphalian state or nation state and 2. doesn't indicate nationalism. What counted as a nation was very vague at the time in France and national identity even more so.

Sure, but the concept of the nation-state was popularized and spread due to the French revolution.
All the ideas of national identity and nationalism started their wide spread with the French revolution and its effects on Europe.
There were nation-states before, sure, but those were minor ones. The French revolution was the one to popularize these ideals.

The Bible is still considered the word of God and a divine book. The nature of whether it's content is valid does not change that.

A holly book, but not the direct word of god as in the Quran, atleast not all of it.
Christians realize this, which is why they have much wider room for reform; On the other hand, the Quran is very rigid in most part due to it being considered the direct word of God.

I'm not sure that was a question. PEW tends to ask specific moral or policy questions. Connecting such unrelated questions to the Quran is making an unverifiable correlation.

The correct way to go about it is to ask Muslims basic questions about the Quran in an indirect way (for just a simple example, what your thoughts on alcohol are) and compare it to the Quran.

True, and that's what they do.
That's how we analyze their results.

It does. Interpretation. You just reject for some reason.

I don't reject interpretation, I just disagree on the scope it can take.
You're arguing that everything is open for interpretation, I and pretty much most scholars argue that no, not everything, only the Foro'.

Now, the Foro' aren't small, there are tons of Foro' and they are indeed all open for interpreation under the aformentioned rules of Qiyas (Ijtihad) and Ijma'.
The Osol however are not.

There is no central authority in Sunni thought to tell them that one interpretation is more right over the other.

That's where Ijma' (اجماع) comes in.

I don't understand the last sentence.

The conflict between Sunnis and Shias is primarily based on scholars of both sides claiming the infidelity and strayness of the other side. Once the conflict begins, and bloodshed starts, the hatred is them instilled in the wider population.

My point is that most reformers who do change the fundamentals come from Sunni Islam.

And I agree with that; What we disagree with is the next step.
In reality, and all throughout history, once they start changing the fundamentals, they are no longer considered Sunnis and considered another sect since they "strayed" from the Sunnah (the Prophet's teachings)
You seem to think they're still considered Sunnis.

That is not how the term "Shia" is used today. First off, the term "Shia" has baggage, shitloads of baggage; you know this and even extremist Sunni Muslims know this which is why even Sunnis claim some reformers are kafir or something instead of Shia. Secondly, even historically this was not the case as several sects other than the Sunnis and Shia existed during the heyday of the Caliphate.

Sure, it is mainly used to refer to Imamite Shias; However, historically, all Shias became Shias because they started changing the fundamentals.
Most of the sects existing today started as just another Sunni group reforming the religion until it changed the fundamentals of the religion and became to be seen as a different sect.
Nowadays, they just call them infidels. Though, to be fair, they also call Shias infidels so....

That is not what they claim. They claim what they're saying is Islam.

And given how this would be technically an interpretation, then you have no right to say they're wrong.

Until the wider community of Islamic scholars (Sunni scholars that is) comes together, discusses it, and through Ijma' decide that they're wrong. And if they continued and gathered followers under a a reformed version of Islam with different fundamentals; Then, also through Ijma', they're denounced and a decree by Ijma' is issued declaring them a stray sect of Islam.

That's pretty much how most sects came to be. Usually involving a war, but that's a whole other issue.

Anasawad, in a discussion about how religions may evolve, the rules of the religion don't matter insofar as the people who follow said religion and people are very flexible.

Religion changes in accordance to people, not the other way around. You seem to not understand that.

And you don't seem to understand that Sunni Islam is about following the Sunnah.
If a community changes from it and diverges, it's only a matter of time before they're denounced and everyone stops considering them part of the Sunni tradition.

That's not true. Power can do what you said influence can do and vice versa. Do you think that propaganda is not power? Do you think that a manipulator or an emotionally abusive partner doesn't have any influence over their victim? Gaslighting is a core part to abusive relationships and that's fundamentally about altering perception. Or how about narratives? Controlling the narrative and ideas that people can have is power and yet that can be put under influence in your definition.

Propaganda is about influence, it may result in gaining power, but that doesn't make it on itself power.
A manipulator or emotionally abusive partner uses their relationship to influence their partner or victim, even if they don't have power over them. If they used force or violence and coerced their victims, then that's power and a direct one that is.

Controlling the narrative is an influence, and it is done to gain or maintain power. It is not power in and of itself.

I started an argument about whether terrorism was caused by material or ideological conditions. I did not want to start an argument on theology.

