Islamic Literature

Making the Quran seem like the ramblings of a schizophrenic warlord. They'd be more open to reform that way.

Probably promoting atheism and hedonism. Lots of turks and bosnians don't really care and drink alcohol and do other haram stuff for example.

Most Salafis are orthodox (they subscribe to Hanbali madhhab) and they are basically the same as Wahhabis (except the latter are used as a tool by the Saudis and shill for their political agendas). Salafis are just a bit off in their interpretation, like they consider coffee an intoxicant and chess gambling. Being salafis doesn't mean endorsing terrorism, it just means you are extremely puritanical.

That man is not salafi by the way even though wikipedia says it, he opposes salafism (which wikipedia also says).

Life is temporary, paradise is forever. Bear with it

Islam is never eroded by arguments, just by hedonism drawing people away from Islam

All madhhabs advocate Shariah. Islamism is the term for that. Salafis however interpret Shari'ah much more strictly than everyone else

Fuck the koran
One Thousand Nights and a Night is superior

Attached: 339EC1D2-4EE4-4359-BA59-42C64464D7AB.jpg (1063x1600, 481K)

In literary quality, no, the Qur'an is simply a masterpiece comparable, from a secular perspective, to Dante (it actually uses rhyming verse in Arabic in many places). Although the genre is closer to oration than poetry

You are just too busy being a proud qtpie to care about actual quality :3

>the Qur'an is simply a masterpiece comparable, from a secular perspective, to Dante
this is what muslims actually believe

I’m wary of cults, especially Abrahamic cults.their prettiness buys nothing extra from me

You just want to take antagonistic stances towards things I like that’s all :3

I'm not Muslim but I agree, try reading it in Arabic

No, it is also what secular scholars in Arabic, like Arberry, believe

Individualism is a cult of the self

not a moslem. btw did you know car exhaust tastes like cotton candy? try it!

>not a moslem
sure thing, Ahmed

back to pol with you, SHOO!

>Bear with it
With the shitty hand he dealt me?

Yes. Paradise is eternal, there you may have whatever you in a body of your choosing, many beautiful women, servants, palaces, beautiful gardens, orchards, libraries, music, sun, joy. Nothing to do but praise Allah and make merry with your friends

That's your only objective? To reach paradise? And not to understand why everything is?

Why did you choose the phrase 'Muslim books'?
>This is a hopelessly restrictive categorizarion for Rumi.

I prefer-- literature from the Near East.
>Oriental literature was a great term but is hopelessly noncommunicative.

Lest we forget Rumi was a Persian poet and the Qu'uran, as you have all dutifully pointed out, is original to Arabic.

Why has there been such an influx of these kinds of posts recently? Fuck off you muzzie cunts. Your culture is only marginally more capable of producing literature than niggers

Isn't this like saying the Bible is in Greek but Aquinas wrote in Latin?

pssst... Did you not see One Thousand and One Arabian Nights?
pssst... It's in the OP.
>Islam:Black People(?) :: Religion:Skin Pigmentation(?)
>I'm beginning to think you are incredibly stupid.

Any good works on prayer?

No

Rumi -> poet
Aquinas -> philospher

Salah, or general prayer?

youtube.com/watch?v=2-43RWNb6is

Rumi wrote in rhyming verse but a lot of his work is definately considered theology and read as such

>God created pain and sadness so that joy could be clearly recognized on account of what's opposite to it. Hidden things are thus made apperent through the agency of their opppsites; but since God has no opposite, only He remains obscure.

ignorance of biblical poetry is ignorance of foundational literature. it's like saying you'll never drink water because you hate bottling corporations

Both, actually. I'm not picky. And fyi I mainly read theological works, so I'm not a total initiate, although my knowledge about islam is limited

If there are actual non-meme practicing Muslims I'd appreciate a reversion/faith testimony on why you practice. I'm a practicing Christian and have been trying to give Islam a fair judgement but alot of my conflict lies with your interpretation of Christ and it's a hurdle I can't get over.

>I'm a practising Christian
And why are you on Yea Forums?

Attached: D5FA880B-B848-4DA7-A13A-26C1C62CBDC6.jpg (330x499, 73K)

Probably just start with videos on wudu and Salah

Muslim interpretation of Christ is pretty reasonable. Possibly Pilate just crucified Barabbas (who murdered Roman soldiers) after having him beat beyond recognition, then Christ visited the Apostles ex post facto. A great deal of Christian doctrine, like abolishing the law, started with Paul, not Jesus

i feel you bro. not even just your fate. the world in itself just sucks. nothing makes sense, literally everything we do is futile. fuck this gay earth.

Make wudu

Explain to me why you're here, on Yea Forums, as a muslim. Cos God help me if you're not here secretly for degenerate porn.

Yea Forums is the best place I know of online for discussing books

How did you get to Yea Forums in the first place? I'm guessing you're a zoomer, so there's a high chance you got here through trap porn.

Memes someone posted elsewhere which they claimed to get from Yea Forums

>Ghazali
>Rumi
Try reading some Suhrawardi, Ibn Arabi and Ibn Sina you salafi-libshit sufi crossbreeds

>Probably just start with videos on wudu and Salah
That's a bit of a lazy respons, considering I'm looking for books

Likely story. The fuck kind memes got you to Yea Forums?

Try reading the Qur'an, nerd

Attached: 1556575872044.jpg (546x767, 59K)

I know but Salah involves correct postures and pronounciation (not to mention ablution, wudu), so videos are a better start

Yea Forums is a board I looked after checking out Yea Forums, the site

I don’t belong to any cults, pea brain

>he buys water from Pepsi Co.

Here is a good article for Wudu

wikihow.com/Perform-Wudu?

You do. You belong to Nietzsche’s cult. You need to branch out into different avenues of thought, I’m sick of seeing the same three book image every single thread.

Salah

mymasjid.ca/beginners-guide-learn-pray-salah/

>after checking out Yea Forums, the site
Which boards? Yea Forums? /s/? .../d/?

I’m :3 by the way. This is going to score me a beating from her later lol idc

Judaism: love and fear God
Christianity: God loves and fears also
Mahomettianism: God also hates and enslaves

Are you the fool who keeps posting that thread “What one book changed your life for the better!?”

Nietzsche is a cool guy, wrote some good books, don’t make a cult of him. He was wrong on some things.
>same thing three book image every single thread
When user stops asking for the EXACT SAME THING, you’ll see less of it.
>branch out
I’m an egoist-syndicalist, so I know the problems of the world can only be alleviated by whole masses. But not cult following masses, user. That s the same madness that got us here in the first place. We need self aware masses, a collective of individuals. Reading Bookchin among other things right now
A’ight?

