How ISIS replenishes its ranks - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

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

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15028427
@Palmyrene
I'm making it easier for him. If he couldn't find it in an entire surah, he couldn't find it in an ayat.

Thats now how it works.
It's like asking someone to quote a chapter in the bible.

However we don't actually know how bad rape is in Muslim countries because it's so underreported.

If the stats were this bad when it's under-reported, then it's even far worse than we think.
Noting that sexual harassment and sexual assaults are indeed rampant in much of the middle east, as anyone who lived there would notice.

In contrast, places like Sweden have broad categorization for sexual assault and encourage women to report all instances of it.

This is why "Sweden is the rape capital of the world".

The places with the highest rate of rapes in the world are Egypt and South Africa.

Sweden is called the rape capital of Europe. Not the world.

That is completely irrelevant to the claim that "the Quran encourages Muslims to rape women". Slavery and sex slaves are another matter entirely. Sabi, like slaves, have specific ways in which they are to be treated.

Sex with a slave is rape, by definition.

And I know there are rules, it still is sex slavery where the woman will be raped and abused routinely.

Yeah no. Persecution is completely different from "existential war" and Sunni Islam has already expanded.

I also find it strange you leave Shia Islam out of this despite Iran literally kicking out the Bahais a couple of centuries back.


Simply because the Shias are also a minority that has been routinely subject to genocide by the majority.

And Persecution happens after the war. There has been many many attempts to genocide existing religious groups and many were successful in their attempts.
So, yes, existential war.

Native Lebanese isn't a race so you're either from a Maronite lineage or something else like Syriac or Aramaic.

There are people native to Lebanon.
And the Baalbek tribes have existed in Baalbek since before writing was even a thing.

It doesn't endorse slavery or sex slavery. It doesn't say "go get sex slaves" like what the weirdo I responded to was suggesting.

Molk al Yameen.
Mentioned and endorsed several times over.
Molk al yameen is what slaves are called, and when it discusses sex, it's discussing sex slaves. i.e. Sabayah.

The conversation is about the present. TTP is trying to claim that this stuff goes on now, not before.

And in the present, we have groups like the Salafists, which ISIS is part of, that are trying to revive the past.
And just in case, yes, ALL Salafists seek to revive the past since that's what the ideology is all about, Al salaf al saleh.

There is not "systematic rape". It isn't state-sanctioned. You don't see people egging each other to rape women. That's ridiculous.

It doesn't need to be systemic to be rampant. And considering that it is often done either by, or under the protection of, men from the state, then yes, it can be called systemic.

But that's completely different from saying that Muslim men are encouraged to rape women or something.

They're encouraged to enslave non-Muslim women and have sex with them, so it is rape.
It's a key incentive for war that enemy women are part of the bounty and distributed as such.

This indeed has been spread all across by all civilizations, sure. But there is just one trying to bring it back right now.

Depends on the authority.

There are international Islamic councils that makes these Fatwas you know.
The reason they are all similar in this topic is because slavery and sex slavery is endorsed in a clear matter in the Quran.

The Quran is basically up to interpretation if you follow the Sunni sect which is why there are so many Sunni Sufis in contrast to Shia Sufis, the possibility for interpretation is high.

We have discussed this, and you still trying to circle your way around the fact that Osol are not open for interpretation in Sunni Islam.
Foro' are open for interpretation, not Osol.

And Sufis are much rarer than you seem to want to claim, at best estimates they make up less than 5% in some countries while nonexistent in others.
#15028433
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
Thats now how it works.
It's like asking someone to quote a chapter in the bible.


I never read the Bible so that frame of reference doesn't work.

If the stats were this bad when it's under-reported, then it's even far worse than we think.
Noting that sexual harassment and sexual assaults are indeed rampant in much of the middle east, as anyone who lived there would notice.


Yeah I notice it but I'm not sure terms like "rape capital of the world" is helpful in actually dealing with the issues. Terms like that are just attempts at disparaging those countries rather than an honest attempt and discussing the issue.

In fact, I'm sure that was your intention and your goal was to frame the discussion in terms of "Sunni vs Shia" rather than anything helpful. I'm honestly sick of this whole sectarianism and you thoroughly embody it.

The places with the highest rate of rapes in the world are Egypt and South Africa.

Sweden is called the rape capital of Europe. Not the world.


From the people who talk about Sweden they don't seem to make that distinction.

Sex with a slave is rape, by definition.

And I know there are rules, it still is sex slavery where the woman will be raped and abused routinely.


Yeah but there's a difference between encouraging something and saying "well if you're going to do this thing anyways, you may as well follow these rules". The Quran is the latter not the former.

Simply because the Shias are also a minority that has been routinely subject to genocide by the majority.


Not in Iran they aren't. There's no excuse for Iran to kick out the Bahais.

I'm sure, in the right circumstances, Shias would persecute Sunnis too. The issue is fundamentally about hierarchy and authority rather something stupid like "it's all down to religion maaaaan!".

And Persecution happens after the war. There has been many many attempts to genocide existing religious groups and many were successful in their attempts.
So, yes, existential war.


No there weren't. Other than the initial conquests, most pre-Islamic religions have survived, far more than in Europe.

If Muslims wanted to get rid of every single non-Muslim minority they would've done so by now. Nothing you could do could stop them.

If you want to know what Muslims would be like if they wanted minorites dead look at Europe. No native pagans to be found, no heretical Christian sects, and everyone is genetically the same. They even started a WW to kill off the remaining minorities they had.

Turns out having non-Muslims as a tax base incentivizes you not to completely kill them off. That's something Europe should've learn.

There are people native to Lebanon.
And the Baalbek tribes have existed in Baalbek since before writing was even a thing.


Anyone born in Lebanon can be native to it. That's literally the definition of "native".

The point is that it doesn't indicate anything. You could be a Russian dude for all I know as long as you were born in Lebanon you're native to it.

Molk al Yameen.
Mentioned and endorsed several times over.
Molk al yameen is what slaves are called, and when it discusses sex, it's discussing sex slaves. i.e. Sabayah.


I've skimmed through it and didn't find an endorsement. I don't think you know what endorsement means.

And in the present, we have groups like the Salafists, which ISIS is part of, that are trying to revive the past.
And just in case, yes, ALL Salafists seek to revive the past since that's what the ideology is all about, Al salaf al saleh.


Ok so?

It doesn't need to be systemic to be rampant. And considering that it is often done either by, or under the protection of, men from the state, then yes, it can be called systemic.


The person I'm debating said it was systematic. I said it isn't.

And abuse of authority doesn't make it systematic. Quite frankly that's just par de course for authority. I mean, what were you expectef when you support hierarchy. Just a couple of days a go Epstein's child sex ring was revealed.

They're encouraged to enslave non-Muslim women and have sex with them, so it is rape.
It's a key incentive for war that enemy women are part of the bounty and distributed as such.


No they didn't. That's just a leap of assumptions on your part and generally does a better job explaining why the Quran is up to interpretation than I ever could.

And just because it's an external incentive doesn't mean it's encouraged by the Quran. The Quran knows it's an incentive and encourages slaves to convert to get out of slavery, has specific rules for treating slaves, and has rules on war.

This indeed has been spread all across by all civilizations, sure. But there is just one trying to bring it back right now.


Salafists are the entirety of Islamic civilization or do you consider terrorists their own civilization.

There are international Islamic councils that makes these Fatwas you know.


Yeah and if I was Sunni Muslim I can ignore them.

The reason they are all similar in this topic is because slavery and sex slavery is endorsed in a clear matter in the Quran.


International Islamic councils don't matter. What do you think just because they're international they matter?

We have discussed this, and you still trying to circle your way around the fact that Osol are not open for interpretation in Sunni Islam.
Foro' are open for interpretation, not Osol.


No I'm not. I, unlike you, understand that there are no literal barriers that prevent people from changing ideologies or coming up with their own ideas. You are so caught up in thinking people act exactly like how their ideology is and you refuse to admit that liberal Sunnis are following their own interpretation.

And Sufis are much rarer than you seem to want to claim, at best estimates they make up less than 5% in some countries while nonexistent in others.


I'm not just talking about now, I'm talking historically.

And that shouldn't matter to you if you are interested in theology.

Maybe you should figure out why it's easier to be a Sufi as a Sunni compared to being Shia.
#15028440
@anasawad

I'm going to start listing scholars who oppose Salafism too:

Yasir Qadhi's Criticism of Salafism

1) Its relegation of theology to the mainly abstract and theoretical doctrines tangential to the message of Islam, to the point that abstract theology and man-made creeds eclipse each and every other aspect of Islam.

2) An unfounded hesitation in embracing tazkiya al-nafs and little interest in spiritual development. It is an undeniable reality that, as a whole, the Salafī movement has failed to emphasize proper spirituality, or tazkiya al-nafs. Yet, this is a Qur’anic concept, one that has unanimously consensus over – for what exactly is iḥsān in the famous ḥadīth of Jibrīl except tazkiya al-nafs? The Salafī preoccupation with advanced sciences such as jarḥ wa-l-tadīl over the basic need of spiritual purification explains the phenomenon of ‘Salafī-burnout’, an observable trend of Salafīs forsaking Salafism and either adopting another Islamic trend (typically Sufism, which shows what they were ‘missing’ from Salafism), or leaving practicing Islam altogether.

3) A characteristic harshness evidenced in its treatment of other, non-Salafī, Muslims.

Salafīs believe in their salvific exclusivity.[17] Such an attitude clearly breeds a level of arrogance and conceit amongst lay-Salafīs, and is reminiscent of (but not identical to) religious conceit manifested in the Khārijīs.

This also explains the disproportionate focus on identifying deviants and deviation, which has lead to an absurd result of some Salafī laymen knowing more about deviant beliefs than correct ones. The Madkhalīs are the quintessential example of this: any recent convert to Islam from amongst them will be able to recite a list of names of scholars ‘on’ or ‘off’ the Salafī manhaj, but will be hard-pressed to mention as many names of Companions; they will know the ‘ruling on greeting a deviant’ but remain ignorant of the adhkār for the morning and evening. Unfortunately this is not exclusive to the Madkhalī-Salafīs. The question the movement needs to ask itself is: Is Islam about obsessively investigating the errors of others, or is it about becoming a role model for the promotion of good? “Fortunate is the one who is busy with his own defects, rather than those of others” (Musnad al-Bazzar).

4) Many Salafī trends adopt an extremist position regarding bidʿa and mubtadʿis. This has led to them being mocked by other Muslims – even lay-Muslims recognize that it is ultra-literalistic to consider carpets with prayer lines in the mosque a religious heresy!

5) Mistaken priorities. The Prophet Muḥammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said, “Focus on that which benefits you!” For some Salafīs, success is tantamount to refuting ‘deviants’. They revel in writing lots of refutations against people, warning people from associating with ‘deviants’ and using aggressively harsh language to correct people.

6) The Salafī treatment of women. By and large, the modern Salafī movement relegates women to a level that might justly be considered inhumane.

7) Unquestioning allegiance to a group of ‘senior scholars’ that serve as final arbiters on all matters. For a movement that claims to champion free-thinking and eschew blind-following, it is sad that most Salafīs are sectarian and narrow-minded about following the ‘Kibar’ (senior scholars).

8 ) A severely handicapped understanding of the modern political arena. One wonders how anyone who claims to follow Ibn Taymiyya, and reads first-hand how frequently he challenged the rulers publicly, can then adopt such a quietist servile obsequious attitude towards rulers whose crimes far exceed anything the rulers during Ibn Taymiyya’s times did.

And finally a very important point on Albani made by YQ in the same piece:

Rashid Rida (d. 1935) was the first scholar to popularize the term ‘Salafī’ to describe a particular movement that he spearheaded. That movement sought to reject the ossification of the madhhabs, and rethink through the standard issues of fiqh and modernity, at times in very liberal ways. A young, budding scholar by the name of al-Albānī read an article by Rida, and then took this term and used it to describe another, completely different movement. Ironically, the movement that Rida spearheaded eventually became Modernist Islam and dropped the ‘Salafī’ label, and the legal methodology that al-Albānī championed – with a very minimal overlap with Rida’s vision of Islam...


All taken from here: http://muslimmatters.org/2014/04/22/on- ... r-qadhi/4/
#15028444
@anasawad

Scholars from Al-Azhar University of Cairo produced a work of religious opinions entitled al-Radd (The Response) to refute the views of the Salafi movement.[186] Al-Radd singles out numerous Salafi aberrations – in terms of ritual prayer alone it targets for criticism the following Salafi claims:[187]

1. The claim that it is prohibited to recite God's name during the minor ablution [Fatwa 50]

2. The claim that it is obligatory for men and women to perform the major ablution on Friday [Fatwa 63]

3. The claim that it is prohibited to own a dog for reasons other than hunting [Fatwa 134]

4. The claim that it is prohibited to use alcohol for perfumes [Fatwa 85].

One of the authors of al-Radd, the Professor of Law Anas Abu Shady states that, "they [the Salafis] want to be everything to everyone. They're interested not only in the evident (al-zahir), although most of their law goes back to the Muhalla [of the Ẓāhirī scholar Ibn Hazm], but they also are convinced that they alone understand the hidden (al-batin)!"[188]

The Syrian scholar Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti wrote a number of works refuting Salafism including Al-La Madhhabiyya (Abandoning the Madhhabs) is the most dangerous Bid‘ah Threatening the Islamic Shari'a (Damascus: Dar al-Farabi 2010) and Al-Salafiyya was a blessed epoch, not a school of thought (Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 1990).[186] The latter is perhaps the most famous refutation of Salafism in the twentieth century.[189]

Numerous academic rebuttals of Salafism have been produced in the English language by Khaled Abou El Fadl of the UCLA School of Law, Timothy Winter of Cambridge University and G.F. Haddad.[186] El Fadl argues that fanatical groups such as al-Qaeda "derive their theological premises from the intolerant Puritanism of the Wahhabi and Salafi creeds".[190] He also suggests that the extreme intolerance and even endorsement of terrorism manifest in Wahhabism and Salafism represents a deviation from Muslim historical traditions.[190] El-Fadl also argues that the Salafi methodology "drifted into stifling apologetics" by the mid-20th century, a reaction against "anxiety" to "render Islam compatible with modernity," by its leaders earlier in the century.[191]

According to the As-Sunnah Foundation of America, the Salafi and Wahhabi movements are strongly opposed by a long list of Sunni scholars.[192] The Saudi government has been criticised for damaging Islamic heritage of thousands of years in Saudi Arabia. For example, there has been some controversy that the expansion projects of the mosque and Mecca itself are causing harm to early Islamic heritage. Many ancient buildings, some more than a thousand years old, have been demolished to make room not only for the expansion of the Masjid al-Haram, but for new malls and hotels.[193][194][195][196][197] Though some Salafis who attended a lecture by The City Circle in the UK, were equally as opposed to it as other Muslims.[198] The Salafi movement has been linked by Marc Sageman to some terrorist groups around the world, like Al-Qaeda.[199]

Salafis are accused of having a double-standard on their views on innovation, rejecting good innovations and unwittingly accepting harmful ones. Classical scholars (including imam Nawawi, who is widely praised by Salafis[202][203]) categorized innovation into 5 types, yet Salafis consider all innovation to be sinful. This creates a strange paradox where they unwittingly accept some innovations and reject others. The compilation of the Qur'an under Abu Bakr's caliphate was an innovation, yet is accepted by Orthodox Muslims as an obligatory innovation to preserve the Qur'an. The notorious Salafi creed, which divides tawhid into 3 types, is itself an innovation which leads to liberal excommunication, prolific accusations of shirk, and violence against other Muslims.[204][205]

Although Salafist claim to re-establish Islamic values and protects Islamic culture, sociological observations show that they often interpret it in a manner which does not match with Islamic traditions, with some members of the movement regarding inherit elements of Islamic culture, such as music, poetry, literature and philosophy as works of the devil.[200] Generally, Salafis do not adhere to traditional Islamic communities, and those who do, often oppose the traditional Islamic values.[201]
#15028446
@anasawad

For more evidence that it's up to interpretation, I was reading this article of Wikipedia named Hijab by country. When I was reading about Malaysia in the "Muslim World" section, I stumbled upon this-

Several members of the Kelantan ulama in the 1960s believed the hijab was not mandatory. By 2015 the Malaysian ulama believed this previous 'fatwa' was un-Islamic.


It’s really surprising that now, you will face criticism & judgement from local people for not covering your hair! Like this newswhere a man slapped a girl in bus only because she didn’t wear headscarf, or like this, where this Malaysian actress had to apologise to the public for removing hijab, or this woman who was also criticised heavily for removing headscarf. Or like this guy who is a celebrity, but he caned his 9 year old daughter because the little girl took her hijab off in front of men. But 50 years ago from now, things were different, & even there were scholars who believed it as a tradition, not something obligatory for a muslim woman!
#15028459
@anasawad

Here is another scholar who is outside the establishment and engages with independent thought in regards to the Quran:

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

Nasr Abu Zayd. Here is his thought:

According to scholar Navid Kermani "three key themes" emerge from Abu Zayd's work:

1. to trace the various interpretations and historical settings of the single Qur'anic text from the early days of Islam up to the present;

2. to demonstrate the "interpretational diversity" (al-ta 'addud alta 'wili) [40] that exists within the Islamic tradition;

3. and to show how this diversity has been "increasingly neglected" across Islamic history.[3]

Abu Zayd saw himself as an heir to the Muʿtazila, "particularly their idea of the created Qurʿān and their tendency toward metaphorical interpretation."[8]

Abu Zayd strongly opposed the belief in a "single, precise and valid interpretation of the Qur'an handed down by the Prophet for all times".[41]

In his view, the Quran made Islamic Arab culture a `culture of the text` (hadarat al-nass) par excellence, but because the language of the Quran is not self-explanatory, this implied Islamic Arab culture was also a culture of interpretation (hadarat al-ta'wil).[5] Abu Zayd emphasized "intellect" (`aql) in understanding the Quran, as opposed to "a hermeneutical approach which gives priority to the narrated traditions [ hadith ]" (naql). As a reflection of this Abu Zaid used the term ta'wil (interpretation) for efforts to understand the Quran, while in the Islamic sciences, the literature that explained the Quran was referred to as tafsir (commentary, explanation).[42]

For Abu Zaid, interpretation goes beyond explanation or commentary, "for without" the Qur'an would not have meaning:

The [Qur'anic] text changed from the very first moment - that is, when the Prophet recited it at the moment of its revelation - from its existence as a divine text (nass ilahi), and became something understandable, a human text (nass insani), because it changed from revelation to interpretation (li-annahu tahawwala min al-tanzil ila al-ta'wil). The Prophet's understanding of the text is one of the first phases of movement resulting from the text's connection with the human intellect.[42][43]


From the beginning of his academic career, Abu Zaid developed a renewed hermeneutic view (the theory and methodology of text interpretation) of the Qur'an and further Islamic holy texts, arguing that they should be interpreted in the historical and cultural context of their time. The mistake of many Muslim scholars was "to see the Qur'an only as a text, which led conservatives as well as liberals to a battle of quotations, each group seeing clear verses (when on their side) and ambiguous ones (when in contradiction with their vision)". But this type of controversy led both conservatives and liberals to produce authoritative hermeneutics.[44] This vision of the Qur'an as a text was the vision of the elites of Muslim societies, whereas, at the same time, the Qur'an as "an oral discourse" played the most important part in the understanding of the masses.

Nasr Abu Zayd called for another reading of the holy book through a "humanistic hermeneutics", an interpretation which sees the Qur'an as a living phenomenon, a discourse. Hence, the Qur'an can be "the outcome of dialogue, debate, despite argument, acceptance and rejection". This liberal interpretation of Islam should open space for new perspectives on the religion and social change in Muslim societies.[44]

Abu Zayd's analysis finds several "insistent calls for social justice" in the Qur'an . One example is when Muhammad—busy preaching to the rich people of Quraysh—failed to pay attention to a poor blind fellow named Ibn Umm Maktūm who came asking the Prophet for advice. The Quran strongly criticizes Muhammad's attitude. (Quran 80:10) [45][44]

Abu Zayd also argued that while the Qur'anic discourse was built in a patriarchal society, and therefore the addressees were naturally males, who received permission to marry, divorce, and marry off their female relatives, it is "possible to imagine that Muslim women receive the same rights", and so the Quran had a "tendency to improve women's rights". The classical position of the modern 'ulamā' about that issue is understandable as "they still believe in superiority of the male in the family".[44]

Abu Zayd's critical approach to classical and contemporary Islamic discourse in the fields of theology, philosophy, law, politics, and humanism, promoted modern Islamic thought that might enable Muslims to build a bridge between their own tradition and the modern world of freedom of speech, equality (minority rights, women's rights, social justice), human rights, democracy and globalisation.
#15028460
@anasawad

Here is another Algerian reformist, Mohammed Arkoun:

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

Arkoun advocated a radical paradigm shift that would allow for the rethinking of Islam as a cultural and religious system and subvert ideological and dogmatic constructs with hegemonic claims. He was committed to contribute to an archaeology of the hidden, repressed, and marginalised elements of Islam, in order to uncover, and set free, what he called, 'the exhaustive tradition' of Islam. Most of his work is written in French rather than Arabic. In order to counter-act the philological and historical bias of traditional Islamic studies, he advocated what he called “applied Islamology”—following Roger Bastide’s concept of “applied anthropology.” Applied Islamology aims to establish a “disciplinary space between political and historical sciences” (Arkoun, The answers, 25), taking into consideration elements of the courte and longue durée, as well as contemporary social factors. Arkoun has developed an inclusive approach which seeks to deal with Islamic tradition in its entirety, including elements characterised by the representatives of orthodoxy (or official religion) as heterodox, and therefore marginalised and repressed. He has adopted a multifaceted and holistic approach which looks between traditional dogma and axioms. Arkoun’s critique of Islamic reason serves as the unifying theme, or leitmotif for the different concepts he elaborated over the course of time.[2]

And let me note that all of these scholars have Sunni backgrounds or are Sunni.
#15028461
@anasawad

Some common criticisms and counterarguments to the absolutionism of the Quran.

