@Palmyrene
You said a common criticism people have of the Muslim world is that "Islam hasn't had a reformation". The only people who make such criticisms and the ones who made it in the first place are Westerners.
Doesn't mean it's not true.
I'm not a westerners and even I think Islam hasn't yet had its reformation or enlightenment.
A fact is a fact, irregardless of who says it.
What are enlightenment principles anyways?
Everything from personal liberty, individualism, separation of powers, equality, constitutionalism, etc are principle ideas of the enlightenment.
Not really. This only applies to Catholics not Protestants (who are more like Sunnis and far less conservative). And given that you're saying the Protestant Reformation lead to all of this, something doesn't add up.
The reformation didn't just lead to the protestants coming to be, it led to the overhaul of the entire Catholic and Orthodox churches as well.
Sure they can. It depends on the individual scholar or even what you personally think.
That would be by definition heresy and blasphemy in accordance with the Quran.
And in the Sunni sect, the Quran is the direct word of god, unchanging.
For most Shia sects, the Quran can be updated by the Imams.
Having the freedom to believe in whatever you want is very huge strength that Sunnis have and can potentially be a powerful form of progressivism comparable to that of the Great Awakening in America which saw the development of a variety of religious ideas.
Freedom to think whatever you want?
Sunnis who have the "freedom to think whatever they want" aren't free to do that because their religion allows it, but because there is no one to enforce the religion.
In Sunni Islam, all rules must be based on the Quran first, then the Haddith, then Ijma' and Qiyas which both require direct basis from the Quran or Hadith.
There's a reason why being Sufi is easier as a Sunni than as a Shia.
Sufis are their own sect. If you became a Sufi, you're no longer Sunni or Shia.
Yeah no. That's only very specific scholars supporting this. Salafism isn't Sunnism.
Salafis are Sunni conservatives, by the very definition of the word, Al-Salaf Al-Saleh.
No major Sunni schools of thought such as the Hanafis goes that far.
They all go that far, with the Hanbalis being the most extreme of them.
Simply the Hanbalis are ones most spread in the region now (in terms of power and resources), while the others are toothless since no major power is supporting or holding their views.
Again, the whole idea of Salafism is to go back to the time these schools of thought were at their most power and influence, i.e Al-Salaf Al-Saleh.
And the reason why we see so many extremist scholars is due to Saudi funding.
And the Saudis are simply supporting an ideology.
If they were just dumping money on whomever, then why don't we see fanatic socialists and communists and fascists and republicans running around?
Specify these religious groups and states because that is fundamentally different from Sunni theology.
Fundamentally different from Sunni theology?
Have you ever read the Quran dude?
The states that don't have those are the ones that aren't applying Sunni religious laws.
You can easily go back to when Hai'at Al-amer bel Ma'rouf wl nahi 'n al monkar and their likes were spread all over the gulf states, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Sudan, etc. And pretty much all the radical Sunni groups that managed to took control of areas.
1. Muta'a was never intended as a form of progressivism or attempt to bring Islam to enlightenment or something.
No religious reform is ever intended as a form of progressivism. It is intended to match the current morality and social expectations of the populace.
2. Muta'a is based on a particular interpretation of Islam and thus you can find a Sunni scholar who supports it. There already have been Sunni scholars who do and Sunni communities that practice.
Actually no, the prophet himself banned it which is why Sunnis do not have it.
And it's not an interpretation, he literally specified it by word and banned it.
Shias have it because the Sayyed or Ayatollah can, under certain circumstances or requirements, nullify the word of the prophet and even verses of the Quran.
Sunni Islam don't have that, and as such Sunni Islam is stuck with those rules.
Sunnism is far more flexible than you give it credit for specifically because there is no central authority.
It's not.
It has no central authority because the Quran is the all-encompassing authority in it.
I feel I must repeat this, Sunnis believe that the Quran is the word of god that can not be changed and is the undeniable truth.
That is why the Hadith is secondary and explanatory to the Quran, and Qiyas and Ijma' (the only two methods of creating new rules in Sunni Islam) must always be based on the Quran and the Hadith.
Sunni clerics can not just go around making rules on their own, they either do Qiyas under very specific rules, or they base on Ijma' which is basically the collective of all Sunni clerics to agree on something, also based on the Quran and can not be contradictory to either the Quran, nor the Hadith.
Basics.
There is no such thing as a central Sunni religious authority and there is great diversity amongst scholars on a variety of topics.
There are however religious authorities in the Sunni world, who would've thought.
Scholars in the Sunni world occasionally disagree on the Foro' (فروع), not on the Osol (اصول).
