I want to get into Islam but I don't know where to start
1. What translation/study Quran do you recommend
2. Any books/artists expanding upon Islamic philosophy/theology
3. Books on the Sunni vs Shia schism
Islamic Literature
I want to get into Islam but I don't know where to start
1. What translation/study Quran do you recommend
2. Any books/artists expanding upon Islamic philosophy/theology
3. Books on the Sunni vs Shia schism
>I don't know where to start
Try google.
>google
I would much rather take the advice of a IQfy anon, than a redditor.
bruh but this site is infested with redditors, newbie lmafo
Oh google peace be apon it
Just read it fully first. Any translation works, just go with translations, without the input from any author.
Literally https://quran.com/
You can listen to each veese and read the translation of it.
I really suggest you rea it without anyone's input except that you do it with a sincere intention to listen to the message and use your rational faculties while you do so. A lot people inherit a culture and pre-interpretation before having the opportunity to read it and contemplate it.
I took a class on Islam in college. the book we used was "Key themes for the study of Islam" by Jamal J. Elias. We never read the Quran in class, so idk what a good translation is.
Don't start with the Qur'an or hadith literature. They'll seem vague and difficult to understand piecemeal. Watch Islam on Demand's Foundations series with Hamza Yusuf and Abdal Hakim Murad. They're both white Western converts that are very well versed in the classical traditions of both the West and Islamic world. Once you get a general idea of the faith, I suggest reading seerah literature (biography of the Prophet, many good ones in this area, Martin Lings wrote a good one and there's a famous one called the Sealed Nectar, but I can't remember the author at the moment) in conjunction with the Qur'an and maybe even some hadith books (I suggest Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, since the vast majority of the sayings are accepted by Sunnis). For a translation of the Qur'an, I suggest using Mustafa Khattab's The Clear Qur'an due to its abundance of simple footnotes. I personally don't like the translation for a myriad of reasons (the difficulty to translate Arabic into English leads most to read from multiple translations at once), but the footnotes are quite helpful.
As for philosophy, I wouldn't even consider getting into it until you're firmly grounded in an understanding of the religion. A lot of non-Muslims make meme tier philosophical and debating mistakes purely because they don't understand the tradition, and assume it's just Arab Christianity.
I can't recommend many good modern Sunni vs Shia books, but the foundations of Islam series covers the basic stuff, particularly the Abdal Hakim Murad videos.
Here's the link to the videos
>I suggest Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, since the vast majority of the sayings are accepted by Sunnis
I would recommend Bukhari and Muslim just to learn about the absolute subhuman state of Sunnism. Have a look:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200606133250/pastebin.com/2CJrErSe
How do sunnis defend these abhorent hadiths? Are they considered fabrications? Does the shia have anything similar or is it all good in their hadith books?
Shia are much less circumspect. To give an example, the Hadith book they have they consider the strongest of their collection is by itself bigger than the entire six Sunni books.
That is, the six strongest Sunni collections
You still havent responded to the question. As a sunni, what do you think of your hadith collection and hadiths in general? What madhab do you follow? You mentioned some books about a guy in the taliban and a salafi imam in a previous thread.
He has said he is ahl al-hadith (salafi). He picked this just because he wants to larp as le edgy and transgressive online. When the taliban took over, he was saying he plans to go there to help them build the theocracy. Of course it went nowhere because as we all know he's just an online larper.
Have you talked to any westerner that read the Qur'an without any background? I have. They invariably complain about: repetitiveness, disjointed narrative, threats of hellfire, hostility to non-believers, etc.
This is what happens when they read it without any background. They miss the point. Reading some introductory books like the ones by Nasr as I recommended above would prepare them to learn how it ought to be read. Nasr is non-sectarian in his introductions by the way.
Glad to help anon. Shi'i hadith remains under-appreciated despite the vast wisdom in it. Al-Kafi was compiled before the final Occultation of the last Imam. The Imam himself reportedly read it and said "this book will suffice our Shia".
I understand where you're coming from but there are some inaccuracies here.
>Both sects refuse each other's hadith based on wether it makes sense with their own theories and dogma.
We reject Sunni books on the basis of it being a collection of lies told by the people who betrayed the Prophet. Granted, some truth slips here and there, but the majority of it is highly unreliable given the character of the narrators.