Argument:

Three things, basically. In many verses, the Quran emphasizes that this is the “last” book, the “last” prophet, and that it is the “final” version of the God’s religion.

Secondly, in many verses Christians and Jews (and other ‘followers of the book’) are presented as having been handed down holy books, but they later “manipulated” those books. I think it’s not a huge leap of logic to think that their mistake was basically diverging from the original meaning of the text.

Thirdly, as we are having this chat in real time, I can’t look them up. But there were certainly a number of verses which directly warned against changing or trying to change the meaning of Quran, one even addresses and warns the Prophet himself.

All of these lead me to think that the Quran is a book which is quite strict about its meaning and how its followers should stick to the “original” reading.

Counter argument:

For the first point, the Quran does not mention even once it is the last book, final version etc. The closest we have is Ch 33 Vs 40 which calls Muhammad ‘the seal of the prophets’. Interestingly here, the word ‘last’ (aakhir) is not used either and in early Islam, ‘seal’ was used to mean the perfection of prophethood.

Second, on the Jews and Christians having corrupted books. Once again this is not present in the text. I suspect you may be thinking of commentaries about certain verses which ultimately became common belief.

Thirdly, I have also never seen any verses warning the Prophet about changing the meaning at all. I am not thinking literally by using the word ‘meaning’ (al-ma’ana) but even a similar meaning. It does tell the Prophet to seek out knowledge before making any decision about what he is uncertain of.

For me, the Quran is against absolutist thinking because of what I call ‘ontology of signs’. What this means is, in the world of the Quran, readers come to know reality by virtue of signs (ayaat). This word appears in the Quran about 300 odd times, and if you analyse its usage, it is very personal in nature. People experience signs, and they either believe or not. Hence it is impossible to elicit someone else’s experience of signs. That’s why I would never call a person “kaafir” (concealer of signs, essentially).

Furthermore, the Quran’s own verses testify to its sanctification of diversity. For example, 29/69 uses the word ‘subulana’ (our paths) rather than the singular. 2/148 mentions that each of us has an expression to which God turns us. 5/48 mentions that each of us has a disclosure and a method.
#15028462
@anasawad

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic ... on_slavery

The abolition movement starting in the 19th century in England[92] and later in other Western countries influenced the slavery in Muslim lands both in doctrine and in practice.[5] One of the first religious decrees comes from the two highest dignitaries of the Hanafi and Maliki rites in the Ottoman Empire. These religious authorities declared that slavery is lawful in principle but it is regrettable in its consequences. They expressed two religious considerations in their support for abolition of slavery: "the initial enslaving of the people concerned comes under suspicion of illegality by reason of the present-day expansion of Islam in their countries; masters no longer comply with the rules of good treatment which regulate their rights and shelter them from wrong-doing."[93]


According to Brunschvig, although the total abolition of slavery might seem a reprehensible innovation and contrary to the Qur'an and the practice of early Muslims, the realities of the modern world caused a "discernible evolution in the thought of many educated Muslims before the end of the 19th century." These Muslims argued that Islam on the whole has "bestowed an exceptionally favourable lot on the victims of slavery" and that the institution of slavery is linked to the particular economic and social stage in which Islam originated. According to the influential thesis of Ameer Ali, Islam only tolerated slavery through temporary necessity and that its complete abolition was not possible at the time of Muhammad. By the early 20th century, the idea that Islam only tolerated slavery due to necessity was to varying extent taken up by the Ulema. However, it was unable to gain support among the Wahhabis as of 1980s.


According to Brockopp, in the Ottoman empire and elsewhere the manumission contract (kitaba) was used by the state to give slaves the means to buy their freedom and thereby end slavery as an institution. Some authorities issued condemnations of slavery, stating that it violated Quranic ideals of equality and freedom. Subsequently, even religious conservatives came to accept that slavery was contrary to Islamic principles of justice and equality.[94]


So you're wrong.
#15028482
I don't understand what you are trying to prove? @Palmyrene

What anasawad says is true. It is also true that not all Muslims are the same. (Some takes things literally, some are open to interpretation, some use 2 books, some use 4 etc).
But when you talk about Salafists then anasawad is 100% true.

The problem is that Muslim society is not fighting Salafists in honest in my opinion. Both inside the middle east and outside. On the other hand, the 3 main Christian religions kinda learned regarding this. Back in the day we had a whole lot of mess regarding this. Bogomists, Cathars, Iconoclads, etc. Cathar/Bogomist specifically brought the good heavenly(God is in heaven) and evil earthly(Devil rules earth) concepts in to Christian which in itself gave us the inquisition but it is still here. The ideas that those "heretical" offshoots of Christiniaty brought to the table never went away even after so many centuries. So basically, do something about those offshoots that have dengerous ideas and reform your core. This is the only way for modern religions. Islam has many problems for economic development for example and not just human rights, equality etc.
#15028487
JohnRawls wrote:I don't understand what you are trying to prove? @Palmyrene


Anasawad is making the claim that Muslims are incapable of reform and that Salafism is a phenomenon due to Islam and not state sponsorship.

It is something you won't understand without context of our previous conversations. In short, anasawad thinks ideology governs humsn behavior while I think socio-economic conditions govern human behavior.

What anasawad says is true. It is also true that not all Muslims are the same. (Some takes things literally, some are open to interpretation, some use 2 books, some use 4 etc).
But when you talk about Salafists then anasawad is 100% true.


Anasawad, and TTP before him, weren't talking about only Salafists but Muslims in general. They think that the Quran itself condones those actions when, in actuality, this is far from the case. The Quran, like all religious texts, are open to interpretation by default because all of it's rules are arbitrary.

The problem is that Muslim society is not fighting Salafists in honest in my opinion. Both inside the middle east and outside. On the other hand, the 3 main Christian religions kinda learned regarding this. Back in the day we had a whole lot of mess regarding this. Bogomists, Cathars, Iconoclads, etc. Cathar/Bogomist specifically brought the good heavenly(God is in heaven) and evil earthly(Devil rules earth) concepts in to Christian which in itself gave us the inquisition but it is still here. The ideas that those "heretical" offshoots of Christiniaty brought to the table never went away even after so many centuries. So basically, do something about those offshoots that have dengerous ideas and reform your core. This is the only way for modern religions. Islam has many problems for economic development for example and not just human rights, equality etc.


The problem is that Salafism is being supported by and exported by the Saudi government and, due to being a US backed dictatorship, it has the freedom abd resources to build those times.

Furthermore, attempts to obtain freedom of speech which would've resulted in more public opinions about interpretation in Islam have failed due to proxy wars from foreign powers and a lack of support.

In local levels personal interpretation is generally how people deal with Islam on a daily basis. It's only the elites and state sponsered imams that impose these draconic laws on the population.

Generally, with the right mentality, they can come to their own conclusions about Islam and it's values. The scholars I've mentioned so far are doing exactly that.

You seem to completely misunderstand the situation and it's this misunderstanding of foreign political conflicts, even something as simple as a debate, that makes Western opinions on the Mide East worthless.

EDIT: Many of those Christian heretical sects weren't dangerous or extremist, they just had different ideas. Since the Church needed a monopoly on Christianity, they were inconvenient to them so they had to be get rid of just like the pagans.

The Bogomists I believe were just people who stood up for peasants and encouraged personal interpretation of the Bible. So they were basically proto-Protestants.
#15028533
@Palmyrene
Yeah I notice it but I'm not sure terms like "rape capital of the world" is helpful in actually dealing with the issues. Terms like that are just attempts at disparaging those countries rather than an honest attempt and discussing the issue.

If they don't want to be called that, then I'm sure they can stop the epidemic.

South Africa has the highest rate of rapes in the world.
And the constant reports of endemic sexual assaults and rapes in Egypt aren't gone un-noticed.

From the people who talk about Sweden they don't seem to make that distinction.

Sweden has the highest rates of rape in Europe, but no where near the rates of countries like Egypt or South Africa.

Yeah but there's a difference between encouraging something and saying "well if you're going to do this thing anyways, you may as well follow these rules". The Quran is the latter not the former.

ِ
وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاء إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ...}].

{وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ}

سورة النساء. 23-25
Here, in the Quran, in a verse named Alnesa' meaning ladies or women, the Quran explicitly says you are allowed to have sex either with your wives or whom ever female slaves you own.
And in the second verse, says that if you could not marry or lay with Muslim women, then have sex with a female slave.

Noting that having sex with a slave, or even forcing a slave into sex is not considered rape.
Furthermore, the prophet owned sex slaves both captured in battle or given to hem as gifts.
لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيراً

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا

لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيراً

{مَّنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللّهَ وَمَن تَوَلَّى فَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَفِيظاً}

etc.
An example of the many many verses telling you to follow what the prophet does in the Quran.

Not in Iran they aren't. There's no excuse for Iran to kick out the Bahais.

I'm not in favor of what's being done to the Baha'is, but that's simply the consequences of siding with the Shah in a war.
And, feel free to read on the period in which Iran turned from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam.

No there weren't. Other than the initial conquests, most pre-Islamic religions have survived, far more than in Europe.

European empires being horrible doesn't mean that Islamic ones were good.
Majority of pre-Islamic religions were destroyed under the reign of the various caliphates.

If Muslims wanted to get rid of every single non-Muslim minority they would've done so by now. Nothing you could do could stop them.

They did try, and succeeded in many of their attempts.

I've skimmed through it and didn't find an endorsement. I don't think you know what endorsement means.

Then perhaps you should read it instead of skimming through it.

No they didn't. That's just a leap of assumptions on your part and generally does a better job explaining why the Quran is up to interpretation than I ever could.

And just because it's an external incentive doesn't mean it's encouraged by the Quran. The Quran knows it's an incentive and encourages slaves to convert to get out of slavery, has specific rules for treating slaves, and has rules on war.
T

Well, the Quran says on multiple occasions how it's ok to own slaves, ok to have sex with them, how if you can't marry you should have sex with a slave, how it's preferable to adultery, etc. But that couldn't possibly be an endorsement or atleast leaving an open door for it. :knife:
جاء في حديث قدسي : قال الله تعالى : ( ثَلَاثَةٌ أَنَا خَصْمُهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ، وَمَنْ كُنْتُ خَصْمَهُ خَصَمْتُهُ ، ذكر منهم : رَجُلٌ بَاعَ حُرًّا فَأَكَلَ ثَمَنَهُ) رواه البخاري ( 2227) .

قال الشيخ الشنقيطي رحمه الله : " وسبب الملك بالرق : هو الكفر ، ومحاربة الله ورسوله ، فإذا أقدر اللهُ المسلمينَ المجاهدين الباذلين مُهَجهم وأموالهم وجميع قواهم وما أعطاهم الله لتكون كلمة الله هي العليا على الكفار : جعلهم ملكاً لهم بالسبي إلا إذا اختار الإمام المنَّ أو الفداء لما في ذلك من المصلحة للمسلمين " انتهى من " أضواء البيان " (3/387)


Now, this is an interesting verse regarding a part of your comment:
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَن يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلاَّ خَطَئًا وَمَن قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَئًا فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ إِلاَّ أَن يَصَّدَّقُواْ فَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَّكُمْ وَهُوَ مْؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ وَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِّيثَاقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةً فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِّنَ اللّهِ وَكَانَ اللّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا {النساء:92


It says Raqaba mo'menah (رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةً). Do you know what that means? A Muslim slave.
You see, converting to Islam doesn't get you out of slavery, you'll still be a slave.

Also, if you bothered reading the Sunnah, which I'm sure you'll claim you did, you'll know that enslaving enemies, specifically infidels (everyone other than Christians and Jews) is a form of punishment for them and as a humiliation for not believing in god.
This is why so many Muslim rulers enslaved tons of people in India.

Yeah and if I was Sunni Muslim I can ignore them.

International Islamic councils don't matter. What do you think just because they're international they matter?

To the 100s of millions following their words, yes, they do matter.
Also, they're the ones in power and applying the religion in many areas.

No I'm not. I, unlike you, understand that there are no literal barriers that prevent people from changing ideologies or coming up with their own ideas. You are so caught up in thinking people act exactly like how their ideology is and you refuse to admit that liberal Sunnis are following their own interpretation.

1- Depends on what you qualify as a barrier, does being ruled an apostate or a heretic and murdered for it count as a barrier?

Some Sunnis being liberal doesn't mean that the Sunnah and the Quran became liberal, it just means they're not following it.
I've heard this argument a million times so far about how there are liberal Sunnis followed by calls not to mistaken Islam for Muslims. Which I totally agree with, don't mistake Islam for Muslims.
Some liberal Muslims existing doesn't change the fact that Islam is horrible.

I'm not just talking about now, I'm talking historically.

And that shouldn't matter to you if you are interested in theology.

Sufis were always a minority, now and historically.

Maybe you should figure out why it's easier to be a Sufi as a Sunni compared to being Shia.

Because at the core of Shia Islam is the Imama. Sunnis need Sufism, Shias have other options to follow, which is why even amongst sects that has the Imama, there are so many divisions.



---------------------------------------------------
Let's see.

Yasir Qadhi's Criticism of Salafism


1) Its relegation of theology to the mainly abstract and theoretical doctrines tangential to the message of Islam, to the point that abstract theology and man-made creeds eclipse each and every other aspect of Islam.

2) An unfounded hesitation in embracing tazkiya al-nafs and little interest in spiritual development. It is an undeniable reality that, as a whole, the Salafī movement has failed to emphasize proper spirituality, or tazkiya al-nafs. Yet, this is a Qur’anic concept, one that has unanimously consensus over – for what exactly is iḥsān in the famous ḥadīth of Jibrīl except tazkiya al-nafs? The Salafī preoccupation with advanced sciences such as jarḥ wa-l-tadīl over the basic need of spiritual purification explains the phenomenon of ‘Salafī-burnout’, an observable trend of Salafīs forsaking Salafism and either adopting another Islamic trend (typically Sufism, which shows what they were ‘missing’ from Salafism), or leaving practicing Islam altogether.

I agree with this part. But, nonetheless, it is irrelevant simply because you're arguing about reforming the religion while this is arguing about spirituality and faith.
Noting, that this isn't a criticism of the teachings themselves (i.e. the Sunnah) but a criticism of the people applying them, so it doesn’t support your argument.

3) A characteristic harshness evidenced in its treatment of other, non-Salafī, Muslims.

Salafīs believe in their salvific exclusivity.[17] Such an attitude clearly breeds a level of arrogance and conceit amongst lay-Salafīs, and is reminiscent of (but not identical to) religious conceit manifested in the Khārijīs.

This also explains the disproportionate focus on identifying deviants and deviation, which has lead to an absurd result of some Salafī laymen knowing more about deviant beliefs than correct ones. The Madkhalīs are the quintessential example of this: any recent convert to Islam from amongst them will be able to recite a list of names of scholars ‘on’ or ‘off’ the Salafī manhaj, but will be hard-pressed to mention as many names of Companions; they will know the ‘ruling on greeting a deviant’ but remain ignorant of the adhkār for the morning and evening. Unfortunately this is not exclusive to the Madkhalī-Salafīs. The question the movement needs to ask itself is: Is Islam about obsessively investigating the errors of others, or is it about becoming a role model for the promotion of good? “Fortunate is the one who is busy with his own defects, rather than those of others” (Musnad al-Bazzar).

Again, not a criticism of the teachings, but rather of those who apply it.

4) Many Salafī trends adopt an extremist position regarding bidʿa and mubtadʿis. This has led to them being mocked by other Muslims – even lay-Muslims recognize that it is ultra-literalistic to consider carpets with prayer lines in the mosque a religious heresy!

An extremist and literalistic position. Ok.
So he agrees that they're applying the Quran and the Sunnah, good to know.

5) Mistaken priorities. The Prophet Muḥammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said, “Focus on that which benefits you!” For some Salafīs, success is tantamount to refuting ‘deviants’. They revel in writing lots of refutations against people, warning people from associating with ‘deviants’ and using aggressively harsh language to correct people.

Here I disagree on this assumption.
They do see benefit for themselves in doing so as they see themselves a part of a greater Islamic nation (Ummah) and as such whatever benefits the nation, including pushing away its enemies or silencing its critics, benefits them as well.

6) The Salafī treatment of women. By and large, the modern Salafī movement relegates women to a level that might justly be considered inhumane.

True, which is what you get when you apply the Quran and the Sunnah.
The Quran itself says that a woman is worth less than a man and inferior to men.
The Quran is also where the permission to beat women comes from. (Mentioned literally)
(وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ)


7) Unquestioning allegiance to a group of ‘senior scholars’ that serve as final arbiters on all matters. For a movement that claims to champion free-thinking and eschew blind-following, it is sad that most Salafīs are sectarian and narrow-minded about following the ‘Kibar’ (senior scholars).

So, basically he's criticizing for doing as the prophet said they must do which is follow him and his companions?
”خَيْرُ النَّاسِ قَرْنِي، ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ يَلُونَهُمْ، ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ يَلُونَهُمْ“


------------------------------------------------
Scholars from Al-Azhar University of Cairo produced a work of religious opinions entitled al-Radd (The Response) to refute the views of the Salafi movement.[186] Al-Radd singles out numerous Salafi aberrations – in terms of ritual prayer alone it targets for criticism the following Salafi claims:[187]

1. The claim that it is prohibited to recite God's name during the minor ablution [Fatwa 50]

2. The claim that it is obligatory for men and women to perform the major ablution on Friday [Fatwa 63]

3. The claim that it is prohibited to own a dog for reasons other than hunting [Fatwa 134]

4. The claim that it is prohibited to use alcohol for perfumes [Fatwa 85].

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

One of the authors of al-Radd, the Professor of Law Anas Abu Shady states that, "they [the Salafis] want to be everything to everyone. They're interested not only in the evident (al-zahir), although most of their law goes back to the Muhalla [of the Ẓāhirī scholar Ibn Hazm], but they also are convinced that they alone understand the hidden (al-batin)!"[188]

True, they do indeed do that.
But yet again, the people they kill are rarely ever killed for hidden infidelity, rather either an action that was deemed a crime in either the Quran or the Sunnah, or a declared abandonment of religion (i.e. apostasy).
So this point is, yet again, irrelevant.

"derive their theological premises from the intolerant Puritanism of the Wahhabi and Salafi creeds".

Ooh, look, even the liberal Muslims you like to cite understands this.
Puritanism.
Puritanism based on what exactly @Palmyrene ?

He also suggests that the extreme intolerance and even endorsement of terrorism manifest in Wahhabism and Salafism represents a deviation from Muslim historical traditions.

Disagree.
If we looked at their actions and compared it to Islamic history, they're the return to Islamic historical tradition, not the deviation from it.
I'm sure the apologists will now claim that history is falsified to make Islam look bad now.

According to the As-Sunnah Foundation of America, the Salafi and Wahhabi movements are strongly opposed by a long list of Sunni scholars.[192] The Saudi government has been criticized for damaging the Islamic heritage of thousands of years in Saudi Arabia. For example, there has been some controversy that the expansion projects of the mosque and Mecca itself are causing harm to early Islamic heritage. Many ancient buildings, some more than a thousand years old, have been demolished to make room not only for the expansion of the Masjid al-Haram, but for new malls and hotels.[193][194][195][196][197] Though some Salafis who attended a lecture by The City Circle in the UK, were equally as opposed to it as other Muslims.[198] The Salafi movement has been linked by Marc Sageman to some terrorist groups around the world, like Al-Qaeda.[199]

Yet again, not relevant to the teachings or the discussion.

Salafis are accused of having a double-standard on their views on innovation, rejecting good innovations and unwittingly accepting harmful ones. Classical scholars (including imam Nawawi, who is widely praised by Salafis[202][203]) categorized innovation into 5 types, yet Salafis consider all innovation to be sinful. This creates a strange paradox where they unwittingly accept some innovations and reject others. The compilation of the Qur'an under Abu Bakr's caliphate was an innovation, yet is accepted by Orthodox Muslims as an obligatory innovation to preserve the Qur'an. The notorious Salafi creed, which divides tawhid into 3 types, is itself an innovation which leads to liberal excommunication, prolific accusations of shirk, and violence against other Muslims.[204][205]


Now this is a point I heard so many times from Muslims in the US, yet never heard it from ones in the Middle East.
See, the reason why you see such criticism coming from offshoots far away yet never near the major centers is because all the centers accept that you can only innovate in the Foro', but not in the Osol.
And trying to innovate in the Osol, according to the Quran, is punishable by excommunication and death, and eventually hell. According to the Quran, not any scholar, The Quran. This is mentioned clearly in the Quran and I've put a long list of verses saying this the last time.
And it says clearly that the verses are clear and understandable:
الر تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْكِتَابِ وَقُرْآنٍ مُبِينٍ

طس تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْقُرْآنِ وَكِتَابٍ مُبِينٍ

وَمَا عَلَّمْنَاهُ الشِّعْرَ وَمَا يَنْبَغِي لَهُ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا ذِكْرٌ وَقُرْآنٌ مُبِينٌ

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

وَكَذَلِكَ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَنْ يُرِيدُ

سُورَةٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهَا وَفَرَضْنَاهَا وَأَنْزَلْنَا فِيهَا آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ



Although Salafist claim to re-establish Islamic values and protects Islamic culture, sociological observations show that they often interpret it in a manner which does not match with Islamic traditions, with some members of the movement regarding inherit elements of Islamic culture, such as music, poetry, literature and philosophy as works of the devil.[200] Generally, Salafis do not adhere to traditional Islamic communities, and those who do, often oppose the traditional Islamic values.[201]

This is clearly false and bullshit.
One, the prophet is the one who've banned much of these things. And two, these teachings have been clearly observed to be applied in various Islamic empires, with the Ummayad caliphate, under Omar bin Abed Al Aziz, the one who is considered to be the 5th rightly guided caliph by the Sunnis, applying these teachings to the letter.
So if anything, they're abiding by Islamic tradition. Simply not the modern one, but the old one. (i.e. the one where all the major characters of Islam lived in)

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

For more evidence that it's up to interpretation, I was reading this article of Wikipedia named Hijab by country. When I was reading about Malaysia in the "Muslim World" section, I stumbled upon this-

Several members of the Kelantan ulama in the 1960s believed the hijab was not mandatory. By 2015 the Malaysian ulama believed this previous 'fatwa' was un-Islamic.


