Pitfalls of Trad?

>What end? Personal power? Sincere fanatacism?
I think ultimately the same reasons you're probably interested in these thinkers, like I said it's not just what they say but that they are willing to take these problems seriously at all. How often do mainstream philosophers seem to do that? How often do college students who claim to "study philosophy" seem to have an aura of genuine respect for platonic truth and wisdom? When you do find people, let alone a group of people, who are interested in these things, and who do (deservedly) have that aura of being something other than a lazy dabbler, it instantly attracts you if you have the same potential.

The problem is that Arabs/Hindus don't start out as deracinated Westerners and then dabble in the exotic Orient, they already have a culture/tradition. It's not as big of a leap for them to slavishly believe in Sufism, it's not an exciting thing that they flirt with in college and post on Yea Forums about, amazed even with themselves that they are taking something like divine wisdom and mysticism seriously after a lifetime of feeling like nothing matters. That's how a westerner feels when he reads something like Guenon or Bruno or Plotinus for the first time. When an Arab reads it, he already has a tradition to fall back on, so he tends to do that even if he was raised fairly secular.

So while white trads will often genuinely retain the ecumenical aspects of their earlier secularism/deracination, nonwhite trads often become massive chauvinists and "traditionalist" in the generic sense. Arabs also don't generally respect the West as a distinct culture, they see no problem with imposing their religion/culture on the West wholesale. They don't want to salvage what is unique about the Faustian spirit or anything like that. The West is just degeneracy for them, it's a non-culture to be paved over by trad culture.

The problem is when YOU go into their cult thinking they are ecumenical and awed by babby's first mysticism like you are, and don't realize you're just being inducted as a second class citizen into their little local fundie Islamist cult.

>Do you think theres a downside to their perennial view of all religions? Do you think its dishonest as they are actually hindu/Islamic centric?
This is a difficult question to answer but if you want real answers to it, you have to learn the history of the movements/figures themselves as well as the philosophies underpinning them. Try reading Frances Yates and Raymond Schwab, and maybe Sedgwick's Against the Modern World + the later chapters of his Western Sufism (on "new age" Sufism). Sedgwick is polemical but can be useful for a critical take on traditionalism.

I'd say the easiest answer is that if there is a real "prisca theologia," it's more complex than most trads reduce it to. It's similar to how people post "dude taoism and advaita vedanta and sufism and heidegger and process philosophy are all the same thing lmao based nondualism."

The only pitfall of Trad is believing you need to be religious to be Trad. Other than that, it’s a flawless mindset for achieving a higher consciousness

Attached: D9CC64A6-F48B-4CD6-97CB-241720D5CFFE.jpg (559x836, 257K)

She looks like a wax doll. You refuted yourself.

I've read Sedgwicks "Against."
Read Guenons "Intro"
Sutton's "World Religions"
I'm well read in Western Esoteric and Occultism.

This is all fantastic, I see clearly what you are saying. Do you have any further thoughts? I would love to hear more nuance.

What do you think of the lack of Christianity in the traditionalists?

What are your intellectual interests currently?

>deracinated Westerners
Why do Westerners feel deracinated? You guys have great literary and artistic traditions. Also, please don't lump all West Asians & Near Easterners together.

“traditionalism,” 9 times out of 10, is the pretentious shorthand for “I don’t like blacks and I deserve a virgin wife but make it intellectual”

Attached: 200px-Father_Seraphim_Rose.jpg (200x285, 8K)

Attached: 41.jpg (453x680, 122K)

Attached: 1539199840929.png (6161x5009, 3.81M)

There are a good amount of pro-guenon Christians on Yea Forums but they have the good sense to not be too vocal about it because if they too other Christians will take offense and jump down their throats, people who belong to or sympathize with Hinduism or Islam don't have to deal with this anywhere as near as much

If you weren't born into a traditional community, you will have to move into one. And nobody there will ever truly accept you as anything other than the curious outsider who fell in love with them. If you are lucky, your children may be accepted.

What would Guy have to say about Mormonism?

The biggest danger is jerking yourself off to how esoterically cognizant you are. Missing the forest for the trees

Indifferentism and failure to seriously devote yourself to a faith, both of which Guénon opposed

>What downsides and blinders am I in danger of by engaging with them deeply?
It's cringe, and you will be bullied. [spoiler/]by me[/spoiler]

This is actually somthing I know.
He thought they were wrong but creative and that they're success was due to their ingenious theocratic tendencies.

He published an article in his trad journal.

Ultimately he likened them to Theosophy and the counter initiation.

well in a nutshell all ideological systems lean on trees of words written or spoken and since words are inherently referential or descriptive anything you use them for is towards blithering fiction, so write that down

What if I just meditate sometimes and stop masturbating?
Do you think that would do it?

>devote yourself to a faith
How is this a positive?

this. coming to this hotbed of degeneracy would earn you a place in hell

>posting literal neo-nazi propaganda
yikes

I refuse to believe that any genuine traditionalists would come to Yea Forums. At best, the only non-LARPing theists that would come here are /x/ types who are delusional enough to believe that the personification of Saturn is sharing the future with them.

Attached: 1520596604793.png (382x506, 339K)

>Yockey

lad...

Guénon considered strict observance of the exoteric (for Islam he said this is Sharia) to be required to even start learning to esoteric (which in Islam he says is haqiqa)

>not interacting with the projections of your own Maya to test the ability of yourself to discriminate the Atma from the anatta
there was a reason Gandhi slept in the nude with his child relatives

The danger of Guenon is that ultimately he wants you to convert to Islam

Evola noticed this in 1928 when reviewing one of this essay
evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/a-controversy-about-the-vedanta/

Note: Evola did see Guenon was supra-islamic which means the french degenerate was mixing islam with indian mysticism and magic that weren't common but pretending it was simply ''oriental tradition part of our civilization''

>The danger of Guenon is that ultimately he wants you to convert to Islam
>Evola noticed this in 1928 when reviewing one of this essay
what? I just controlled-F the words "Islam" and "muslim" and neither of them appear once on that webpage...

Attached: 1559541316544.png (2518x1466, 211K)

That's because Evola was smart not to start a controversy
Instead he says "Guenon wants us to believe the salvation only comes from the east..."

He became Muslim. Really let that sink in.

But Guenon specifies in his works that "salvation" (i.e. the northern path) can be found in Catholicism and that Neoplatonism is fully traditional

>Neoplatonism is fully traditional
Guenon knew about suversion

False. I sincerely believe in God, pray to Him, go to church every week and desire to follow Him.

I come to this stupid board because of stupid habits leftover from my old, miserable life.

Attached: 1526956347810.jpg (5000x3827, 2.72M)

>Guenonfag is a shining example of these types. Again, most people seem to notice that he's subtly "off."
>subtly
Bls, he's a standout maniac on one of the spergiest boards on Yea Forums. Nothing subtle about it, dogs probably flee from the man.

I never came here for anime porn or video games though. I just wanted a place to discuss literature and philosophy.

This chart needs to be redone. The Recognitions and The Bow and the Club are much better introductions to Evola.

I think you singlehandedly took him down

>dogs probably flee from the man.
you know who else dogs fled from?

Attached: c6b153777e3858292b84c4e63bd7d789[1].jpg (379x600, 62K)

The christian concept of God sure. It's not hard to have a sort of deistic platonic animism.

Let's face it this is the last place on the internet where you can write things against leftist jews without Swat raid your home in 30 minutes

Lets be honest it was all a cover for Guenon to have gay sex with sweaty Arab men. You know it, I know it, the judgement of history knows it.

Attached: lrYoDsS.png (610x352, 20K)

Neoplatonism is traditional but its non longer a initiatic path on its own since the platonic academy was closed by Justinian and the remaining Platonists dissipated. It can only be transposed onto a existing tradition, most notably by Dionysius the Areopagite in Christianity for example.