>since they approach it as a book that can mastered
This is not true in Shi'im. We believe the Qur'an is a book of inexhaustible depth and many layers, the full depth of it being only accessible to God. The Imams as divine guides can help us understand some inner layers, but the full mastery of it not possible.
>They'll ask you things like how do you know how to pray from the Qur'an
I'm genuinely curious. How do you as a Quranist ensure your prayers are correct?
> not realizing that they are saying that the Book is not detailed enough
The book is detailed enough because it tells you to obey the Prophet and the Imams. If you don't, it's your fault not the book's. "O you who believe! Obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you" (Q. 4:59). As the Quran itself says, it is not meant to be standalone.
I lean toward Zahiri school, mostly interested in Ibn Hazm and Shawkani regarding fiqh.
Ahl al-hadith isn’t edgy, it’s a very old and traditional movement in Islam, all four imams subscribed to it more or less.
I got the plane ticket but unfortunately ran into some legal trouble. The Taliban are not Salafi so I’m unsure where you’re going with this
Nasr is too close to the American government for my liking, he strongly sympathized with the British puppet government in Iran as well which is why he fled after the revolution
>madhab
this guy is a wahhabi, he doesn't follow any madhab, he is the average white londonistan convert
Have you seen how they are as a people? How do you think they became this way? Sunnis accept dogmatically everything that is in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (Sahih means true/sound). Shias even in their most credible books require research into the authenticity of the narration before accepting it. Sometimes some weired hadith pops up in Shia hadith, the authenticity of which are disputed, but by and large the Shi'i hadith works are of an altogether different nature. See for yourself. These are Nahj al-Balagha and al-Kafi, the two most famous Shia hadith works:
https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons
https://thaqalayn.net/book/1
Also vol. 2 of al-Kafi is important:
https://thaqalayn.net/book/2
The most important Shia books are hosted on this website. I encourage anons to take a look.
Shia have no standard hadith methodology. They will reject or affirm hadiths based on circumstances and public opinion. So reading their hadiths is pointless, since any hadith can be true or false depending on arbitrary decisions. A good hadith that is often rejected is the hadith from Kitab al Kafi claiming the Quran has 17000 verses.
Sunnis are a disaster too.
Islam is low IQ and evil. I wouldn't dig into it. Look up St John of Damascus on Islam. His question regarding the createdness of the Quran has shattered Islam in a million pieces.
Sunnis affirmed multiplicity in unity (multiple eternal/uncreated attributes), which is problematic since they also claim it's shirk, cause trinity.
Shias affirmed ADS which destroys the possibility of predication. If Allah is just 1 and fully transcendent, totally disimilar to creation. Then we can't know anything about Allah or from Allah. One example, Allah being "honest" is meaningless since any meaning of honesty that we can relate to, is not true for Allah. So we can't know if Allah is honest in the Quran. So the Quran loses all its value.
>just 1 and fully transcendent, totally disimilar to creation
Who has taught you that transcendent and dissimilar are synonyms, or that the two concepts can be equated? I've seen you post this argument in past threads and I must tell you again, that your argument is weak
They affirm both, full transcendence and total dissimilarity. So it doesn't matter. Although, I personally don't think something can be fully transcendent and also perceptable to any extent by the human mind, unless it has real distinctions in it's unity that are also present (i.e Energy Essence Distinction/EED)
And idc if you think my argument is weak.
This is incorrect, multiple attributes (energies) are not what is shirk in the Trinity, rather multiple subjects or hypostases are.
Yeah ik that's the comeback, but on what basis is that the case? Why does a category of uncreated persons lead to shirk and not uncreated attributes. It just feels like an arbitrary standard. And I don't think this standard existed until the complexities of Tawhid were brought to light.
Allah’s names and qualities are not considered different subjects, all call upon the same subject. That He is both Merciful and Powerful, two different qualities, is hard to see as polytheism because if a person is merciful and powerful he isn’t two persons
Three persons with one essence and one will. It's hard to see how a God can be perfectly loving from eternity without loving anything.
Also it doesn't matter if attributes are stripped of subjectivity. Divinity is defined as uncreated/eternal. Not whether the category is a person or an attribute or an energy or whatever you want to call it. Anyways, I am not trying to disprove your position here. Just saying, it's very hypocritical to have unity and multiplicity without affirming it anywhere and while complaining about multiplicity in the trinity.
The Shia view, as dumb and deistic as it is, is more in line with the attitude of Muslims about Allah being 1 simple as.