It’s really surprising that now, you will face criticism & judgement from local people for not covering your hair! Like this newswhere a man slapped a girl in bus only because she didn’t wear headscarf, or like this, where this Malaysian actress had to apologise to the public for removing hijab, or this woman who was also criticised heavily for removing headscarf. Or like this guy who is a celebrity, but he caned his 9 year old daughter because the little girl took her hijab off in front of men. But 50 years ago from now, things were different, & even there were scholars who believed it as a tradition, not something obligatory for a muslim woman!

The Hijab is based on a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari which says that a woman can only show her face and her hands while must cover everything else up.

So, there is a reason why they called it un-Islamic. It's in direct opposition to what the prophet and God says.

Regarding Hijab:
وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَى عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ وَلا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعاً أَيُّهَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

وَالْقَوَاعِدُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ اللَّاتِي لا يَرْجُونَ نِكَاحاً فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ يَضَعْنَ ثِيَابَهُنَّ غَيْرَ مُتَبَرِّجَاتٍ بِزِينَةٍ وَأَنْ يَسْتَعْفِفْنَ خَيْرٌ لَهُنَّ وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ

عن ابن شهاب أن أنسا قال : أنا أعلم الناس بالحجاب كان أبي بن كعب يسألني عنه : أصبح رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عروساً بزينب بنت جحش وكان تزوجها بالمدينة فدعا الناس للطعام بعد ارتفاع النهار فجلس رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وجلس معه رجال بعد ما قام القوم حتى قام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فمشى ومشيت معه حتى بلغ باب حجرة عائشة ثم ظن أنهم خرجوا فرجعت معه فإذا هم جلوس مكانهم فرجع ورجعت معه الثانية حتى بلغ باب حجرة عائشة فرجع ورجعت معه فإذا هم قد قاموا فضرب بيني وبينه سترا وأنزل الحجاب . رواه البخاري ( 5149 ) ومسلم ( 1428 ) .

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ


It's mentioned clearly.
If you reject what the prophet says or think parts of the Quran can be nullified or changed, congrats, you’re now a Shi’a. Because to be a Sunni is to believe in the Sunnah. That’s what the word means.
Also, fun fact, this is why groups like ISIS and the Taliban treat regular Muslims so badly. When you reject the Sunnah or even parts of it, you’re no longer a Sunni. They derive this not from an offshoot scholar, but from the Quran that tells them to follow the Sunnah. So if you don’t abide by it, you’ll be considered and treated as if you are just another stray sect. Basically, a Shiite.
من يطع الرّسول فقد أطاع الله

يـا أيّها الّذين أمنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرّسول

-------------------------------------------------------------
Also here are official rape statistics:

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

Egypt isn't even on there and the figures of South Africa and Egypt are estimated, they aren't the actual amount of rapes.

Yeah most of these rapes go unreported but your claims are still wrong. Egypt isn't the rape capital of the world.

Addressed prior.


-----------------------------------------------
Here is another scholar who is outside the establishment and engages with independent thought in regards to the Quran:

Outside the establishment. Debunked your own argument before I even responded to it. What a shame.
Anyways, let's see.

1. to trace the various interpretations and historical settings of the single Qur'anic text from the early days of Islam up to the present;

2. to demonstrate the "interpretational diversity" (al-ta 'addud alta 'wili) [40] that exists within the Islamic tradition;

3. and to show how this diversity has been "increasingly neglected" across Islamic history.[3]


Now, the fact that you actually went ahead and quoted this just shows how much you don't understand the ideology.
Those interpretational diversities are what we call Shi'a sects. :lol:


Abu Zayd saw himself as an heir to the Muʿtazila, "particularly their idea of the created Qurʿān and their tendency toward metaphorical interpretation."[8]

Abu Zayd strongly opposed the belief in a "single, precise and valid interpretation of the Qur'an handed down by the Prophet for all times".[41]

Man, seriously, did you read it before quoting it?
This is an example of what major Sunni scholars think of the Mu'tazala, a commonly held view:
قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية في مجموع الفتاوى: أصولهم -يعني المعتزلة - خمسة يسمونها التوحيد والعدل والمنزلة بين المنزلتين وإنفاذ الوعيد والأمر بالمعروف والنهى عن المنكر.

لكن معنى التوحيد عندهم يتضمن نفى الصفات... وهذا إنما هو إلحاد في أسماء الله وآياته، ومعنى العدل عندهم يتضمن التكذيب بالقدر، وهو خلق أفعال العباد، وإرادة الكائنات والقدرة على شيء...

وأما المنزلة بين المنزلتين فهي عندهم أن الفاسق لا يسمى مؤمنا بوجه من الوجوه كما لا يسمى كافرا، فنزلوه بين منزلتين، وإنفاذ الوعيد عندهم معناه أن فساق الملة مخلدون في النار لا يخرجون منها بشفاعة ولا غير ذلك كما تقوله الخوارج. والأمر بالمعروف والنهى عن المنكر يتضمن عندهم جواز الخروج على الأئمة وقتالهم بالسيف

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية في مجموع الفتاوى: وأما القدرية المقرون بالعلم و الروافض الذين ليسوا من الغالية والجهمية والخوارج فيذكر عنه يعني الإمام أحمد في تكفيرهم روايتان هذا حقيقة قوله المطلق مع أن الغالب عليه التوقف عن تكفير القدرية المقرين بالعلم. ثم قال: وأصل ضلال هؤلاء الإعراض عما جاء به الرسول من الكتاب والحكمة وابتغاء الهدى في خلاف ذلك، فمن كان هذا أصله فهو بعد بلاغ الرسالة كافر لا ريب فيه... إلى أن قال:

فهذا الكلام يمهد أصلين عظيمين:

أحدهما: أن العلم والإيمان والهدى فيما جاء به الرسول، وأن خلاف ذلك كفر على الإطلاق، فنفي الصفات كفر والتكذيب بأن الله يرى في الآخرة أو أنه على العرش أو أن القرآن كلامه... كفر وكذلك ما كان في معنى ذلك وهذا معنى كلام أئمة السنة وأهل الحديث.

و الأصل الثاني: أن التكفير العام كالوعيد العام يجب القول بإطلاقه وعمومه.

وأما الحكم على المعين بأنه كافر أو مشهود له بالنار فهذا يقف على الدليل المعين فإن الحكم يقف على ثبوت شروطه وانتفاء موانعه

They are not considered Sunnis. Which is what I keep telling you again and again.
If you started a school of thought and diverged from the Sunnah, you become to be considered a Shi'a.
This is what these two terms (Sunni, Shi'a) means.

From the beginning of his academic career, Abu Zaid developed a renewed hermeneutic view (the theory and methodology of text interpretation) of the Qur'an and further Islamic holy texts, arguing that they should be interpreted in the historical and cultural context of their time. The mistake of many Muslim scholars was "to see the Qur'an only as a text, which led conservatives as well as liberals to a battle of quotations, each group seeing clear verses (when on their side) and ambiguous ones (when in contradiction with their vision)". But this type of controversy led both conservatives and liberals to produce authoritative hermeneutics.[44] This vision of the Qur'an as a text was the vision of the elites of Muslim societies, whereas, at the same time, the Qur'an as "an oral discourse" played the most important part in the understanding of the masses.

Nasr Abu Zayd called for another reading of the holy book through a "humanistic hermeneutics", an interpretation which sees the Qur'an as a living phenomenon, a discourse. Hence, the Qur'an can be "the outcome of dialogue, debate, despite argument, acceptance and rejection". This liberal interpretation of Islam should open space for new perspectives on the religion and social change in Muslim societies.[44]

Abu Zayd's analysis finds several "insistent calls for social justice" in the Qur'an . One example is when Muhammad—busy preaching to the rich people of Quraysh—failed to pay attention to a poor blind fellow named Ibn Umm Maktūm who came asking the Prophet for advice. The Quran strongly criticizes Muhammad's attitude. (Quran 80:10) [45][44]

Abu Zayd also argued that while the Qur'anic discourse was built in a patriarchal society, and therefore the addressees were naturally males, who received permission to marry, divorce, and marry off their female relatives, it is "possible to imagine that Muslim women receive the same rights", and so the Quran had a "tendency to improve women's rights". The classical position of the modern 'ulamā' about that issue is understandable as "they still believe in superiority of the male in the family".[44]

Abu Zayd's critical approach to classical and contemporary Islamic discourse in the fields of theology, philosophy, law, politics, and humanism, promoted modern Islamic thought that might enable Muslims to build a bridge between their own tradition and the modern world of freedom of speech, equality (minority rights, women's rights, social justice), human rights, democracy and globalisation.


So all it says is that the tradition followed by the mainstream, which we're discussing, does exist and attempts to publicize a renewed liberal version on the fringes outside the established norms.
Got it.

How does any of this support your argument about the Quran and the Sunnah?
Or is your argument that there can be other interpretations outside the mainstream that diverges from the original text (i.e. What Shi'a sects are)?

NOTE:
Also, regarding the verses in the Quran that appear to contradict each other, if you followed the Sunnah, which if you are a devout Sunni Muslim you would, you’d know that the prophet stated that the newer verses nullify the older ones.
So if you came up with a verse from the times of Mekka, and it was contradicted by one in the times of Medina, you take the newer one, not the old one.
This is the mainstream tradition, based on the Sunnah of the prophet.
This is also why so many calls for reform in the Middle East fall on deaf ears.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another Algerian reformist, Mohammed Arkoun:

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

Arkoun advocated a radical paradigm shift that would allow for the rethinking of Islam as a cultural and religious system and subvert ideological and dogmatic constructs with hegemonic claims. He was committed to contribute to an archaeology of the hidden, repressed, and marginalised elements of Islam, in order to uncover, and set free, what he called, 'the exhaustive tradition' of Islam. Most of his work is written in French rather than Arabic. In order to counter-act the philological and historical bias of traditional Islamic studies, he advocated what he called “applied Islamology”—following Roger Bastide’s concept of “applied anthropology.” Applied Islamology aims to establish a “disciplinary space between political and historical sciences” (Arkoun, The answers, 25), taking into consideration elements of the courte and longue durée, as well as contemporary social factors. Arkoun has developed an inclusive approach which seeks to deal with Islamic tradition in its entirety, including elements characterised by the representatives of orthodoxy (or official religion) as heterodox, and therefore marginalised and repressed. He has adopted a multifaceted and holistic approach which looks between traditional dogma and axioms. Arkoun’s critique of Islamic reason serves as the unifying theme, or leitmotif for the different concepts he elaborated over the course of time.[2]

And yet another one trying to establish a new school of thought, not change the mainstream.

And let me note that all of these scholars have Sunni backgrounds or are Sunni.

And all Shi'a sects were at some point Sunnis, until they diverged enough to become their own sect.
I'm not sure if you understand this point yet, it’s key.

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

For the first point, the Quran does not mention even once it is the last book, final version etc. The closest we have is Ch 33 Vs 40 which calls Muhammad ‘the seal of the prophets’. Interestingly here, the word ‘last’ (aakhir) is not used either and in early Islam, ‘seal’ was used to mean the perfection of prophethood.

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

Second, on the Jews and Christians having corrupted books. Once again this is not present in the text. I suspect you may be thinking of commentaries about certain verses which ultimately became common belief.

I don't recall which verse of the Quran, nor do I have time to search it, but there are several verses and hadiths saying that Jews and Christians corrupted their books with more hadiths than verses as in most occasions, and it also says the god will preserve the Quran and make it unchanging. In the Quran it says that BTW, several times, over and over again.
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِالذِّكْرِ لَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ . لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنْزِيلٌ مِنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ

This is to a point mentioned elsewhere, the second verse says there wont be any more books.

Thirdly, I have also never seen any verses warning the Prophet about changing the meaning at all. I am not thinking literally by using the word ‘meaning’ (al-ma’ana) but even a similar meaning. It does tell the Prophet to seek out knowledge before making any decision about what he is uncertain of.

This is what is called Ijtihad and Qiyas. They have rules, and they're based on the Quran.
And there are verses saying you can’t change the Quran and what’s the punishment for that. I quoted them the last time.

For me, the Quran is against absolutist thinking because of what I call ‘ontology of signs’.

I'm sure the Quran agrees, right after God said not to take his words in vain and not to change them and follow the laws of God (Hudud, حدود), and promised eternity in hell for anyone who tries to do so, he changed his mind and said it's all alright.
:knife:


What this means is, in the world of the Quran, readers come to know reality by virtue of signs (ayaat). This word appears in the Quran about 300 odd times, and if you analyse its usage, it is very personal in nature. People experience signs, and they either believe or not. Hence it is impossible to elicit someone else’s experience of signs. That’s why I would never call a person “kaafir” (concealer of signs, essentially).

This part is just bullshit.
Ayat, in most mentioned, means verses, not signs.
On occasion, it will be mentioned in context where it will mean a miracle or something of massive significance.
The Quran does not say everyone will have their own, or that it’ll mean something different for everyone. It explicitly says it is universal and easy to understand when it comes to the Hudud, which are the main issue here, and obligates everyone to follow them.
Why the fuck else would 100s of millions of people read it and come up with the exact same thing? Could it possibly be because it uses very clear and straight forward language in the Hudud, or as commonly referred to, Osol?

Furthermore, the Quran’s own verses testify to its sanctification of diversity. For example, 29/69 uses the word ‘subulana’ (our paths) rather than the singular. 2/148 mentions that each of us has an expression to which God turns us. 5/48 mentions that each of us has a disclosure and a method.

And this part in specific shows what an idiot whom ever wrote this.
God refers to hemself in plural all over the Quran as a sign of his majesty, and it's a common curtsy in the Arabic language to refer to people in the plural noun to show respect for their rank and significance.
Infact, I'd go further, whom ever wrote this probably never heard or read any speech or decree made in any Arabic country, both Islamic and non-Islamic, present or past.

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

And finally:

The abolition movement starting in the 19th century in England[92] and later in other Western countries influenced the slavery in Muslim lands both in doctrine and in practice.[5] One of the first religious decrees comes from the two highest dignitaries of the Hanafi and Maliki rites in the Ottoman Empire. These religious authorities declared that slavery is lawful in principle but it is regrettable in its consequences. They expressed two religious considerations in their support for abolition of slavery: "the initial enslaving of the people concerned comes under suspicion of illegality by reason of the present-day expansion of Islam in their countries; masters no longer comply with the rules of good treatment which regulate their rights and shelter them from wrong-doing."[93]

Here it debunks your own argument, saying that it is lawful in Islam, and holding the lack of compliance by masters with the rules of slavery as an excuse to abolish it.

Now, this is a good thing in the end because it resulted in its end, partially atleast. But it still says that it is infact lawful, which means the minute when some group wants to go back to the old texts, like, I don't know, Salafis, they'll also see it as lawful and apply it.
Must be why countries ruled by Salafis are paradises of anti-slavery tendencies in the modern day, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar for example. :lol:

According to Brunschvig, although the total abolition of slavery might seem a reprehensible innovation and contrary to the Qur'an and the practice of early Muslims, the realities of the modern world caused a "discernible evolution in the thought of many educated Muslims before the end of the 19th century." These Muslims argued that Islam on the whole has "bestowed an exceptionally favourable lot on the victims of slavery" and that the institution of slavery is linked to the particular economic and social stage in which Islam originated. According to the influential thesis of Ameer Ali, Islam only tolerated slavery through temporary necessity and that its complete abolition was not possible at the time of Muhammad. By the early 20th century, the idea that Islam only tolerated slavery due to necessity was to varying extent taken up by the Ulema. However, it was unable to gain support among the Wahhabis as of 1980s.

So, this part supports my argument, not yours.

According to Brockopp, in the Ottoman empire and elsewhere the manumission contract (kitaba) was used by the state to give slaves the means to buy their freedom and thereby end slavery as an institution. Some authorities issued condemnations of slavery, stating that it violated Quranic ideals of equality and freedom. Subsequently, even religious conservatives came to accept that slavery was contrary to Islamic principles of justice and equality.[94]

Here we have two points:
1- The reason why this practice was done is because they, unlike you, understood that Islam doesn't prevent slavery and the only way for a Muslim slave, not any slave but only a Muslim one, to become free is to buy his\her freedom as it's not automatic.
And
2- The reason why Wikipedia only works when it comes to basic facts and numbers and the sorts, not theological or philosophical claims, is because Wikipedia is freely edited.
In this paragraph it says "Quranic Ideals of equality and freedom", those don't exist in the Quran; In fact, the Quran make explicit class and hierarchal distinctions between men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims, so no equality. It also makes very clear punishments for many acts including thought crimes (i.e. like twisting the Quran, or leaving the religion, etc), so, not free.
It also says "some authorities", I wonder why not name them? Ooh, that's right, only fringe religious authorities decree such things, not major ones.
Furthermore, it says that even conservatives came to this conclusion. Are you sure about that?
Conservatives came to reject slavery? Like those conservatives in the Gulf states? Those reject slavery?
And how come they "reject" slavery when it was only abolished under international pressure in the 60s?
How come they need international pressure to abolish something that they reject in the first place?

How about the various Imams and scholars who came out in the early years of the Syrian civil war decreeing that it's ok to take Syrian refugee girls as Molk Al yameen, i.e. sex slaves, to improve their conditions as they were left without anything and would be "better off" like that. Something that was in debate in the Jordanian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti media in the past few years. Are those the conservatives who reject slavery?

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

So you're wrong.

Everyone you cited is either in the fringes and not mainstream, or trying to establish a new school of thought like many before have done (i.e. where all those Shi'a sects came from), or a propagandist that seems very obvious he\she never bothered reading the Quran and the Sunnah, to a point where if they made their claims near religious authorities they'll be labeled heretics or apostates and killed, like many have before them.


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

Now to address the bullshit you say about me. Which, either comes from you straight lying or simply forgetting or not understanding what is being said.

Anasawad is making the claim that Muslims are incapable of reform and that Salafism is a phenomenon due to Islam and not state sponsorship.

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

Salafism predates current states, and started with the people not from the state.

And you'll keep seeing these types of movements rising up again and again in Sunni Islam because even if 90% of Sunnis were liberal, that last 10% will look at the Quran and the Sunnah and say here you go, this is god's words and apply it.
There is no mechanism in the Sunnah to change the foundations of religion. And anyone who follows the Sunnah will end up pretty much with the same behavior as we currently see in the likes of ISIS. Because they're not bringing anything new, they're just applying what the Quran and the Sunnah are saying.

In short, anasawad thinks ideology governs humsn behavior while I think socio-economic conditions govern human behavior.

WTF are you talking about? are you really saying that you got absolutely nothing from all this talk?

There can be all sorts of circumstances for a person and he\she can choose among many many lines of thinking or ideologies to follow, but when they follow an ideology and apply it, they'll get the same results as others had when they followed that ideology.

If a 1000 different communities with a 1000 different set of conditions decided to adopt the idea of abolishing private property and apply it; Guess what, they'll all end up with no private property, because it's the same fucking idea.
And if a 1000 different communities with a 1000 different set of conditions decided to adopt and apply the Quran and the Sunnah, they'll all look very similar because it's the same ideas.

Anasawad, and TTP before him, weren't talking about only Salafists but Muslims in general.

I am talking about Sunni Islam, not Muslims in general, and Salafis are applying Sunni Islam to the letter.

They think that the Quran itself condones those actions when, in actuality, this is far from the case.

It does, in very clear and straight forward words.
All the things ISIS and the Taliban and Saudi Arabia, etc does, there is a very clear verse in the Quran that each of their actions are based on.

And it's ironic that you cited someone who criticizes them for applying the Quran to the letter, then here saying that the Quran doesn't say that at all.

The Quran, like all religious texts, are open to interpretation by default because all of it's rules are arbitrary.

Not only there are rules for interpretation, in Sunni tradition that is, but there are limitations on those interpretations.
And not only that, but the Osol come from straight and clear verses.
Like this for example:
يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَا أَكْبَرُ مِنْ نَفْعِهِمَا وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنْفِقُونَ قُلِ الْعَفْوَ كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ

They ask you on Alcohol and gamling, tell them there is a great sin in it.
or this:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلَامُ رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

About the same topic.
How much is that open for interpretation?
It's a very clear and straight forward language, there isn't much, if any, room for interpretation here.

See, this is why these types of "re-interpret" the Quran things generally come from the west and not from the centers of Islam in the Arab world. You, and most other western Muslims, seem to think that mainstream Islam is just like Christianity, entirely open for interpretation and all of that. It's not.
The bible and the Tanakh are filled with stories, you interpret stories. The rules in the Quran are not based on stories or told through stories and common sayings, they're told in direct and clear language.
Heck, if you looked at the verses where there are bans or terms told, it even avoids big words in it, confining to the simplest and easiest words to understand that everyone knows, strictly to avoid this whole interpretation debacle.

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

Furthermore, the Quran, according to Islamic faith, is not arbitrary, rather it is the direct word of god.
There is a reason why even sects that do reform does this either by nullifying parts of it or bringing new parts without changing existing ones.

The problem is that Salafism is being supported by and exported by the Saudi government and, due to being a US backed dictatorship, it has the freedom abd resources to build those times.

These movements existed before either Saudi Arabia or the US even existed.

In local levels personal interpretation is generally how people deal with Islam on a daily basis. It's only the elites and state sponsered imams that impose these draconic laws on the population.

More accurately, it's on the local and personal levels on which people avoid the religion and don't apply it.

When a Muslim opens an Alcohol store for example, he\she isn't "reforming" Islam, he's just not applying it.
#15028625
I can't get to everything since I'm on mobile.

anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene

سورة النساء. 23-25
Here, in the Quran, in a verse named Alnesa' meaning ladies or women, the Quran explicitly says you are allowed to have sex either with your wives or whom ever female slaves you own.
And in the second verse, says that if you could not marry or lay with Muslim women, then have sex with a female slave.

Noting that having sex with a slave, or even forcing a slave into sex is not considered rape.
Furthermore, the prophet owned sex slaves both captured in battle or given to hem as gifts.


Like I said, allowing it is different from endorsing it.