So much of this and this They are essentially weaponised by Islamists for Western recruitment purposes. And it's done effectively for people with certain kinds of temperaments. Primarily because they build this appearance of it mattering on a fundamental level, through their unflinching faith and actually "caring" about philosophy in a way that we don't see many examples of in the West. Be skeptical if you lack the organ that makes you smell crazy. Especially when your intellectual pursuits are guided by dissatisfaction with the current state of things more than curiosity.

Fortunately Schuon and Jean Borella present a much more fair account of the Christian sacraments, I suggest Christians who cannot in good conscience become Muslims just because Guenon thought that christianity no longer had a initiatic sacraments read Schuon's critique of his treatment of them in 'Rene Guenon: Some Observations" and Borella's in 'Guenonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery'.

thanks for speaking the truth about islam.

Where oh where are you meeting all these islamists and cult-like academia members? I've seen you post before, it seems like you take the most extreme example of someone who's read Guenon and then imply that they are the rule or even common when most people who read Guenon seem to be young men who don't take everything he says too literally and who don't go out and become Muslim

smokescreen for islamists to indoctrinate alienated western basedboys.

This isn’t reddit you faggot

Nice bait.

>What are the pitfalls of Guenon and Traditionalist School?

Becoming a Muslim is the biggest one.

>What downsides and blinders am I in danger of by engaging with them deeply?

Developing a shitty manichean worldview where everything is either tradition or anti-tradition

Having a factually incorrect view of history. Traditionalism is just another grand historical narrative like Marxism that falls apart under the smallest bit of scrutiny (looking at the details of historical events).

If you are interested in traditions shared by humanity, their meaning and origin, read some comperative mythology and about the uncnoscious origins of such forms (Campbell, Jung, Lévi-Strauss).

>t. a fool who is ignorant of the Hyperborean Aryan metaphysical tradition

Attached: download (8).jpg (259x195, 14K)

WE

Got pdfs of either? Been looking for them for awhile. Also, is there a good biography of Guenon?

Attached: rene-guenon.jpg (245x360, 19K)

>"Why of course I have prepared my spirit for the final dissolution of the current cycle of mankind, how did you know?"

Attached: Rene Guenon.jpg (192x263, 7K)

The UPANICHADS just seems to share the same message as the Bhagavad Gita,

keked

IMO they go a lot deeper in certain areas, the Katha, Mundaka and Taittiriya Upanishads especially go really far down the rabbit-hole, especially if you read Shankara's commentaries on them

Sure thing larper.

Attached: 1554311955544.png (748x1522, 418K)

The issue is really not Guenon but rather the people who read and interpret him. Guenon did not ever recommend for Westerners to start practicing Buddhism or Hinduism. Never in any of his books did he write saying that the reader should convert to Islam. I realize he said such things in his private life, but not in his books at least. Additionally, it would be painfully ignorant to try and apply Guenon's analysis to modern Islamic societies. Technology, Capitalism, Globalism, War, and Islamic fundamentalism have caused Islam to degrade in quality at an unforeseen rate. Whose fault caused it is more complicated, but claiming that modern Islam is some esoteric treasure is completely false. It would be far too simplistic to call Guenon some herald for Islam since nowadays, it is a shell of what he once saw living in traditional Egyptian society.

I must say that as other user's have stated, Guenon's analysis of Buddhism, and Christianity are also both rather poor. For Buddhism he himself admitted his errors later in life. In Christianity, he says that Eastern Orthodoxy has a valid tradition within his book on Christian esoterism, but nonetheless, does not talk about eastern Christianity at all. If he falls victim to orientalist cliches, it is certainly within this area. He does not discuss Coptic, Russian, Greek, Syriac, Melkite, or any of the other elements of Eastern Christianity at all, despite them coexisting alongside the Islamic society he comments so much upon.

Wow sounds based

What can you tell me about trad engagement with western christian/catholicism?
What would guenon recommend?

Attached: trinity1.jpg (588x650, 164K)

In East and West he hopes that Europe will return to Catholicism, and he believes the elite Sufis can teach the elite Catholics their esoteric metaphysics that they've forgotten. He says Europe will become Muslim only if they continually refuse to return to Catholicism.

As another user in this thread wrote, Jean Borella and Schuon actually wrote a bit about Catholicism. Wolfgang Smith was a Catholic influenced by the traditionalist school that was also a physics professor at MIT I believe. He wrote a few books on scientism and religion. Seraphim Rose of the Eastern Orthodox Church is very well known and was influenced by Guenon. He is certainly not a traditionalist, but in some of his writings, you can certainly see the influence.
Guenon tends to think quite highly of Alexandrian Christianity and western Scholasticism . He often references St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Thomas Aquinas. He said that through Scholasticism the west finds the most authentic expression of metaphysics. He did not like late scholasticism like St. Anselm though for reasons he goes into more detail in within his book "The Reign of Quantity." If you want hardcore sedevacantist Catholicism, Rama Coomaraswamy (son of Ananda Coomaraswamy, the Ceylonese traditionalist) was ordained a priest in the SSPV and is the most clearly influenced by his father and Guenon than anyone else. He wrote a few good books on describing the errors of Vatican II, but I don't believe he provided any good solutions for them, considering the SSPV is not canonically valid.

Not him but great post.

Even though I own Guénon's books and agree with most of his premises, especially in his "Reign of Quantity", I have adopted the attitude of Evola that the modern dissolution, or Kali-Yuga, is already at the stage that there is nothing to stop it.

Man clinging, or initiating himself, to some Tradition: be it Vedantic, Islamic or Abrahamic, in the face of Modernity is like bringing a rusty sword or a wooden club to a fight against firearms.

The various "skillful" methods proposed of Evola, be it Yogic methods, Tantric or otherwise may be enough for one to remain spiritually unaffected by the modernity around oneself.

When I look at Guénon's conversion and stories like these: Is it a good thing to be so absorbed in dhikr that you practically lose consciousness what is happening around you.

This happened near where Guénon attended dhikrs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Sinai_mosque_attack

Most of the victims were Sufis and the attack was motivated by anti-sufism. This was very close where Guénon lived in Egypt.

This is exactly the modern hostility that Evola spoke of and how important it would be for one to hide all his religious affinities or conversions. Or perhaps one wants to be some sort of martyr. I don't know.

Did Guenon comment on Eastern Orthodoxy and Palamas? I know he didn't care much for Shi'ism, I wonder if it's the same for EO.

Where does Evola clearly sketch this out? Ride the Tiger?

Ride the Tiger does not give any sort of technical guidance on the matters, he describes the various methods in his "Yoga of Power" or even "Doctrine of Awakening"

But yes, in Ride The Tiger it is the main theme, but it does not go much into the practical details laid down in Evola's previous works.

Guénon expressed disdain for Christian mysticism because it is not esoteric.

As a woman where do you think I should start with traditionalism?
:)

Do you have cute feet?

Trad is cringe

Trad is cringe

Start with Guenon.
If you're western, study christianity and particularly catholicism.

Literally the only mention of it is within one paragraph of insights into Christian esoterism. He mentions it simply as being in contact with the primordial tradition and then says nothing else. Dugin has written a fair amount about Orthodoxy from a Guenonian viewpoint, but he is rather controversial.

First of all, Guenon never expressed "disdain" for it. That is far too strong a word. Rather he said that mysticism is on the religious plane and thus does not have metaphysical content of the esoteric plane. They are concerned with separate things and thus, one is simply subordinated to another according to the inherant metaphysical hierarchy. Secondly, it is a mistake to categorize all Christian spirituality as inherently mystic just as it would be to claim all Islamic spirituality is esoteric. Guenon specifically said there is valid esoteric initiation within Eastern Orthodoxy/ Eastern Catholicism and Guenon's associates have said that this is the case as well within traditional Catholicism.
Stop trying to push your agenda of Islam on to Guenon's entire corpus. Guenon is not some Islamic herald fighting against Christianity.

It was a rhetorical question.
I was pointing out that traditionalism is poorly appealing to women leading to rampant thottery

Women in traditional indo European societies had a lot of autonomy, from what I've heard. Comparatively.

Theres a reason immigrants, minorities, and women are more often progressive. There is no mystery there. But, some of the most conservative people I've ever met were women.