False, we have a whole hadith science. Islamic scholars in seminaries are required to study 20 years (!) to be able to authenticate and use hadith. Read these so you would stop making ignorant remarks:
https://en.wikishia.net/view/Hadith
https://en.wikishia.net/view/Dirayat_al-hadith
https://en.wikishia.net/view/Rijal
Regarding apophatic theology, the Imams believed the truth about God cannot properly be expressed in words. God is supra-rational, he cannot be encompassed in your 'predications'. On the one level, they said we can rely on how He has described Himself in the Qur'an, but we need to keep in mind that these verses are meant allegorically, as 3:7 says there are verses that are allegorical and should not be taken literally. On another level they have said the knowledge of God is only possible through experiential gnosis, what they called 'seeing with the heart'. If one leads an ascetic life and practices certain instructions of the Imams, he can see the light of God with 'the eye of the heart'. This experiential knowledge they have regarded as far more important than petty theological debates ignorant people get stuck in. If someone is interested, read the sermon of Imam Ali linked below (sermon 3 'firm rooting in knowledge') and read ch. 2.3 ('vision with the heart') in Divine Guide by Amir-Moezzi.
https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-anthology-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-tabatabai/unity-god#3-firm-rooting-knowledge
You are a dishonest man. I already said in the post you replied that there are odd hadiths here and there whose authenticity are falsified by the scholars. This is one such case. I'm sure if I were to look I would find far worse things regarding Christianity's view of women.
>keep in mind that these verses are meant allegorically
An allegory has similarities to the literal event it is allegorizing. For example "The flower whithered" is an allegory for a woman that aged. There is similarity between the allegory and the thing in question. So whether the verses are literal or allegorical they must predicate something about Allah, otherwise they are meaningless. The allegory " neeir oeprl jepwp" is as good as any Quranic allegory about God, if there is 0 similarity.
>In regards to the Gnostic bs
If we can only understand Allah with our heart but this cannot be communicated rationally and comprehensibly, then how do we know that to be the case? When you tell me Allah exists, Allah brought down the Quran, Allah is omnipotent, etc... You are communicating rational, intellectual doctrine that requires some form of prediction. Whether you aquired the secret knowledge of Allah is besides the point.
>This is one such case.
This is from Nahjul balagha. Literally translating to "peak of eloquence". It's the most mainstream and promoted Shia book.
>The scholars falsified it
That's their hadith science, must watch video of how slimy and full of Taqiyya Shia scholars are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06-JDB67iOc
I don't consider sunni hadith science legitmate either, because biographies of isnads are basically just accepted as they are. They are not verified in any way.
some form of predication*
I don't care what you say about the religion of the Imams. I think I'll stick with their opinion, you can come up with whatever you want.
>This is from Nahjul balagha
Doesn't matter. Shias have no sahih books. Even in the most famous works there are hadiths the authenticity of which are disputed. You know nothing about my religion and yet you speak so arrogantly about it. Go back to your bible threads.
On what basis is this hadith not Sahih?
Not citing it, just showing how Shia puff up their hadith science, then when asked on their methodology for authenticating a specific Hadith, they go full Taqiyya mode.
>An allegory has similarities to the literal event it is allegorizing.
Yes there are similarities, but non-graspable, supra-rational similarities. That is why they describe God but they cannot be taken literally.
>If we can only understand
The Qur'an tells you these things. You can understand that God brought down the Qur'an, but you cannot grasp what is the exact nature of this 'bringing down'. Stop your israeli trickery.
>Is it halal to walk three steps after Wuduh then pray? Does it explicitly state that in the Quran and Sunnah.
Obviously you just go to pray after wudu as the hadith tells you to. These israeli tricks do not work.
One cannot doubt that Sunni hadith are definitely more in-line with the Qur'an than Rafidha hadith. While the study of hadith has declined in the past 300 years, it has undergone a revival
>One cannot doubt that
Oh, one can definitely doubt that. Where does it say in the Qur'an to drink camel piss?
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5686
Thanks bro. It's refreshing to find some Hadith literature that isn't Sunni stuff tbh
I'm shocked that the Shia have their own Hadith, and if it's more credible that'd be sick.
Both sects refuse each other's hadith based on wether it makes sense with their own theories and dogma. Both say they don't do this and they look at x, y, z. But in really both pick and choose hadith from each others books to show the other side that they are right.