I'm not in favor of what's being done to the Baha'is, but that's simply the consequences of siding with the Shah in a war.
And, feel free to read on the period in which Iran turned from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam.


An entire group of people don't all deserve to be exiled and their children exiled from their homes just because "they chose the wrong side". It's ridiculous.

European empires being horrible doesn't mean that Islamic ones were good.
Majority of pre-Islamic religions were destroyed under the reign of the various caliphates.


When, throughout our entire discussions, did I ever Islamic empires were good?

I'm just saying that pointing to the destriction of non-Islamic religions as an example of barbarism while pointing to Christianity as a symbol of what Islam should be when Christian Europe decimated the entire non-Christian population, is hypocritical.

They did try, and succeeded in many of their attempts.


It depending on the conditions and ruler. And if they were seen as pagan or a People of the Book. This is why Christian sects and other monotheistic religions survived while polytheistic religions didn't.

Then perhaps you should read it instead of skimming through it.


Yeah, I lookex through it, and I didn't find an endorsement.

Well, the Quran says on multiple occasions how it's ok to own slaves, ok to have sex with them, how if you can't marry you should have sex with a slave, how it's preferable to adultery, etc. But that couldn't possibly be an endorsement or atleast leaving an open door for it. :knife:


Leaving the door open is completely different from endorsing it. And, from the perspective of someone living in 7th century Arabia, taking into consideration how you're supposed to treat slaves under Islam and what usually happened to women who were captured during war that's a good deal.

Now, this is an interesting verse regarding a part of your comment:


It says Raqaba mo'menah (رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةً). Do you know what that means? A Muslim slave.
You see, converting to Islam doesn't get you out of slavery, you'll still be a slave.


There are thousands of examples of people who have converted to Islam to get out of slavery.

To the 100s of millions following their words, yes, they do matter.
Also, they're the ones in power and applying the religion in many areas.


If you are interested fundamentally in theology, then the actual socio-economic realities of the situation don't matter to you.

So theoretically, or even practically since many Sunnis follow their own interpretations, I don't have to follow them.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

1- Depends on what you qualify as a barrier, does being ruled an apostate or a heretic and murdered for it count as a barrier?


No. Because ideology has no barrier, it is only imposed by others. I'm sure, in a specific situation, someone might murder someone for being a Salafi and consider them heretics.

And given that you're focusing on theology, it's strange that you're focusing on socio-economic conditions.

Some Sunnis being liberal doesn't mean that the Sunnah and the Quran became liberal, it just means they're not following it.


It does mean the Sunnah and the Quran is liberal. At least to them it is.

And no amount of screaming that they're kafir like an idiot Salafi is going to change that.

That's how ideology works and there's no ideology that doesn't work that way.

I've heard this argument a million times so far about how there are liberal Sunnis followed by calls not to mistaken Islam for Muslims. Which I totally agree with, don't mistake Islam for Muslims.
Some liberal Muslims existing doesn't change the fact that Islam is horrible.


All religion and dogma is horrible but apparently you disagree with that.

Sufis were always a minority, now and historically.


No they weren't. They historically had the highest authority in the Islamic world.

Because at the core of Shia Islam is the Imama. Sunnis need Sufism, Shias have other options to follow, which is why even amongst sects that has the Imama, there are so many divisions.


Sunnis have other options. Sufism literally is an alternative interpretation of Islam no way around that. If Sufis can come up with their on esoteric interpretation of Islam than other Sunnis can as well.

Let's see.





I agree with this part. But, nonetheless, it is irrelevant simply because you're arguing about reforming the religion while this is arguing about spirituality and faith.
Noting, that this isn't a criticism of the teachings themselves (i.e. the Sunnah) but a criticism of the people applying them, so it doesn’t support your argument.


Again, not a criticism of the teachings, but rather of those who apply it.


An extremist and literalistic position. Ok.
So he agrees that they're applying the Quran and the Sunnah, good to know.


Here I disagree on this assumption.
They do see benefit for themselves in doing so as they see themselves a part of a greater Islamic nation (Ummah) and as such whatever benefits the nation, including pushing away its enemies or silencing its critics, benefits them as well.


True, which is what you get when you apply the Quran and the Sunnah.
The Quran itself says that a woman is worth less than a man and inferior to men.
The Quran is also where the permission to beat women comes from. (Mentioned literally)



So, basically he's criticizing for doing as the prophet said they must do which is follow him and his companions?


1. My point was pointing to scholars who opposed Salafis and this scholar reading was a former Salafi. The irony is that you're basically looking at this from a Salafi perspective.

2. Read the rest of the link as this is a summarization and he goes into textual support in the link itself.

3. This completely supports my argument that there are other anti-Salafi scholars and that the Quran is open to interpretation. Sunnis can follow this scholar even if you think what he's saying is false or that he isn't applying the Quran correctly.

To Sunnis, if they follow him, they are following Islam.

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

That's not my point. Read the previous response.

True, they do indeed do that.
But yet again, the people they kill are rarely ever killed for hidden infidelity, rather either an action that was deemed a crime in either the Quran or the Sunnah, or a declared abandonment of religion (i.e. apostasy).
So this point is, yet again, irrelevant.


The point isn't about why the kill people. It's a criticism of Salafi theology.

Ooh, look, even the liberal Muslims you like to cite understands this.
Puritanism.
Puritanism based on what exactly @Palmyrene ?


Yeah I do. But claims have no basis in ideology. There is no such thing as "ideological purity". Nothing is pure about ideology.

Disagree.
If we looked at their actions and compared it to Islamic history, they're the return to Islamic historical tradition, not the deviation from it.
I'm sure the apologists will now claim that history is falsified to make Islam look bad now.


Considering how much you've gotten wrong/aren't aware of in Islamic history, I'm going to say know.

You didn't even know how the initial conquests were organized during the Rashidun Caliphate. That's something pretty big to miss.

You also ignore/generalize several aspects of Islamic treatment of minorities as well.

You're also not very knowledge on how Islamic administration was done.

Yet again, not relevant to the teachings or the discussion.


It's supposed to highlight that Salafism isn't being spread because Sunnis are soooo bad and evil.

Now this is a point I heard so many times from Muslims in the US, yet never heard it from ones in the Middle East.
See, the reason why you see such criticism coming from offshoots far away yet never near the major centers is because all the centers accept that you can only innovate in the Foro', but not in the Osol.
And trying to innovate in the Osol, according to the Quran, is punishable by excommunication and death, and eventually hell. According to the Quran, not any scholar, The Quran. This is mentioned clearly in the Quran and I've put a long list of verses saying this the last time.
And it says clearly that the verses are clear and understandable:


How is this irrelevant?

This is clearly false and bullshit.
One, the prophet is the one who've banned much of these things. And two, these teachings have been clearly observed to be applied in various Islamic empires, with the Ummayad caliphate, under Omar bin Abed Al Aziz, the one who is considered to be the 5th rightly guided caliph by the Sunnis, applying these teachings to the letter.
So if anything, they're abiding by Islamic tradition. Simply not the modern one, but the old one. (i.e. the one where all the major characters of Islam lived in)


You should look at the references that are attached to the passage because there is sociological work being done which contrasts Salafi customs with historical Islamic customs and, quite frankly, you need that info because you don't know anything about traditional Islamic customs. You only have the Quran.

The Hijab is based on a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari which says that a woman can only show her face and her hands while must cover everything else up.

So, there is a reason why they called it un-Islamic. It's in direct opposition to what the prophet and God says.

Regarding Hijab:





It's mentioned clearly.
If you reject what the prophet says or think parts of the Quran can be nullified or changed, congrats, you’re now a Shi’a. Because to be a Sunni is to believe in the Sunnah. That’s what the word means.
Also, fun fact, this is why groups like ISIS and the Taliban treat regular Muslims so badly. When you reject the Sunnah or even parts of it, you’re no longer a Sunni. They derive this not from an offshoot scholar, but from the Quran that tells them to follow the Sunnah. So if you don’t abide by it, you’ll be considered and treated as if you are just another stray sect. Basically, a Shiite.


It doesn't matter what you think. If Malaysian scholars can make a fatwa on it, Sunnis can follow it and they did.

The more interesting question why the original Malaysian scholars deemed that hijabs were unnecessary.

Addressed prior.


Nah you're going to have to address how Egypt and South Africa's rape rates are only estimated.

Outside the establishment. Debunked your own argument before I even responded to it. What a shame.
Anyways, let's see.


How is it being outside of the establishmemt debunking my argument? Do you even know what my argument is?

Now, the fact that you actually went ahead and quoted this just shows how much you don't understand the ideology.
Those interpretational diversities are what we call Shi'a sects. :lol:


No they're not. The guy himself called himself a Quranic scholar.

Shia does not have the same meaning it had thousands of years ago. Get over it.

Honestly, it's so pathetic that you're still attached to a definition of Shia almost no one follows anymore :lol:

And Sunnis can hold his beliefs which means you're claim that they're narrow is retarded.

Man, seriously, did you read it before quoting it?
This is an example of what major Sunni scholars think of the Mu'tazala, a commonly held view:


Who cares what the establishment thinks? Sunnism isn't about the establishment otherwise you wouldn't be so happy for the Salafis.

They are not considered Sunnis. Which is what I keep telling you again and again.
If you started a school of thought and diverged from the Sunnah, you become to be considered a Shi'a.
This is what these two terms (Sunni, Shi'a) means.


That's not what it means now. That's not what it meant for centuries by this point. Even you don't refer to Shia theology as such at all.

Meanings change. The etymology of a word doesn't matter in regards to it's meaning. Just look at English.

So all it says is that the tradition followed by the mainstream, which we're discussing, does exist and attempts to publicize a renewed liberal version on the fringes outside the established norms.
Got it.

How does any of this support your argument about the Quran and the Sunnah?
Or is your argument that there can be other interpretations outside the mainstream that diverges from the original text (i.e. What Shi'a sects are)?


Do you even know what you're responding to? :\

And yet another one trying to establish a new school of thought, not change the mainstream.


No he isn't and nothing says that's necessarily Shia either.

And all Shi'a sects were at some point Sunnis, until they diverged enough to become their own sect.
I'm not sure if you understand this point yet, it’s key.


You don't understand that terms change in meaning. Shia refers to a religious organization based on the Imamate and Ali while Sunnis rely on the Sunnah.

Creating a new school of thought or changing the old one doesn't mean you're Shia anymore, you're trying to revive a deas definition that no one uses.

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


The person I was quoting was a Quranist so I'm pretty sure you're just trying to make a hardline between either being Sunni (bad :(l or Shia (good :)). You trying to eliminate nuance in the situation.

I don't recall which verse of the Quran, nor do I have time to search it, but there are several verses and hadiths saying that Jews and Christians corrupted their books with more hadiths than verses as in most occasions, and it also says the god will preserve the Quran and make it unchanging. In the Quran it says that BTW, several times, over and over again.


It looks like you're just making your own interpretation of this.

This is to a point mentioned elsewhere, the second verse says there wont be any more books.


Sure.

This is what is called Ijtihad and Qiyas. They have rules, and they're based on the Quran.
And there are verses saying you can’t change the Quran and what’s the punishment for that. I quoted them the last time.


Nope. I'm following his interpretation, not yours.

I'm sure the Quran agrees, right after God said not to take his words in vain and not to change them and follow the laws of God (Hudud, حدود), and promised eternity in hell for anyone who tries to do so, he changed his mind and said it's all alright.
:knife:


Nope, I'm taking his word for it, not yours

This part is just bullshit.
Ayat, in most mentioned, means verses, not signs.


Well that's his interpretation man.

Why the fuck else would 100s of millions of people read it and come up with the exact same thing?


They didn't so I'm not sure what you're talking.

What you're saying may have a basis in a specific theology but it has no basis in reality.

And this part in specific shows what an idiot whom ever wrote this.
God refers to hemself in plural all over the Quran as a sign of his majesty, and it's a common curtsy in the Arabic language to refer to people in the plural noun to show respect for their rank and significance.
Infact, I'd go further, whom ever wrote this probably never heard or read any speech or decree made in any Arabic country, both Islamic and non-Islamic, present or past.


Well I like him, I'd trust him over you.

Here it debunks your own argument, saying that it is lawful in Islam, and holding the lack of compliance by masters with the rules of slavery as an excuse to abolish it.


I never said it wasn't lawful. I don't think you know what my argument is.

My point is that they abolished it not international support like you're claiming which just goes to show how little you actually know about Islamic history.

[Quore]
Now, this is a good thing in the end because it resulted in its end, partially atleast. But it still says that it is infact lawful, which means the minute when some group wants to go back to the old texts, like, I don't know, Salafis, they'll also see it as lawful and apply it. [/quote]

Well I guess an American Christian can go back to supporting slavery or serfhood- oh wait they already do.

Rulings don't prevent people from supporting things. It's irrelevant at the end.

So, this part supports my argument, not yours.


What is my argument then?

Here we have two points:
1- The reason why this practice was done is because they, unlike you, understood that Islam doesn't prevent slavery and the only way for a Muslim slave, not any slave but only a Muslim one, to become free is to buy his\her freedom as it's not automatic.
And


My point is that it was done at all.

2- The reason why Wikipedia only works when it comes to basic facts and numbers and the sorts, not theological or philosophical claims, is because Wikipedia is freely edited.
In this paragraph it says "Quranic Ideals of equality and freedom", those don't exist in the Quran; In fact, the Quran make explicit class and hierarchal distinctions between men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims, so no equality. It also makes very clear punishments for many acts including thought crimes (i.e. like twisting the Quran, or leaving the religion, etc), so, not free.


:lol:

Just because you don't think so doesn't mean those scholars didn't.

It also says "some authorities", I wonder why not name them? Ooh, that's right, only fringe religious authorities decree such things, not major ones.


You know that there's references right? That's how wikipedia works.

Furthermore, it says that even conservatives came to this conclusion. Are you sure about that?
Conservatives came to reject slavery? Like those conservatives in the Gulf states? Those reject slavery?
And how come they "reject" slavery when it was only abolished under international pressure in the 60s?
How come they need international pressure to abolish something that they reject in the first place?


I think it's necessary to make a distinction between conservatives in the 19th century and Salafis, who by this point considered themselves modernists.

How about the various Imams and scholars who came out in the early years of the Syrian civil war decreeing that it's ok to take Syrian refugee girls as Molk Al yameen, i.e. sex slaves, to improve their conditions as they were left without anything and would be "better off" like that. Something that was in debate in the Jordanian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti media in the past few years. Are those the conservatives who reject slavery?


Again 19th century Ottoman conservatives =/= Salafis.

[Quore]
Everyone you cited is either in the fringes and not mainstream, or trying to establish a new school of thought like many before have done (i.e. where all those Shi'a sects came from), or a propagandist that seems very obvious he\she never bothered reading the Quran and the Sunnah, to a point where if they made their claims near religious authorities they'll be labeled heretics or apostates and killed, like many have before them. [/quote]

Who cares if it's not mainstream? That's not my argument.

And being a Shia means something different than before.

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


No, they aren't. Shia means religious authority and guidance based on the Imamate. None of the reformists I discussed fall into any of these categories.

And that was my point. You think Sunni Muslims are incapable of reform.

Salafism predates current states, and started with the people not from the state.


It was not as powerful as it was before. That's my point.

Everything else you say just contradicted by the fact that there are many scholars Sunnis can follow who are reforming the religion.

There can be all sorts of circumstances for a person and he\she can choose among many many lines of thinking or ideologies to follow, but when they follow an ideology and apply it, they'll get the same results as others had when they followed that ideology.


No, they don't. Because people see their ideology in different ways. No person thinks the same exact away so what Islam means to them is inherently different from someone else.

[Quore]
If a 1000 different communities with a 1000 different set of conditions decided to adopt the idea of abolishing private property and apply it; Guess what, they'll all end up with no private property, because it's the same fucking idea. [/quote]

That's not true at all because the end result depends on a number of conditions and what they think will replace it.

It also depends on what they think private property is and what removing it requires.

The Soviet Union certainly had private property despite claiming to have abolished it.

And if a 1000 different communities with a 1000 different set of conditions decided to adopt and apply the Quran and the Sunnah, they'll all look very similar because it's the same ideas.


Not really specifically because of what I said above.

I am talking about Sunni Islam, not Muslims in general, and Salafis are applying Sunni Islam to the letter.


Not according to some Sunni scholars.

It does, in very clear and straight forward words.
All the things ISIS and the Taliban and Saudi Arabia, etc does, there is a very clear verse in the Quran that each of their actions are based on.

And it's ironic that you cited someone who criticizes them for applying the Quran to the letter, then here saying that the Quran doesn't say that at all.


There is no such thing as applying an ideology to the letter. All ideologies mean different things to different people that's just how ideologies work.

[Quotr]
Not only there are rules for interpretation, in Sunni tradition that is, but there are limitations on those interpretations.
And not only that, but the Osol come from straight and clear verses.
Like this for example:

They ask you on Alcohol and gamling, tell them there is a great sin in it.
or this:

About the same topic.
How much is that open for interpretation?
It's a very clear and straight forward language, there isn't much, if any, room for interpretation here. [/quote]

All ideologies are open to interpretation whether you like it or not.

See, this is why these types of "re-interpret" the Quran things generally come from the west and not from the centers of Islam in the Arab world.


All three examples I gave are people from the Arab world. One in Egypt and one in Algeria and other in Pakistan.

The bible and the Tanakh are filled with stories, you interpret stories. The rules in the Quran are not based on stories or told through stories and common sayings, they're told in direct and clear language.


There's shitloads of stories in the Quran and given how many people make up their own interpretations I guess it wasn't clear enough.

These movements existed before either Saudi Arabia or the US even existed.


They became as powerful as they are now because of Saudi Arabia and the US.

More accurately, it's on the local and personal levels on which people avoid the religion and don't apply it.

When a Muslim opens an Alcohol store for example, he\she isn't "reforming" Islam, he's just not applying it.


No. You don't understand. People have their entire personal theological ideas that they have based on picking and choosing from different scholars, their own culture, experiences, etc.; everyone has their own ideas on what Islam is outside of scholars. They are applying Islam, their own idea on what Islam is.

The only issue is that this kind of "peasant Islam" has no legitimacy which Sunni reformists like that Egyptian dude or that Algerian dude or the Pakistani dude are working to fix theologically and bring to popularity.

Hopefully I can fix this with anarchism abd bring their ideas to popularity. And if it does become popular, that is Sunni Islam no matter how much you don't want it to be.

I know what you're doing, and I don't like it. Framing this entire thing as a fight between Sunnis and Shias is stupid and barbaric of you and seems to be just an attempt to justify Iranian imperialism. I'm well aware that you think an Iranian Empire will come back and it's nice to see you doing the propaganda groundwork before then.
#15028679
@Palmyrene
Like I said, allowing it is different from endorsing it.

The fact that not only the Quran allows it but also recommends it in certain occasions means it endorses it.
Furthermore, considering that the prophet practiced it, and that the Quran tells you explicitly to do as the prophet does and say, then the Quran endorses it.

I'm just saying that pointing to the destriction of non-Islamic religions as an example of barbarism while pointing to Christianity as a symbol of what Islam should be when Christian Europe decimated the entire non-Christian population, is hypocritical.

I didn't mention Christianity as a point of comparison, you did.
But either way, if we were to take onto this point, we can point to Christianity right now and say it's better.

Leaving the door open is completely different from endorsing it. And, from the perspective of someone living in 7th century Arabia, taking into consideration how you're supposed to treat slaves under Islam and what usually happened to women who were captured during war that's a good deal.

It endorses it both directly and indirectly.
And we're not living in the 7th century anymore, when someone holds these beliefs now in the 21st century, it's a problem.

There are thousands of examples of people who have converted to Islam to get out of slavery.

Converted to Islam so they can have the right to buy themselves from slavery.
They don't automatically stop being slaves.

It does mean the Sunnah and the Quran is liberal. At least to them it is.

How? Explain?
How does someone choosing not to apply his religion make the religion liberal, not the person?

All religion and dogma is horrible but apparently you disagree with that.

you're the apologist for Islam, not me.

No they weren't. They historically had the highest authority in the Islamic world.

:lol:

1. My point was pointing to scholars who opposed Salafis and this scholar reading was a former Salafi. The irony is that you're basically looking at this from a Salafi perspective.

I'm looking at it from a realistic perspective. This is what the religion says and we can see what the people applying it are doing.

3. This completely supports my argument that there are other anti-Salafi scholars and that the Quran is open to interpretation. Sunnis can follow this scholar even if you think what he's saying is false or that he isn't applying the Quran correctly.

First of all, he doesn't claim all of the Quran is open for interpretation.
And second of all, it doesn't matter what a fringe group does or believe since the mainstream that holds the religion to its letter is still there and forming the biggest force.

Yeah I do. But claims have no basis in ideology. There is no such thing as "ideological purity". Nothing is pure about ideology.

:lol:

Considering how much you've gotten wrong/aren't aware of in Islamic history, I'm going to say know.

I'm the one getting things wrong, sure. :knife:


You didn't even know how the initial conquests were organized during the Rashidun Caliphate. That's something pretty big to miss.

This is what we call projection dear. See, I'm the one quoting directly from the sources and showing you how they really were, while you're the one spending hours circling around them to avoid the facts.

You also ignore/generalize several aspects of Islamic treatment of minorities as well.

Such as?

You're also not very knowledge on how Islamic administration was done.

Ooh please, everything so far says clearly who is presenting the real thing and who's dancing around the facts.

It's supposed to highlight that Salafism isn't being spread because Sunnis are soooo bad and evil.

Not all of them, but a good portion, especially in the middle east, do hold and follow their religion to the fullest extent.
Noting we can easily see that in practice by simply looking at the middle east today.

How is this irrelevant?

Well, since you're arguing that it's entirely acceptable in the Sunnah to overhaul the Quran, I thought it's a good idea to quote the relevant parts in the Quran telling you what the punishment for it is, and to explain why many of these scholars end up being excommunicated or even killed.

You should look at the references that are attached to the passage because there is sociological work being done which contrasts Salafi customs with historical Islamic customs and, quite frankly, you need that info because you don't know anything about traditional Islamic customs. You only have the Quran.