And ideology in Islam leads you to theology.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

And those interpretations are limited in their scope since they have to be based on the fundamentals.
That's what we're arguing for.
Those fundamentals are called Osol in Islam.

They go beyond what you call Osol.

Sure, but the concept of the nation-state was popularized and spread due to the French revolution.

The nation state as we know it today didn't exist until after the dissolution of the Napoleonic Empire and the Peace of Westphalia. This is known as Westphalian sovereignity.

A holly book, but not the direct word of god as in the Quran, atleast not all of it.
Christians realize this, which is why they have much wider room for reform; On the other hand, the Quran is very rigid in most part due to it being considered the direct word of God. [/quore]

Have you talked to Christians particularly ones in the US? First, even if it isn't the direct word of God, most Christians don't realize this. Secondly, it is the word of god and Jesus was supposed to be his messenger.




They didn't do that though. They asked basic questions in the context of liberal policies and ideas not the Quran. Because of this we don't know how much of the PEW results comes down to culture or religion.

This is why I made my proposal because that'll give us the results we want not what PEW did. You cannot make the conclusion that Muslims are basing their beliefs on the Quran based on the PEW results. Theology doesn't matter here, sociology does.

However it can't be a Western Institute like PEW, probably the Doha Institute or something.



You don't understand why I say it's open to interpretation. You take it theologically, I mean it literally.



Often the claims of infidelity and strayness are made as ways to delegitimatize the opposition from power. This is especially the case given how intertwined Islam was to politics. Just a hundred years ago most of the Sunnis and Shias lives under monarchies who derived their legitimacy from religion.



I don't. What I'm saying is that "Sunni" is just a label and it's meaning (I'm not talking about it's literal etymology) or ideas can change over time. What is Sunni today could mean something different tomorrow.

Humans are symbolic creatures, it will happen regardless of the rules of theology. If you want to maintain that they aren't Sunni due to the arbitrary rules in place, be my guest but don't pretend the religion can't be reformed.



No it was because they supported Ali. Ali "worship" or reverence is found in most Shia sects.

And there were other sects at the time of Mohammed's death that were far more radically different. The Khawarijs are an example.



They're not a central authority. Their power depends on whether people actually listen to them. And what is considered a different sect is decided by the common people. They're the ones treating them differently after all.



It doesn't have to be.



Not if it is the Sunni tradition and most people accept it. That was Sunnis relationship with Sufis for most of the Ottoman Empire.



It is power. You have power over what people think and thus how people act.

Marketing influences behavior. This statement would be a contradiction according to your definitions.



Then I guess it's less dangerous then.

And like I said, even using violence does not guarantee full control. Otherwise martial law would always be successful.



It is because it influences behavior. Have you forgotten your own definitions.

That's irrelevant if we both agree that Islam and religion isn't real. We can have an honest discussion about how ideology influences people without getting into theology. It's called the sociology of knowledge.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

The nation state as we know it today didn't exist until after the dissolution of the Napoleonic Empire and the Peace of Westphalia. This is known as Westphalian sovereignity.

The Napoleonic wars happened in the latter part of the French revolution period dude.
You're not disagreeing with me.

That's irrelevant if we both agree that Islam and religion isn't real.

Sure, we agree on that. Still, fun to explore and debate it.

We can have an honest discussion about how ideology influences people without getting into theology. It's called the sociology of knowledge.

Sure, but when it comes to religious ideologies, you can't discuss them without going into their theology.
Not all ideologies are the same, and they each affect people in a different way depending on their basic principles.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
The Napoleonic wars happened in the latter part of the French revolution period dude.
You're not disagreeing with me.

Making the claim that the Napoleonic Empire is an extension of the French Revolution is reaching. Especially when you consider that the Napoleonic Empire was the counter revolution. The Napoleonic Empire only appropriated the "aesthetic" of the French Revolution.

Sure, we agree on that. Still, fun to explore and debate it.

It's exhausting on my end because I have to explain my point of view and write essays on a mobile phone. My thumbs are going to break. اتركني وحبي حبيبي !

Sure, but when it comes to religious ideologies, you can't discuss them without going into their theology.

You can only go surface level if you really wanted to especially in a conversation as basic as "do material or ideological conditions create terrorism?".

Not all ideologies are the same, and they each affect people in a different way depending on their basic principles.

We're going back to the same exact argument we had in the beginning! We're going in a circle!

People adhere to ideologies either by birth (in which case it becomes a part of the culture) or because it correlates with their life experiences and thoughts. Basic principles are never taken literally because humans are fundamentally symbolic creatures.