Get off the internet, doggy. Off!

Are you wearing the collar or not? Just answer honestly. :3

I have looked at Yea Forums and /r9k/, but I will not go back as they are just porn. Only nsfw board I will touch is /pol/

by sexually liberating muslim women. men will have to follow.

100 lashes for fornication

>I have looked at Yea Forums and /r9k/, but I will not go back as they are just porn.
Just two boards?

No, I also visit /his/ and sometimes /out/. I have looked at Yea Forums and Yea Forums and /adv/ but don't care for them

I feel like you're omitting trips to /h/, /s/ and /d/.

Any books on sharia?

Really the Qur'an has the primary text of Shariah. Do you a particular madhhab?

Twelver, preferly

Not an Ismaili myself (Qur'anist), but the teachings on pic related are some pretty interesting stuff. Falls more in with with Neoplatonic thought, so there's definitely a more Gnostic influence on here.

Also Ibn Al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination is some really good stuff as well.

Attached: 26459674.jpg (550x779, 79K)

Uhhh, can't help you. Sunnis view Twelvers like Catholics view Mormons. I know of no books on it

Have Ismali or Qur'anists ever had Shariah?

Can't speak for the Ismailis. But as a Qur'anist, I don't believe in the mainstream interpretation of Sharia, it it's just mostly made up from hadiths (which I believe to be false).

Nowhere in the untranslated, Arabic Qur'an does it say that one must stone adulterers or to kill apostates. Most of the toxic stuff you see within Sharia pretty much came from apocryphal accounts of prophet Muhammad that were written 200 years after his death.

It does say to kill apostates. According to Ghimidi, adultery is a form of causing anarchy (one of the crimes the Qur'an prescribes death for). So is rape (hence the Hadith about Muhammed stoning the rapist).

>It does say to kill apostates
Except it actually doesn't, you dolt. Any mainstream Sunni/Shi'ite translations of the Qur'an that say otherwise have literally used the books of hadith as a reference in order to justify their toxic, cultish actions.

>it's an I can't speak Farsi and I'd like to talk about poems thread
One day I'll click on one of these and it'll be filled with Sufi love songs about drunkenness.

Well, what do you follow yourself?
Post some works in farsi, then. I speak it

I don't subscribe to a particular madhhab. Most thinkers I like today are Hanafi, although I sympathize most with Hanbali approach.

Thanks for this.
>This thread is like wading through a pool of vomit for food to eat.

Hey look an islamophobe.
Hey look someone who thinks all of the Middle East and steppes are Islamic.
Hey look someone who thinks Islamic is synonymous with North African, Arabic, Persian and all of Western Asia.
Hey look someone who thinks the Qu'uran is the only thing written by any person living in any of the areas mentioned above.

>Do not pass go.
>Do not collect $200.
>Do not go to college.

>Post some works in farsi, then. I speak it
>Article on how the secularization of Rumi by liberal translators desaturates him
You know Rumi didn't just write Greek and Arabic yes?

What is your point? Maududi wrote in Urdu

>What is your point?
I thought you were promising me Farsi love song vocaroos. Apparently not.

No they are not the same.

Salafism is like the Reform of Islam. It's a historical movement that started in the 19th century when the Muslim world was left behind by technological and civilizational progress and was being conquered by the West, and was exposed to Western philosophy. The Salaf are the first Muslims, and Salafism is an reactionary puritanical ideology that developed itself against Western philosophy and way of life by preaching a return to the lifestyle of the first Muslims. There is no orthodox Salafi doctrine, many authors are said to be part of that movement, some of them reject the Western moral values but accept the modern life (technological advances and all), others want to go back to the lifestyle of the first Muslims not just in terms of morals and religion practice, but also customs and even clothing.

Wahhabism on the other hand is a doctrine based on one man who has written one book: Muhammad ibn Abdel-Wahhab, and his book "The Unicity of God". This is the official ideology of the Saudi regime since the alliance of their ancestor with Abdel-Wahhab in the 18th century. You can find this book online : missionislam.com/knowledge/books/tawheed.pdf
It's an ideology that's very hard to define, there's absolutely nothing new in it, ibn Abdel-Wahhab hasn't brought any new idea to what was already synthesized by the predecessors, but there's something very weird. The book literally starts with blatant heresy in the first chapters. I'm not gonna talk about legitimizing violence or capital punishment or corporeal punishment because that shit is all over the Quran, the Hadiths, even the Bible, we're talking about books of the ancient times here and no one has seriously ever questioned the existence, prevalence and compulsory nature of those punishments, this isn't even a discussion to be had. I'm talking in purely theological terms: just look at the title of chapter 3: Who purifies Tauhid (from Shirk..etc) will enter Paradise without giving an Account.

Basically he argues that believing that Allah is the One God and Muhammad is his Messenger will automatically grant you Paradise without being judged, which goes against the Quran and the consensus of all classic scholars. Muslims will be judged based on their actions, morality, piety, religious deeds, prayer, zakat, etc., there is absolutely no free pass to Paradise for anyone except martyr who were killed in the way of Allah.

Abdel-Wahhab essentially gives a license to do anything for the Muslim as long as his belief in his heart in the One God is pure. All that based on some shady hadiths from Bukhari.

>1,001 Nights
>pornography
>Muslim book

are you for real nigga

I dated a Muslim girl in high school. She was so kind and warm and caring, a real gem of a soul. She wore a hijab and looked kind of like OPs pic.

I broke up with her because I was insecure about being a virgin.

That was an expensive, painful mistake. We would have had a little family by now.

Instead I live like a defenrate bachelor. The fucking sexual revolution ruined my life.

>(which I believe to be false)
ALL of them?

Everything we know about Alexander the Great dates from 300 years after his death, is all that bullshit then? You just take that historical material, and instead of studying it meticulously, you just throw it all in the garbage?
This isn't very scientific, you know.

But sure, you don't like the Hadiths, let's speak the Quran.
Can you explain to me this verse?

"The recompense of those who fight Allah and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is their disgrace in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great torment." (Qur'an 5:33)

Fornicators are not adulterers, and this is their punishment:
"The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment." (Qu'ran 24:2)

Don't call the Quran "toxic", you're gonna let a bunch of wussy femlets bully you into submitting to their moral order? It's been 1400 years that Muslims have established Pax Islamica across the Earth (Al-Ardhu, which is the Earth, the whole Earth, as stated in the verse 33 of surate 4) with the sword in their hand.