You mean I only have the policy and traditions that has been in application in the Islamic world for many centuries, while you have a bunch people from the west claiming stuff all while ignoring the entire history of Islam?

It doesn't matter what you think.

I so far haven't discussed what I think, simply putting Islam out there since you seem to need the info.

If Malaysian scholars can make a fatwa on it, Sunnis can follow it and they did.

You mean the Malaysian scholars who were called un-Islamic and counter to Islamic Sharia according to your own source?

Also, I didn't make those things, I simply quoted the Quran and the Sunnah, why don't you try to argue in those for a change since all you talk about is how to reform them. Go ahead, discuss the Quran and the Sunnah.

The more interesting question why the original Malaysian scholars deemed that hijabs were unnecessary.

I don't know and I don't care.
My point was proven, even by your own citations.

How is it being outside of the establishmemt debunking my argument? Do you even know what my argument is?

Regarding this part, you claim it's mainstream, I claim it's the opposite and that these views are not the mainstream.
Being outside of the establishment says I'm right and you're wrong.

Shia does not have the same meaning it had thousands of years ago. Get over it.

It does.
It's why each sect has its own names and centers.

And Sunnis can hold his beliefs which means you're claim that they're narrow is retarded.

I've so far demonstrated dozens of time how there is a difference between believing something in a religion and choosing not to follow a thing of said religion.
You so far keep claiming that some people not practicing or not abiding by Islam means that Islam somehow changes, when in reality all it means is that they're not practicing the religion.

Again, if someone drank alcohol for example, that doesn't mean the Islam suddenly permits alcohol, it just means that person chose to drink against the teachings of Islam.

Who cares what the establishment thinks? Sunnism isn't about the establishment otherwise you wouldn't be so happy for the Salafis.

1- The 100s of millions following it.
2- The 100s of millions more under its rule.

That's not what it means now. That's not what it meant for centuries by this point. Even you don't refer to Shia theology as such at all.

That's exactly what it means now.
Which is why when we discuss Shi'as, we specify whether we're talking about Jafaris, Zaidis, Abadis, Thawahri, reds and blacks, twelvers and non twelvers, etc.
Because everyone fully understands that the word Shi'a only means everyone who isn't Sunni.

That's why for example Sunnis refer to Alawites as Shi'as, even though they're not similar to any of the Shi'a sects nor are they friends with any.

You not understanding it, or looking at it the same way Americans do doesn't really mean much.

Meanings change. The etymology of a word doesn't matter in regards to it's meaning. Just look at English.

Except everyone still uses it based on the original meaning.

Heck, Thawahri Shias look at Jafari Shias as infidels and have fought many wars against them. How would that happen if, as you say, it means a specific thing rather than simply another word for other sects.

You don't understand that terms change in meaning. Shia refers to a religious organization based on the Imamate and Ali while Sunnis rely on the Sunnah.

Actually no. See, the reason why when discussing the Imama you need to specify whether you're talking about twelvers or non twelvers, and if you're talking about twelvers you need to specify which sect of them are you talking about is because they're all different from each other, to the point of holding different books and Qurans.

Of the largest sects, there are 2 twelvers, and 7 non twelvers.

Creating a new school of thought or changing the old one doesn't mean you're Shia anymore, you're trying to revive a deas definition that no one uses.

Ideas that no one uses except everyone.
Does "no one" by any means refer to you and the mainstream American media by any chance?


The person I was quoting was a Quranist so I'm pretty sure you're just trying to make a hardline between either being Sunni (bad :(l or Shia (good :)). You trying to eliminate nuance in the situation.

Too late for that, there are already tons of Fatwas out there declaring them (Quranists) of equal standings to the "stray" sects of the Imamis and Nusayriyah (i.e. what they refer to as Rafidon) and calling Quranists a stray Shi'a sect.

It looks like you're just making your own interpretation of this.

Not really.
Here you go:
( ومن الذين هادوا سماعون للكذب سماعون لقوم ءاخرين لم يأتوك يحرفون الكلم من بعد مواضعه ) [المائدة : 41]

The entire section talks about Christians (Nasara) and Jews.
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)

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لِمَ تُحَاجُّونَ فِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَتِ التَّوْرَاةُ وَالْإِنْجِيلُ إِلَّا مِنْ بَعْدِهِ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ (65) هَا أَنْتُمْ هَؤُلَاءِ حَاجَجْتُمْ فِيمَا لَكُمْ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلِمَ تُحَاجُّونَ فِيمَا لَيْسَ لَكُمْ بِهِ عِلْمٌ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ (66) مَا كَانَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّا وَلَا نَصْرَانِيًّا وَلَكِنْ كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُسْلِمًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (67) إِنَّ أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِإِبْرَاهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ وَهَذَا النَّبِيُّ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَاللَّهُ وَلِيُّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (68) وَدَّتْ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَوْ يُضِلُّونَكُمْ وَمَا يُضِلُّونَ إِلَّا أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ (69) يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لِمَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَأَنْتُمْ تَشْهَدُونَ (70) يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لِمَ تَلْبِسُونَ الْحَقَّ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَتَكْتُمُونَ الْحَقَّ وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ (71) وَقَالَتْ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ آمِنُوا بِالَّذِي أُنْزِلَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَجْهَ النَّهَارِ وَاكْفُرُوا آخِرَهُ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ (72) وَلَا تُؤْمِنُوا إِلَّا لِمَنْ تَبِعَ دِينَكُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ الْهُدَى هُدَى اللَّهِ أَنْ يُؤْتَى أَحَدٌ مِثْلَ مَا أُوتِيتُمْ أَوْ يُحَاجُّوكُمْ عِنْدَ رَبِّكُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ الْفَضْلَ بِيَدِ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ (73) (آل عمران)

وَلَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَبَعَثْنَا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا وَقَالَ اللَّهُ إِنِّي مَعَكُمْ لَئِنْ أَقَمْتُمُ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَيْتُمُ الزَّكَاةَ وَآمَنْتُمْ بِرُسُلِي وَعَزَّرْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَقْرَضْتُمُ اللَّهَ قَرْضًا حَسَنًا لَأُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنْكُمْ سَيِّئَاتِكُمْ وَلَأُدْخِلَنَّكُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ فَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ مِنْكُمْ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ سَوَاءَ السَّبِيلِ (12) فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِمْ مِيثَاقَهُمْ لَعَنَّاهُمْ وَجَعَلْنَا قُلُوبَهُمْ قَاسِيَةً يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِمَّا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَى خَائِنَةٍ مِنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِنْهُمْ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ (13) (المائدة)

etc
And from the Hadith:
رواه الإمام أحمد والبزار واللفظ له عن جابر رضي الله عنه قال : نسخ عمر كتابا من التوراة بالعربية فجاء به إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فجعل يقرأ ، ووجه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يتغير ، فقال له رجل من الأنصار : ويحك يا ابن الخطاب ألا ترى وجه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : "لا تسألوا أهل الكتاب عن شيء فإنهم لن يهدوكم وقد ضلوا ، وإنكم إما أن تكذبوا بحق ، أو تصدقوا بباطل ."



You do realize that about a third of the Quran talks about Jews and Christians right?

Nope. I'm following his interpretation, not yours.

Nope, I'm taking his word for it, not yours

Not my interpretation, that's what the Quran and the Sunnah say you should do.
Already quoted tons of verses and hadiths on the matter.

They didn't so I'm not sure what you're talking.

What you're saying may have a basis in a specific theology but it has no basis in reality.

:knife:

Well I like him, I'd trust him over you.

Then you don't know much Arabic either. Nor have you read the Quran because in the Quran God always addresses hem self in the plural.

I never said it wasn't lawful. I don't think you know what my argument is.

My point is that they abolished it not international support like you're claiming which just goes to show how little you actually know about Islamic history.

Slavery wasn't fully abolished until the 60s in the middle east.
And it was abolished due to international pressure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... slim_world

No, they aren't. Shia means religious authority and guidance based on the Imamate.

No it doesn't.
Shi'a Imamis and twelvers does mean that. Not all Shi'a sects have the same thing.
Most Shi'a sects, the mainstream, have some version or another of the Imamate, but not all.
The Alawites are a good example of ones who don't, though they have a mechanism similar to the Imamate.

And that was my point. You think Sunni Muslims are incapable of reform.

I think Sunni ISLAM doesn't have a mechanism for radical reform, because it doesn't.
I already proved it many times.
Individual Sunnis have the ability to reform, simply they'll be considered, at best, stray by the mainstream since they'd be diverging from the Sunnah.

It was not as powerful as it was before. That's my point.

The schools of thought producing it, Hanbali schools of thought, surely was strong enough to end the Abbassid golden age.

Everything else you say just contradicted by the fact that there are many scholars Sunnis can follow who are reforming the religion.

And almost all of them are called un-Islamic and occassionally called astray and apostates by the mainstream.
There is a reason for that, and I've already discussed it.

No, they don't. Because people see their ideology in different ways. No person thinks the same exact away so what Islam means to them is inherently different from someone else.

Except we're not talking about philosophy, we're talking about basic, clear cut, ideas and rules.
If a rule says don't do X no matter what. There isn't much open for differences there.

That's not true at all because the end result depends on a number of conditions and what they think will replace it.

Will any have private property after it's abolished?
No, because the idea is the same.
What's after is an entirely different set of ideas, and if they all adopt the same ideas, they all will replace it with the same thing.

It also depends on what they think private property is and what removing it requires.

The Soviet Union certainly had private property despite claiming to have abolished it.

Which is why we have so many schools of thought in communism.

Not really specifically because of what I said above.

Everything you've been saying so far for days is how some liberal Muslims choose not to abide by the Sunnah and ignore it.
You have not argued anything in the Quran or the Sunnah. You have not even bothered to read them before you started talking about them.


There is no such thing as applying an ideology to the letter. All ideologies mean different things to different people that's just how ideologies work.

There is. An ideology is what forms after you interpret the material, not before it.
And we're talking about the same old Quran and Sunnah, there isn't much room for interpretation, so they'll all look similar.

All ideologies are open to interpretation whether you like it or not.

Parroting the same line over and over doesn't mean shit.
I quoted a couple of verses, you claim to know Arabic, try to find a different interpretation for either of them, or find me a single scholar that does so.

You wont be able to, because they're in clear and simple words, there isn't any room for interpretation in them. And that's how it mostly is with the Osol.
The only way to reform them is to be able to nullify parts of the Quran or bring new ones.

All three examples I gave are people from the Arab world. One in Egypt and one in Algeria and other in Pakistan.

And with the exception of one, none have so far tried to re do the Osol, all they focus on is the Foro'.
You'd know that if you bothered looking them up you know.

There's shitloads of stories in the Quran and given how many people make up their own interpretations I guess it wasn't clear enough.

Not in the Osol there isn't.
All the Osol in the Quran come in straight forward fashion. You can actually go to the Quran and try to find a single one that is not like that, you wont find any.

The bible and the Tanakh have their teachings in the stories which is why it's much easier to reinterpret them. The Quran doesn't have any of its Osol in stories. It has stories, but it doesn't make judgments on the Osol in them.
You can actually go ahead and read them you know.
I already quoted several dozens of these types of verses.

No. You don't understand. People have their entire personal theological ideas that they have based on picking and choosing from different scholars, their own culture, experiences, etc.; everyone has their own ideas on what Islam is outside of scholars. They are applying Islam, their own idea on what Islam is.

So you're one of those Reza Aslan followers with the whole personal religion stuff, got it.

The only issue is that this kind of "peasant Islam" has no legitimacy which Sunni reformists like that Egyptian dude or that Algerian dude or the Pakistani dude are working to fix theologically and bring to popularity.

It has no legitimacy because everyone sees that not only it's a ridiculous idea, but that it even goes against the Quran and the Sunnah and, believe it or not, many Muslims do actually fear god and even though they don't apply the religion, they also try their best not to break the big bans in it atleast so they don't get punished in their afterlife.

That self cencorship everyone keeps talking about? That existed in Islam since its birth.

I know what you're doing, and I don't like it. Framing this entire thing as a fight between Sunnis and Shias is stupid and barbaric of you and seems to be just an attempt to justify Iranian imperialism. I'm well aware that you think an Iranian Empire will come back and it's nice to see you doing the propaganda groundwork before then.

I'm not framing it as Sunnis vs Shias, I'm framing it as everyone vs the Sunnah, which it is, even according to the Sunnah ironically.
If you missed it, the wars have been going on for over a thousand years so far, I'm sure you can find an example.

And, Iranian imperialism? really? how?
Did I discuss anything relating to Iran or any specific Shi'a sect so far?
How about any other religion? Did I discuss any of those in details so far?

Ooh, right, I forgot; Discussing what the Quran and Sunnah says by simply quoting them directly makes me pro imperialism. I forgot how that circle works.

:knife: :knife:
#15028697
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
The fact that not only the Quran allows it but also recommends it in certain occasions means it endorses it.
Furthermore, considering that the prophet practiced it, and that the Quran tells you explicitly to do as the prophet does and say, then the Quran endorses it.


Where does it recommend it and generally the whole "copy the prophet" thing isn't taken literally in Sunni circles.

I didn't mention Christianity as a point of comparison, you did.
But either way, if we were to take onto this point, we can point to Christianity right now and say it's better.


I didn't. In our previous discussions you specifically mentioned Christianity as what Islam should be which is hilarious if you consider how Christianity treated minorities.

You could've pointed to Islam during the Golden Age and say it was better too. The point is that such comparisons are completely and utterly worthless. The only people who make them are Christian Westerners who have a superiority complex and people like you take their ideas at face value.

It endorses it both directly and indirectly.
And we're not living in the 7th century anymore, when someone holds these beliefs now in the 21st century, it's a problem.


No it doesn't. And I never said we were. Furthermore, most people don't hold these beliefs anymore. Salafism is only popular becauss Saudi Arabia sponsors it. If Saudi Arabia was Sufi and sponsored Sufism you'd get same exact effect. You may even see Sufi militant groups ironically.

Converted to Islam so they can have the right to buy themselves from slavery.
They don't automatically stop being slaves.


There were historically several people who converted to Islam to escape from slavery although it may have been the policy of specific rulers.

How? Explain?
How does someone choosing not to apply his religion make the religion liberal, not the person?


They are applying the religion, they're applying their own ideas about the religion.

I've just given you examples of people with their own ideas and, stupidly, you've said that they're all wrong when the point was that people have their own ideas.

Whether you think they're following Islam incorrectly or misunderstanding it is irrelevant because in the end of the day Islam means different things to different people. Like Salafis, you fail to understand that Islam is large, complicated and multifaceted now.

What you and Salafis see is a version of Islam that never existed in the first place. For example, I'm sure you're unaware that the Rashidun Caliphate was quite open to different ideas about Islam and there were many sects that weren't even recorded in history.

This openness to different ideas is why, at a local level, you see lots of different religious ideas. My father himself has his own sort of "system" or dogma he made himself. The only thing stopping these ideas from reaching mainstream is:

1. The establishment scholars.

2. The state, which sponsors certain imams over others.

you're the apologist for Islam, not me.


Yeah thinking Islam can be changed to whatever you want is apologizing for it.

:lol:


https://herald.dawn.com/news/1398514

There's an entire article considered that, if Sufism reaches popularity again, it will result in the resurgence of mixing religion and the state because historically Sufis were tied to the royal family and royal administration.

Your knowledge of Islamic history sucks.

I'm looking at it from a realistic perspective. This is what the religion says and we can see what the people applying it are doing.


What the religion says is determined by the people not the books or scholars.

All religions are determined by people otherwise Islam wouldn't have become popular in Arabia at all.

First of all, he doesn't claim all of the Quran is open for interpretation.


I never said he did but clearly since you seem to think he got Islam "wrong", he has a different way of thinking on it compared to you.

Thus, this is literally a difference in interpretation.

And second of all, it doesn't matter what a fringe group does or believe since the mainstream that holds the religion to its letter is still there and forming the biggest force.


1. You're interested in theology so that shouldn't matter to you.

2. The mainstream can change. The establishment is never the establishment for long.

Furthermore, if socio-economic conditions change so will religion.

:lol:


One could just look at the history of communism in Russia for proof. Or literally any Marxist-Leninist group. If you think Islam is sectariam wait to see them.

I'm the one getting things wrong, sure. :knife:


Yup. You are. Glad you agree.

This is what we call projection dear. See, I'm the one quoting directly from the sources and showing you how they really were, while you're the one spending hours circling around them to avoid the facts.


Pardon? What does this have to do with anything?

You accuse me of projection yet you respond with something irrelevant to the point?

Such as?


Claiming that minorities are in an "existential war with Islam" when there have been several periods where minorities were a big part of the ruling class in several territories and arguably today and if the Caliphate really wanted to get rid of non-Muslims they would no longer exist.

Ooh please, everything so far says clearly who is presenting the real thing and who's dancing around the facts.


Ah yes, your interpretation of the Quran is so factual. The only "factual" thing about it is that insist it's factual.

And I've literally posted a page of evidence so clearly that's not the case.

Not all of them, but a good portion, especially in the middle east, do hold and follow their religion to the fullest extent.
Noting we can easily see that in practice by simply looking at the middle east today.


Saying "a good portion" or "mostly" is basically the equivalent of saying "all of them" except when you're trying to sound reasonable.

You don't know a good portion of Sunnis personally meanwhile I've lived among Sunnis my entire life. I am far more qualified to actually discuss this than you are. All you can do is point to ISIS or the Gulf and say "see?" when pretty much all other Arabs hate Khajeelis and most hate ISIS.

Well, since you're arguing that it's entirely acceptable in the Sunnah to overhaul the Quran, I thought it's a good idea to quote the relevant parts in the Quran telling you what the punishment for it is, and to explain why many of these scholars end up being excommunicated or even killed.


I deal with the reality at hand which is why I've given evidence of people actually attempting reform the Quran and form their own ideology with it instead pointing to a fairytale book and claiming "this will happen if you do this!".

You mean I only have the policy and traditions that has been in application in the Islamic world for many centuries, while you have a bunch people from the west claiming stuff all while ignoring the entire history of Islam?


Ah Algerians, Egyptians, and Pakistanis are soooooo Western.

And orientalists do actual good historical work tbh. Most Middle Eastern countries aren't, let's just say "capable" of putting time into this kind of research.

I so far haven't discussed what I think, simply putting Islam out there since you seem to need the info.


It is what you think. It's your interpretation.

You mean the Malaysian scholars who were called un-Islamic and counter to Islamic Sharia according to your own source?


No the ones before them that said it was Islamic to not wear hijab.

Also, I didn't make those things, I simply quoted the Quran and the Sunnah, why don't you try to argue in those for a change since all you talk about is how to reform them. Go ahead, discuss the Quran and the Sunnah.


I won't because then it'll turn into a semantic argument and arguing over differing interpretations.

It's also pointless because none of that practically matters.

I don't know and I don't care.
My point was proven, even by your own citations.


You should care because if they ruled hijabs unnecessary before, they can do it again.

I swear if these Malaysians were Shia you would talk abour how this is evidence of the liberalism and superiority of Shi'ism and relevant this is.

But since they're Sunnis it's inconvenient of you to discuss them so they're "irrelevant".

Regarding this part, you claim it's mainstream, I claim it's the opposite and that these views are not the mainstream.
Being outside of the establishment says I'm right and you're wrong.


When did I ever say it's mainstream?

It does.
It's why each sect has its own names and centers.


No, it doesn't. Shias have their own names and centers because they have the Imamate. And Sunnis have their own scholarly centers too.

This isn't evidence of anything. No one refers to Shia as anyone who doesn't follow the Sunnah. Even Shias follow Sunnah they just follow different parts of it.

I've so far demonstrated dozens of time how there is a difference between believing something in a religion and choosing not to follow a thing of said religion.
You so far keep claiming that some people not practicing or not abiding by Islam means that Islam somehow changes, when in reality all it means is that they're not practicing the religion.


Oh my god you're so dumb. Read above.

Again, if someone drank alcohol for example, that doesn't mean the Islam suddenly permits alcohol, it just means that person chose to drink against the teachings of Islam.


That's not my example. If someone believes that the Ayats are signs or something then they're perfectly valid in believing that. That isn't ignoring a ruling, that's a different interpretation.

1- The 100s of millions following it.
2- The 100s of millions more under its rule.


You shouldn't care about that if:
1. You care about theology more than socio-economic conditions
2. If the discussion is about if Islam's theology can be reformed

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That's exactly what it means now.
Which is why when we discuss Shi'as, we specify whether we're talking about Jafaris, Zaidis, Abadis, Thawahri, reds and blacks, twelvers and non twelvers, etc.
Because everyone fully understands that the word Shi'a only means everyone who isn't Sunni.


No it doesn't. Idk about Shias but Sunnis don't refer to people outside of Sunnism to be Shia. Shia Islam is religious authority centered around an Imamate and reverence of Ali. It's something specific.

Otherwise Ahmadiyya would be Shias which they aren't. Or Quranists or Islamic reformists.

That's why for example Sunnis refer to Alawites as Shi'as, even though they're not similar to any of the Shi'a sects nor are they friends with any.


Read on their actual beliefs and you'll see that the foundation is the same.


Except everyone still uses it based on the original meaning.


Yeah no.

Heck, Thawahri Shias look at Jafari Shias as infidels and have fought many wars against them. How would that happen if, as you say, it means a specific thing rather than simply another word for other sects.


Several Sunni scholars outside the establishment are seen as kafir sooooooo

Actually no. See, the reason why when discussing the Imama you need to specify whether you're talking about twelvers or non twelvers, and if you're talking about twelvers you need to specify which sect of them are you talking about is because they're all different from each other, to the point of holding different books and Qurans.


I don't see how anything you said contradicts what I said.

Ideas that no one uses except everyone.
Does "no one" by any means refer to you and the mainstream American media by any chance?


My family, neighborhood, entire country possibly.


Too late for that, there are already tons of Fatwas out there declaring them (Quranists) of equal standings to the "stray" sects of the Imamis and Nusayriyah (i.e. what they refer to as Rafidon) and calling Quranists a stray Shi'a sect.