I see a way for "equality" and "truth" to go hand in hand. The progressive way is not it. The laws of nature dont neccesarily mean tribal patriarchical society either, to my mind.

Attached: 1530586231690.jpg (928x1024, 187K)

Catholicism doesn't exist anymore

I agree, I assumed the guenonian route implied studying Catholicism from Charlemagne through the 13th century, as well as the early church and neoplatonism.

Attached: 1540346938719.jpg (680x960, 72K)

No, Guénon is about both the esoteric (requires initiation) and the exoteric, that covers neither.

>he opens, no, even merely looks at bait threads
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH-wait...., no, nevermind...AAJAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAJKJAJAJAJJAJAJAJJAJAJAJAJJAJAAJAJAJAJA

You can look up the Guenon companion by Rooth. I was literally reading it yesturday.

Guenon considered there being in that era of Catholicism, societies of initiates within the catholic church. He also recommends the scholastics. He also said that Hinduism could show Catholicism what had been lost since that time.

That's literally the Guenonian route though. The man hit the nail on the head.

I think I see what you're saying now, that guenon thought christianity a dead tradition. Sure, correct.

Christian guenonians since that time disagree. I'm not an orthodox guenonian myself, so I'm unconcerned with whether he thought it dead or not.

Take a few minutes to read Guénon's essay on Sharia and Haqiqa

Okay, reading now, but if your point is that guenon thought Catholicism always lacked an exoteric vs esoteric dimension, you are wrong, see If you are saying guenon thought it is now dead see Not all guenonian Christians agree with guenon on that part and Guenon himself thought Catholicism was legitimate at one time.

> I-Islam is still trad, were not in a crisis like those stupid Catholics!
> House of Saud is counter-tradition? Dude, Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism!

Imagine of Guenon got blown up at one of his Sufi dhikrs...I am very curious to know what he would have thought of 21st century Islam.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Sinai_mosque_attack

nytimes.com/2017/11/24/world/middleeast/mosque-attack-egypt.html

In East and West he thinks Catholicism is still redeemable. He considers it a possibility and prefers that Europe would be Catholic rather than Muslim, or some kind of hybrid.

Iran is Shia, nothing new.

Saudi Arabia is dirtbag Zionist but hardly counter tradition

Thank you, I am glad to hear it.
Linking to the Islamist so he can see as well

In the essay I mentioned he says Christian mysticism is completely devoid of esoteric dimension and is purely exoteric. Which is quite true, there are no orders in Christianity which initiate you into secret knowledge.

>In East and West he thinks Catholicism is still redeemable. He considers it a possibility and prefers that Europe would be Catholic rather than Muslim, or some kind of hybrid.

See but you are not listening:

1. He said Catholicism originally had initiatic orders (not mysticism).
2. In east/west he wanted a rejuvinated Catholicism for westerners.
3. He thought Hinduism could direct Catholicism to what it lost.
4. Some Christian guenonian disagree that it is a dead tradition.

You mean Eastern Orthodox mysticism? He definitely thinks Catholicism had a genuine metaphysics, and he's quoting from the scholastics all the time.

Pushing Salafism throughout the world and destroying the holy sites...no problem...nothing to see here. Islam keeping it 100.

Heres from the guenon article on Sharia:
>nevertheless there were analogous Western sciences in antiquity and the Middle Ages, but these are entirely forgotten by modern men.

>We should also point out that contrary to an opinion only too widespread among Westerners, Islamic esoterism has nothing in common with “mysticism.” The reasons for this are easy to understand given everything we have explained so far. First of all, mysticism seems to be unique to Christianity, and it is only through erroneous assimilations that one can pretend to find more or less exact equivalents of it elsewhere. Some outward resemblances, in the use of certain expressions for example, are undoubtedly the cause of this error, but they can in no way justify it in light of differences that bear on everything essential. Since by very definition mysticism pertains entirely to the religious domain, it arises purely and simply from exoterism; and furthermore, the end toward which it tends is assuredly far from being of the order of pure knowledge.

You cannot just do it yourself when it comes to orders. Guénon only attaches validity to Sufi orders because they have a chain of transmission going back to Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him

So he doesn't like the EO or the Prots. We get it.

Right, but you're just attacking mysticism where Guenon thought that Catholicism in the middle ages had legitimate initiatic orders.

Guenonian Christians believe this initiation continues. Guenon changed his mind about Buddhism, he could've changed his mind about modern Catholicism.

How can you act this dishonest? You are not contending with the points being given to you. You just keep saying the same thing.

You are dishonest.

A genuine metaphysics is not the same as esoteric order, in fact not even an exoteric one today

Anti-madhhab Salafis like ISIS are probably not pushed by them, as Saudi Arabian Wahhabism stresses authority of their muftis.

Wrecking holy sites is not really outside the Hanbali tradition, it just is outside everyone else's. Hanbali is orthodox but highly idiosyncratic in their literalism, they contend the hand of God is a literal hand for example.

>Guenonian Christians believe this initiation continues
Name the orders

Jean borella and Wolfgang Smith are both Catholic Guenonians, I'm not sure how they defend their point, I'm just saying that they do. Borella's daughter became a benedictine nun, so that might give you an inclination.

Once again you havent even dealt with Guenons views on Catholicism here:

While you're still here, does this verse in the Quran not explicitly prove that Christians are not idolaters?

corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=82

How can trinitarians be idolaters if the Quran lists them as a separate distinct group from literal idolaters?

> Pickthall: Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.

Lads, what does Guenon actually mean when he says "subtle"? This is the main point that i don't understand.

Attached: 1557511882006.jpg (736x736, 160K)

Trad is cringe

Guénons views changed quite a bit during the transition to Islam

The word in Arabic is Nazarene, it quite likely refers to that particular sect of Christians. It is typically translated as Christian because Nazarenes are treated as synonmous with Christians in general by Islam for all intends and purposes.

Yeah, show me the passage where he disavowed medieval Catholicism.

>it quite likely refers to that particular sect of Christians.

So what makes you think it's referring to this, I guess non-trinitarian, sect of Christianity?

Because that sect was called Nazarenes

When he renounced his Catholicism

For the Subtle body he refers to the macrocosmic entity that exists beyond the corporeal manifestation of the physical body that influences psychic processes. This is one point of Guenon's that I don't particularly understand myself since he simply lays it out as if it is some axiom and never tries to back it up.
Subtle and Gross can also simply refer to the macrocosmic and microcosmic modes of manifestation.

So why does everyone except you equate Nazarenes with Christians in general?

> 2:113. The Jews say the (Naṣara) Nazarenes are not on anything, and the (Naṣara) Nazarenes say it is the Jews who are not on anything. Yet they both read the Book. And those who do not know say like their saying. Allah will judge between them their disputes on the Day of Resurrection.

Is God here saying the Jews are only fighting with the sect of Nazarenes? It wouldn't be saying Jews are fighting with the trinitarian Christians?

What's it gonna be?

First of all, he never "renounced Catholicism." He converted to Islam because he desired to the synthesis of exoteric and esoteric which it had. Stop trying to argue that Guenon loathed Catholicism or something of that nature. He simply saw himself as having exhausted what the tradition was able to do for him. As others have stated, Guenon still at the end of his life saw modern Catholicism as valid for the salvation of the soul, simply not Moksha (liberation, in his terminology)
Secondly, "renouncing" something in the modern era, doesn't mean he disagreed with it from all eras. That is absurd. Nowhere did he say Catholicism from the Middle Ages was invalid, he simply saw modern Catholicism as no longer having esoteric orders. Esoterism is not for the masses anyways so even if this was the case, Guenon still recognized the valid exoteric dimension which constitutes the foundation of a tradition. You are intellectually dishonest for trying to portray Guenon as some Islamic proselytizer that "renounced" Catholicism as if it were some evil doctrine.

Also, you never responded to me here

Hinduism and Islam are on the outsets, polar opposites that expand the contradictory nature of G-D to the fullest parameter. Christianity and Buddhism are in the centers for being the respective "moderate" positions of opposition, i.e. reconciled or compatible nature of G-D. Judaism and the Chinese Tradition(s) occupy the center of centers, as they are the most technically condensed and near-perfect renderings of the non-contradictory nature. Neat, but you're missing SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much without Sikhi.