The Osol are specified in the Quran and the hadith and unchanging, because, to put it simply, god said it there for it can not change.
For example, anal sex is strictly forbidden in the Quran. It's an unchanging rule that God himself has ordained and all must under all circumstances abide by it. (it's considered a major sin in Sunni Islam, Kaba'r)
This is called Asel (أصل), singular for Osol. An Asel can not be changed.
Scholars disagree on the Foro', in this case for example, whether having anal sex with your wife nullify your marriage (this a real debate that exists between scholars), and if it does nullify your marriage, then does any sexual interaction after it counts as adultery.
The disagreement is based on the ban in the Quran and the hadith the says that anyone who enters his wife from her anus is cursed by god, and in Islam a curse by god means that one is expelled from god's mercy. So if he's cursed by god, does this mean that he no longer counts as a Muslim (since that's what cursed means)? Because if he no longer is a Muslim and his wife is a Muslim, then their marriage breaks another rule which is that a Muslim woman is forbidden to marry someone who is not a Muslim, which means their marriage is nullified as it became illegitimate.
See, this is an example of what disagreements there are between Sunni scholars.
The Osol are unchanging, just the Foro''s interpretations. The Osol can not be interpreted by the way, they're stated clearly in the Quran and not open for interpretation, just the Foro' are open for interpretation.
Culture may be influenced by authorities but it does not dictate it.
Not if those are religious or ideological authorities.
It literally does. There isn't really one school of thought amongst Sunnis no matter how much Saudi Arabia tries to claim there is. If people of the same sect think completely differently about certain issuea then you have diversity.
You have just one Quran and one Hadith(plural) in Sunni Islam.
The issue is that religious laws aren't always applied and when they are it usually is applied by people in positions of power.
And the people in power apply the law that already exists in the Quran and the Hadith, they don't make it up as they go along.
This is the same argument I make to my Sunni relatives about why anarchism is a good idea because hierarchy gets in the way of people making their own beliefs and following their own path.
To have anarchism in Islamic communities, you have to abolish Islam, since it's directly opposed to it on a fundamental level.
Islam, at its core, is about the unquestionable authority of God and the submission to that authority. Religious figures are only there to enforce the word of god, not to make their own rules.
Sayyids are in positions of authority and will make laws that allows them to maintain their positions and their control over the population.
They're not and they don't.
A Sayyed can not be a king, nor can hold any position of political authority.
And I mean that literally, there are rules for it.
Khamenei for example isn't a political leader nor an administrative figure, he's the spiritual leader.
The political and administrative authorities are distributed in the rest of the government.
They don't need to make laws based on the social and moral expectations of the population because the population must obey them, not the other way around.
A Sayyed only becomes one because he has social support, it's the Shora principle.
If they try to oppress society, they can easily be replaced as is the case with many who were.
There is a reason why you don't see a Sayyed taking position of political authority, and there is a reason why even the most powerful Ayatollahs (an Ayatollah is the equivalant of a saint in Shia Islam, and is a high ranking Sayyed) have to routinely make concessions to the population.
In Sunnism, scholars are chosen based on popularity.
No they're not.
Political leaders are chosen based on Shora and Bai'a, Scholars (i.e Imams and Faqihs) are based on their knowledge and fiqh.
Also, It's not Sunnism, it's Sunni Islam. Sunni Islam has a number of schools of thought, those can be considered isms, not the whole thing.
If people thinl a certain scholar fits with their ideology then they will choose them. You don't even need to choose a scholar.
Choosing a scholar or not, the Quran and the Hadith are still the same and still represent the highest authority.
There is no choice in that BTW. To deny either is to deny one of the main pillars of faith in Sunni Islam, which, by the definition of the Quran itself, is considered infidelity.
Sunnism is kind of like a market. The producers (i.e. the scholars) adjust their products (i.e. fitahs) based on what the consumers want (i.e. Sunnis). Thus, in actuality, it's Sunni scholars who make laws based on the moral and social expectations of the people.
It's just that the state meddles in the market to influence it. If there was no state, loads of innovative ideas would arise.
Quran and Hadith.
Osol and Foro'.
You're criticisms of Sunnis fall flat due to how you come to conclusions that don't make sense in the context of the information you've given.
LMAO.
People have way too high expectations for the Reformation. After actually reading about the Reformation, it's nothing like tje stereotypes suggest. If anything this myth that the Reformation was an enlightenment is just Protestant hogwash.
The reformation did two main things;
1- it opened the door for people to read their religion directly and removed the entitlement of the Church to be the sole keeper of religion.