No it's not. People don't need to follow those fatwas. They already mostly don't. Fatwas don't have as much control as you think they have.

Not really.
Here you go:

The entire section talks about Christians (Nasara) and Jews.



etc
And from the Hadith:



You do realize that about a third of the Quran talks about Jews and Christians right?


Again. Interpretation.

Not my interpretation, that's what the Quran and the Sunnah say you should do.
Already quoted tons of verses and hadiths on the matter.


Do you have any solid proof that what you're saying isn't an interpretation.

:knife:


Ah so you admit defeat? ;)

Then you don't know much Arabic either. Nor have you read the Quran because in the Quran God always addresses hem self in the plural.


Oh no it's not that, I just like his interpretation over yours.

Slavery wasn't fully abolished until the 60s in the middle east.
And it was abolished due to international pressure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... slim_world


Where does it say this? I'm on mobile I can't see it.

No it doesn't.
Shi'a Imamis and twelvers does mean that. Not all Shi'a sects have the same thing.
Most Shi'a sects, the mainstream, have some version or another of the Imamate, but not all.
The Alawites are a good example of ones who don't, though they have a mechanism similar to the Imamate.


Well the same general idea is present in all of them.

I think Sunni ISLAM doesn't have a mechanism for radical reform, because it doesn't.
I already proved it many times.
Individual Sunnis have the ability to reform, simply they'll be considered, at best, stray by the mainstream since they'd be diverging from the Sunnah.


No they wouldn't. Because Sunni Muslims are Sunni Islam. What they believe defines the movement.

Just like how Shia Islam is no longer about making Ali Caliph.

The schools of thought producing it, Hanbali schools of thought, surely was strong enough to end the Abbassid golden age.


You mean the Muta'zila.

And almost all of them are called un-Islamic and occassionally called astray and apostates by the mainstream.
There is a reason for that, and I've already discussed it.


Why does that matter? I can claim all of the establishment scholars are apostates too. It doesn't matter theologically.

Except we're not talking about philosophy, we're talking about basic, clear cut, ideas and rules.
If a rule says don't do X no matter what. There isn't much open for differences there.


Rules are arbitrary and eventually become open to interpretation.

If you have any experience in law you'd know this.

Will any have private property after it's abolished?
No, because the idea is the same.
What's after is an entirely different set of ideas, and if they all adopt the same ideas, they all will replace it with the same thing.


Possibly they could have private property. Maybe not in name but they could functionally be the same.

Which is why we have so many schools of thought in communism.


That's kinda irrelevant.

Everything you've been saying so far for days is how some liberal Muslims choose not to abide by the Sunnah and ignore it.


I've posted you several scholars that are creating their own ideas on Islam.

There is. An ideology is what forms after you interpret the material, not before it.
And we're talking about the same old Quran and Sunnah, there isn't much room for interpretation, so they'll all look similar.


No they aren't. And there's shitloads to interpret. Just because you insist that there isn't doesn't stop people from doing so.

Parroting the same line over and over doesn't mean shit.
I quoted a couple of verses, you claim to know Arabic, try to find a different interpretation for either of them, or find me a single scholar that does so.


I've just posted scholars who have but apparently since they're not in the establishment you think this somehow disproves my point.

because you're stupid and narrow-minded.

You wont be able to, because they're in clear and simple words, there isn't any room for interpretation in them. And that's how it mostly is with the Osol.
The only way to reform them is to be able to nullify parts of the Quran or bring new ones.


I just gave you 4 scholars.

And with the exception of one, none have so far tried to re do the Osol, all they focus on is the Foro'.
You'd know that if you bothered looking them up you know.


So you just didn't read the Egyptian one or the Algerian one.

Not in the Osol there isn't.
All the Osol in the Quran come in straight forward fashion. You can actually go to the Quran and try to find a single one that is not like that, you wont find any.


It doesn't matter. People do it anyways.

So you're one of those Reza Aslan followers with the whole personal religion stuff, got it.


Who the fuck is Reza Aslan?

It has no legitimacy because everyone sees that not only it's a ridiculous idea,


If everyone saw it as a ridiculous idea, there wouldn't be so many people who have their own interpretations.

So again, you're dumb as shit.

That self cencorship everyone keeps talking about? That existed in Islam since its birth.


?

I'm not framing it as Sunnis vs Shias, I'm framing it as everyone vs the Sunnah, which it is, even according to the Sunnah ironically.
If you missed it, the wars have been going on for over a thousand years so far, I'm sure you can find an example.


You are though. If you weren't you wouldn't be so concerned about what the establishment thinks or be so adamant that you're either Sunni or Shia.

And, Iranian imperialism? really? how?
Did I discuss anything relating to Iran or any specific Shi'a sect so far?
How about any other religion? Did I discuss any of those in details so far?

Ooh, right, I forgot; Discussing what the Quran and Sunnah says by simply quoting them directly makes me pro imperialism. I forgot how that circle works.

:knife: :knife:


It's related because your ideas are fundamentally about justifying it. It's about framing Iran as fighting against the tyrannical Sunnis so that everyone can excuse the actual genocides and massacres that imperialism would actually entail all while saying that the victims of imperialism all deserved it.

This sort of mentality is present in you. You see everything very black and white and love to generalize people.
#15028716
@Palmyrene
Where does it recommend it

Already quoted the verses.

generally the whole "copy the prophet" thing isn't taken literally in Sunni circles.

Ooh cut the bullshit.
No one is buying.

No it doesn't.

Already quoted the verses and the hadiths.

And I never said we were. Furthermore, most people don't hold these beliefs anymore. Salafism is only popular becauss Saudi Arabia sponsors it. If Saudi Arabia was Sufi and sponsored Sufism you'd get same exact effect. You may even see Sufi militant groups ironically.

Doesn't change the fact that it's Salafis who are in control.

There were historically several people who converted to Islam to escape from slavery although it may have been the policy of specific rulers.

Converted before they become slaves, not after.
If a slave converts to Islam when he\she are already enslaved, then they have to buy their freedom.

They are applying the religion, they're applying their own ideas about the religion.

How?
If the religion said don't do X, and you decided you wanted to do X, you count this as an idea about your religion or simply the denial of an idea or a rule in the religion.

I've just given you examples of people with their own ideas and, stupidly, you've said that they're all wrong when the point was that people have their own ideas.

I said they're fringes. And I specified the quotes I said were wrong.

What you and Salafis see is a version of Islam that never existed in the first place. For example, I'm sure you're unaware that the Rashidun Caliphate was quite open to different ideas about Islam and there were many sects that weren't even recorded in history.

The version of Islam Salafis apply existed all throughout Islamic history, their practices aren't new.

And I am fully aware of what the early caliphates did, and I know full well how much of history taught in modern schools that is falsified and runs counter to the original records.
You, on the other hand, seem to have stuck to the propaganda and didn't bother checking the original records.


Yeah thinking Islam can be changed to whatever you want is apologizing for it.

Islam can change, simply the Sunnah and the Quran under the paradigm of Sunni Islam has tons of mechanism to stop any change, so whatever changes are to be done outside of that paradigm.

https://herald.dawn.com/news/1398514

There's an entire article considered that, if Sufism reaches popularity again, it will result in the resurgence of mixing religion and the state because historically Sufis were tied to the royal family and royal administration.


Sufism was common in one era and mainly in the middle and upper classes in society.
All of the sources, including your own, discusses or inclines this.
It didn't hold significant power and it was easily removed by the Hanbali movements.
And it never formed a majority, it was always limited to a minority.

Your knowledge of Islamic history sucks.

Says the guy who barely knows how to read. :knife:


What the religion says is determined by the people not the books or scholars.

Unless that specific religion has a little claim that this book is directly from a god, not from a person.

All religions are determined by people otherwise Islam wouldn't have become popular in Arabia at all.

The early caliphate conquered most of the region, it wasn't suddenly united under the banner of this new religion everyone embraced.

2. The mainstream can change. The establishment is never the establishment for long.

Without radical change to the basis, any new establishment will be just like the old one.

Furthermore, if socio-economic conditions change so will religion.

Sure, just like the Hanbali movement changed so much in its 800 years of life. Ooh wait, it didn't, it stuck to the same text over and over again through the ups and downs.

One could just look at the history of communism in Russia for proof. Or literally any Marxist-Leninist group. If you think Islam is sectariam wait to see them.

And we call each one of those according to its founder.

Pardon? What does this have to do with anything?

You accuse me of projection yet you respond with something irrelevant to the point?

It's entirely relevant.
I've so far quoted tons of verses and hadiths and scholars, and you yet haven't brought one single proof to support what you're saying.
You just keep repeating how it all can change, and rainbows and bullshit, and how it's socio-economic duuude. you want to discuss Islam, start using its sources.

Claiming that minorities are in an "existential war with Islam" when there have been several periods where minorities were a big part of the ruling class in several territories and arguably today and if the Caliphate really wanted to get rid of non-Muslims they would no longer exist.

Except they did, of several 100s of groups there is only a couple of dozens left.

Ah yes, your interpretation of the Quran is so factual. The only "factual" thing about it is that insist it's factual.

And I've literally posted a page of evidence so clearly that's not the case.

You haven't posted a single line of evidence.
The only thing you posted was a few posts about some scholars disagreeing with Salafism without going into any of the material. And in the only post where it does slightly go into the material, it argues in the Foro' not in the Osol.
So even your citations prove that my point is right and yours is wrong.

And you haven't brought a single verse or hadith to support your claims about the religion.

Saying "a good portion" or "mostly" is basically the equivalent of saying "all of them" except when you're trying to sound reasonable.

Not all of them, but a majority, around 60-70% I would say based on what I can tell from the various stats on the topic.
Atleast those are the numbers in the middle east.

You don't know a good portion of Sunnis personally meanwhile I've lived among Sunnis my entire life. I am far more qualified to actually discuss this than you are. All you can do is point to ISIS or the Gulf and say "see?" when pretty much all other Arabs hate Khajeelis and most hate ISIS.

That bullshit about "not qualified" stuff wont work with me.
Your personal experiences account for shit because you're discussing a religion, a religion with text and source material.
And I point to ISIS and the gulf states because they're the biggest examples.
IF you want, we can start addressing the beliefs common in Syria. Don't worry, it's pretty similar to those in the gulf states, and I know this from both stats and personal experience.

I deal with the reality at hand which is why I've given evidence of people actually attempting reform the Quran and form their own ideology with it instead pointing to a fairytale book and claiming "this will happen if you do this!".

As stated before, you haven't shown the material of these scholars, which I'm fully aware why.
And in the only instance where an example was given, they disagreed in the Osol not in the Foro'.
And that fairytale book has armies and nations applying its words, it wont be some mysterious god that applies these punishments is all I'm saying.

Ah Algerians, Egyptians, and Pakistanis are soooooo Western.

And orientalists do actual good historical work tbh. Most Middle Eastern countries aren't, let's just say "capable" of putting time into this kind of research.

Just look at the circles they're in. The things they preach are the ones born in the American and British Muslim communities, and we're drowning in their propaganda all over here.

And what type of research do you mean? Are you referring to reading the records and establishing considerations based on those records? A guy on the street can do this level of research but entire multinational entities can't?

It is what you think. It's your interpretation.

You know you can easily go back and see what I wrote right?

Unless you're claiming that by me simply throwing a quote of a verse out there I'm giving my own version of it?

Are you sure you read Arabic? Because based on what you keep saying I'm getting the sense that you think I'm interpreting the verses I quote? I'm not, I'm simply copy-pasting them directly from the Quran and Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim without adjustments, you can check their numbers.

Infact, not only have I not given any interpretations thus far, none of the verses I quote are open for interpretation, they're all clear cut.

I have my own interpretations on the prophecies and what they mean in all 3 religions, but that's an entirely different subject.

No the ones before them that said it was Islamic to not wear hijab.

But that's what I just said.
Those guys were called un-Islamic and their ijtihad was refuted.

I won't because then it'll turn into a semantic argument and arguing over differing interpretations.

No, not really, it wont. It's very easy and clear cut.
Infact, the essential verses regarding teachings and rulings, it's almost impossible to even interpret them.
Literally small words in small sentences with no poetic style or anything, very dry to be specific.

So go ahead, start backing your claims up with source material.

It's also pointless because none of that practically matters.

It does matter, you made a claim, I've provided tons of evidence why your claim is wrong, now it's your turn to back your claim.

You should care because if they ruled hijabs unnecessary before, they can do it again.

And they'll be refuted again.
I already put the verses on, someone will come up to them holding the Quran and say, God says otherwise, and the whole thing falls apart as in the last time.

I swear if these Malaysians were Shia you would talk abour how this is evidence of the liberalism and superiority of Shi'ism and relevant this is.I swear if these Malaysians were Shia you would talk abour how this is evidence of the liberalism and superiority of Shi'ism and relevant this is.

Well, Iran is mainly Shi'a, and all I talk about here is how we're fighting the clerics and how Islam is dying in Iran.
And Baalbek is mainly Shi'a, and pretty much everything I talk about is how we don't give a fuck about religion in Baalbek.

It's almost as if you've bought into your own narrative.
Funny.

I'm anti religion in general. You just happen to make a claim regarding Sunni Islam, and I felt like giving the evidence why your claim is wrong.

No, it doesn't. Shias have their own names and centers because they have the Imamate.

Really?
So Jafaris and Thawahris are the same?
How about Zaidis and Abadis?
How about Jafaris and Alawites?

No one refers to Shia as anyone who doesn't follow the Sunnah. Even Shias follow Sunnah they just follow different parts of it.

Everyone who knows anything about the topic does.

And no, not all Shias follow the Sunnah, majority don't, and those who do take very limited part of it.
Now, since you know so so so much about the various Shi'a sects, there is a sect that take some parts of the Sunnah, there is another which removed everything and keeps only the parts by Ali, there is a third which denies that Mohammed was the prophet to begin with and claims Jibrel akhta' or the angel Gabriel made a mistake and the true prophet is ali, and finally there is one that says Ali is wali allah, i.e the successor of god on earth.

Those are the Zaidi, Jaffari, Abadi, and Thawahri sects.
Which one holds which of those beliefs?

That's not my example. If someone believes that the Ayats are signs or something then they're perfectly valid in believing that. That isn't ignoring a ruling, that's a different interpretation.

In what possible scenario where "Don't do X or else" is interpreted to "Do X as much as you like"
This is the type of scenario you're talking about.

And there is a reason why you haven't brought any verses to apply this to so far, you know your argument will fall apart the minute you try to apply it.

No it doesn't. Idk about Shias but Sunnis don't refer to people outside of Sunnism to be Shia.

Even Quranists are being labled as Shias.

Shia Islam is religious authority centered around an Imamate and reverence of Ali.

It's not. Not all Shi'a sects hold these beliefs, and even the principle of Imamate not only differs between various sects, but some even reject it.
The ones holding it being the majority doesn't mean others don't exist. Again, there is a reason why we specify the sect.

Anyone who ever read anything about Shi'a sects would know this.



Otherwise Ahmadiyya would be Shias which they aren't. Or Quranists or Islamic reformists.

I don't know about Ahmadiyya, but Quranists are indeed being labled Shi'as.
You can simply see the Fatwas regarding them you know.


Read on their actual beliefs and you'll see that the foundation is the same.

Really? Are you sure?
Because I have read all about them and read their version of the Quran and I have family members who're Alawites.
And they're not the same.
But let's go down this hole, what are the basis of their beliefs?
And since you know so much about them, they have an extra section (Sura) in their book, what it's called?

No it's not. People don't need to follow those fatwas. They already mostly don't. Fatwas don't have as much control as you think they have.

Wars are being faught over Fatwas right now.
100s of thousands are being killed by these Fatwas.
Countries either rise or fall based on Fatwas as we speak.
And somehow, you can't see any power these Fatwas hold.
:knife:


Again. Interpretation.

Ok, so you really don't know how to read Arabic. :lol:

Because those were verses from the Quran.

Do you have any solid proof that what you're saying isn't an interpretation.

Does quoting the verse it self directly from the Quran somehow count as interpretation in your mind?
You do realize that all this Arabic text I was quoting was directly from the Quran right?

Where does it say this? I'm on mobile I can't see it.

In the part about the 20th and 21st centuries.

Well the same general idea is present in all of them.

Naah, not really.

One is actually closer to Catholicism than it is to other Shi'as or Islam in general.
Which part of the aforementioned challenge, you have to guess which one of the major 4.

You mean the Muta'zila.

Those started the Golden age, the Hanbalis ended it.
And destroyed the Mu'tazila while doing so.

Rules are arbitrary and eventually become open to interpretation.

No, they don't.

If you have any experience in law you'd know this.

A state law no longer being applied doesn't mean it stopped existing. e.g. why Germany has to occasionally go back to laws from the 1800s, not applying them doesn't mean they no longer existed.
And when you're talking in the context of Islam, people who believe in Islam believe that these laws were decreed directly by god to them.
Which it feels this point, that they believe it's god's direct word, needs to be emphasized to you.


I've posted you several scholars that are creating their own ideas on Islam.

And some are fringes and don't consider themselves to be Sunnis or mainstream Sunnis, and others are only "reforming" the Foro' without touching the Osol, which makes the whole process useless.

No they aren't. And there's shitloads to interpret. Just because you insist that there isn't doesn't stop people from doing so.

Then go read the fucking Quran and bring an example of where these interpretations could work.
I've brought tons of verses, all discussing Osol, and none of them have the potential for interpretation because they're all in clear and simple words.
Go and bring some verses where the verse is discussing a rule or a primary principle and show how you can interpret it.

I've just posted scholars who have but apparently since they're not in the establishment you think this somehow disproves my point.

Actually no, the Sunni scholars you cited don't go into the Osol, they go into the Foro'.
They're on the fringes, but they're still not going into the Osol from what've seen.
They either go into the philosophy of it, or into the Foro'. And one removes the Sunnah completely and is a Quranist, which means he's not a Sunni to begin with.
So no, you haven't brought anyone who does that.

If you insist that they do, dig through their work and bring examples.
Because I have seen the work of similar scholars and they don't go into these things.

So you just didn't read the Egyptian one or the Algerian one.

I did.
If you think otherwise, quote the parts where they do.


It doesn't matter. People do it anyways.

And now you need to explain how. Because the parts where you claim there are interpretations are places where it's nearly impossible to interpret anything.
If you don't want the verses, let's take a simple example in English.

> Do Not Drink Alcohol<
This is similar to one of the verses. How many possible interpretations could there be for this sentence?

Who the fuck is Reza Aslan?

The guy you've been parroting his ideas for the past hour.

If everyone saw it as a ridiculous idea, there wouldn't be so many people who have their own interpretations.

Like who?
The Sunni scholars both mainstream and fringes don't touch alot on the Osol, and the ones who do don't even consider themselves to be Sunnis.

It's related because your ideas are fundamentally about justifying it. It's about framing Iran as fighting against the tyrannical Sunnis so that everyone can excuse the actual genocides and massacres that imperialism would actually entail all while saying that the victims of imperialism all deserved it.

You don't know what you're talking about.

This sort of mentality is present in you. You see everything very black and white and love to generalize people.

:lol: :lol:


Now, let's cut this whole quotes and started with a smaller summary.
Once you're done with you kiddy ad-homs, bring evidence to back your argument or atleast show examples of this interpretation in action, it doesn't have to be yours. Noting it must be a verse in a ruling or in a principle since those are what Osols are and those are the ones that establish the religion.
#15028735
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
Already quoted the verses.


And how do the verses prove your point?


Ooh cut the bullshit.
No one is buying.


I'm not BSing. Most "copy the prophet" people focus on the more moderate parts of the prophet's life while the more extremist parts are ignored. It's just cherry picking.


Already quoted the verses and the hadiths.


Prove to me they're saying what you claim their saying.

Doesn't change the fact that it's Salafis who are in control.


Doesn't change the fact that Salafis are only in control because of Saudi funding. It isn't because Sunnis are naturally extremist or whatever BS you're spouting.


Converted before they become slaves, not after.
If a slave converts to Islam when he\she are already enslaved, then they have to buy their freedom.


No, it was while they were a slave.

How?
If the religion said don't do X, and you decided you wanted to do X, you count this as an idea about your religion or simply the denial of an idea or a rule in the religion.


It isn't because they do not think religion said not to do X. Because their conception of the religion is different.

To make it clearer, they don't believe there is a rule against it.

I don't think you actually live in the Middle East that much because, over here, Islam is matter of culture rather than dogma.

You put waaay too much faith and credibility in the establishment scholars and Salafi and decide that their interpretation is the best.

I said they're fringes. And I specified the quotes I said were wrong.


The version of Islam Salafis apply existed all throughout Islamic history, their practices aren't new.


Sociologists and historians disagree.

And I am fully aware of what the early caliphates did, and I know full well how much of history taught in modern schools that is falsified and runs counter to the original records.

You, on the other hand, seem to have stuck to the propaganda and didn't bother checking the original records.


:lol:

All my info comes from Western and original sources for this exact reason. I'm an anarchist and you think I trust what a state says?


Islam can change, simply the Sunnah and the Quran under the paradigm of Sunni Islam has tons of mechanism to stop any change, so whatever changes are to be done outside of that paradigm.


No, it doesn't. Sunni Islam is reliant upon which scholars people follow. It doesn't matter what the establishment thinks; if a specific set of reformist scholars get massive popularity then they will be the establishment.

Sufism was common in one era and mainly in the middle and upper classes in society.
All of the sources, including your own, discusses or inclines this.


Actually it was very popular amongst peasants (at least Syrian ones)* so I highly doubt that. You don't just become the ideology of an empire and not have great deals of influence in the lower castes.

*Source: Hanna Batatu's Syria's peasantry, the descendants of its lesser rural notables, and their politics.

It didn't hold significant power and it was easily removed by the Hanbali movements.
And it never formed a majority, it was always limited to a minority.


According to my source, this was not the case. I'll have to check but Sufism was prominent in Iraq as well.

Says the guy who barely knows how to read. :knife:


Ever look in a mirror?

Unless that specific religion has a little claim that this book is directly from a god, not from a person.


That doesn't change anything practically.

The early caliphate conquered most of the region, it wasn't suddenly united under the banner of this new religion everyone embraced.