Both take the Qur'an as a holy book in theory, but they are arrogant towards it since they approach it as a book that can mastered instead of a Book that shall remain their master until the End of time.
They are not satisfied with it. They'll ask you things like how do you know how to pray from the Qur'an, not realizing that they are saying that the Book is not detailed enough, while the Quran claims it has been detailed for them.
So, a Quranist approach is the correct one, in your opinion?
Typically people will come bash "Quranists" by saying that they are lost in their ways since they believe they can interpret the Quran on their own. The fallacy there is that anyone who chooses an understanding of the religion is claiming through his choosing that he is able to distinguish between them and is choosing a sect based on his own intepretation of what the truth is, or should be.
My view is simple. If the Quran claims it is the truth, that it is clear, and that it removes doubt, then it should be a book that can stand on its own. The uneducated peasant should be able to find salvation in it, as much as the one who is educated in many sciences. If the Quran is the light that guides us through darkness, then it follows that no man is in a position to guide the Quran through his own light. Most people guide their intepretation of the Quran through the hadith and dogmas instead of guiding their understanding of the hadith through the Quran.
Here's a little example. God tells us all that is from the ocean is halal for us to eat. The sects have their rulings on what we can eat from the ocean.
>but by and large the Shi'i hadith works are of an altogether different nature. See for yourself. These are Nahj al-Balagha
>Women are deficient in faith because of periods.
Well considering Aisha threw a moronic hissy fit I don't see why he's wrong for saying this
Men who consider women "evil by nature" are incels or coomers. Not trying to blurr out the differences and rational faculties between men and women. Try applying his statement to Fatima or zeinab. Try saying that fatima did mutah, watch how Shia get defensive, but apparently mutah is completely halal.
I don't get it, I just clicked the first one and why does it matter that he stoned a mother?
If the punishment for adultery is death by stoning then she should have been stoned to death
>1. What translation/study Quran do you recommend
The Study Quran by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
>2. Any books/artists expanding upon Islamic philosophy/theology
Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from its Origin to the Present, and his History of Islamic Philosophy; also Henry Corbin, History of Islamic Philosophy
>3. Books on the Sunni vs Shia schism
Tabatabai, Shi'ite Islam; Amir-Moezzi, The Silent Qur'an and the Speaking Qur'an
Honestly as introductory books before reading the books above I recommend the following by Nasr, which help you build a strong foundation:
Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization; Muhammad, Man of God
heresy btw
Most of it is just academic literature. Nobody cares about Sunni seething about heresy.
>3. Books on the Sunni vs Shia schism
"The Succession to Muhammad" by Wilferd Madelung
Arabian Nights are mostly islamic literature, they're funny as frick too
1. Arberry for closest to the style, Sahih Internet for clearest. Both are pretty literal. For a study Quran I recommend Qurtubi’s exegesis
2. Ibn Hazm and Al-Ghazali are good choices. Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam covers things like existence versus essence and divine command theory and natural law and so on
3. Defense Against Disaster is the best one volume work on the schism
This is the IQfy philosophy discord if you’re interested because there’s an Islam channel: https://discord.gg/S3nxnxrgrD
Notice how almost everyone in this thread is pulling you into a sect before you even read the Qur'an? Please read it carefully without preconcieved dogma, come to it in a fresh state of mind.
This. It's super hard to get it without someone trying to shove their ideas down your throat. Read everything before making a conclusion.