Thank you very much for the response. Let's see if 4chit lets me post this time

Trad is cringe

>Because that sect was called Nazarenes

youtube.com/watch?v=X6oiyqnvJ9E

Shabir Ally agrees that it cannot refer to the sect of Nazarenes. He literally says "Mainstream Christians...who have adopted the Nicene Creed...not groups that are unattested to [in Arabia] at the time."

There you have it. The Quran literally states that Christians are not idolaters. Very cool.

>See but you are not listening:
you do realize this is exactly the sort of shit that was warning you about, right?

The Subtle body is a term that is used throughout Hindu, B*ddhist and Tantric thought but is most commonly associated with Vedanta, Guenon uses it the Vedantic sense. The term occurs throughout the Upanishads which is where Vedanta gets it from. The subtle body is considered to be the an aggregate which includes both the mind and intellect and which exists on the subtle plane of manifestation, it is considered to be the main interface through which the Self/Atma interacts with the body/brain. The Atma is held to observe/witness the subtle body and illuminate its actions, this causes the subtle body to be mistaken for the Self in the same way that one might mistake a reflection of oneself in a mirror for one's true self. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad describes this concept at several points such as ""Which is the self?" "This purusha which is identified with the intellect (vijnanamaya) and is in the midst of the organs, the self— indulgent light within the heart (intellect)." - (4:3:7). At death the subtle body is held to depart from the body and transmigrates to another one befitting one's actions/karma etc. A rough equivalent of the subtle body would be the skandhas in B*ddhism, Vedantic thinkers like Shankara use the term to refer to the skandhas in their writings such as when they write that the B*ddhists deny the existence of a Self other than the subtle body (by which he means they only accept the existence of the non-eternal skandhas).

Attached: download (13).jpg (293x172, 10K)

>So why does everyone except you equate Nazarenes with Christians in general?
It's not just him, the Nazarene =/= Christian meme is gaining popularity as a way to reconcile the facile Islamic allegation of polytheism against Christianity with the plain statements of the Quran.

Yup, I do. Insane how accurate it is.
Thanks for your comment.

Attached: 64cb65ae4f86f0574cb8a951182b94568c3ffd30439e49b098b2e700c3ccccb7.jpg (499x750, 196K)

reddit faggot tourist

Doesn't seem to have a lot of serious basis. I read through that section in The Study Quran and there's no mention of the Nazarene sect. Only thing that stood out was the commentary mentioning how it seems to be at odds with the historically positive relations between Jews and Muslims.

That was also a great post, thanks for that user. I'm a Vedanta fag so it's right up my alley. I'm to the point where i understand the sanskrit terms better than english words. I've been thinking of just learning sanskrit.

The beauty of it is, this Islamist's dishonesty making everyone refute him has made it very clear to everyone that Guenon was not anti-catholic.

I am more sure now than even before.

Attached: 0bb54180723abc42197135a89f03bfd0--catholic-mass-roman-catholic.jpg (736x1190, 125K)

Attached: DSCF6916.jpg (1600x1200, 342K)

Anyone have thoughts on Evola?
Anyone know his relation to Catholicism?

Attached: Picture_2_400x400.png (400x400, 160K)

It is probably referring to Christians in general. The Qur'an does not use the term Christian because it is Pauline, in fact the Nazarenes were probably the predominant sect, although criticism of Catholics is apperent in many places

What orders did he specify?

His conversion out of Catholicism would indicate he no longer advocated it for westerners. Moreover you are playing a game here by switching the topic from Medieval Catholicism (a dead religion in Guénon's day) to modern Catholicism (obviously what the west would have to adopt).

It is an historical fact that Abu Bakr made a very strong distinction between Nazarenes and "worshippers of the cross", he gave orders that the former should not be molested but that the latter must pay tribute

Read up. An user made an interesting case for Evola being more relevant than Guenon.

this made me laugh because it's accurate and honest and also venomous but in a completely dismissive and disgusted way

packs a lot of disdain into three words rattled off in 2 seconds

>Doesn't seem to have a lot of serious basis.
Middle eastern Christians usually refer to themselves as مسيحي (Messianics), but the Quran typically says نصارى (Nazarenes).

Remember, "Christ" is a title, not a name, and likewise a serious theological claim. Rabbinic texts use Nazarene for this reason, and this is probably also the source of the Quranic appellation. Still, there is a longstanding assumption that everyone is talking about the same thing.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the "Christians aren't really Nazarenes" canard is little more or less than an excuse for violence against Christians, especially historically tolerated minorities. Islam has traditionally distinguished between non-Islamic believers in Allah (inferior but tolerated) and others (suffer not). One example of this is the absurd claim by Indian Muslim rulers that aktually Hinduism is monotheistic, made because the alternative was first militarily and later economically infeasible.

Anyway, the point of the "Christians aren't Nazarenes" crap is to put Christians into a category where believing Muslims can kill them and take their stuff, or at least repress them beyond the bounds of tradition and plain admonition.

The Study Quran is an excellent resource but very anti sectarian, including with other religions.

>"Christians aren't really Nazarenes" canard is little more or less than an excuse for violence against Christians,
Well among those who believe in personal interpretation and oppose the authority of a madhhab. For Islamic jurisprudence, every single madhhab uses Nazarene as the legal term for Christian, and even Salafi terrorists mark Christian houses with the nun (Arabic letter n) for targetting.

Christ both a title and a name, titles were often used as surnames then, like John Chrysostom

Top fucking kek. No serious scholar thinks the Quran is referring to the Nazarene sect.

The damage control is getting cringe at this point.

Accept it: Christians are not idolaters.

>One example of this is the absurd claim by Indian Muslim rulers that aktually Hinduism is monotheistic
It is though, the vast majority of Hindu sects believe that all Gods and divine beings are just effectively emanations and appearances of the one 'Supreme Being', Brahman which they sometimes give one appellation or another. The most important scriptures in Hinduism (i.e. the Upanishads) are very clear on this point that there is only one supreme Deity. Muslims seem to have a hard time understanding this sometimes because they can't think about this without thinking back to how worshiping Allah through the symbolism of something else is forbidden in Islam (i.e. the incident with the satanic verses). Despite this though Hinduism doesn't have the same aversion to doing this and orthodox Hindu doctrine is that there is really only Brahman.

Didn't Guenon say that Arabs and Jews are too prone to mistaking the symbolism for the principle, and so are always seeing idolatry everywhere?

I don't know exactly what you mean by idolatry, I assumed you meant it as an equivilant to the Islamic term "shirk"

Ignostic gang !

What are you even going on about, my man? Is this more of the "I'll drop the terms in Arabic to impress the non-believers"

Don't dodge the question or act stupid. The Quran clearly distinguishes Christians from those who associate others with God, call them pagans, idolaters, polytheists, whatever. The verse makes it clear that Christians cannot be idolaters. It's not referring to some obscure sect that may or may not even be unitarian. It's referring to mainstream pre-schism Christianity.

>You will come upon a people who live like hermits in monasteries, believing that they have given up all for God. Let them be and destroy not their monasteries. And you will meet other people who are partisans of Satan and worshippers of the Cross, who shave the centre of their heads so that you can see the scalp. Assail them with your swords until they submit to Islam or pay the Jizya.

Abu Bakr, Muhammad's best friend amd direct successor

Yes, he wrote that in his first book 'intro to hindu doctrines'

Oh, wow, a hadith. Better contradict the eternal Quran to stick it to these fucking Christcucks, amirite?

Catholicism doesn't become a different religion based on different time periods. That is another absurd claim that is laughably bad. There is only a question of to what extent Catholicism is true to its original principles. In a traditional Catholic mass there is no difference in the celebration now as there was in the middle ages. Nowhere does Guenon even make such a claim that they are two different traditions.

