All doctrines are decided by people, and when they want it be based on religion, they go to that religion's scripture.
All religious doctrines are decided by people and evolve based on what the people desire.
Currently, the reason why you see regular Sunni Muslims making their own interpretations while the establishment scholars decide the theology is because there is a disconnect between the theology of the people and the theology of the establishment.
If the theology of the people is given legitimacy and force of will, then the theology of the establishment would be destroyed. This is why the establishment dedicates so much energy into removing books which they deem "haram" because those books are dangerous to their power.
You're claiming that anyone can randomly interpret the religion without any conditions.
I bolded the parts where even your source tells you that it has to be based on something already in the Quran or the Hadith, and that it is done under certain conditions.
Which is what I've been saying all along, and you've been disagreeing with it.
Well the essay comes to the conclusion that you're saying is wrong so you need through it in it's entirety to understand why it says that the Quran is open to interpretation.
You literally just took the surface level details and claimed that it agrees with you. It doesn't. The article, in it's full, is about saying that Islam is open to interpretation and is compatible with anarchism. I've quoted directly from the essay where it says that does.
Open to interpretation under a set of rules and within a specific foundation, As both me and your article claim.
The article doesn't claim that. It explains the basics so it can later on twist the basic rules and foundations for it's own purposes, something you say is impossible but clearly happened in the essay.
You need to re-read. The entire point of me quoting that article is to restart the conversation. You are not restarting the conversation and I suggest that you do.
Take easy genius, it's only a couple of pages, you didn't bring a book into it.
Most of the things said in the article are thing I've already said my self here.
You simply ignored the parts of it that goes against your argument and took the parts you liked, which is why you ended up having a skewed understanding of the piece.
A habit not strange to you I can tell.
You don't know my argument and you didn't even read the entire article, especially the part where it said what the thesis was and it says, and quote again in full:
In this thesis, I will show the textual evidence for my argument regarding the existence of anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian principles, concepts and practices in Islam. As well, I will provide the Koranic justifications for my re-orientation of these principles in order to demonstrate the interpretative tradition of Islam [and it's anti-capitalist and anti-statist nature]
You haven't read the entire thing, ignored the thesis which literally tells you exactly what the essay is about and what conclusions it makes, and now you're saying it argues with you despite textual support demonstrating that it doesn't.
If you didn't read this then you didn't read the scholars I cited.
The argument both in real life and presented in the page is whether it is allowed in general or allowed in certain quantity, and whether it is punishable or not.
The part about the punishment is simply because there are no verses in the Quran mentioning any punishment.
And I quoted the part where it says that yes, even the Hanafis, believe that while wine is not allowed at all, others are only allowed under a specific quantity, meaning it's not allowed to get drunk off of them, but you can taste them.
Does this contradict what I've been saying? No.
Because the basic rule, taken from the Quranic verses and the Hadith, is that you shouldn't drink. This is what the Asel here is.
The fer', i.e. where the interpretation comes in, is based on the verses and the hadith mentioned in that very same page on top, and the arguments made on it is whether it should be punished or not since there is no punishment mentioned and what degree should the ban cover. As mentioned in the same page.
There is no disagreement over the Asel, there are disagreements over the Fer' in it.
You not understanding this is your problem, not mine.
Try reading the basics of Fiqh before you start blabbering on the subject.
The relevant point is that non-grape wine or liquor is allowed and not punished.
10th, 11th, and 12th centuries.
And those periods were periods of economic growth and prosperity.
For whom exactly?
Victorian England was a time of growth and prosperity but it was clearly a specific part of the population that benefited from that growth and prosperity.
The same can be said of the Abbasid Caliphate.
Simply the ideological divide and the perceptions were growing as time went by.
Especially considering that this is the period where some groups were starting to abandon the Abd Al Malek ibn Marwan Quran as critics of it were arising.
If you weren't aware of this before, the Quran you see today wasn't always like that, infact, the eldest version is believed to be almost double the size; This is because Osman Ben Affan edited the Quran, and burned much of it, then Abd Al Malek in the Ummayad empire came along and burned that Quran and gave a new version as well. (this 3rd version is currently in the British library, and you can look it up online, there are significant differences between the Osmani Quran and the Marwani Quran.)
The period between the late 9th century and the mid 12th century was a period of an internal religious dispute as the Khawarij (latter on to be called the Imami Shi'a, and not the same Khawarij as the ones in the early days, Khawarij is a word just like Shi'a is, it's a category) were starting to rise again; As with everything, every action has a reaction, and as the Imamis started to spread, the religious pull from the other side started to increase, generally led by hardliners and mainly Hanbalis.
I'm not entirely sure Uthman actually burned the Quran or made his own. That seems to be a myth more than anything.
This period was the begining of modern Islamic history as the foundations for all major sects and movements started then.