She was a cunt like all the others.
Don't fall for the hijab. Witches are hidden beind it. I married one, she was cheating on me with someone almost twice our age, I annulled the marriage behind her back, sent her back to her father who did God knows what to her. This generation is fucked, don't touch women, any of them. Don't catch the muslim fever again, nor the yellow fever, nor anything of the sort. They're all fucked, it's the times, the times are corrupt.

It is frequently very off-color but that is always purely humor, not erotica or porn.

>I dated a Muslim
user, I hate to break it to you, but if she was dating without a chapperone, she was a very lax Muslim.

>"The recompense of those who fight Allah and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is their disgrace in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great torment."
This the causing anarchy I spoke of earlier. It essentially means "enemy of the people". Exile is the lowest level (used from prostitutes, transvestites, etc), crucifixion the highest. Amputation and stoning fall in between

We would meet at school early to sit together and hold hands in her car. We didn't kiss. We weren't technically "dating", and if we saw each other outside of school there was always someone else with us.

It was all very cute.

Oh okay maybe she was then, but Muslim women can't marry outside the faith anyhow

>ALL of them?
While there ARE undeniably some "authentic" hadiths out there that do fall in line with some of the original, unaltered Qur'anic teachings, the validity of most (if not, all) these alleged accounts are still way too doubtful, contradictory, or if anything, suspect at best, to be taken as if they're truly divine or 100% gospel. There's even accounts of not only the prophet, but also some of his companions, actually going as far as PROHIBITING the manufacturing of hadiths (hence is the main reason why there were no written accounts of his statements until 200-300 years after he passed).

Read this article to read further on what it is I'm talking about:
ancientmodernislam.blogspot.com/2016/01/hadiths-are-fake-truth-from.html?m=1

>"The recompense of those who fight Allah and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is their disgrace in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great torment." (Qur'an 5:33)

Essentially the whole gist of this particular verse is that, those who go around (i.e. tyrannical armies/forces/etc, regardless of whether they be against Muslims, or even if they're "Muslim" themselves), committing heinous acts of bloodshed and terror towards innocent lives, will eventually get what's coming to them in return. Basically "what goes around, comes around". This should be common sense by now.

1/3

>"The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment." (Qu'ran 24:2)
Like I mentioned previously ITT (), most translators of the Qur'an tend to use the books of hadith as a secondary source in order to "better understand" certain verses of the Qur'an, because these orthodox "so-called" Islamic scholars have been telling one another that they must do so for the past 1200 years now. That way they could create a sense of heirarchy by basically telling your average layman Muslim that he/she is too stupid to understand jack shit from the Holy Book themselves, thus having to go to their (often) low-IQ scholars at their behest in order to seek "wisdom" and "knowledge" that they could easily get themselves through years of study & research.

2/3

Here's an excerpt from Edip Yuksel's Qur'anic exegesis pertaining to verse 24:2:
>Public shaming, though it has long been abandoned in Western world, is one of the tools we may use against crimes. The Quran gives high importance to the institution of marriage. Social and psychological problems experienced among millions of children because of the breakdown of marriage institution in otherwise prosperous Western countries justify the importance of marriage. Additionally, the harms of the promiscuous lifestyle to the health and well being of the society is another reason why the Quran takes marriage contract so seriously and issues a harsh penalty for its violation.

>The verse emphasizes public shame rather than inflicting physical pain. The word JaLDa does not mean a stick, but something that will touch the skin, since the word jalda is a derivative of a word that is used for skin (JeLD).

>Shaming is a social and psychological penalty. For such a penalty to be effective, researchers suggest the fulfillment of the following conditions: (1) The convict must be a member of a particular group; (2) The group must approve of the penalty; (3) The shaming penalty should be delivered to the group and group should ignore the convict for a period physically, emotionally, and economically; (4) The convict who is wished to be shamed must fear the group's decision to cut the relation; and (5) The convict must have a means to regain the trust of the group.

>First we should be reminded that there is no stoning-to-death punishment for adultery in Islam. The punishment of stoning was introduced to the Islamic law long after prophet Muhammad through fabricated hadith. It is the followers of Sunni and Shiite sects that adopted the Jewish practice and fabricated the most ridiculous stories, such as the story of a hungry holy goat eating a verse about stoning, etc. The followers of hadith and sunna accept the Jewish practice and the related silly stories by claiming that "these verses are not clear about adultery; thus, hadith and sunna explain these verses." Knowing the excuse of those who associate other partners with God, the first two verses rebut the claim of the unappreciative people by asserting the clarity of its language.

>you're gonna let a bunch of wussy femlets bully you into submitting to their moral order?
Who said anything about about me being a feminist? I don't consider myself to be politically left-wing, so I don't fall for the whole "progressive/liberal Muslim" meme. I'm referring to the books of hadith as "toxic" because most of the people that had authorized these bogus teachings did so with politcally-based ulterior motives in mind, because of that now the people who have fell for those cultish, man-made books have done nothing but create total destruction, bloodshed, and have brought humiliation towards the Muslim community for over the past 1000 years now.

3/3

>While there ARE undeniably some "authentic" hadiths out there that do fall in line with some of the original, unaltered Qur'anic teachings, the validity of most (if not, all) these alleged accounts are still way too doubtful, contradictory, or if anything, suspect at best, to be taken as if they're truly divine or 100% gospel.
Sunnis don't consider Ahadith infallible or verbatim. Those that are clearly nonsense should be ignored, those that aren't must be read by comparing the various accounts, which often differ

>humiliation towards the Muslim community for over the past 1000 years now.
I'm not gonna read your abloo abloo abloo about how stoning the adulterer doesn't exist in Islam when 100% of Muslim scholars before the 20th century agree on it (and if you think that's horrible, clearly you've never been married and cheated on - I have), I just want to say that the Muslim are not humiliated, and have not been for the last millennia, they have been mocked in the last century by degenerates that "marry" men to men and blocking streets on a yearly basis to allow them to show their anuses to young children, allow pornography to be made and accessible through any electronic device to hound children, allow the mass genocide of children in the womb of their mother because madam has the right to be a whore, allow women to parade in courts of law like conquered land to rob men if all their natural rights to property and to their children, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Fuck them and their moral order, I don't consider myself shamed by the Hadith, it's these degenerates that should be ashamed and should go into fucking hiding. When all this opulence ends and the world starts making sense again, in 500 years when human beings will be looking back to past civilizations, how do you think they're gonna look at the current Western society? In all sincerity?