Also, his personal choices by no means indicate what he thought was good for the totality of society. He specifically stated that esoterism is for a select few, therefore he would be contradicting himself if he were to advocate esoteric doctrine for all people. Thus, Catholicism, even if you make the claim that it no longer has an esoteric side, it still perfectly suitable for the salvation of men due to its valid exoteric doctrine in the eyes of Guenon. You are misinterpreting Guenon's opinions on esoterism as being the same as his opinions on the totality of a particular religious tradition.
Just like in all your other posts, you are assuming very much about Guenon's thought simply based on a few biographical details.

It's also attested to in al-Muwatta, which is extremely, extremely scrupulous. Maybe your understanding is just poor and you have no clue what shirk means or that it is overtly mentioned in the Qur'an in connection with the idea of God begetting a son

Guénon absolutelty doesn't see esoterism as for people, but since he sees exoterism as depending firmly upon an esoteric basis, it is neccessary to have. The fact is there are no more esoteric orders in Catholicism

>Guénon absolutelty doesn't see esoterism as for people
This isn't even clear what you are writing. You are not responding to what I wrote neither in my previous post nor the one before. Unfortunate.

>there are no more esoteric orders in Catholicism
This is just a strawman. I never argued there was in the modern era. I am arguing however that you do not need esoteric orders. This should be obvious to you consider you are Muslim I presume and the vast majority of Muslims have no contact with anything esoteric either. However, what I am arguing is that Guenon does not say that there needs to be esoteric orders for the salvation of the soul. Exoterism is perfectly fine and there HAS been esoteric teachings in Catholicism which they are based upon. Any esoteric doctrine according to Guenon never goes away but simply reduces in number to be more hidden. Guenon points to the esoteric traditions of the desert fathers in Catholicism and the Alexandrian Christians like St. Clement of Alexandria. Therefore, insofar as Catholicism is traditional, it has an esoteric tradition, it simply is not made manifest at any great quantity due to the spiritual degeneration of the times. But of course, if you have read Guenon, you should know that quantity is of little importance and that any latent potential always can be renewed under the proper circumstances.

>This isn't even clear what you are writing
*All people

>I am arguing however that you do not need esoteric orders.

Guénon believed otherwise

>This should be obvious to you consider you are Muslim I presume and the vast majority of Muslims have no contact with anything esoteric either.

No, nonetheless it has (and Guénon is right on this) been absolutely essential to Islam, al-Ghazali was a Sufi and considered Sufism to be crucial to the nature of Islam

Esoterism (you seem to not understand it) is secretely taught prayers which are used to unlock a different state of consciousness. The exoteric in Guénon work is a reflection of the truth encountered in that esoteric state, but if no one ia being initiated into that state, its esoteric representation ceases to have any connection to it and begins to diverge from even representing it

sieg heil
I am a nazi

Its *exoteric representation

>Guénon believed otherwise
This is just fully wrong. You do not need esoteric orders for the salvation of man. This is fully described in Guenon's books which you seem to have not read. He says this within Insights into Christian Esoterism.

> al-Ghazali was a Sufi
Again, another strawman. i don't care if X spiritual leader was. I am saying the vast majority of Muslims have no esoteric understand and that is fine. You do not need it.

>Esoterism (you seem to not understand it) is secretely taught prayers which are used to unlock a different state of consciousness
This one is legitimately funny. Prayer is an element of the religious mode of manifestation and therefor can not be considered esoteric. Guenon never defined esoterism as such and I would welcome you trying to find him saying it as such, for you will never find it. Additionally, secretly taught prayers might be an element within Islam but certainly not within other religions, unless you broaden your idea of prayer to something extremely all-encompassing. Esoterism is simply a knowledge of metaphysics attained through experience. You cannot use the word consciousness to describe esoterism since in the highest realms of metaphysics, consciousness is a manifested entity of Brahma and therefor can never be seen as an end in of itself. How ironic that you say I do not understand it when something as simple as Guenon's definition of esoterism you are unable to reproduce.

Once again, you are not replying to my points regarding Catholicism and are just picking what you like to reply to in one sentence blurbs. I suppose I am not surprised at this point since you do the same thing with Guenon.

>wman. i don't care if X spiritual leader was. I am saying the vast majority of Muslims have no esoteric understand and that is fine. You do not need it.

It shape Islamic theology which in turn shapes fiqh which in turn determines practice. What you're saying is like, "Most people who use a computers have no understanding of their principles, therefore people with such understanding are not required for functioning computers."

Esoterism is something you are initiated into, this is why Guénon did not consider mysticism to be esoteric. Haqiqa was a pure example of esoterism To him

trad is cringe

bro, this is just standard Islamic disputation. Savor it.

>adultery? No that doesn't exist in Islam...I believe you mean _fina_
>idolatry? You are mistaken, the exact concept is called _shirk_
>Christianity? You mean the _nasrani_, it is a completely different sect
>esoterism? Ah yes, Guenon was clearly referring to Sufic prayer.

One hundred sixty seventh post best post

m.youtube.com/watch?v=3KaiB0Q6ndE

Attached: A21D2B73-5130-4205-94DB-26FB8121CDEA.jpg (500x500, 34K)

Allah: 1
Infidels: 0

Attached: D8fCYWpXoAExONd.jpg (680x365, 75K)

You just pick one line to reply to. I don't know why I even bother debating you.

Regardless, I could use your same argument for Catholicism. Catholicism according to Guenon's own viewpoint was initially esoteric was initiatic in character. This shaped the doctrine of the Church which thus determined the practice. Thus, Catholicism's exoteric backing has esoteric foundations, according to Guenon within his book Insights into Christian Esoterism. The question of whether it still has organizations is only relevant for a elite esoteric few and Guenon himself admits that there is still Catholic esoterism in monasteries outside of the west (i.e. Eastern European Byzantine Catholics, Northern African Copts etc). You clearly have not read Guenon's books on Christianity and I have not seen you site a book once. He surely was critical of it, but you are mistaking his criticism to be a full blown denial of it. He had no way of investigating Monasticism because he was married and therefor that path was not open to him. If he was so against Catholicism, it would make no sense for him to have sited Aquinas and other scholastics so often in books of his like the Reign of Quantity.

Please, for your own good, read more than juts his Essays on Islam before trying to comment on the entirety of his thought. You spit out his comment on mysticism every other reply. I am aware of it and never have argued in favor of Mysticism, rather always esoterism as I have stated in the previous paragraph. If you read his entirety of his works you would realize that this comment on mysticism is applied only to a certain modern western variety of Catholicism and not the totality of the doctrine.

>I'm a Vedanta fag so it's right up my alley.
Shankara's commentaries fucking slaps tbqh

I appreciate the work you're doing

Attached: 1540084519439.jpg (1681x1623, 600K)

>You just pick one line to reply to. I don't know why I even bother debating you
Well I am not going to bother replying to statements like "esotric knowledge can be gained autodidactically" because it shows such profound ignorance of what esoteric even means and bastardizes it completely to mean "abstruse", which is the vulgar way it the term is used to criticize difficult writings, nothing at all like spiritual esoterism, that's a new age fancy which says spirituality is about the self and doesn't require a master. Guénon, I can assure, did not go through the very demanding trials and requirements of being initiated into a Sufi order to learn what he already knew

>Catholicism according to Guenon's own viewpoint was initially esoteric was initiatic in character.

No, just stop. Catholicism according to Guénon was both exoteric and esoteric, the idea of an esoteric without and exoteric for him doesn't work. You mean it was originally a mystery cult

>I have not seen you site a book once.

I overtly cited his essay on Sharia and Haqiqa

>He surely was critical of it, but you are mistaking his criticism to be a full blown denial of it. He had no way of investigating Monasticism because he was married and therefor that path was not open to him. If he was so against Catholicism, it would make no sense for him to have sited Aquinas and other scholastics so often in books of his like the Reign of Quantity.

Aquinas himself made use of Averreoes of Aristotle, that does not mean he saw Islam and pagaism and spiritually comprehensive

>I am aware of it and never have argued in favor of Mysticism, rather always esoterism as I have stated in the previous paragraph.