I say this as someone who is literally learning Arabic for fun. Just so I can read this damn shit. morons make it all the more difficult to get the material too
>another whitoid who’s thinking of converting to Islam because it’s “trad”
Yeah, "trad"
Atheists
-Polygamy
-Prostitution
-Tr4ns/h0m0
-Abortion
-Virtues based on material incentives
-Casual divorce
Shia
-Polygamy
-Prostitution (Mutah)
-Tr4ns/h0m0 (trans 'women' can have intercourse with men) (Most Shia clerics consider trans halal)
-Abortion
-Virtues based on material incentives (Jihad for material gains and material buffet/orgy in 'heaven')
-Man can divorce whenever he feels like it as long as he pays mahr (ransom)
+Child (0-9yo) molestation in 'marriage' and prostitution (Mutah)
Sunnis
-Polygamy
-Prostitution (Misyar) (Or it was acceptable at some point and practiced by muhammad then banned)
-Abortion
-Virtues based on material incentives (Jihad for material gains and material buffet/orgy in 'heaven')
-Man can divorce whenever he feels like it as long as he pays mahr (ransom)
+Child (0-9yo) molestation in 'marriage' and prostitution (Misyar)
Pic related for Shia prepubescent/baby molestation
I know you don't care about the answer and you're just looking for "gotchas", but I'll answer for the sake of those who desire to know. To understand the background of this ruling, you have to know there are two main legal methodologies within Twelver Shi'ism. One is called Usuli (principle-ist), which uses a set of epistemological frameworks (Principles or Usul of jurisprudence) to derive legal rulings from Quran and Hadith; another one is Akhbari (traditionist), which uses Quran and Hadith directly without employing any frameworks. Usulism became dominant after the rise of Safavids, and in response of this dominance something came about known as 'extreme Akhbarism' (in contrast to the normal Akhbarism of the classical scholars and early Shias). The reason I mention this is because an important question in Islamic jurisprudence is what we do when we have no Quranic verse or hadith allowing or forbidding something. According to Usulis, anything for which there is no explicit prohibition in Quran or Hadith is permitted. This leads to these blindspots when someone comes up with some loophole about something that isn't found in Quran and Hadith but is abhorrent, like the thing discussed in this pic. Usulis are forced to say it's permitted. Within Akhbarism, the extreme Akhbarism which developed as a response to Usulism says everything that isn't explicitly made permissible in Quran or Hadith is forbidden. This is obviously a really extreme position which would make life hell, as there are lots of things, especially in modern world, which are not mentioned in Quran or Hadith but we really have to use. In contrast to these approaches, there is 'moderate' Akhbarism, which was the position of the actual companions of the Imams and the early Shias, which says if there is no explicit prohibition and no explicit permission, we do not make a religious ruling on it and we have to rely on our own judgement. This moderate Akhbarism is the approach I follow. Ironically, although Usuli jurists are forced to make rulings like this in theory, in practice they have passed the age of marriage law in Iran to be 18 for males and 15 for females (in exceptional cases 15 for males and 13 for females). So they know this is a problem with their methodology and do not act on it.
>I know you don't care about the answer...
I know this standard. Khoei clearly explains this when he parrots the fatwa of raping babies.
So all you did was describe how Mahometan legalism is majorly flawed. Yes, indeed, in Mahometism, if something is not explicitly fobidden, it is halal. Did I choose this standard? No. This is the Mahometan standard you are stuck with. It's also supported by the story of the israelites, who kept asking Allah questions leading to more restrictions. The lesson from that story is that, of Allah didn't forbid it, enjoy it. And this is how we ended up here.
So clarify how this is a defence, because to me it seems like you are just complaining about how stupid your worldview is. And whining about how I'm not gonna accept it for what it is.
Did you not read? I said there are three approaches within Shi'ism, to this day scholars debate this. Usulis say everything for which there is no Quranic verse or hadith prohibition is permitted. Extreme Akhbaris say the opposite, everything for which there is no explicit permission is impermissible. Moderate Akhbaris say we stay silent and we don't make religious rulings on such matters. This is in fact what Imams said we should do:
"Someone asked Ja‘far: 'What is your personal idea (ra’y) on such a subject?' The sixth imam replied, 'Silence. All that we [the imams] say comes from the Prophet. We have no personal ideas.'"
Amir-Moezzi, Divine Guide, page 15
Akhbarism leads to all actions being silent (unknown) or haram.
Is it halal to walk three steps after Wuduh then pray? Does it explicitly state that in the Quran and Sunnah.
Like I said Akhbarism is a defeater. So you are stuck with Usul.
Furthermore, even if I grant the silent bs, it means you are silent on transgenderism. You can't say no to kids being abused and turned transgender.
Which from a Christian lens is the work of the Devil.
There are hadiths criticizing males acting like females and vice versa, so we can take the cue that it's not permitted. We have an extensive hadith collection commenting on most aspects of human life, so most things are already addressed.
From your Christian perspective you are allowed to do literally anything you want, and crosslarpers want us to believe just 'believing Jesus is God' is going to save them from any sin they commit. You have no prohibitions. You can rape kids (as your priests do) and yet be confident of your salvation. This is the work of Satan in its purest form.
I said there is moderate akhbarism and extreme akhbarism. Moderate Akhbaris don't make rulings (positive or negative) when there isn't a verse or hadith. Are you incapable of reading or you're just pretending to be moronic?