You're complaining about my "abloo abloo abloo" post, yet you're basically doing the same thing with your rambly, incoherent-sounding post.

>100% of Muslim scholars before the 20th century agree on it
Yeah, and where in the hell do you think they get a good bulk of their jurisprudence from? Because I could rest assure you that if you look into the Arabic text of the Qur'an, you will not find a single verse that explicitly states to throw rocks at people's heads for sleeping around whilst married. Maybe if you've read more than a single sentence of what I wrote in my last three posts, you'd probably see where I'm coming from.

Ever heard of the saying "facts don't care about your feelings"? Because from what it seems you're letting your emotions trump whatever sort of logic you may have. It's understandable that you want to keep continuing to believe in what it is you believe, but to just dismiss another person's arguements simply because of "feels" is just mere intellectual dishonesty.

The Qur'an prescribes death for certain things. The reason Muhammed used stoning is that is how Arabs put people to death. Since the Shariah is supposed to be a restoration of the Mosaic Law which, surprise, surprise, prescribes stoning for adultery from what we know, maybe you need to take a step back for a moment and consider that a violating a marriage covenant is considered a very serious betrayal, not just fornication. If stealing from someone (according to a Hadith, the value must be over a shield) is grounds for getting your hand cut off, then cheating on your spouse can't possibly be considered less, as it is much worse.

The issue here is you assume the Qur'an was revealed and applied in a vacuum. It was not. It was revealed and applied in a specific culture that was still imitating much that had been inherited from Abraham, the Qur'an builds on or corrects much of this. Islam is not a do-it-yourself religion, despite not having a clergy, Islam is extremely community focused, the very fact that a penal code is part of it suggests that.

Stoning, not beheqding, was how people were put to death among them. Why the death penalty is used for adultery is already stated here

Verse 5:32 gives the two penalties which incur death, verse 5:33 gives the various penalties for one of those charges

In fact you have no better theory for how this works, as you obviously don't kill and then exile someone. What I explained I did not fabricate, it is Islamic scholarship. Ghimidi in fact attests to this, despite interpreting the Qur'an as applying specifically to historical circumstances in many places, as you do.

Attached: images (8).jpg (265x190, 9K)

>The Qur'an prescribes death for certain things.
It does? So I'm assume you must be highly well versed then in the Classical Arabic language & its entire lexicon. If so, please do show me the particular verses where it states in the Qur'an ad verbum (in its original Arabic language, no translations), that it is okay to punish adulterers by way of stoning, or that one must kill an apostate if he leaves the fold of Islam. And while you're at it, please do show me the root words that were used in these particular verses & list down their various meanings (since most words used within the Arabic lexicon tend to be notoriously ambiguous, but hey, you probably already knew that), since you seem be very scholarly in the Arabic language enough to know exactly what it is that you're talking about.

>Since the Shariah is supposed to be a restoration of the Mosaic Law
Yeah, and how do you think that came to be? Was the Qur'an in and of itself a restoration of Mosaic/Talmudic Law, or was the Qur'an through second-hand interpretation by way of apocryphal texts that were attributed to prophet Muhammad (centuries after his death, by the way), a restoration of such. Because it seems to me that once you take both hadith literature & the various well-known exegetical texts made by (unabashedly) orthodox scholars that pertain to the Qur'an (all of which use the hadith apocrypha as a secondary source in order to justify their radical, backward interpretations/legal rulings), all out of the equation, you'll come to find that the Qur'an itself becomes this remarkably different text, whether you'd like to admit it or not.

>which, surprise, surprise, prescribes stoning for adultery from what we know,
Yeah, like you said, from what YOU know. Which doesn't seem to be a whole lot if I'm being completely honest.

>maybe you need to take a step back for a moment and consider that a violating a marriage covenant is considered a very serious betrayal, not just fornication.
I never said that it wasn't, quit putting words in my mouth. If you've read what I had posted on this thread a few hours ago (), then yes, while there is a specific punishment for this particular crime, once you start to analyze the various meaning of certain words that were used in this verse in the Arabic language (without any outside, second-hand interpretation), and the root words that were being used within that same verse, you'll come to find that it is actually nowhere near as harsh or as brutal as you, most islamophobes, and most radical Sunnis, keep making it out to be.

[1/3]

>If stealing from someone (according to a Hadith, the value must be over a shield) is grounds for getting your hand cut off, then cheating on your spouse can't possibly be considered less, as it is much worse.
Ah, the classic "choppin' off the hands" verse in 5:38. Let's see if we can look at this verse from a more rational, Qur'anic perspective:
>The Quran often uses words with more than one applicable and relevant meaning. This leads to verses that mean two, three, or more things at the same time, verses that make the translator's job exquisitely difficult.
>We come now to such a verse. The verb form we translated as "mark, cut, or cut off" comes from a root verb -- QaTa'A – that occurs in the Quran many times. In almost all of its occurrences in the Quran, this verb means "to sever a relationship" or "to end an act." Only in two instances (12:31 and 12:50) is this verb clearly used to describe a physical cutting; in another instance (69:46), the verb might possibly be interpreted in that way. A related form of this same verb -- one that implies repetition or severity of action -- occurs in the Quran seventeen times. This particular form is used to mean physically cutting off; or as a metaphor for the severing of a relationship; or to describe physically cutting or marking, but not cutting off.
>Thus, the verse recommending punishment for theft or burglary, in the context of the Quran and its terminology (and not the terminology or interpretation attributed to Muhammad or his followers) provides us with a single verb … but one that God has permitted to incorporate a range of possible penalties. For instance: • Cutting or marking the person's hands as a means of public humiliation and identification; • Physically cutting off the person's hands; or • Cutting off the person's means and resources to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment).
>The act of imposing any of these penalties, or any of their combinations, would of course depend on the facts of each case, the culpability and mental capacity of the accused, and the ability of the society as a whole to act in accordance with God's other instructions in the Quran. Note, for instance, that a Muslim society cannot punish a hungry person for stealing food, since letting a member of the society go hungry is a much bigger crime than the act of stealing food. Such a society actually demonstrates the characteristics of a society of unappreciative people! (See 107:1-7; 89:17-20; and 90:6-20). Considering theft solely as an individual crime, and advocating the severest possible interpretation of the Quran in rendering punishment, is neither fair nor consistent with the scripture.