Reaching revelations through your own efforts is by and large mysticism

Will Gunenon fags please leave? Go make some kind of online form for your discussions.
>قاسم
This muzzie is so annoying, even moreso than Butterfly.

>Guenon's writings are more relevent than ever

Attached: 1538800648485.png (645x729, 77K)

>online form
online forum*

Traditionalism is retarded LARPisms, imagine thinking pic related is okay because your little historical idol belonged to the same religion.

Attached: 1559238101245.jpg (595x335, 94K)

I am not a Guénon fan and he plays no role in my religion, although he is greatly respected by some Muslims.

>This muzzie is so annoying, even moreso than Butterfly.
whoa there, let's not get hasty

I don't give a shit, islam is a cancer I hope some dysfunctional local imam finds you out and tries you in an islamic court for posting in a haram website.

I am not violating Sharia in any way

Attached: 20190406_144918.jpg (640x1929, 619K)

Attached: 20180717_000022.jpg (890x1384, 506K)

Also praying in public and the loud call to
prayer are actually forbidden by the Quran

7:55 Call upon your Lord humbly and privately. Indeed, He does not love the transgressors.

But very, very few "muslims" actually care about what the book actually says.

Attached: rg_1950.jpg (300x482, 44K)

What the fuck has Yea Forums turned into?

That guy is a schizo who often posts about how there are these groups and gangs of Guenon-reading Islamists and crypto-Schuonian Academics all on the prowl to indoctrinate young men when in reality it's pretty rare to find people who've read him, let alone these sorts of people. He tries to argue against Guenon by proxy by making his readers out to be deranged people

>Muslim scholars establish rulings based on a thousad years of extensive study and debate of classical Arabic and scrupulous examination of accoints, opinions and examples of the Prophet, his wives, his companions and his community and other scholars

>kaffir says hol up, I just read this translation of a verse and hahahaha you guys are totally wrong!

>Muslim scholars
aka people who took themselves way too seriously and people like you started memeing their (wrong) opinions like the good lapdogs utterly unable to think for themselves they really are.

Considering it impacts not just practice but law, it is a very serious subject

Can I become a sufi muslim? How?

No

If you want to get blown up by perfectly orthodox Muslims.

Not a problem where I live, not that I would refuse a noble death

You'd have to convert to Islam and learn classical Arabic well enough to read and understand the Quran and Hadith. Then you'd have to move to an Islamic country where Sufism is still prominently active, learn their dialect/language on top of classical Arabic, and somehow cover living expenses while gradually immersing yourself and assimilating yourself into the culture and local community. Most of the Sufi orders in the west are new-agey and devoid of genuine esoteric knowledge of very old origin, hence if you wanted the real thing you'd have to move to the Middle East, North Africa or maybe Islamic Asia. Then, once you do all this you'd have to actually find a Sufi group teaching the esoterism that you're looking for, many Sufi groups in the modern era just center themselves around idealizing the prophet and around prayer, the actual transmission of esoteric metaphysical knowledge of the type concerning reaching a state of perpetual spiritual enlightenment/liberation à la al-Insān al-Kāmil, fanā, waḥdat al-wujūd and the non-dualistic teachings of Ibn Arabi etc in a guru-like master to student setting is very rare. You'd probably have to spend a lot of time interacting with a various Sufi circles and teachers before ever coming into contact with this and even then there is no guarantee that you'll find it.

Attached: 35 (1).jpg (129x187, 5K)

Thank you for the answer. There is a sufi center close to where I live (western country) but I was doubtful the teaching there would be what I'm looking for, though maybe it is still worthwhile. Anyway you are not the first I hear saying that most sufism today is not esoteric at all.

Trad is cringe

Muslims that base their practices and laws on hearsay (hadiths) instead of the Quran have consistently demonstrated throughout history that they are rarely fit to deal with any serious subject (especially recent history).

Nah, I like Guenon himself actually.

Attached: 1553718991819.png (2518x1024, 204K)

Hadiths are very important as a way to settle interpretation of the Quran and provide a comprehensive resolution to questions about unusual cases. Also they are the primary written source for the Sunnah, which includes the local practices inherited from Ishmael, which the Quran is revealed in the context of. The Sunnah cannot override the Qur'an, although the Qur'an does override the Sunnah

It's been funny to watch so many people argue about Guénon and let yourselves get into so many arguments about him without really understanding him. Guénon's works are largely just an indirect commentary on the works of Ibn Arabi and Adi Shankara, in a similar way to how Evola is largely just an indirect commentary on and a response to Guénon. You'll never fully understand what exactly Guénon means and why he writes all the stuff that he does unless you read at least few thousand pages of writing from both of these thinkers. It seems like the the vast majority of people who read Guénon don't so this which IMO is why so many people seem to become befuddled or angry after reading Guénon's writings and why there are so many ad hominem arguments thrown at him.

I laugh every time I see people write stuff like "w-well uh he never fully explained intellectual intuition" or "he never solidly proved his ideas using logic according to my degenerated and emasculated empiricism"; that's besides the point!, Guénon was not writing to convince people who didn't agree with him, he couldn't care less about those people. His writing is aimed at fellow autodidacts who already read a huge amount of esoteric/metaphysics and who will actually read much the eastern thinkers he references. When you read Ibn Arabi and Shankara they literally take you by the hand and walk you through all the stages of understanding of all the stuff that Guénon explains and mentions in passing; it immediately becomes apparent once you read enough of them why exactly Guénon wrote what he did, many of the ideas that people consider to be his unique idea actually already appear in the works of these two thinkers where they are explained in even more depth than Guénon's treatment of them. I see many people complain or have criticisms of Guénon that he never demonstrates this eastern 'divine intellect' etc or 'metaphysical realization', that's because it's only something that very bright and motivated people can understand if they have the willpower and power of comprehension required to read through large amounts of both Ibn Arabi and Shankara; two sages who evade comprehension by the intellectually-dogmatic and dull-minded! "Please" he feebly cries in his defense" "I've read all of Guénon in French, I really understand him" *laughs in eternal metaphysics*

Attached: 1560269322883.jpg (1571x1089, 194K)

>muslim admitting most of his "religion" comes from a vague consensus of tribesmen after muhammad's death, half-remembered by their successors, and not from the actual revelation from jibril to muhammad

nice. thanks

I have read Ibn Arabi

No, I am talking about the sanctioned practices before and during his life. It takes Protestant or Thomas Paine levels of willful ignorance to believe religion or constitution is a sola scriptura affair

>I have read Ibn Arabi
That's not the impression you gave off earlier when you wrote that esoterism mainly concerned secret prayers leading to an altered state of consciousness

>I have read Ibn Arabi

Face it boyo, you got blown the fuck out and no one believes you've read anything anymore.

Ibn Arabi mainly wrote for those initiated and partaking of revelation. Rumi even more so, he wrote poetry about how it felt, which is why it is extremely cringe to see kuffar distorting him to such a vulgar level like they did with yogic practices

Trad is cringe

>Hadiths are very important as a way to settle interpretation of the Quran
For example, are they important in telling you that the Prophet actually knew who was a hypocrite and who wasn't ? 9:101
Because only through the cancellation of that verse can you maintain that a human opinion about the trustworthiness of any hadith-transmitter can be valid.
>and provide a comprehensive resolution to questions about unusual cases.
I'm not sure about that...
>which includes the local practices inherited from Ishmael
My sides.
>which the Quran is revealed in the context of
What ?
>The Sunnah cannot override the Qur'an
Why are they constantly doing that then ? Why are they constantly overriding the Quran with child marriages, stoning, and attacks on disbelievers and apostates, to name a few examples ?
>although the Qur'an does override the Sunnah
Yes indeed. Absolutely.

>For example, are they important in telling you that the Prophet actually knew who was a hypocrite and who wasn't ? 9:101
>Because only through the cancellation of that verse can you maintain that a human opinion about the trustworthiness of any hadith-transmitter can be valid.
If you are saying otherwise then we must throw out most of pre modern world history. No Hadiths taken on faith, it is examined along with similar Hadiths and scholarly analysis is used to determine what is probably the case. Hadiths are considered fallible like regular historical sources

Before we go any further, have you read the entire Qur'an?