There is another collection which lists the all isnads for each of these hadiths. Based on examining the isnads scholars have disputed its authenticity.
I don't regard some video clip from Saudi television to be a reliable representation of Shi'ism. If you do, there is something seriously wrong with your intellect.
The isnads are good, until a dirty hadith pops up.
That's a very stupid representation of the Orthodox position. No we can't do anything we want cause Christ died for our sins. We can gain eternal life by following in Christs footsteps since he sanctified the world doomed to die as a result of the fall.
>You can rape kids
Again, we are not Catholics.
>Supra-rational similarities
If there is no rational similarity then we can never get to the position that Allah exist, he brought down the Quran, and that the Shia worldview is correct, to then move into the gnostics mysteries.
>The Qur'an tells you these things. You can understand that God brought down the Qur'an, but you cannot grasp what is the exact nature of this 'bringing down'. Stop your israeli trickery.
It doesn't matter what the Quran says if Allah is completely beyond reach. We need to know certain things about the author of the Quran to understand the Quran, trust it, and interpret it.
>Obviously you just go to pray after wudu as the hadith tells you to. These israeli tricks do not work.
If you fart on your way to prayer, your wudu is void. What if walking exactly three steps also voids your whudu. The usul position is the only viable one.
You are even more unpleasant in a debate than a israelite. Your questions remind me of the questions they used to ask Jesus. After this reply, I will have no more time for you.
>The isnads are good, until a dirty hadith pops up.
Not really. There are some beautiful hadith with questionable isnads. They are interesting to read but they we are not permitted to act on them unless its content is corroborated by a sound hadith. It's similar to apocrypha in the Bible.
>orthodoxy
You mean Putin's plaything? Not sure if that's any better.
>If there is no rational similarity
Again, you did not understand. The Qur'an tells you God is the Existent (hayy). You cannot grasp what sort of existence this is, but it clearly tells you that it is an existence.
>if Allah is completely beyond reach
God is not completely beyond reach. If you took time to read the sermon rather than commenting on something you know nothing about, Imam Ali says you can rely on the Qur'an's description.
>What if walking exactly three steps also voids your whudu.
The extreme Akhbari position is that every facet of the sacred law has been handed down to us. So since 'walking three steps' has not been forbidden, then it means there is no problem with it. Only things that have appeared after the time of the Prophet and the Imams which could not have been addressed by them is deemed impermissible by this view.
You again criticize things you have no knowledge about. Go back to your Bible thread and re-read the dialogues between Jesus and the israelites (although I suppose you have done it already but rather than learning from Jesus you decided to follow the example of the pharisees).
>You are even more unpleasant in a debate than a israelite.
Based.
You are a israelite. And you affirm Taqiyya.
> Question : Is lying to an innovator or a promoter of deviance permissible during the time of argumentation against him? If that lie was used to refute his proof and it nullifies his false claims?
>[Answer by] al-Khū’ī: If the reply to him stops his falsehood,it is permissible.
Al Khoei, who was also a smoke addict. who made a fatwa that smoking is haram, but if you are addicted, it's okay.
Not really, yes really. There is no strict standard for what constitutes a good or bad isnad, it's decided on the go depending on whether the hadith makes you look bad or not.
>You mean putin's plaything
cringe, a lot of Orthodox consider putin atheistic/communistic along with dugin and much of "Russian Orthodoxy". Unlike you, were shiism is isolated to a geographical region and its expats, Orthodoxy is extremely diverse and widespread. We have Middle Eastern european, west European, eastern, asian and African Orthodox.
>You cannot grasp what sort of existence this is, but it clearly tells you that it is an existence.
>Hurrr durrr what is analogia
It's really not that complicated. I have explained it 3-4 times now.
For it to mean anything it has to be graspable in some sence. If I say, this guy is my right hand, it doesn't have to be literal. But for it to be meaningful it has to bare some similarity to "a right hand". For example, he must be my helper, my assistant, always there besides me, etc... If there is no similarity, then "my right hand" is a meaningless statement, it's "equivalent to "kioasrhuit". Same with "Al Hayy". If Al-Hayy means anything, it must have some sort of analogy to the created realm. Otherwise it is a meaningless term.