>The issue here is you assume the Qur'an was revealed and applied in a vacuum.
And once again, you're putting words straight into my mouth.

>It was revealed and applied in a specific culture that was still imitating much that had been inherited from Abraham
[citation needed]

>despite not having a clergy, Islam is extremely community focused, the very fact that a penal code is part of it suggests that.
Yeah, and the Qur'an alone IS our penal code. No secondary apocryphal sources, no wacky interpretations, no man-made superstitions, no hierarchical BS from anyone other than God himself.

>Why the death penalty is used for adultery is already stated here
[citation needed]

It really seems to me that all you're trying to do is pick a fight & satisfy some pathological need to prove others wrong in order to feel good about yourself. I say learn how to pick your battles, because it seems like you haven't really done much valid research as to why Qur'anism & the rejection of hadith is even a thing, therefore following the status quo & orthodox interpretations in order to satisfy your narrative for the sake of argument.

[3/3]

"But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him."
Voltaire, Letter to Friedrich II

Is there a transgressive body of work from muslim countries? I have interest in islam but I want to see their Huysmans and Burroughs

look no further than the philosophical works of Muslim Spain and sufi poetry of Persia during the Islamic Golden Age

Attached: persian-sufi-poetry.jpg (1200x1360, 92K)

On the same path, who is the muslim Spinoza?

either Ibn Sina or Ibn Rushd, as he was influenced by both

Muhammad is to intelligent and calculating to be a schizo. Of all the commentaries on him I've never understood this position.

These Oriental criticisms of Muhammad are always very strange. They always frame his harshness as other from some sort noble Arabic pagans when almost everything harsh thing he did was a significantly more toned down version of Arab customs.

He ended the practice of burying unwanted female children alive and required court testimony be free from torture, while Byzantine law still required all slaves be tortured before giving testimony, and of course the rest of Christendom used it quite a bit. By the standards of any contemporary land, he wasn't particularly vicious. He is not even as brutal as Moses, who surely would have had all the male and adult female inhabitants of Mecca slaughtered.

> Cutting off the person's means and resources to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment)

Was going to reply until I saw this. This is what bothers me most about Qur'anists, they conform the Qur'an to their sensibilities instead of vice versa. Prisons and jails for criminals did not even exist in Muhammed's time, they are mostly an early modern invention. And the term "rehabilitation" completely seals this as a modernist attempt to retcon Islam akin to Christians who say eunuch in the New Testament means be homosexual. Ahadith provide a good basis for exegesis precisely so you don't keep changing the meaning to accomodate the Zeitgeist.

Don’t listen to that “Quranist” guy up there, they’re an intellectually dishonest bunch who want to whitewash the deen to appeal to western standards of morality and to fit in. The Hadith do have things which seem backward from a modern perspective, but as a practicing Muslim, I sure am not going to discount them and dismiss them all. They are part of our historical tradition and they have been preserved and transmitted down generations in an incredibly systematic way, there are whole sciences behind the recording and interpretation of the Hadith.

The fact of the matter is that much of the Quran makes sense only in the context of the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the events occurring in the region then, and if you take away the Hadith then you are stripping much of the Quran down to an incomprehensible skeleton.

Also, s/he claims that the Hadith were only recorded “200-300 years” after the passing of the Prophet - a popular misconception. The Hadith were initially a primarily oral tradition, but even the first generation of the trusted Companions of the Prophets realized that purely oral transmission would lead to corruption eventually, and they got to work cleansing the more dubious ones and putting everything legit to text.

For anyone interested in learning about Islam, learn more about the life of the Prophet. I recommend Yasir Qadhi’s Seerah series, it’s a lecture series based upon several authentic works on the Prophet, and he has painstakingly compiled them all and made a very listenable narrative out of them. I recommend skipping the first two episodes though, as they talk about the general characteristics of the Prophet, like his appearance and mannerisms, and although I was interested in learning about those things, I don’t imagine non-Muslims would be very intrigued with the idea of spending 2 hours on an intro like that. When he gets to the history of the region pre-Muhammad and the story of the recent ancestors of the Prophet, the divergence of Arabs from other Semitic peoples, things get super interesting.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAEA99D24CA2F9A8F

Yahiya Emerick wrote a good biography as well, also Mufti Menk did a good series on the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

fuck off goat rapist. (O))>:^[(>>>>

Rude >:(

>but to just dismiss another person's arguements simply because of "feels" is just mere intellectual dishonesty.
Arguments? I haven't see any. To me it's clear that you reject certain things that are unanimously recognized in your religion to please the Westerners. You know how I know this? Because you are rejecting precisely the things that displease Westerners, and that align with their system of values. I have never seen someone of your ilk reject things that don't shock the Western moraline.

>Essentially the whole gist of this particular verse is that, those who go around (i.e. tyrannical armies/forces/etc, regardless of whether they be against Muslims, or even if they're "Muslim" themselves), committing heinous acts of bloodshed and terror towards innocent lives, will eventually get what's coming to them in return. Basically "what goes around, comes around". This should be common sense by now.
So 1. This DOES mean that you are supposed to cut the hands and feet of those that commit such acts, and therefore there is toxic violent shit in the Quran, isn't there?
2. Make corruption in the land (Al-Fasad fi al-Ardh) does not mean bloodshed or whatever, this expression is all over the Quran. Al Fasad is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasad a general term meaning not following the law of Allah. It is also used in the verse 11 of Surate 2: "And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers.""
Sounds a bit weird to me, why are you committing heinous acts of bloodshed? And I reply but I am only a reformer. Doesn't make sense, to reform (maslahou) means to change a doctrine or a way of doing things in order to make it better.

And as for your "argument" on the punishment of the fornicator, it's still 100 lashes. But then you're gonna tell me that you're supposed to slightly hit them with a piece of clothing to shame them, and the stress isn't on hurting them physically. Literally HOW does the verse insist on shame rather than pain? The word jalda does not mean a stick, it means a LASH, with a whip.

But of course you're gonna tell me that daraba doesn't not mean hitting, it means whatever you're gonna invent, for the verse 34 of surate 4, and whatnot. This is your specialy, and the way you justify your "religion": it's written "the fornicator and the fornicatress, strike them with 100 lashes", instead of taking it for what it is (especially considering that God was talking to illiterate Bedouins of the 7th century), you write 50 lines of mental gymnastics to explain how lashes are not lashes, hitting is not hitting but rather caressing gently and exposing to the public for shaming.