You haven't adressed the point in any way, shape or form.
>No Hadiths taken on faith
They are taken on faith that those who transmitted them were trustworthy.
>Hadiths are considered fallible like regular historical sources
Except they have an aura of sacredness which prevents any real criticism of them as a whole. How many muslims believe all of Bukhari and Muslim are true ?
You can literally find a hadith to justify any position you want to justify. They are utterly useless and a complete waste of time.
>Before we go any further, have you read the entire Qur'an?
I've read an entire shitty french interpretation of it once. And then I've studied a number of passages from it using islamawakened.com among other things. I'm slowly learning arabic. I know the alphabet.

*clears throat*

The editors of the ‘qirav’a mashhura’, or textus receptus, worked under the domination of a servile scrupulousness for tradition. Otherwise they would not have been able to resist the temptation to improve, by means of equivalents readily furnished by the lexicon, the poor rhymes terminating the verses. They would not have scattered broadcast through the collection, sometimes in the course of the same Sura, groups of verses which have a logical connection. They would have tried to delete or tone down the principal repetitions and tautologies which make its bulk unwieldy. Revision after the author's death would have modified the verses relating to Zainab (Qoran 33, 37), and brought into agreement the differing versions of the same prophetic legend. In the enumeration of the prophets it would have separated and distinguished between those of the Old and those of the New Testament, and such a re-editing would have brought consistency into the story of Abraham's relations with Ishmael and Isaac, which are completely dissimilar as related in the Mekkan or the Medinese Suras. In deciding what order to assign to the Suras a critical revision would at least have adopted some criticism less primitive than that of length. Above all, it would have cut out the most glaring anachronisms: the confusion between the two Marys (19, 22), between Haman, minister of King Ahasuerus, and the minister of Moses' Pharaoh (Qoran 28, 5-7, 38; 40, 38); the fusion into one of the legends of Gideon, Saul, David and Goliath (2, 250, etc.); the story of the Samaritan (sic)who is alleged to have made the Jews worship the golden calf (20, 87, etc.). The Qoranic Vulgate has respected all this, and left everything exactly as the editors found it.

Some Orientalists have alleged that it has been touched up in order to bring the language to the standard of perfection set by the pre-Islamic poets. In that case we must suppose that these purists in their revision have paid no attention to the extremely primitive rhymes of the most recent Suras and above all that they have passed over slight faults of grammar and style which it would have been so easy to rectify. (Qoran 20, 66: inna followed by a nominative; 49, 9, dual subject of a plural verb.) In 2, 106; 4, 40-41, the predicate is singular in the first clause of the sentence, and in the plural in the second although relating to the same grammatical subject. In 27, 61; 35, 25, passim, Allah speaks in the third person; then, without transition, in the first. Thus in 2, 172, the celebrated philologist Al-Mubarrad read al-barr instead of al-birr, in order to avoid this singular construction: ‘piety is he who...’ In spite of all this there is no occasion for surprise in the fact that the Qoran, especially the Medinese Suraswith their more polished phrases, less interspersed with ellipses and anacolutha than the pre-Hijran ones, has served as the standard for fixing the rules of national grammar.

>They are taken on faith that those who transmitted them were trustworthy.
No, not at all. The character and credibility of each person in the chain of transmission is the primary criterion of an hadith's validity

>How many muslims believe all of Bukhari and Muslim are true ?

How many even read them all?

>I've read an entire shitty french interpretation of it once. And then I've studied a number of passages from it using islamawakened.com among other things. I'm slowly learning arabic. I know the alphabet.

What do you make of At-Taubah?

>The character and credibility of each person in the chain of transmission is the primary criterion of an hadith's validity
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You claim to be able to know things the Prophet couldn't be able to know. You rise yourselves above his level.
>How many even read them all?
I've read enough to know they either are full of cruelty, vulgarity, useless teachings meant to waste your time, or merely repeat what the Quran say in different wordings, which has the effect of diluting its teachings.
>What do you make of At-Taubah?
The Surah ? I don't understand that question, my apologies.

>Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You claim to be able to know things the Prophet couldn't be able to know. You rise yourselves above his level.
No, it is just doing the best that can possibly be done with an historical source. High credibility Hadiths are probably among the most substantiated sources of history in pre modern times

>I've read enough to know they either are full of cruelty, vulgarity, useless teachings meant to waste your time, or merely repeat what the Quran say in different wordings, which has the effect of diluting its teachings.

What punishment should a rapist get and what should be required to convict him?

>The Surah ?

Yes

How come muslimahs in the West are so fond of rape fantasies, and submission role-play? It's almost like they can't get off unless they're being degraded. Does the fake degradation make it easier to deal with the indoctrinated guilt stemming from fucking kaffirs? I don't mind it, although it is a bit much and seems to be a pattern so I'm concerned for their psychological health.

Also, when cutting off a hand for theft: should there be any qualifaction to this? The hadith says it does not apply to stealing food to eat, should we throw this out and chop off someone's hand for picking a fruit?

And what about the multiple hadiths which say cruelty to animals is haram and kindness to them is a good deed?

Guenonfag calling others schizo... lmao pure pottery.

"No such thing as islamist shills on this board. That's a conspiracy"

*cue 300 posts made by retarded mudslimes which have nothing to do with traditionalism as a school of thought*

>it is just doing the best that can possibly be done with an historical source
Which can't be THAT good realistically, sorry. The Prophet, the Messenger of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, did NOT know who was a hypocrite and who wasn't. And you could decipher these things better than him ? Arrogance.
>High credibility Hadiths are probably among the most substantiated sources of history in pre modern times
This reminds me of some kind of nationalistic pride. All nations claim great things about themselves. I've heard that supposedly some western scholars said that too. Surely they can't have an interest in keeping the muslim nation enslaved to an arrogant clergy, and in the throes of ignorance and inept teachings.

>What punishment should a rapist get and what should be required to convict him?
"Oppression is worse than murder" so death should be the punishment, I'm sure of that (plus hell after death). I'm currently debating whether he should receive 100 lashes before being executed or not. Possibly. As to what should be required to convict him I admit that's a tough question I've often asked myself. If in cases of adultery swearing four times that you are truthful and let the curse of Allah fall upon you if you lie works per the Quran, then there's that.
فَتَعَالَى اللَّهُ الْمَلِكُ الْحَقُّ وَلَا تَعْجَلْ بِالْقُرْآنِ مِن قَبْلِ أَن يُقْضَىٰ إِلَيْكَ وَحْيُهُ وَقُل رَّبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا

>Yes
I'm still not 100% sure I understand the intent of the question, but it's a Surah detailing how the kuffar kept breaking peace treaties and how the muslims were commanded to fight them, and it speaks of other things. Sorry I haven't read it entirely recently.

>did NOT know who was a hypocrite and who wasn't.
Until Allah, the Glorified and Most Exalted, told him.

>"Oppression is worse than murder"

How would go about charging someone with oppression? What is the legal definition?

>I'm currently debating whether he should receive 100 lashes before being executed or not.

The answer is mostly held that lashes are redundant with a stoning. Lashes are meant to function as a lessor punishment, you cannot draw blood or lift your harm far enough to reveal the armpit, it must be done with a long stick so as to control the motion--this is all Sunnah.

Conviction for rape according to pertinent hadiths does not require four witnesses, as with adultery and fornication

>I'm still not 100% sure I understand the intent of the question, but it's a Surah detailing how the kuffar kept breaking peace treaties and how the muslims were commanded to fight them, and it speaks of other things.

Yes, it says to kill them all. Of course this is not meant to include women and children and elderly, which the Islamic rules of war (detailed in hadiths on jihad) forbid killing.

Unironically nothing wrong with being in a cult. It's a meme term with no meaning.
t. somewhat fundie Islamist

You seem to be well-educated on Islam, I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Hinduism and Hindu philosophy/theology, and what are your thoughts on Guenon's idea that Sufism and Vedanta were two equally valid and true explanations of the same truth?