In Arabia, a sizable portion of the population converted to Islam so it was at least pretty popular.

Without radical change to the basis, any new establishment will be just like the old one.


Alot of the reformists I mentioned legitimatize personal interpretations of the Quran which is a complete change in structure and theology. This would be completely different to the new establishment and it would let the people who make their own interpretations (i.e. a majority of the Sunni population from my own experience) have the ability to openly share their ideas.

It would be like a new Great Awakening.

Sure, just like the Hanbali movement changed so much in its 800 years of life. Ooh wait, it didn't, it stuck to the same text over and over again through the ups and downs.


That's like using Evangelical Christianity as proof that Christianity will always remain backwards.

When the Caliphate was at it's highest prosperity, the Muta'zila sect was born so socio-economic conditions are tied to the liberalism of the religion.

And if socio-economic conditions increase and open access to religious books made haram by the current establishment is allowed we can see these ideas be revived.

And we call each one of those according to its founder.


This is relevant how? Good, you know how communism works.

Also I just realized I make alot of typos. I really need to get a keyboard or laptop.

It's entirely relevant.
I've so far quoted tons of verses and hadiths and scholars, and you yet haven't brought one single proof to support what you're saying.
You just keep repeating how it all can change, and rainbows and bullshit, and how it's socio-economic duuude. you want to discuss Islam, start using its sources


First, I've given you shit loads of sources which you've either said are irrelevant for no stated reason or said that the scholars I listed don't matter because they aren't with the establishment.

Second, I've said your sources are irrelevant because they are based on interpretation of the text itself. I could quote Wittgenstein and tell you about how all text is interpreted due to how language is interpretative (for example, puns which are based on the ambiguity of the sentence itself) but that's probably wasted on you.

If you can't understand that people see things differently even if its supposedly "obvious" as to what the meaning is, then you're a lost cause. Even beyond Islam there's people who don't know how to read signs properly or can't understand simple sentences.

But literature, and yes the Quran is literature if you say it's anything else you're basically a hypocrite and not as secular as you say you are, specifically religious literature is always interpretable. Doesn't matter what it is, the author is dead and the meaning the author, whether God or Mohammed, ascribed to the Quran is irrelevant.

Basic literary theory but that's too hard for you to understand. This is why I hate theological discussions. They get so bogged down in shit that doesn't matter.


Except they did, of several 100s of groups there is only a couple of dozens left


I'm talking about after the initial conquests.

And, to be fair, at least there is some groups left. In Europe, they killed off even Christians who thought differently about Christianity (which goes to show why you don't place faith in religious authorities to reform the religion) and in Asia, they killed off anyone who wasn't Han Chinese.

And let's not forget that the Byzantines and Sassanids weren't the most benevolent people on Earth.

The Byzantines were basically a proto-state with the bureaucracy and authoritarianism that came with it; they thoroughly persecuted any religious groups which weren't state mandated.

The Sassanids were basically a proto-ethnostate and thought that their culture was superior to everyone else's and, unlike the Greeks, they weren't interested in spreading it. No, they wanted to keep everyone out of their little club.

There's a reason why most religious minorities in the Byzantine and Sassanid empires fought for the Muslims.

You haven't posted a single line of evidence.
The only thing you posted was a few posts about some scholars disagreeing with Salafism without going into any of the material. And in the only post where it does slightly go into the material, it argues in the Foro' not in the Osol.
So even your citations prove that my point is right and yours is wrong.


Ok, if everything I posted isn't evidence and your personal interpretation of a couple of verses is evidence then the word "evidence" is meaningless.

Like, why don't you actually engage with the evidence I provided instead of dismissing it because I gave alot.

And you haven't brought a single verse or hadith to support your claims about the religion.


I don't need to because my claims about the religion don't rely on the actual context of the book itself. It's more like a meta-commentary if you know what that is.

Not all of them, but a majority, around 60-70% I would say based on what I can tell from the various stats on the topic.
Atleast those are the numbers in the middle east.


We've discussed why such stats inconclusive before and we have had, for the first time, come to an agreement.

I'll look for the thread and then just repost my arguments because we're retreading familiar ground.


That bullshit about "not qualified" stuff wont work with me.
Your personal experiences account for shit because you're discussing a religion, a religion with text and source material.


No, we're not. This was never about theology which is why bringing up what Sunni Muslims believe and what not or what the establishment thinks, something that should be irrelevant in regards to theology.

We are discussing, in this context, what Sunni Muslims do not what Sunni Islam says because, quite frankly, your entire perspective rests on the idea that Sunni Muslims will always follow the literal interpretations.

However, my experience contradicts this and thus, my experience is worth knowing. You've spend most of your time in Lebanon in Baalbek, an isolated Shia city in the valley. You are not well learned enough about Sunni Muslims, their perspectives, ideologies, etc. to make the claims that you're making about them.

Thus, my pedigree holds more weight than yours.

And I point to ISIS and the gulf states because they're the biggest examples.
IF you want, we can start addressing the beliefs common in Syria. Don't worry, it's pretty similar to those in the gulf states, and I know this from both stats and personal experience.


Depends on where you look. Not that this matters really. People's minds can be changed rather easily actually and, in Sunni Islam, the ideas of the population determine what it is. If the ideas of the population sway in a particular direction, then that will become the new establishment.

Why else would Saudi Arabia dedicate so much funding into spreading Salafi influence? Because in Sunni Islam, if you control who Sunnis listen to, you control their opinions.

As stated before, you haven't shown the material of these scholars, which I'm fully aware why.
And in the only instance where an example was given, they disagreed in the Osol not in the Foro'.
And that fairytale book has armies and nations applying its words, it wont be some mysterious god that applies these punishments is all I'm saying.


I'm not talking about scholars, I'm talking about the common man. The common Sunni Muslim makes his own ideology, he doesn't follow a particular person. Instead, he picks and chooses ideas. And I've shown the material of these scholars and their ideas; you just called them all Westerners and called it a day.

Just look at the circles they're in. The things they preach are the ones born in the American and British Muslim communities, and we're drowning in their propaganda all over here.


What are even saying? "The things they preach are the ones born"? This sounds incoherent. They're Algerian, Egyptian, and Pakistani and the first two were alive during the 60s or 70s.

And what type of research do you mean? Are you referring to reading the records and establishing considerations based on those records? A guy on the street can do this level of research but entire multinational entities can't?


Historical research, archeology, reading the original records, examining the traditions of villages/tribes and correlating them with historical traditions, etc.

Just general, real science. Compared to science in the Middle East which is mostly just weirdos claiming they made a drug that cures gayness or something.

There are real Middle Eastern scientists and researchers but most of them are western trained. Even Iran mostly falsifies it's scientific papers. I didn't want to believe it at first because I've always had a soft spot for Iran and was so proud of them that they were making to many scientific papers but, alas, they were mostly fake.

You know you can easily go back and see what I wrote right?

Unless you're claiming that by me simply throwing a quote of a verse out there I'm giving my own version of it?


You gave me the verses and then made a conclusion that was an interpretation of those verses.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you sure you read Arabic? Because based on what you keep saying I'm getting the sense that you think I'm interpreting the verses I quote? I'm not, I'm simply copy-pasting them directly from the Quran and Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim without adjustments, you can check their numbers.


You are. Some of the ones you quote you say they say something they don't and for the others you take them out of context.

Infact, not only have I not given any interpretations thus far, none of the verses I quote are open for interpretation, they're all clear cut.

I have my own interpretations on the prophecies and what they mean in all 3 religions, but that's an entirely different subject.


They are interpretations. The fact that you think they're clear cut indicates this.


But that's what I just said.
Those guys were called un-Islamic and their ijtihad was refuted.


Which means that the opposite could happen again.

No, not really, it wont. It's very easy and clear cut.


See? This proves my point.

And I said before, my claims don't rely on the source material.


It does matter, you made a claim, I've provided tons of evidence why your claim is wrong, now it's your turn to back your claim.


My claim is that it doesn't matter. That was my initial claim.

So prove that the Quran matters. Prove that God will smite people if they interpret it differently.

And they'll be refuted again.
I already put the verses on, someone will come up to them holding the Quran and say, God says otherwise, and the whole thing falls apart as in the last time.


How do you know it'll get refuted again?

And it only matters in Sunni Islam if people actually listen to that person.

And if people today have their own interpretations of Islam why would they listen to them? Why would it become popular?

You can point to Salafism all you want but the only reason it's popular at all is because of Saudi sponsorship.

So, again, why would it get refuted?


Well, Iran is mainly Shi'a, and all I talk about here is how we're fighting the clerics and how Islam is dying in Iran.
And Baalbek is mainly Shi'a, and pretty much everything I talk about is how we don't give a fuck about religion in Baalbek.

It's almost as if you've bought into your own narrative.
Funny.


Sorry, but that's the impression I got from someone whose spent the last 7 hours screaming about how superior Shia Islam is to Sunni Islam. I apologize if I offended you

I'm anti religion in general. You just happen to make a claim regarding Sunni Islam, and I felt like giving the evidence why your claim is wrong.


Dude, this conversation really was about truth, you would've understood my point a long time ago.

The point is that you've got baggage on this. For me, it's about changing Islam and the world itself. You saying Sunni Islam can't be reformed is like you blocking me from my revolution and I won't let that happen.

I don't know why you care so much, but it's definitely not some self-serving attempt at obtaining truth.

Really?
So Jafaris and Thawahris are the same?
How about Zaidis and Abadis?
How about Jafaris and Alawites?


Imamate.

Everyone who knows anything about the topic does.


Clearly not you that's for sure. And I guess most Muslims don't know anything about the topic.

And no, not all Shias follow the Sunnah, majority don't, and those who do take very limited part of it.
Now, since you know so so so much about the various Shi'a sects, there is a sect that take some parts of the Sunnah, there is another which removed everything and keeps only the parts by Ali, there is a third which denies that Mohammed was the prophet to begin with and claims Jibrel akhta' or the angel Gabriel made a mistake and the true prophet is ali, and finally there is one that says Ali is wali allah, i.e the successor of god on earth.


Yeah that's what I meant.

Those are the Zaidi, Jaffari, Abadi, and Thawahri sects.
Which one holds which of those beliefs?


I honestly don't care about religion in a serious way at all. I just know what politically has to happen to get the results I want.

In what possible scenario where "Don't do X or else" is interpreted to "Do X as much as you like"
This is the type of scenario you're talking about.


I've given you scholars that gave those scenarios.

And there is a reason why you haven't brought any verses to apply this to so far, you know your argument will fall apart the minute you try to apply it.


I gave you scholars. That's enough for my claim because my claim is that the Quran is open to interpretation.

Or, to rephrase, Sunni Muslims interpret the Quran and that's all that matters because Sunni Islam has no central authority.

Even Quranists are being labled as Shias.


Most people don't consider them Shias. Most of them just consider them on the wrong path or kafir or mushrikeen.


It's not. Not all Shi'a sects hold these beliefs, and even the principle of Imamate not only differs between various sects, but some even reject it.
The ones holding it being the majority doesn't mean others don't exist. Again, there is a reason why we specify the sect.


Then the common denominator is Ali reverence.

Anyone who ever read anything about Shi'a sects would know this.


Well I clearly don't. Obviously.

I don't know about Ahmadiyya, but Quranists are indeed being labled Shi'as.
You can simply see the Fatwas regarding them you know.


Just because a couple of scholars or even the establishment marks them as Shias doesn't make them so because A. Quranists don't identify as Shia and B. Quranists don't revere Ali or anyone.


Really? Are you sure?
Because I have read all about them and read their version of the Quran and I have family members who're Alawites.
And they're not the same.
But let's go down this hole, what are the basis of their beliefs?
And since you know so much about them, they have an extra section (Sura) in their book, what it's called?


Well I do know they revere Ali soooo. Yeah, foundation's the same.

Wars are being faught over Fatwas right now.
100s of thousands are being killed by these Fatwas.
Countries either rise or fall based on Fatwas as we speak.
And somehow, you can't see any power these Fatwas hold.
:knife:


That's a good argument against the establishment of both Sunnis and Shias not Sunni Muslims or Islam.


Ok, so you really don't know how to read Arabic. :lol:


I'm not going to play games with you.

Because those were verses from the Quran.


No shit sherlock.

Does quoting the verse it self directly from the Quran somehow count as interpretation in your mind?


The conclusions you made of them are interpretations. And I maintain that all meanings one takes from text is an interpretations due to reasons I gave above.

You do realize that all this Arabic text I was quoting was directly from the Quran right?


Oh no. I thought it was English for a second. :roll:

In the part about the 20th and 21st centuries.


I'm on mobile so I'll check it after I post this.

Naah, not really.

One is actually closer to Catholicism than it is to other Shi'as or Islam in general.
Which part of the aforementioned challenge, you have to guess which one of the major 4.


I don't wanna.

Those started the Golden age, the Hanbalis ended it.
And destroyed the Mu'tazila while doing so.


Well not really. Technically the Golden Age continued up to the 17th century if we take into consideration Samarra, Iran, the Ottomans, etc.

The Hanbalis closed the door of itjihad though.


No, they don't.


Yeah they are. Make up a basic rule right now and I'll break it.

A state law no longer being applied doesn't mean it stopped existing. e.g. why Germany has to occasionally go back to laws from the 1800s, not applying them doesn't mean they no longer existed.
And when you're talking in the context of Islam, people who believe in Islam believe that these laws were decreed directly by god to them.


No that's not what I meant at. To put it simply, there's a reason why people think lawyere are liars and demons.

Which it feels this point, that they believe it's god's direct word, needs to be emphasized to you.


That's completely irrelevant. It's practically just fluff to me because it has no bearing on my argument or claim.

And some are fringes and don't consider themselves to be Sunnis or mainstream Sunnis, and others are only "reforming" the Foro' without touching the Osol, which makes the whole process useless.


The fact that they're fringe is completely irrelevant. Protestantism was fringe af before but look at it now.

Then go read the fucking Quran and bring an example of where these interpretations could work.
I've brought tons of verses, all discussing Osol, and none of them have the potential for interpretation because they're all in clear and simple words.
Go and bring some verses where the verse is discussing a rule or a primary principle and show how you can interpret it.


Just read my response at the tip top. Near the start. It has "meta-commentary" in it.

Actually no, the Sunni scholars you cited don't go into the Osol, they go into the Foro'.


The Algerian, Egyptian, and Pakistani definitely go into Foro.

If you insist that they do, dig through their work and bring examples.
Because I have seen the work of similar scholars and they don't go into these things.


I quoted their entire wikipedia pages.

I did.
If you think otherwise, quote the parts where they do.


No you didn't. They definitely go into Foro and you spent the last two posts claiming they weren't real Sunnis or that they were fringe.

And now you need to explain how. Because the parts where you claim there are interpretations are places where it's nearly impossible to interpret anything.
If you don't want the verses, let's take a simple example in English.


I don't need to explain how. Why would I speak for a majority of Sunni Muslims? Ask the people who come up with their own interpretations.

> Do Not Drink Alcohol<
This is similar to one of the verses. How many possible interpretations could there be for this sentence?


Depends on your understanding of other ayats.

The guy you've been parroting his ideas for the past hour.


I'm very confused about what you're talking about. I looked him up and he's apparently a Christian.

Like who?


My dad, mom, my uncle, my sister, a local shopowner I met, etc. etc.

The Sunni scholars both mainstream and fringes don't touch alot on the Osol, and the ones who do don't even consider themselves to be Sunnis.


The fringes definitely do and they do consider themselves to Sunni or reformists. So you're again wrong.

You don't know what you're talking about.


You don't know what you're talking about.

:lol: :lol:


Now, let's cut this whole quotes and started with a smaller summary.
Once you're done with you kiddy ad-homs, bring evidence to back your argument or atleast show examples of this interpretation in action, it doesn't have to be yours. Noting it must be a verse in a ruling or in a principle since those are what Osols are and those are the ones that establish the religion.


I've already given you evidence to support my claims.

You just don't know what my claim is.
#15028795
@Palmyrene
And how do the verses prove your point?

They show how in one hand:
1- The language used is simple and straight forward.
2- Some were about anyone trying to diverge from the Quran.

I'm not BSing. Most "copy the prophet" people focus on the more moderate parts of the prophet's life while the more extremist parts are ignored. It's just cherry picking.

Anyone who applies Islam to the fullest is an extremist. And those are the ones currently ruling the day.

Prove to me they're saying what you claim their saying.

You can easily use translator if you don't understand them.
I didn't make any claims about what they mean, I simply mentioned the topic and put the verses talking about it and mentioning it directly.

Doesn't change the fact that Salafis are only in control because of Saudi funding. It isn't because Sunnis are naturally extremist or whatever BS you're spouting.

Salafis are in control right now irregardless. Saudi Arabia only made it because it conquered its way to power.

and on the second part, they don't have to be, the minute they pursue applying their religion, it'll be the same as the Salafis do, as we've already seen dozens of times before.

No, it was while they were a slave.

I already put a verse that mentions Muslim slaves. And the source you quoted says that they have to buy their freedom.

It isn't because they do not think religion said not to do X. Because their conception of the religion is different.

Which you, thus far, have failed to explain how.
How could a simple sentence like that be interpreted ?

To make it clearer, they don't believe there is a rule against it.

Then they don't believe in that part of the Quran and thus not part of our discussion.

I don't think you actually live in the Middle East that much because, over here, Islam is matter of culture rather than dogma.

I lived in the middle east my entire life and in multiple countries. Primarily, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE.
Only moved out of the middle east a couple of years ago.

You put waaay too much faith and credibility in the establishment scholars and Salafi and decide that their interpretation is the best.

Because not only I've seen them, but we can simply follow the news and the stats to see that they do hold faith to the highest degree.

Sociologists and historians disagree.

Source?

All my info comes from Western and original sources for this exact reason. I'm an anarchist and you think I trust what a state says?

Really, how about the history of Ibn Katheer.
What he describes is pretty much everything I said, the only difference is that he glorifies these practices.


No, it doesn't. Sunni Islam is reliant upon which scholars people follow.

Already proved my point and quoted those mechanisms to stop any change.
If you want to dispute it, bring proof why these mechanisms don't have any effect.

It doesn't matter what the establishment thinks; if a specific set of reformist scholars get massive popularity then they will be the establishment.

If, that's the important part, if.

And when they become the establishment, then those Salafis will become fringes, but still operate regularly.
Since they'll still be holding the Quran and the Sunnah to the original text. And they'll also claim that everyone else are heretics, as they already do.

Actually it was very popular amongst peasants (at least Syrian ones)* so I highly doubt that. You don't just become the ideology of an empire and not have great deals of influence in the lower castes.

*Source: Hanna Batatu's Syria's peasantry, the descendants of its lesser rural notables, and their politics.

Quote the source. Because I doubt it says so.

Since the Hanbali movement heavily relied on peasants for recruitment.

In Arabia, a sizable portion of the population converted to Islam so it was at least pretty popular.

Actually the conversion began in the upper classes. The full conversion took a good while before it caught on.

That's like using Evangelical Christianity as proof that Christianity will always remain backwards.

But it is backward. Have you ever read the bible dude?
The only reason why Christian countries are doing so well is that they're less and less Christian and more atheistic now.

It is still currently better than Islam since it was defanged if so to say, but still shit through and through.

When the Caliphate was at it's highest prosperity, the Muta'zila sect was born so socio-economic conditions are tied to the liberalism of the religion.

And if socio-economic conditions increase and open access to religious books made haram by the current establishment is allowed we can see these ideas be revived.

Sure, but the Hanbali movement was born at the same time as a counter to the influence of the Mu'tazila.
So it's not strictly socio economics.

First, I've given you shit loads of sources which you've either said are irrelevant for no stated reason or said that the scholars I listed don't matter because they aren't with the establishment.

No you didn't.
All your sources either don't support your argument or are focused on foro' not Osol.
You claim that personal interpretation and reforms to the Osol can be done, yet the scholars you cited don't approach the Osol, they just focus on the little secondary topics (Foro').

Second, I've said your sources are irrelevant because they are based on interpretation of the text itself. I could quote Wittgenstein and tell you about how all text is interpreted due to how language is interpretative (for example, puns which are based on the ambiguity of the sentence itself) but that's probably wasted on you.

Except I didn't present any interpretation nor have I tried to interpret the verses.
I just put them outthere, sorted by topic. They speak for themselves.

If you can't understand that people see things differently even if its supposedly "obvious" as to what the meaning is, then you're a lost cause. Even beyond Islam there's people who don't know how to read signs properly or can't understand simple sentences.

Which you so far have failed to demonstrate how?
The only way your method works if the meanings of the words themselves were changed. And I'm not talking complex words, I'm talking basic words, like if the word Khamr (خمر) suddenly stopped meaning alcohol and started meaning something else entirely.

But literature, and yes the Quran is literature if you say it's anything else you're basically a hypocrite and not as secular as you say you are, specifically religious literature is always interpretable.

And if you continued reading down that line, you'd notice a little thing on the side that tells you that the level of interpretation depends on the complexity of the text.
Complex texts has tons of potential for interpretations, simple texts has very limited potential.

Doesn't matter what it is, the author is dead and the meaning the author, whether God or Mohammed, ascribed to the Quran is irrelevant.

Except that author told us what he means in most of the Quran.
All the Osol are Osol because not only they came in the Quran in simple and clear text, but also because they were confirmed in the Sunnah.

This is why quoting someone who disregards the Sunnah entirely would be irrelevant to this discussion. The Sunnah is what solidifies these rules.

Ok, if everything I posted isn't evidence and your personal interpretation of a couple of verses is evidence then the word "evidence" is meaningless.

1- Everything you posted so far as "evidence" tend to confirm to my point more than to yours, as I've already explained why.
2- I did not provide any interpretation, I just quoted the source material without any follow ups.

Like, why don't you actually engage with the evidence I provided instead of dismissing it because I gave alot.

I did, and I stated exactly why it confirms to my point not yours. Multiple times so far.
In response, all you did was ignore and didn't even bother to counter my points about it.

I don't need to because my claims about the religion don't rely on the actual context of the book itself. It's more like a meta-commentary if you know what that is.