1/2 (let me play that game too)

SAND NIGGER FIGHT
Everyone watch out for carbombs

>Prisons and jails for criminals did not even exist in Muhammed's time, they are mostly an early modern invention.
...And? What, just because a prison system wasn't implemented around that time, means that the Qur'an had to conform to the exact timeframe it was revealed in, or conform to exclusively archaic concepts that have existed prior? I mean, you do realize that we believe the Qur'an to be a divine, timeless scripture, and not the work of Muhammad, do you?

>And the term "rehabilitation" completely seals this as a modernist attempt to retcon Islam
It all really depends on how severe the actual crime is, though. Yeah, if someone goes out of their way to steal something that was of extremely high value, then of course that same person will have to be dealt with accordingly. But you need to realize that there are plenty of factors as to why someone who's (more often than not) poor & in need, would commit petty theft or steal a small amount of food out of starvation. Solving an issue like that by giving them a harsh punishment/sentence (let alone chopping their damn hands off), is NOT the answer.

>Ahadith provide a good basis for exegesis precisely so you don't keep changing the meaning to accomodate the Zeitgeist.
I like how you keep dodging the claims that I have been making throughout this thread about how hadith literature are merely apocryphal texts, all of which were dubiously compiled no less than two centuries after the death of prophet Muhammad. Accounts of which the powers that be around that point in time were using in order to justify their tyrannical legal rulings onto the Muslim masses for political gain, and that so-called "scholars" would use in order to keep your average Muslim in the dark about the real meanings behind the Holy Scripture.

I'm going to link two books down below that elucidate on this matter more clearly. If you don't want to delve any further onto this topic, fine. But I highly recommend you do. Regardless if you remain unconvinced, it's still a topic that's worth looking into.

docdro.id/yMRQ3Bh
docdro.id/OD31ELt

The Hadith are not gospel, but they are precious historical accounts to complement the Quran. It's precious information, of course there's a lot of bullshit in it, but they have value as historical accounts. If you are able to make an argument for something based on them (relating the behaviour of the Prophet).

Concerning stoning, first of all if single people fucking around have to be lashed 100 times, married people should be getting a harsher punishment because they are causing suffering not only to themselves, but to their husband or wife, to their children, to their family, to society, to the sacred institution of marriage, etc.

The punsihment of stoning is related in COUNTLESS stories in COUNTLESS books through COUNTLESS chains of narrators. Imagine you're a traveler, you get to a village, and you find one person that tells you that the Prophet used to stone adulterers to death. You can have some doubts, sure. But let's say you find one hundred people in that village that relate that they heard this and can tell you exactly from whom and whom that whom had heard it from etc., and you get to another village you find one hundred more people saying the exact same thing, you travel to yet another village, etc., countless villages hundreds of kilometers apart where you can find hundreds of people telling you the exact same stories on the behaviour of the Prophet. You're now supposed to take this more seriously.

Of course, you can always have your doubts for whatever reason, as long as something is not in the Quran, you do not become kaffir by not believing in it, but you certainly become unreasonable by rejecting blindly this account without looking into it because it's written in books where there are also fake accounts, or because you think it's toxic based on the value system of a decadent civilization.

To me the stoning of the adulterer makes absolutely no doubt, and you don't need the supposed verses on it to prove it. Ali ibn Abi Talib said: I lash the fornicators based on the Quran, and I stone the adulterers based on the Sunna of the Prophet. Every single Muslim scholar that has ever lived will tell you that there are two sources of law in Islam: the Quran, and the Sunna of the Prophet (his behaviour, decisions, etc.). What constitutes the Sunna can be disputed, but not the Sunna itself as a legal system. Just because something isn't in the Quran doesn't mean its not a religious prescription.

Quick question for you, what do you think of the prayer of Tarawih?

2/2

>Cutting off the person's means and resources to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment).
W... woah...
M8... So that's why God said faqta3ou ayyiduhum, cut off their hand, to illiterate Bedouins of the 7th century Arabic peninsula, so that you, in the 21st century, can look up the 27th meaning of the word aqta3ou in the dictionary and decide that it means that we should, as a society, give him a group therapy to reform himself and teach him that stealing is not okay. And fuck all the hundreds of thousands of people that had their hands cut off over history because these Bedouins had an order from God to cut off the hand of the thief and took at at face value. Sounds like a very benevolent God.

>But you need to realize that there are plenty of factors as to why someone who's (more often than not) poor & in need, would commit petty theft or steal a small amount of food out of starvation. Solving an issue like that by giving them a harsh punishment/sentence (let alone chopping their damn hands off), is NOT the answer.
And that's taken care of in the Hadith, the minimum amount stolen for cutting off the hand is a quarter of a dinar (roughly one gram of gold, toughly 40$ nowadays), and there is no cutting hands for stealing food to survive. In fact Umar ibn al-Khattab simply suspensed the application of this punishment in a time of famine.

Have you ever at least READ Bukhari and Muslim before talking about the hadith?

>all of which were dubiously compiled no less than two centuries after the death of prophet Muhammad.
The Muwatta of Imam Malik was compiled roughly between 100 and 150 years after the Prophet's death. The hadith were written separately on hide or parchment kept in private residences, and other books were written compiling them that have been lost to history (which we know existed because the books that we do have refer back to them). Also, we're talking about a society of orality and poetry, it was their job to know things by heart, to tell tales, etc., much more than today where information goes so fast. I'm from Algeria, I lived in the 90s where there were no computers and no internet, and my grand-parents told me tales of the 19th century all the time which were passed down two or three generations, in vivid detail, and I can live to the 2050s to tell about it.

And like I said, everything we know about Alexander the Great dates from 300 years after his death and I have never seen anyone call it fake or apocryphal. It's just the best historical sources that we have.

>And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs.
>Ibn Abbas narrated that: The Messenger of Allah said about the (Black) Stone: "By Allah! Allah will raise it on the Day of Resurrection with two eyes by which it sees and a tongue that it speaks with, testifying to whoever touched it in truth."

Muslims, why does this sound like your religion was talked about in the Bible, Revelation 13, but negatively?

Persian poetry, what should I read?

