Thoughts?

Thoughts?

>The Ring of the Dove’s profound impact on the European Medieval literature, with numerous textual examples, but also provides a hypothesis of its influence on Christian thought and philosophy.

>It is worth mentioning, why such a literary genre as a treatise on love had a great importance in the past. To start with, a particular literary and social code of behavior that later became known under the general term of courtesy, emerged from European Medieval lyric poetry. Of course this courtesy was influenced from various other traditions like Neo-Platonic and Ovidian. Though, the core of any courtesy is likely to be Islamic, as it is not as much about sensuality, but about forging the character. The very idea of ennobling power of love as an essential part of European courtly culture, seems to be taken from Ibn Hazm’s work rather than authors like Andrea Capellanus, who considered ennobling in the meaning of social hierarchy, due to the seeking love from women of higher social rank.

>There is a big misunderstanding regarding Ibn Hazm’s treatise that requires an explanation. For example, Juan Ruiz, a medieval Castilian poet, and archpriest, thought that Ibn Hazm’s work was mostly about adultery since Ibn Hazm clearly does not consider marriage as a necessary element of courtly love. In Islam, there is no concept of adultery as in Christianity, and in the historical context, the relationship does not necessarily require marriage as long as it is firm within Shariah law bounds. (There is a distinction in the law between spouses and “those whom one’s right hands possess”, i.e. slave girls).

islam4europeans.com/2017/12/15/the-ring-of-the-dove-ibn-hazms-impact-on-european-culture/

Attached: 1533.jpg (1200x630, 73K)

The idea that the Medieval courtly love tradition was heavily influenced by Andalusian culture is nothing new, just this person is trying to put the "didyouknow this european thing was actually given us by muslims??!?" angle into it

>considered ennobling in the meaning of social hierarchy, due to the seeking love from women of higher social rank.

This trick surely is older than the middle ages, it's neither Muslim, nor Christian, nor anything. Treating the woman as if she was as special as a high social status elite is the easiest way to access her because humans like being high on the hierarchies. It will always work unless you are physically repulsive. After she opens to you you can start talking dirty to her and fuck, because she already feels you paid enough respect points to not make her feel like an easy worthless bitch in what comes next.

In the long history of homo sapiens it'd be stupid to think we only invented that trick in the last centuries.

we wuz mediaeval western european christians n sheeeeit

Baste and Ahmed pilled

>There is a big misunderstanding regarding Ibn Hazm’s treatise that requires an explanation. For example, Juan Ruiz, a medieval Castilian poet, and archpriest, thought that Ibn Hazm’s work was mostly about adultery since Ibn Hazm clearly does not consider marriage as a necessary element of courtly love. In Islam, there is no concept of adultery as in Christianity, and in the historical context, the relationship does not necessarily require marriage as long as it is firm within Shariah law bounds. (There is a distinction in the law between spouses and “those whom one’s right hands possess”, i.e. slave girls).

lol how the fuck did this broad think that writing this out would help her case.

>acktually adultery doesn't exist in Islam and besides you could always take slaves

holy lmao

These people are obviously amateurs, a professional would have just accused the priest and anyone making this point of Islamophobia.

>it's another episode of Kafir has a meltdown because cultures differ

Attached: antifemen.jpg (570x760, 68K)

OK I actually read the article. It's worse than I thought.

>Many Spaniards and many Hispanists, following their lead, have wished to view the eight hundred years of Islamic presence as a negative period in their history

I wonder why

>Muslim Spain, as a civilizational project, was the last outpost of Islam, and this phenomenon should be more accurately considered this way.

there is no sense in which this statement is correct

>Though, the core of any courtesy is likely to be Islamic

assertion from dogma

>as it is not as much about sensuality, but about forging the character

this is a non-sequitur, and the implication that Islam is less sensual than Christianity is false IMO. This article, for example.

>The very idea of ennobling power of love as an essential part of European courtly culture, seems to be taken from Ibn Hazm’s work rather than authors like Andrea Capellanus, who considered ennobling in the meaning of social hierarchy, due to the seeking love from women of higher social rank.

This sentence basically invalidates the entire point she's making, that courtly love is somehow the product of Andalusian Islam.

"Sure, this Christian guy wrote about courtly love, but this Muslim dude wrote about something completely different! Therefore, Muslims invented courtly love."

>cope about the adulterous nature of courtly love
Yes, it's also bad when Christians do it. Again, lol at wherever she learned that "adultery doesn't exist in Islam". Probably her husband.

>dude this slave totally wanted me bro
Pretend this was written by a Southern gentleman in the 19th century instead of by a Muslim in the 11th.

>slavery is acktually good because religion says to treat your slaves well. Also you can fuck them.
This is what happens when you substitute morality plays for historical study re: abolition. P.S. these people are gonna bring slavery back.

>Hickman, concludes with admitting that Islam influence the traditional role of women in European cultures by giving them voice and respect. “Empowerment of women received its inspiration in part from the tolerant and progressive society of Islamic Spain.”
Hickman is a faggot if he believes this.

>And this influence happened through works like Ibn Hazm’s neo-platonic love and carnal love emerging into one concept.
you haven't made that case, you ragheaded cunt.

feel free to explain how the statement

>In Islam, there is no concept of adultery as in Christianity

is anything other than totally false.

haha
you could slap this bitch repeatedly and she wouldn't be able to do anything
haha

Men can have multiple wives, the article actually cites a specific romance with a slave as an example of courtly love

Hitting women in the face or hard enough to mark them, unless there is conviction, is prohibited in Islam.