So you're not discussing Islam, you're discussing personal philosophy.
Why are you making claims about Islam then?

We are discussing, in this context, what Sunni Muslims do not what Sunni Islam says because, quite frankly, your entire perspective rests on the idea that Sunni Muslims will always follow the literal interpretations.

And as anyone who ever watched the news or read any report on the ground would know, what Sunnis Muslim groups currently do is based on what Sunni Islam says.
Individuals aren't all the same so we can't make judgement on that, sure. But we can look at a group or an entity that has a clear manifesto and actually see what they think or do.

However, my experience contradicts this and thus, my experience is worth knowing. You've spend most of your time in Lebanon in Baalbek, an isolated Shia city in the valley. You are not well learned enough about Sunni Muslims, their perspectives, ideologies, etc. to make the claims that you're making about them.

Lived in Jordan for a few years in the midsts of Salafis. And in Kuwait and the UAE with Wahabis. And lived and worked with Sunni Lebanese and Sunni Syrians.
So isolated. :knife:

Depends on where you look. Not that this matters really. People's minds can be changed rather easily actually and, in Sunni Islam, the ideas of the population determine what it is. If the ideas of the population sway in a particular direction, then that will become the new establishment.

Ok, sure. Let's discuss what ideas are currently spread in the Syrian population and what are the basis for these ideas.
Which area do you want to start with first?

I'm not talking about scholars, I'm talking about the common man. The common Sunni Muslim makes his own ideology, he doesn't follow a particular person. Instead, he picks and chooses ideas. And I've shown the material of these scholars and their ideas; you just called them all Westerners and called it a day.

And we disagree on that, primarily because we can see that a large portion of Sunni Muslims in the middle east do indeed follow the original text and don't "make up their own interpretations". And the reason why they don't is as I stated so many times and backed it even more, on the key rules, there is very little room for interpretation.

Historical research, archeology, reading the original records, examining the traditions of villages/tribes and correlating them with historical traditions, etc.

Those take very little resources with the exception of archeology, which is why foreign scientists do the archeology mainly.

There are real Middle Eastern scientists and researchers but most of them are western trained. Even Iran mostly falsifies it's scientific papers. I didn't want to believe it at first because I've always had a soft spot for Iran and was so proud of them that they were making to many scientific papers but, alas, they were mostly fake.

Iran is one of the leading countries in scientific development and growth.

You gave me the verses and then made a conclusion that was an interpretation of those verses.

Except I didn't. I gave you the verses based on topic. I expected you to read them, but you ignored them.

You are. Some of the ones you quote you say they say something they don't and for the others you take them out of context.

Such as?
If you want we can go back to them one by one and I'll bolden the words for you where it mentions the topic being addressed.

They are interpretations. The fact that you think they're clear cut indicates this.

How exactly are they interpretations when no follow up text was presented?
And how does the verse itself count as "interpretation" ?

Which means that the opposite could happen again.

Sure, the Islamic world has been running in circles for centuries now so it wont really make a difference.

See? This proves my point.

And I said before, my claims don't rely on the source material.

How does it prove your point?

I asked you multiple times to go back to the verses and try to find a different interpretation for them. Be it your interpretation or that of others, as long as it is an interpretation.
You wont find any.

And how does your claim not rely on the source material if it's all about interpreting and reforming the very same source material?

My claim is that it doesn't matter. That was my initial claim.

So prove that the Quran matters. Prove that God will smite people if they interpret it differently.

It matters to the people in question.
You not believing in it doesn't mean they stopped believing in it.

And God wont be the one doing any punishing, it'd be other Muslims because they do believe in their religion.

How do you know it'll get refuted again?

Because it's the same story again and again. This whole discussion isn't new, people have been having it for a thousand years and the cycle just keeps spinning.

Dude, this conversation really was about truth, you would've understood my point a long time ago.

And it still is about the truth.
You're trying to push the argument that it can be reformed into a personal believe system like what was done with other religions, and I'm showing you why it wont work.
If you want to discuss it, then you have to show how will it work not keep claiming it will.

You already presented your claim, you now have to explain why will it work and how will it work, or atleast provide a material (a source) explaining this process and the discussion can move on to whether it's valid or not.
You, however, are stuck arguing the claim instead of going ahead and backing it.

You want to cite scholars? Sure, go ahead, but don't cite that said scholars exist, cite their work and argue their work if you support it.

I've given you scholars that gave those scenarios.

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

This is why I doubt there can be any meaningful reforms, it's useless to say reforms when they're not even trying to change the basic rules.

Most people don't consider them Shias. Most of them just consider them on the wrong path or kafir or mushrikeen.

True, and most people consider Shia's that as well.
But when scholars come into the picture to classify things, they classify all of them as the others, or Shi'as.
Just like how recently they classified Alawites and Druze as Shi'a. Even when Druze aren't even Muslims (according to the Druze themselves)

Then the common denominator is Ali reverence.

Ismailis.
Here you go, the rule got broken.

Well I do know they revere Ali soooo. Yeah, foundation's the same.

Again, Ismailis.
Also, Zawarqa. (< This one you'll find in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India mainly)


That's a good argument against the establishment of both Sunnis and Shias not Sunni Muslims or Islam.

I know, the difference is, the smaller one (Shi'a institutions) are already dying, so we better start focusing on killing the bigger ones in the other.

The conclusions you made of them are interpretations. And I maintain that all meanings one takes from text is an interpretations due to reasons I gave above.

The conclusion that these verses are written in a simple manner?
Just take any of these verses and let others read it, be it in your family or elsewhere.
They'll all get the same idea from it, because it's clear cut and simple, it uses everyday words and doesn't use any poetic style or anything.

That's completely irrelevant. It's practically just fluff to me because it has no bearing on my argument or claim.

It is entirely relevant, since the belief that it is the word of god is what gives it its legitimacy.

No you didn't. They definitely go into Foro and you spent the last two posts claiming they weren't real Sunnis or that they were fringe.

Exactly, they go into the Foro' (the secondary rules and teachings), they don't go into the Osol (the primary rules and teachings). Which is what I'm saying.

And the only guy I said wasn't a Sunni was the one who disregarded the Sunnah entirely, he's a Quranist by his own claim not mine.

I don't need to explain how. Why would I speak for a majority of Sunni Muslims? Ask the people who come up with their own interpretations.

No need to speak for anyone, just speak for yourself.

Depends on your understanding of other ayats.

Well, when you study the Quran, you'll notice that the contradictions happen in the Foro', not in the Osol. The Osol which are the basic rules and principles are actually pretty consistent and repeated multiple times in the Quran in a pretty copypasty method.


I'm very confused about what you're talking about. I looked him up and he's apparently a Christian.

He's not. He converted to Christianity then converted back to Islam.

The fringes definitely do and they do consider themselves to Sunni or reformists. So you're again wrong.

Like who?
All the ones you brought don't touch the Osol, and the only one who does is the one who, by his own admission, isn't a Sunni.
#15028881
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
They show how in one hand:
1- The language used is simple and straight forward.
2- Some were about anyone trying to diverge from the Quran.


How do they prove its in simple and straight language?

Anyone who applies Islam to the fullest is an extremist. And those are the ones currently ruling the day.


That's irrelevant (especially to theology). The point is that Sunni communities cherry pick what aspects of the Prophet you should copy.

Salafis are in control right now irregardless. Saudi Arabia only made it because it conquered its way to power.


This original conversation was about specifically theology. If you wanted to talk about the political situation now (i.e. the current establishment) then that's a completely different conversation entirely.

Yeah, Salafis are in control and Saudi Arabia allowed them to have the power they have now but that could change. I change that. Compared to the other issues I'll have to face, reforming Sunni Islam or Islam is pretty easy.

and on the second part, they don't have to be, the minute they pursue applying their religion, it'll be the same as the Salafis do, as we've already seen dozens of times before.


What Sunni Islam is depends on who you are talking about. As I've said before, Sunni Muslims make their own individual interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah (of which are legitimate due to the lack of central authority in Sunni Islam). One Sunni Muslim could apply Islam completely differently from another. The Mutazila certainly thought their Islam was better than others.

The only reason Salafism has power at all is because of Saudi funding so it's not natural at all.

I already put a verse that mentions Muslim slaves. And the source you quoted says that they have to buy their freedom.


I'm referring to historical examples and stories of slaves converting to Islam and gaining their freedom or taking their masters to court and gaining their freedom by pointing out their mistreatment.

Which you, thus far, have failed to explain how.
How could a simple sentence like that be interpreted ?


I have already explained how you're just waaaay too dense to properly understand it.

Then they don't believe in that part of the Quran and thus not part of our discussion.


There's a difference in not believing a part of the Quran and believing that a certain surah or hadith negates the surah you're discussing or makes it ok.

Which is what most Sunni Muslims do. They use the contradictions of the Quran and hadith to their advantage.

I lived in the middle east my entire life and in multiple countries. Primarily, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE.
Only moved out of the middle east a couple of years ago.


Then you should know Islam is cultural not religious. Hell some Egyptians follow supposedly "Islamic" traditions that are in actuality ancient Egyptian traditions. Islam has basically become a part of the culture.

Because not only I've seen them, but we can simply follow the news and the stats to see that they do hold faith to the highest degree.


Of course the establishment and scholars, who recieve money from Saudi Arabia and have the most to gain from the current system, are going to be extremist.

And, like I said, we've already discussed why the stats are inconclusive.

Source?


I've just posted a portion of wikipedia article which stated that sociologists have found that ISIS or Salafi villages don't properly follow medieval Islamic customs and traditions.

You're stellar argument against this was that it was "BS" and said that all their research is worthless because they're Western.

Really, how about the history of Ibn Katheer.
What he describes is pretty much everything I said, the only difference is that he glorifies these practices.


How about Ibn Khaldun or the Caliphate's official records? And no, the Caliphate isn't going to lie about what went on the records so liberals in the future will support Islam. That's a dumb notion.

Already proved my point and quoted those mechanisms to stop any change.
If you want to dispute it, bring proof why these mechanisms don't have any effect.


I've given you my evidence. People make their own interpretations anyways and come to their own conclusions about Islam. I've even given you scholars who believe this.

It doesn't matter what's said in the Quran. People already make up their own ideas. There's nothing you can do about too. You can go to my neighborhood, scream at them about how God's going to kill them for making their own interpretations and will not give an iota of a fuck.

If, that's the important part, if.


No ifs. It will. Whether I do it or not. When Saudi Arabia and the Gulf falls, Salafism falls with it. Salafi terrorism isn't sustainable, it requires constant funding. If that funding goes away they're done.

And when they become the establishment, then those Salafis will become fringes, but still operate regularly.
Since they'll still be holding the Quran and the Sunnah to the original text. And they'll also claim that everyone else are heretics, as they already do.


I'm assuming that by "they" you're referring to the Salafis.

How would you know if the Salafis will operate regularly? Do Sufis still operate regularly? No.

Sure there'll be some small groups left but they'll be powerless. No one will care about. They'll just be some minor raiders and murders.

Quote the source. Because I doubt it says so.


Dude, I'm on mobile. Look I'll quote it after I write this post. I may not because I get tired writing these long responses on mobile and I still have 5 more people to respond to, but I'll try.

Actually the conversion began in the upper classes. The full conversion took a good while before it caught on.


There was a good portion of the poor population that supported him though. His ideas of wealth redistribution and charity were very appealing to the disenfranchised and many Sahaba were former slaves, criminals, merchants (once a upon time capitalists were disenfranchised), etc.

But it is backward. Have you ever read the bible dude?
The only reason why Christian countries are doing so well is that they're less and less Christian and more atheistic now.

It is still currently better than Islam since it was defanged if so to say, but still shit through and through.


My point is that pointing the most violent part of a religion and saying that this is the religion is a tad extreme.

Sure, but the Hanbali movement was born at the same time as a counter to the influence of the Mu'tazila.
So it's not strictly socio economics.


Actually yes it is. The entire reason why the Hanbali movement was created is because the Muta'zila establishment began silencing and imprisoning anyone who refused to believe in their ideas. Like they would imprison and torture people till they said that the Quran was created for example (which is stupid because most people believed that the Quran was created at the time anyways).

So it was due to authoritarianism and persecution of differing ideas which gave the Hanbali movement it's current legitimacy. This is a thoroughly socio-economic consequence.

No you didn't.
All your sources either don't support your argument or are focused on foro' not Osol.
You claim that personal interpretation and reforms to the Osol can be done, yet the scholars you cited don't approach the Osol, they just focus on the little secondary topics (Foro').


The Egyptian, Algerian, and Pakistani all touch on Osol' and they are all relevant to my argument.

You just claimed they weren't because they are "outside the establishment". That doesn't matter to my claim.

Except I didn't present any interpretation nor have I tried to interpret the verses.
I just put them outthere, sorted by topic. They speak for themselves.


No, they don't. You made an initial claim that the Quran says something and then you posted verses which you think supports that claim.

You interpreted the verses and thought that they support your claim. If you didn't, then you wouldn't have posted those specific verses at all.

Which you so far have failed to demonstrate how?
The only way your method works if the meanings of the words themselves were changed. And I'm not talking complex words, I'm talking basic words, like if the word Khamr (خمر) suddenly stopped meaning alcohol and started meaning something else entirely.


Well the Algerian dude thought the Quran should evolve with the Arabic language itself. Apparently this is "Foro'" to you?

But I digress, I have demonstrated how. People utilize the contradictions of the Quran and the ambiguity that results from these contradictions to introduce new theories.

And if you continued reading down that line, you'd notice a little thing on the side that tells you that the level of interpretation depends on the complexity of the text.
Complex texts has tons of potential for interpretations, simple texts has very limited potential.


Actually complex texts often have the most clarification while simple texts often have the most ambiguity.

Take the rule "Don't Drink Intoxicants" for example. Well what is an intoxicant then? What is it's definition? What does the Arabic word, khamar, specifically refer to?

Hanafi scholars uphold the unlawfulness of khamr, but restrict its definition to fermented juice of grapes or grapes and dates. As a result, alcohol derived by means of honey, barley, wheat and millet such as whisky, beer and vodka are permitted according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, although all forms of grape alcohol are banned absolutely.

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

So clearly, a guy who drinks beer is a-ok.

Except that author told us what he means in most of the Quran.
All the Osol are Osol because not only they came in the Quran in simple and clear text, but also because they were confirmed in the Sunnah.


Except that the author's dead so his word doesn't matter and given how many people interpret his words anyways it's even less relevant.

And if the Quran is clear then Muslims are stupid because even scholars interpret things differently.

1- Everything you posted so far as "evidence" tend to confirm to my point more than to yours, as I've already explained why.
2- I did not provide any interpretation, I just quoted the source material without any follow ups.


Scholars interpreting Foro' isn't proving your point. Scholars interpreting the prohibition on alcohol to be specifically wine not beer isn't proving your point. Regular Sunni Muslims making their own interpretations isn't proving your point, etc.

None of my evidence proves your point.

I did, and I stated exactly why it confirms to my point not yours. Multiple times so far.
In response, all you did was ignore and didn't even bother to counter my points about it.


No you didn't. You disregarded the sociologists and scholars who interpreted Foro' as "westerners" despite the scholars all being from Islamic countries and the sociologists being better researchers than actual Arabs.

So you're not discussing Islam, you're discussing personal philosophy.
Why are you making claims about Islam then?


I am discussing Islam and Islam is a personal philosophy for many Sunnis.

And as anyone who ever watched the news or read any report on the ground would know, what Sunnis Muslim groups currently do is based on what Sunni Islam says.
Individuals aren't all the same so we can't make judgement on that, sure. But we can look at a group or an entity that has a clear manifesto and actually see what they think or do.


What Sufi orders and groups currently do is based on what Sunni Islam says too.

Lived in Jordan for a few years in the midsts of Salafis. And in Kuwait and the UAE with Wahabis. And lived and worked with Sunni Lebanese and Sunni Syrians.
So isolated. :knife:


Working with Salafis and Wahhabis for years isn't really going to do good to your mental health.

I'm assure you, Sunnis are not all like Salafis and Wahhabis.

Ok, sure. Let's discuss what ideas are currently spread in the Syrian population and what are the basis for these ideas.
Which area do you want to start with first?


The status quo doesn't matter because the status quo will change.

I can change their minds. I'm sure of it but it'll require getting rid of all Salafi influence but that's easy compared to starting an anarchist revolution.

And we disagree on that, primarily because we can see that a large portion of Sunni Muslims in the middle east do indeed follow the original text and don't "make up their own interpretations". And the reason why they don't is as I stated so many times and backed it even more, on the key rules, there is very little room for interpretation.


Your only evidence for this are statistics which we've agreed are inconclusive in a previous conversation (and I didn't forget it). They don't. They make their own interpretations.

Those take very little resources with the exception of archeology, which is why foreign scientists do the archeology mainly.


Getting your hands on the original copies of works isn't easy and interpreting them, finding out the time period they're in, etc. etc. is hard as fuck.

They take alot of resources to do.

Iran is one of the leading countries in scientific development and growth.


Yeah I believed that too until I did more research and Iran does do the same thing China and the US do, they fake research papers.

You have STEM cell research so I'll give you that.

Except I didn't. I gave you the verses based on topic. I expected you to read them, but you ignored them.


I did. I just don't see how that's relevant to my claim.

Such as?
If you want we can go back to them one by one and I'll bolden the words for you where it mentions the topic being addressed.


I'm on mobile I can't do that. Unless you're suggesting you do that for me?

How exactly are they interpretations when no follow up text was presented?
And how does the verse itself count as "interpretation" ?


I've explained above.

Sure, the Islamic world has been running in circles for centuries now so it wont really make a difference.


It will. I'll break the cycle by raising socio-economic conditions.

Remember, the Malaysian scholars who made hijabs haram were influenced by Salafi thought.l

How does it prove your point?


If you don't even understand why you're a lost cause.

I asked you multiple times to go back to the verses and try to find a different interpretation for them. Be it your interpretation or that of others, as long as it is an interpretation.
You wont find any.


I gave you one. I'll find others.

And how does your claim not rely on the source material if it's all about interpreting and reforming the very same source material?


Because interpretations rely on obtaining meaning from the source material which is different for every person because people see things differently.

It matters to the people in question.
You not believing in it doesn't mean they stopped believing in it.

And God wont be the one doing any punishing, it'd be other Muslims because they do believe in their religion.


If I can stop believing that God will smite me for interpreting it differently and if they already interpret it differently, then it doesn't matter at all.

You're screaming at a brick wall.

Because it's the same story again and again. This whole discussion isn't new, people have been having it for a thousand years and the cycle just keeps spinning.


It isn't. History is not cyclical at all. I absolutely hate that mentality and if that's what you gain from Islamic history then you clearly don't know anything about it because the conditions and results are different every single time.


And it still is about the truth.
You're trying to push the argument that it can be reformed into a personal believe system like what was done with other religions, and I'm showing you why it wont work.
If you want to discuss it, then you have to show how will it work not keep claiming it will.


It can because people already practice it as a personal belief system anyways.

The only reason Salafism is powerful is because of Saudi funding so nothing about Salafism is "natural".

You already presented your claim, you now have to explain why will it work and how will it work, or atleast provide a material (a source) explaining this process and the discussion can move on to whether it's valid or not.
You, however, are stuck arguing the claim instead of going ahead and backing it.


It works because people already do it.

You want to cite scholars? Sure, go ahead, but don't cite that said scholars exist, cite their work and argue their work if you support it.


I cited their entire wikipedia articles.

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


Saying ayats are signs is foro'? Saying the Quran should evolve side-by-side with the Arabic language is foro'? Saying that the Quran should be analyzed as a piece of literature is foro'?

No it isn't.

True, and most people consider Shia's that as well.
But when scholars come into the picture to classify things, they classify all of them as the others, or Shi'as.
Just like how recently they classified Alawites and Druze as Shi'a. Even when Druze aren't even Muslims (according to the Druze themselves)


What the establishment thinks doesn't matter (especially when it will change soon). When it comes to identity, how you personally identify as determines who you are oooor whatever most people see you as (Arabs didn't call themselves Arabs, it was a name given to them).

This is why Lebanese are Arabs despite mostly not having only "Arab" genes. Because they mostly identify as Arabs.


Ismailis.
Here you go, the rule got broken.


Well someone close to Ali.

Again, Ismailis.
Also, Zawarqa. (< This one you'll find in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India mainly)


Someone close to Ali.


I know, the difference is, the smaller one (Shi'a institutions) are already dying, so we better start focusing on killing the bigger ones in the other.


?

The conclusion that these verses are written in a simple manner?
Just take any of these verses and let others read it, be it in your family or elsewhere.
They'll all get the same idea from it, because it's clear cut and simple, it uses everyday words and doesn't use any poetic style or anything.


Literal scholars interpreted the prohibition on alcohol differently.

It is entirely relevant, since the belief that it is the word of god is what gives it its legitimacy.


No it's irrelevant to a discussion about interpreting the Quran.

Exactly, they go into the Foro' (the secondary rules and teachings), they don't go into the Osol (the primary rules and teachings). Which is what I'm saying.


Sorry, I meant Osol. They go into Osol.

And the only guy I said wasn't a Sunni was the one who disregarded the Sunnah entirely, he's a Quranist by his own claim not mine.


He still identifies as Sunni to my knowledge.

No need to speak for anyone, just speak for yourself.


I'm not Muslim though. I do have this weird religion I made up that's based on Islam, Zoroastrianism, and Hellenist philosophy but that's different.

Well, when you study the Quran, you'll notice that the contradictions happen in the Foro', not in the Osol. The Osol which are the basic rules and principles are actually pretty consistent and repeated multiple times in the Quran in a pretty copypasty method.


People disagree on Osol all the time. My parents have religious arguments about Osol.

He's not. He converted to Christianity then converted back to Islam.


How was I supposed to know that?

Like who?
All the ones you brought don't touch the Osol, and the only one who does is the one who, by his own admission, isn't a Sunni.


They do touch Osol.
EU-BREXIT

The 2016 referendum is not history, it has yet […]

Canadian Federal Election

Just out of curiosity, do Chileans care about Arg[…]

No that's just a scam that has just been debunked[…]

Why are Assad and Russia letting Turkey do this? […]