>Arguments? I haven't see any. To me it's clear that you reject certain things that are unanimously recognized in your religion to please the Westerners

More likely to please himself

>...And? What, just because a prison system wasn't implemented around that time, means that the Qur'an had to conform to the exact timeframe it was revealed in, or conform to exclusively archaic concepts that have existed prior? I mean, you do realize that we believe the Qur'an to be a divine, timeless scripture, and not the work of Muhammad, do you?
If you do not consider Muhammed's, peace be upon him, execution of the Qur'an to be the paragon, then, Allah pardon me, but you are a Jew and a dog. You are in fact the one trying to make the Qur'an conform to a specific timeframe, i.e., this one.

Because Revelation can mean whatever you want it to

Aisha was 9 years old when the prophet Muhammed put his adult penis inside her prepubescent vagina

Therefore? The age of betrothal was seven in Byzantium

hot

any more books like this?

thanks user

A thousand isn’t enough?

It deserves its own thread honestly

>The westerners were worse so we couldn't have been doing anything wrong
Both are morally disgusting. You're better off just arguing that Aisha was really 18 as some try, than admitting she was 9 and acting like it's okay.

i have read it, i liked it a lot. Just wondering if there are more books like that.

Myths and fairy tales (pictured Franklin Booth’s illustration for The Flying Islands of the Night)

You’ve read all of them?

Attached: 6E626B79-2061-473E-9048-F37FCC9EF723.jpg (725x1024, 370K)

Please leave. Nobody likes you.

>newfag of the single-book tribe telling me to leave my board again

Attached: BFEB3FD1-2BDA-4A07-B6A2-3C2CA13561F1.jpg (667x1000, 412K)

Maybe she was 10, I don't know, I don't think they were good at counting years back then (the Hadith alternate between the prophet having died at 60 or 62, my own grandmother doesn't remember if she was married at 17 or 18 of even 16). The first time in history that the Prophet was criticized for this is right now, none of his opponents ever said a word when he wedded a child (marrying his adoptive son's divorcee was a huge scandal though), and none of the Christian authors that ever refuted him and his doctrine ever brought up this "issue", so it sounds to me like modern Western sensibilities at it again.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that the Prophet was given Aisha in marriage at 6 and deflored her at 9.

>REEEE pre moderns didn't susbcribe to our current liberal modernism REEE

>Wahhabists follow some nutter named Wahhabi
This is actually hilarious

Arabic is my native language.... The "beauty" of the Quran is highly subjective and not more distinct than Pre-Islamic poetry (The Quran itself admits this: that when people heard Muhammad reciting the Quran they would call him a mad poet re-telling myths). The verse "Produce a Surah like it" is laughable because that's like saying: no-one can play football like Mardonna. No one can compose symphonies like Vivaldi...

Has anyone here ever read Taha Hussein? "The Dean of Arabic Literature". Nominated for the Nobel Prize of Literature 14 times according to wikipedia.
He wrote a highly critical book on Islamic falsification of pre-Islamic poetry and how it found its way into the Quran and he received death threats
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taha_Hussein

Attached: TahaHussein.jpg (233x300, 35K)

> this book, he expressed doubt about the authenticity of much early Arabic poetry, claiming it to have been falsified during ancient times due to tribal pride and rivalry between tribes. He also hinted indirectly that the Qur'an should not be taken as an objective source of history. Consequently, the book aroused the intense anger and hostility of the religious scholars at Al Azhar and many other traditionalists, and he was accused of having insulted Islam.

This is not very accurate. Salafis (and Wahhabis, which is a subgroup of salafism) claim to follow Imam Hanbal but I think the best way to define them is their refusal of taqlid/imitation of an Imam of sharia. In fact that's what is special about the salaf, they all made their own sharia (or so the naive salafi thinks) on the basis of scripture.

>although he lost his post at Cairo University in 1931. His book was banned but was re-published the next year with slight modifications under the title On Pre-Islamic Literature (1927).

Sadly this is what the Muslim world does to its intellectuals. And we will go nowhere so as long there exists this mind virus called Islam.

To Arabic speakers I will leave you with a surah likeit:
انا اعطيناك الويسكي
فصلي لربك واسقي
صافيا لا تكسره بالبيبسي
quran.com/108

>Rough translation:
Indeed, we have granted you Whiskey
So pray to your Lord, and pour it
Neat, unmixed with Pepsi.

BTW this is more beautiful if you read it in Arabic ;)

Lol. The point isn't merely the rhyming patterns. We all know what whiskey and Pepsi is, but what is kawthar? There is the famous story of Musaylamah, the other man claiming to be a prophet at the time. Apparently his alternative to surah qariah (101) was "al filu wal filu wa ma adraka mal filu" etc. The Arabs knew what an elephant was, but qariah was mysterious.

I don't think it was purely the beauty of the language that made the Prophet succeed, though it seems to have been a great part. What is more, the urge to understand the Qur'an is one of the main driving forces of intellectual production in the early period of Islamic civilization. And this is also our history, not just a mind disease. You can be rid of the disease, Europeans don't kill each other when disagreeing about religion anymore (though they did, which is why I find the 'hope for Muslim reformation' ridiculous and lacking in historical awareness). They are, however, still living in the world shaped by the religious traditions. History is not your enemy, it's the framework whence you understand the world.

>He also hinted indirectly that the Qur'an should not be taken as an objective source of history.

Please explain why there should NOT be a negative reactiom to this. We saw what happened to Christians when they showed tolerance, now Family Guy makes jokes about Jesus pretends to be a virgin to get laid.

Attached: 1556029392830.png (720x900, 716K)

كنت اظن انك المُضل وانك تهدي من تشاء
الضار المغيث المُذل عن صلف وعن كبرياء
جبار البأس تكن للناس مكرا ودهاء
تقطع ايادي السارقين وترجم اجساد النساء
تقيم بالسيف عدلا فعدلك في سفك الدماء
فيا خالق القاتلين قل لي اين هو إله الضعفاء
لو كنت خالق الكل ما حرمت بعضهم البقاء
وما عساك من القتل تجني غير الهدم والفناء
فهل كنت اعبد جزارا يسحق اكباد الابرياء؟
ام كنت اعبد شيطانا أرسل الينا بخاتم الانبياء
حسبت الجنة للمجاهدين سيسكن فيها الاقوياء
تمر وعنب وتين وانهار خمر للاتقياء
خير ملاذ لجائعين عاشوا في قلب الصحراء
واسرة من ياقوت ثمين وحور تصدح بالغناء
نحن عاشقات المؤمنين جئنا ولبينا النداء
جزاكم الله بنا فأنظروا كيف احسن الله الجزاء
هل جنتك كفاح وصياح وايلاج دون انثناء
تجدد الحور الثيب بكرا وانت من تقوم بالرفاء
هل كنت اعبد قوادا يلهو في عقول الاغبياء
ام كنت اعبد شيطانا أرسل الينا بخاتم الانبياء.