>"God exists bro, but exists in this sense doesn't mean anything you can understand"
>Imam Ali says you can rely on the Quran
Yes, and I'm saying Shiism is inconsistent/self-refuting. So it doesn't matter if he said "we can rely on the Quran" if based on your presuppostions, the Quran cannot be relied upon.
>The extreme Akhbari position is that every facet of the sacred law has been handed down to us. So since 'walking three steps' has not been forbidden, then it means there is no problem with it.
According to you, that was the Usuli position. If something is not forbidden, it is halal (
). Taqiyya MAXXXING. If you want to use that new definition, then great, molesting babies and becoming trans is also not forbidden, so they are halal, like walking three steps between wuduh and prayer.
>Example from the pharisee
Paul was a pharisee who converted and made a lengthy effort to rebuke and debunk pharisiacle teachings. But I guess "hurrr durr he was a pharisee!!" is enough to brush aside all that. Also Islamic circumcision is a 2nd century pharisee tradition completely seperate from the OT (pic related).
>molesting babies and becoming trans is also not forbidden, so they are halal, like walking three steps between wuduh and prayer.
Bruh exactly both of those things are addressed in Hadith and Quran. He is right, the general principal is that if things are not explicitly forbidden, there could be room for its permissibility depending on the Urf and if it doesn’t negate the Maqasid of the Sharia.
Man, please read some more this is not Takiya
He doesn't care about the truth. It's sad how this man is so invested in preserving his idolatrous dogma that he is willing to make up and say anything.
You can take a look and compare them on libgen. I have used Thackston and it's very good, but also very dense. If you have learned another foreign language before it might be a good option; otherwise it might be confusing.
>he doesn't care about truth
You admitted here (
) that the Transgenderism and child molestation allowed Usulism are due to no explicit prohibition. Now you are saying they are explicitly prohibited
You can't stay honest between two posts.
Allowed in Usulism*
The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise
Unlike Shia (where you can become trans then be gay), Sunnis don't have any homosexual doctrine, but historically speaking, when you follow their degeneracy to it's natural conclusion, you end up with lots of it.
The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise is a good book to read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Turkey#Ottoman_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam#Pre-modern_era
There are examples of muslims being against homosexuality. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
But then the Taliban are involved in bestiality
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Turkey#Ottoman_Empire
The wikipedia article you have linked cites extensively from a web article (not an academic article) by a gender studies PhD. In general, do you trust the word of a gender studies professor? I am sure there are also many so-called "gender historians" creating narratives about sexuality in every other part of the world, it is indeed in their interest to do so. Nobody should take their opinions or their wikipedia articles seriously
Yes, because LGBT activists try to support their immorality using Islamic history.
https://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2019/06/same-sex-relations-in-an-18th-century-ottoman-manuscript.html
They try to distort Islamic history, Christian history, and the entire world's history to support their immorality. They create the narrative that "this was normal in the past!." Have you even looked at the citations for the wikipedia article you linked? It bases its argument off of some gender studies PhD who studied some gay erotic literature, and then he makes the argument that the whole Ottoman world was thinking like this. That would be like looking at the most perverted sections of pornhub to make conclusions about American culture
Just because LGBT are evil, it doesn't mean everything they claim is false. When they claim homosexuality in pagan roman society, it's not a conspiracy theory. I sent the Wiki article for a brief overview. There is plenty of evidence from Andalusia and the Ottoman period for homosexuality.
You ignored Andalusia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Arabic_homoerotic_poetry
And I gave you an alternative to the Wikipedia article for Ottoman homosexuality showing manuscript evidence.
https://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2019/06/same-sex-relations-in-an-18th-century-ottoman-manuscript.html
Wasn't justified because young men had features of women, so, it is justifiable to fall in love or express their love for the beauty that resembles a woman. Women are usually covered top to bottom so they really couldn't express much toward them as they barely saw anything.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Arabic_homoerotic_poetry
This wikipedia article also has many, many, many examples of wine poetry. But would anyone claim that Islam is an alcoholic religion? Thus I'm inclined to think that the articles you have sent prove me right. LGBT scholars cherrypick what they want to create the narratives which they like. Also, if you actually read some of the "analysis" on that wikipedia page, it is absolutely ridiculous. At one point it says that because an poet compares his beloved to the moon, he must be talking about a man, because the moon is a masculine noun in Arabic! How absurd! How is it that you are propagating such LGBT narratives so shamelessly?