2- It opened the door to question the authority of the Church and denied the infallibility of the Church.
This is why it laid the basics for enlightenment.
Post modern philosophy was 20th-21st centuries not the 19th century. Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel, and other philosophers criticized and built upon prior philosophers and created new philosophies for the "modern" era of industry which is why they're called "modern" philosophers.
And what you're refering to here:
No it wasn't. Modern philosophy as we know derives most of it's origins from the philosophers of the 19th century who deconstructioned enlightenment ideals in the face of the industrial revolution.
Enlightenment philosophy was based on the scientific revolution which began regardless of the Reformation or Protestants.
Is post modernism, not modernism; since modernism was built on the foundation of enlightenment, while postmodernism came to question it.
No they didn't. They thought you could discover God through the natural world and empiricism and led to the modern developments of existentialism in Islamic philosophy like Ibn Arabi and Mullah Sadra.
The bolded part is why my point is right and your denial of it is wrong.
That's not true at all. In the same era the Anglican Church persecuted Puritans leading them to establish colonies in the Americas (in fact, America is where Britain sent religious sects they didn't like to), the Spaniards were committing the largest genocide in history in the name of God, Germany was in the middle of a 100 year war over religion, and Napoleon has just been crowned Emperor and ruler of the Catholic Church of France.
Secularism never became a thing until much, much later.
Just read about it bro.
Here, from the easiest source ever;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_EnlightenmentOh really? The nightclub shooter was a closet homosexual with anger issues and sociopathic tendencies if that's who you're referring to.
Which one?
Because the one that came to me is the one that tended to that club before he started radicalizing.
Also, feel free to look through the thousands who went to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS.
Those who are the most susceptible to radicalization are the disenfranchised.
Or the ones who had a sudden "spiritual awakening" and felt severe guilt about their sins and decided to repent.
Pardon?
North Pakistan is mainly made up of tribal areas.
And the coastline is mainly made of Balochis.
Both have routine insurgencies and separatist movements.
Are you referring to the Christian one because that's old news.
The one with Asia Noreen is the latest one to make a major news.
However there are many many more.
https://zenit.org/articles/pakistan-nea ... y-charges/Never said the government was liberal. I said some people are liberal.
I know, and I responded by saying it doesn't matter if some people are liberal, the state still has religious laws and those laws aren't liberal.
Law isn't enforced sometimes especially in Pakistan.
The only areas where the law isn't applied in Pakistan are conflict areas.
Primarily the aforementioned tribal and Balochi areas.
The reason why it's not always applied is because it's occasionally interrupted by martial law.
It isn't. Most of the people in Syria are either Hanafi or Shafi.
What about the Jazeera?
Let me guess, those are not Hanbali either eh?
Do you even know how laws are enforced? If law enforcement doesn't enforce the law, then there's nothing that law can do. The same thing happens in Pakistan.
Refer to the above.
India won't give it autonomy. Kashmir is not like other provinces. If you seriously think Kashmir won't be under a "special provisional government" or something then you're lying to yourself.
As long as the insurgencies are still going then it sure as hell wont be given autonomy.
But when that matter is solved, then yea, it can be given autonomy.
That doesn't mean most Syrians are Hanbali.
Didn't say they were.
They still exist, primarily in the Jazeera. You know, the place where ISIS somehow managed to gain many recruits from; wonder why is that, it couldn't possibly be because the people there are highly conservative and happen to follow the same school of thought.
Your claim was that the Sunni-Shia conflict was like the Reformation or Enlightenment. It wasn't because the initial conflict was a succession crisis.
My claim was that the current Sunni Shia conflict going on is going to spark a reformation when people get tired of these religious conflicts.
Noting that the "current" Sunni-Shia conflict has been going on for a few centuries as the pre-Safavid Shia schools of thought, with minor exceptions, no longer exist.
EDIT:
Notes I must make clear since you might try to use them in your response so better just counter them from the start.
Hassan Nasrallah is not officially a Sayyed anymore, he stopped being one since the 90s as he took a political position, that is why if you looked at his speeches, he stopped making religious rulings right at the moment, since he's no longer allowed to do so, nor is he recognized as a Sayyed by the Jafari court.
The reason why he's called a Sayyed is that everyone is simply used to it and it stuck, just like everyone is used to calling Khamenei the "supreme leader" when his actual title is Al-Faqih while the whole supreme leader thing is just foreign propaganda.
Or just like any former mosque's Imama will still be called Imam even if he stopped being one.
- By ingliz
- By Rich
- By Puffer Fish