This is why trying to bring the original Shi'a of Ali into a discussion about Shi'a schools of thought is useless. Those don't exist anymore, and anyone who knows anything about the topic knows those are a minor and irrelevant thing.
I didn't bring them in the context of this period but to show how Shia Islam evolved despite it's most simplistic and single-minded roots to whatever the fuck it is now. Thus, Sunni Islam can do the same.
1- The early Khawarij weren't political, they were religious wars.
They started after Osman bin Affan made his Quran, or "collected the Quran". That's why they described him as an infidel and promised to hellfire.
The conflict was between those who hold the first version of the Quran against those who hold the new rewritten version of the Quran.
To hell they weren't. The Khawarij were the most political faction.
And it wasn't entirely because of what is quite frankly a myth or rumor.
2- Al Redda wars were religious wars as well.
They were against those who left Islam entirely.
Not entirely. The actual issue with apostasy in the Caliphate was that it lessened the Caliphate's control over Arabia which is a big no no for any state or empire. It was religious because being Muslim was about allegiance to the Caliphate and so what was fundamentally a political conflict was given religious aesthetics.
It does, it was part of the south's society and culture.
No it isn't.
And racism is a different topic.
Those libraries, like the British Library, photograph these scripts or pages, put them in PDF files or in slides, and make them available to the public.
Not all of them and most medieval Arabic books aren't even mueseums and libraries. You can't easily access all of them.
Pretty much everything is digitized, even ancient scripts and tablets can be found in this form.
Like I said, not most of them. If you count how many texts are digitized compared to the amount of texts actually published and surviving, it's a ridiculously small number of digitized works.
All the ones that survived are currently digitized in this form.
Literally, all of them, even scripts that were on stone tablets.
The stone tablets especially aren't all digitized. The famous or significant ones sure, but most of them are not.
If it's sectarian, then it means it's religiously motivated. If it's otherwise, then we say it's a civil war or strife.
No, it doesn't indicate motivation at all. All it does is indicate that it was a conflict between sects but the nature of that conflict remains ambigious.
Also, since most sectarian conflicts start locally to you, and since most local peasants don't actually know much about their own sect, it's not going to religiously motivated. It's going to start with someone dying or something being stolen.
Two different fucking sects.
For fuck's sake how are you unable to understand these basic concepts?
It was one sect before. How do you not understand that basic concept?
Actually they do.
Read the new CCP laws and manifestos. They follow state capitalism right now, have been for several decades as part of the reforms.
No, they don't follow state capitalism. From the wikipedia article:
While non-Chinese analysts generally agree that the CCP has rejected orthodox Marxism–Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought (or at least basic thoughts within orthodox thinking), the CCP itself disagrees. Certain groups argue that Jiang Zemin ended the CCP's formal commitment to Marxism with the introduction of the ideological theory, the Three Represents. However, party theorist Leng Rong disagrees, claiming that "President Jiang rid the Party of the ideological obstacles to different kinds of ownership [...] He did not give up Marxism or socialism. He strengthened the Party by providing a modern understanding of Marxism and socialism—which is why we talk about a 'socialist market economy' with Chinese characteristics." The attainment of true "communism" is still described as the CCP's and China's "ultimate goal".
Also the CCP doesn't have a manifesto it uses anymore. You have to look at the constitution, and the constitution still defines itself as communist
And in the Baath manifesto you can see that they want to create a nationalist socialist republic, which is exactly what Syria is.
A nationalist socialist republic is a fascist republic. You know, the whole national socialism thing, fascism.
This is just grasping for straws. "Nationalist socialism" (which is not even the term Baathist books use btw) is not "national socialism" or Nazism. Baathism specifically discusses republicanism and socialism but nationalism is discussed in a different light.
Of course it's all incoherent hogwash but they definitely don't claim to Nazis. That's dumb even for you
Baathist claims they're national socialists, Which is another term for fascists.
It's mentioned several times in their manifesto.
No, it refers to Nazis which is a specific type of fascism. And Baathists don't claim to be Nazis. They're fascists yes, but they're not Nazis and don't outwardly claim they're fascist. If you've read Alfaq's books you would know this.
State capitalism is a school of thought within Communism.
No it isn't otherwise pretty much every country is communist because all countries have state owned enterprises and influence.
Yes, they abandoned Maoism and adopted State Capitalism. Both are communist schools of thought.
This is what the movement of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" was all about.
That's not how they define "Socialism with Chinese characterstics". And state capitalism isn't communist.
Venezuela is socialist, though it has corruption but yes it is still socialist.
And Sweden is a social democracy.
Then Sweden would be actually socialist and Venezuela should be a social democracy. Because, ya know, Sweden has more state control than Venezuela.
Both are exactly what they claim to be.
The only outlier country is north Korea since it claims to be a republic when it's, in reality, an absolute monarchy.
Not an outliner. I bet I can find several African countries, a country in the Balkans, or something that lies about what it claims it actually is.
And Egypt too.