Fallacy falalcy. You ignored all the evidence fixated on some bs.
From: The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise
>Ibn Hazm laments that Abd al-Rahman III was one of a number of depraved caliphs who gave themselves up “in body and soul to pleasure.” A poem by the Catholic nun Hrotsvitha von Gandersheim (935–ca. 1001) tells the story of the Umayyad caliph’s homosexual passion for a thirteen-year-old male Catholic hostage, Pelayo (later Saint Pelayo); Abd al-Rahman ordered Pelayo beheaded after repeated tortures because the boy had turned him down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius_of_C%C3%B3rdoba
For anyone who is honest, they can explore the multitude of evidences for homosexuality in the Abbasid, Ottoman and Andalusian periods. Also, even if we overlook this, you still have to deal with the doctrinal degeneracy of Islam. If you are a Shia, with legal transgenderism and prostitution, even of children (Mutah).
Ok, so your argument is that because some poets and kings were degenerates, this is reflective of the religion? Then will you say the same about Catholic Popes and cardinals? Was their behavior throughout history indicative of Christianity? The current Pope even promotes abortion and gay rights, but anyone with any sense will agree that he does not represent the true believers or the true religion
My argument was not that Islam doctrinally allows homosexuality from the start, So your objection is irrelevant. Islam is like "true communism". We have 100 versions, but the right one has never been tried yet.
After constant denial, the eternal Saracen let's go and says "so what".
>Aisha wasn't a child, aisha wasn't a child, aisha wasn't a child. So what if she was a child, even the bible has pedophilia !!!
I am against the Roman Catholic schismatics. I do consider their theology to lead to some pretty dark paths including pedophilia and so on. And they are very close to Islam in many ways. Unitarian, legalistic, liberal, etc...
>The current pope promotes abortion
So do Muslims.
On the other hand, I can confidently claim that Byzantium was a great empire that applied Orthodox theology to a great extent.
It is the longest lasting empire in the history of manking <1100 years. And it's destruction came about as a result of constant external aggression with no breathing room, rather than internal degeneration.
The longest lasting Islamic nation was the Ottomans, they lasted 600 years by using Byzantine infrastructure. The Abbasids lasted 500 years but it was more like 100 years then turned into a fake nation made up of many smaller ones.
>The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise
He can't read Arabic, or Latin, or Hebrew. Basically a glorified Wikipedia article.
How to read the Qur'an by Carl W. Ernest alongside Road to Mecca by Muhammed Asad (not required but its a biography journey of an author from secular to being a Muslim) then read the Qur'an with any translations quite honestly but you will still have to compare the translations to make sure you understand the verse well.
1. Andrew G. Bannister, An Oral-Formulaic Study of the Qur'an, Lexington Books, 2014.
2. David S. Powers, Muhammad is Not the Father of Any of Your Men: The Making of the Last Prophet, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.
3. Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford University Press, 1950.
4. Keith Small, Textual Criticism and Qur'an Manuscripts, Lexington Books, 2012.
The first explains how the Qur'an was composed orally by Muhammad using standard techniques of oral performers. The second shows how the Qur'an was altered and how early Islamic history was retconned in order to secure Muhammad's status as the 'last prophet'. The third, although flawed, dealt a severe blow to the authenticity of hadith science from which it has never recovered. The fourth falsifies absolute preservation of the Qur'an.
I'm currently reading The Sealed Nectar, it is a biography of the Prophet, peace be upon him. It's pretty modern, but it won an award in an
international prophetic biography competition so it should be reliable
It's a s*alafi work.
>what translation do you recommend?
Sahih Internation or Hilali/Khan. If you're interested in having it translated with Ye Olde English, try Pickthall's translation
>any books expanding on Islamic Theology
"The Creed of Wasitiyyah" by Ibn Taymiyyah is a good start on Islamic Theology, plus Al Ghazali and his work against Islamic blending with other philosophies and Neoplatonism
>I want to get into Islam but I don't know where to start
Just blow yourself up lmao
>citing youtube videos
Absolute state of this crosslarper.
Whatever you do, beware of the lying shia israelite.
Should I use Standard Arabic An Elementary Intermediate Course. Madinah course or Thackston's Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic?
What's up with Ismailism? Are there some who don't follow the kooky millionaire Aga Khan? What is their view of the afterlife?
this before everything else. http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=97B65038046A83436D42D3A6E8329C2B