>Men can have multiple wives, the article actually cites a specific romance with a slave as an example of courtly love
Since you didn't answer the question the first time, I'll ask again:

>Is "adultery" a concept in Islam?

I honestly don't know where the trouble is, because there is and it's trivially easy to verify. This broad is just wrong. If a Muslim only has one wife (or, you know, the Muslim IS the wife), then having sex with someone else is adultery, just like a Christian.

I'll even point out that a Christian with multiple wives is committing adultery by having sex with someone who's not one of those wives, exactly the same as a Muslim who does the same thing.

The concept in Islam is zina, it means fornication, period.

Islam is disgusting and deserves to be exterminated from the world.

Attached: AdobeStock_16555301922-1024x683.jpg (1024x683, 55K)

>Hitting women in the face
Can I hit them elsewhere? Back of the thighs? Punch her in the arm? Kick in the stomach?

This.

WE

> In Islam, there is no concept of adultery as in Christianity
> each and every muslim is a cuck
Like poetry.

>In Islam there is no concept of adultery
I fucking hate liberal Muslims.

That's literally wrong though. Adultery is the worst sexual sin and you are stoned to death for it.

Hitting your wife is only permissible if she does something serious and refuses to be corrected by words, such as drinking, exposing her legs, publicly disrespecting you, etc. It is not about sadism, it is meant to help her and ensure she does not stray.

Attached: CassieHijabMUG.jpg (1524x1600, 318K)

Zina makes no term of distinction for adultery as such, all zina incurs stoning if you are a Muslim and have been married, even if you're divorced, it is about being held to a higher standard of maturity.

>even if you're divorced
Sauce? Also fornication is just lashes.

Fornication and adultery are not seperate terms in the Qur'an or in Ahadith. The crime is simply zina.

Fornication is just lashes if you have never been married before or in mitigating circumstances. Even after marriage it could be lashes depending as implied when the Qur'an says slaves you take to wife only get half the penalty for zina (obviously fifty lashes, not half a stoning).

So in other words, having sex with someone you're not married to is bad, but it is worse (as evidenced by the prescribed punishment) when you ARE married, but not to the person you're having sex with. I.e., adultery is worse than unmarried fornication. Got it.

If a married man has sex for example he is stoned but the woman he had sex with is merely flogged. People who are married have less to mitigate their sin, this is why Hanbali fiqh says masturbation is not a sin for an unmarried man or woman who cannot find a spouse, but for a married man or woman it is considered a serious sin.

is it actually enjoyable to read? european medieval lit is pretty trash overall, especially courtly crap and christian allegories, so not particularly interested in anything that influenced that but am interested in reading more islamic works that are good.

It's baste

>AFTER verbal allusion, when once the lover's advance has been accepted and an accord established, the next following step consists in hinting with the glances of the eyes. Glances play an honourable part in this phase, and achieve remarkable results. By means of a glance the lover can be dismissed, admitted, promised, threatened, upbraided, cheered, commanded, forbidden; a glance will lash the ignoble, and give warning of the presence of spies; a glance may convey laughter and sorrow, ask a question and make a response, refuse and give-in short, each, one of these various moods and intentions has its own particular kind of glance, which cannot be precisely realized except by ocular demonstration. Only a small fraction of the entire repertory is capable of being sketched out and described, and I will therefore attempt to describe here no more than the most elementary of these forms of expression.


>To make a signal with the corner of the eye is to, forbid the lover something; to droop the eye is an indication of consent; to prolong the gaze is a sign of suffering and distress; to break off the gaze is a mark of relief; to make signs of closing the eyes is an indicated threat. To turn the pupil of the eye in a certain direction and then to turn it back swiftly, calls attention to the presence of a person so indicated. A clandestine signal with the corner of both eyes is a question; to turn the pupil rapidly from the middle of the eye to the interior angle is a demonstration of refusal; to flutter the pupils of both eyes this way and that is a general prohibition. The rest of these signals can only be understood by actually seeing them demonstrated.

I'm a Christian, which means I hate gays and Muslims equally.

Doesn't the Church support gays now?

It can't, literally, it isn't a choice.

What do you mean it can't? It used to say enslave all Muslims, now it commemds Al-Islam.

these types love islam tho

/lgbt/ hates Islam

It simply can't change teachings, the current Pope couldn't even get away with slightly altering the wording on the death penalty in the CCC without being accused of heresy.

half of them are /pol/ posters

They should. I don't want my religion to have anything to do with homo enabling.

Attached: 64A5DB59-21C1-4743-B8BF-C30DC6FC16A9-334-00000060F6F66C65.jpg (240x240, 9K)

It taught before to enslave all Muslims, but John Paul edited the catechism to say the plan of slavation includes Muslims and he also agknowledged the Qur'an is holy by kissing it and supporting the building of the first mosque in Rome. The Church changes teachings

The pope has literally blessed a gay strippers parrot dude.

Islam is not homophobic, stoning is for the *act*, not the orientation

Orientation wasn't a concept pre mordernity. And I said enabling.

>The pope has literally blessed a gay strippers parrot dude.
I'm not even surprised.

Attached: D1drc_iV4AIAs89.jpg (233x228, 10K)

True