Everything you said is false. Wahhabism is the official doctrine of the Saudi regime and has been since the 18th century, and claims filiation to the Hanbali school of thought with the specific goal from the very beginning of taking political power and ruling over the Arabic Peninsula; Salafism is a global movement that started in the 19th century in reaction to Western imperialism, and was more of a philosophical school of thought. Wahhabism isn't a subgroup of Salafism. The Arabic peninsula never fought against Western ideological and military imperialism, it fought against the Ottomans to establish political Dominion over the Hedjaz and actually allied itself to the English (and later the Americans) to achieve such political supremacy.

Are you an Arabic speaker? That "al filu..." incident was probably sarcasm on his part. Not something a serious man would say. Either that or the story is made-up to make the enemies of Islam sound ridiculous.
After all, Musaylamah was a rival "prophet" and had many followers. He was killed by the followers of Muhammad for heresy

Nice. Here's one from Omar Khayyam

الهي قل لي من خلا من خطيئة
وكيف ترى عاش البرئ من الذنبِ
اذا كنت تجزي الذنب مني بمثله
فما الفرق ما بيني وبينك ياربي

Attached: index.jpg (183x275, 6K)

What do they have in common with Hanbalism with the exception of their attitude on the mutashabih verses (which is also shared by all Salafis, as well as Ibn Taymiyyah)?

Salafism has nothing to do with the West. It is an usooli disagreement.

Any Muslim poets you'd recommend? I can't get over how flowery and idiomatic Arabic must be.

Ibn Hazm. A translation of The Ring of the Dove, which contains poetry by him, is linked in the OP. Arberry translated it, he also did a great secular Qur'an translation

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
>TheSalafi movement, also calledSalafist movement,Salafiya, andSalafism, is a reform[1]branch[2][3]or revivalist[4]movement withinSunniIslam[5]that developed inEgyptin the late 19th century as a response to Western European imperialism,[6][7][8][9][10]

Yeah the wiki article doesn't agree with you either, but linking wikipedia is not an argument and that is not what I asked, so...

What's funny is that in the Hanafi brand which is one of the 4 main denominations of Sunni Islam, consumption of Alcohol permitted so as long it doesn't come from wine. So things like beer are allowed....

Modern muslims are really a strange bunch... drinking is strictly forbidden... taking the path of most resistance.

Hanafi is the most widespread 'brand' of practitioners, though. And as far as I know, most Hanafis are just weary of calling other alcoholic drinks haram but are not very keen about its consumption. Getting drunk is prohibited regardless of the source.

Hanafi allows non wine alcohol for medical need, not for recreational use.

More the single tribe

Every volume?

BASED AF
Ghazali bootlickers will never understand esoteric Islam

Ghazali was against rationalism, not mysticism

rationalism necessarily leads to mysticism in any true religious belief. Ghazali was just dogmatic.

I don't think you know what rationalism or mysticism is.

"Dogmatic" is a sodomite's put down. Anyone who isn't a feckless dog is dogmatic about something.

>phone

suck out, Abdul. The thread title literally specifies Islamic as well, not surprised youd have the urge to write a consolation post

Into to terrorism

Attached: Qutb-Milestones-cover-Eng.png (214x300, 80K)

*phobe

How to subvert a nation - a guide

Kek the Bible BTFOs it in literary, philosophical, and moral value.
t. Read both as an atheist

Attached: reliance-of-the-traveller.jpg (300x300, 17K)

How to subvert other Abrahamic faiths and cause white guilt liberal cucks to cheer on the killing of gays and subjugation of women - a monograph

Attached: catholic_slidernowhere.jpg (606x360, 123K)

Ghazali was both a Sufi and a rationalist. Actually read some Ghazali before you insult a brilliant man.

A rationalist in this context means someone who thinks reason trumps revelation.

The OT is written by "illiterate" hebrews dude. They can't write properly until hellenism influences the levant.

Not him, but what do you mean? Even if the Qur'an, not the Bible, is correct, the Hebrew Bible includes masterpiece literature whatever else its faults.

I know what is what, dumbo. Ghazali explicitly says in the intro to Incoherence that if a literal meaning of revelation contradicts things demonstratively proven, then we need to reinterpret scripture. He is a mystic because he thinks there is a lot reason cannot tell you but revelation can, and those who know are superior to those who don't and will recognise each other etc. etc. He was an initiated Sufi, and the main reason logic is mandatory study in most madrassas to this day. Read Griffel's book on his philosophical theology.

>I know what is what, dumbo. Ghazali explicitly says in the intro to Incoherence that if a literal meaning of revelation contradicts things demonstratively proven, then we need to reinterpret scripture
This is basic Muslim belief, yes

>He is a mystic because he thinks there is a lot reason cannot tell you but revelation can

This is opppsition to theological rationalism, which maintains reason alone, not revelation and not mystical experience, can confer knowlege.

Ah but he is a rationalist because reason can tell you which of your mystical experiences are contradictory with scripture and which aren't.

Scripture itself is precluded by rationalism because it is revealed, rationalists then basically castrated it by drawing extremely tenuous conclusions from this or that Hadith to show the world always existed and was not created etc essentially to allow them to ignore the Qur'an and just use Aristotle

Hence Ghazali being the great balance in matters of faith, showing the compatibility of reason and revelation. His criticism of Ibn Sina is exactly what you say, they feign rationality to accept the dogma of the Greeks without any rational basis.

>showing the compatibility of reason and revelation
That is not rationalism, that is just Islam. Rationalism means reason as the only source of knowledge

Now you are not adhering to the reason-revelation distinction present in the Islamic tradition (aql-naql). Rational theology is a thing, some refuse to interpret or think about metaphysical implications of verses on the basis of it being found in scripture. So no, that is not just Islam. A lot of (early) Islam was against reason at large. Consider what the revered salaf have said about Abu Hanifa for his use of qiyas.

>So no, that is not just Islam. A lot of (early) Islam was against reason at large
Some Muslims were, but is not consistent with the Qur'an or Sunnah, neither is it derived from them.

Screenshot of "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary".

Review of different translations

islamicstudies.info/quran/translationssurvey.htm

Attached: CAM01017.jpg (1920x2560, 1.17M)

Have you actually read them all?