Okay so if you believe that literally cutting off hands of thieves is a just punishment I'm sorry but you hold cruel beliefs. It's about making a cut in the skin and compensating the victim.
Look at the story of Yusuf, when the women cut their hands.
Sure they are good texts but if they didn't exist the Quran says the same in multiple occasions.
6:38 10:24 20:54 21:107 22:37 43:13 45:4
The story of Iblis shows how you must not believe yourself higher than a creature different from you. Also there's the story of Salih and the she-camel. The fact that animals receive revelation 16:68
All the teachings that the world's greater than you and you must not be arrogant in it 17:37 18:7 40:57
How animals worship God 17:44 22:18
And many others verses.
So whatever these hadiths say can be inferred from the teachings of the Quran. I'm not saying they're not good texts and can't be used as some kind of inspiration or good folklore but even if they're good they can distract you from the Quran and make yourself used to using outside sources as arguments, which is a bad habit. You only need the Quran to argue. To argue using any other text (that isn't a purely scientific text), is an admission of weakness.

By fundie you mean Athari?

The Badvagita is excellent, but other than that I have read almost nothing about Hinduism

You steal someone's camel in the desert, it could easily kill him. Theft also makes commerce impossible. You would not deter incessent rustling without a draconian punishment, especially if thieves are very hard to catch

Okay...so you believe that stoning is a just punishement. You need to seriously reconsider your moral values. Stoning is torture. Torture is oppression. Oppression is forbidden in the Quran. And you probably believe that "kuffar" means non-believers. It doesn't. Sorry to break your bubble, but it means active, willfull coverers of truth (like the clergy of sunnis and shias and many so-called muslims for example).
>How would go about charging someone with oppression? What is the legal definition?
Are you a legalistic court-worshipper ? No ? There is not a single person on this poor Earth that doesn't know what oppression is, we're drowning in it every day.
>Conviction for rape according to pertinent hadiths does not require four witnesses
So what does it require according to your hadiths ?
>Yes, it says to kill them all.
Dude. Have you even read 9:4 and 9:6 ? Or that there is no compulsion in religion ? Or 2:190 ? Or countless other verses with similar teachings ? Or that many sunni scholars believed that killing civilians, women, and children and elderly was ok ? Are you so blind that you are not aware that this is the kind of thing they believed and taught ?

No I'm only fundie in the sense that I believe in implementation of the Sharia completely. Atharis overbearing literalism is quite unappealing to me.

If you cut off someone's hand, he can't work anymore, that's bad for commerce too. And not working could easily kill him too.

Also if I may add, every time stoning is mentionned in the Quran it's done by...the kuffar.
Quite interesting is it ?

>Okay...so you believe that stoning is a just punishement. You need to seriously reconsider your moral values. Stoning is torture. Torture is oppression. Oppression is forbidden in the Quran.
This is sheer casuistry

Kuffar literally means "ingrates"

>Are you a legalistic court-worshipper ?

We are talking specifically about laws and courts here

>Dude. Have you even read 9:4 and 9:6 ? Or that there is no compulsion in religion ?

I am talking about treaty-breakers, not infidels in general

>Or that many sunni scholars believed that killing civilians, women, and children and elderly was ok ?

If any mufti ever asserted this, he was in dissent from the consensus of the Ulema

>Sunni scholars that believe killing women and children is okay
I'm unaware of any who allow this excluding as Western style collateral damage where they are literally on the battlefields.
>what does it require
Kind of hard to say. The Prophet said that if screams were heard of the woman by any amount of people then the guy would be put to death. There is another where he accepts only the victims testimony but the details surrounding it are shady. It is best to take rape as a tapir ordinance as in decided by the judges discretion given present evidence.

Tazir*

ah, an Islamist

Because a thief will get work after gettinhg off lightly?

>This is sheer casuistry
>Kuffar literally means "ingrates"
islamawakened.com/quran/roots/Kaf-Fa-Ra.html
>I am talking about treaty-breakers, not infidels in general
Okay that's reassuring.
>If any mufti ever asserted this, he was in dissent from the consensus of the Ulema
Perhaps but what matters more is that he was in dissent from the Quran, Allah, and basic morality.

It's important to remember this isn't for petty stuff like taking an apple. The value of the thing stolen must be more valuable than a shield. Just scaling that up compared to the values of current day objects works.

>I'm unaware of any who allow this excluding as Western style collateral damage where they are literally on the battlefields.
Well what do you think isis base their atrocities on ? The Torah ? Could be, but that's rather the writings of certain sunni scholars. I've even listened to a french scholar refute a book they're using.
>Kind of hard to say. The Prophet said that if screams were heard of the woman by any amount of people then the guy would be put to death. There is another where he accepts only the victims testimony but the details surrounding it are shady. It is best to take rape as a tapir ordinance as in decided by the judges discretion given present evidence.
Look here's how I look at this. There are clear mental symptoms of rape. PTSD etc...If someone who exhibits these symptoms kill someone else and claims that person raped him/her and swears by Allah four times that he/she is truthful, then I don't think that person should be treated harshly. The problem is that the justice system is too faillible and must somehow be improved upon. There are too many cases of unpunished atrocities on this Earth and this can be depressing to think about.
Well there's always work to be done...what else is he gonna do, walk around with his one hand, saluting people with it while he visits the countryside ?

>but Alladin said Sharia is enforced without qualification or due process

Also in 57:20 you can see that kuffar also meant tillers, that's because they plant grains and cover them with the earth.

>Well what do you think isis base their atrocities on ?
They are precisely what happens when people reject scholars and practice do-it-yourself Islam

No no no they base their beliefs mainly on a book written by scholars "Masâ'îl min Fiqh al Jihâd".

>Well there's always work to be done..
Some work can be done with one hand and desu I would be less hesistant to employ a thief with one hand than one who got off with (almost literally) a slap on the wrist

Ibn Taymiyyah is generally considered the backbone of Salafi thought and afaik he never said it was halal to kill women and children

Come on, a cut in the hand isn't a slap on the wrist, it can be painful, it can potentially get an infection and it reminds people that you've stolen just as good without needing to cut it off. Cutting it off is useless. Can you even imagine having only one hand ? That's depressing. You're going to spend your entire life with one hand because you stole a shield. That's disproportionate. What if the thief genuinely repents and then becomes a much better person than before, so much better than he could do very useful work if he still had both hands ? Have you thought about that ? This strikes me as imprudent and lacking in mercy.
I've heard people saying the verse could also be interpreted to mean lock them up in prison. So there's that. Look, even lashes are more merciful and practical in the long run.

That book says things to that effect. Read it if you want.

>Come on, a cut in the hand isn't a slap on the wrist, it can be painful,

Not painful enough to deter stealing crucial or expensive things

>it can potentially get an infection

Uh, no, if this were a serious punishment in a Muslim state they would do it clinically because the punishment should not be more than what is intended. Qatar for example requires a medical exam before flogging and if you have a serious heart condition they give you jail time instead because flogging is not supposed to kill

Yes, he could be a much better.thief with two hands

How do madhabs deal with apostasy? Any significant differences in jurisprudence?

Pretty sure it is death accross the board. Although interestingly al-Qaradawi, one of the few muftis to sanction suicide bombing, considers death for apostasy to only apply in the context of treason, i.e. taking up arms against the Ummah or helping invaders. It should be noted that legal apostasy requires formal renounciation of Islam, not just ceasing to follow the religion.

>Not painful enough
Look...100 lashes for adultery are something painful but they happen only once. Losing a hand is painful forever. So you're telling me that betraying your spouse is less grave than stealing a shield ? Are you kidding me ? And if you say that theft can cause the death of the victim, sure but why not hold him rather accountable for murder then ? And if it doesn't cause the death of anyone, how can cutting off his hand be proportionate ?
>Yes, he could be a much better.thief with two hands
Sorry but you don't seem willing to see the full picture here. Is it because a lot of people think and thought like you do and you don't want to disappoint them by thinking differently ?

>Pretty sure it is death accross the board.
How can you claim to be moral when you don't even follow the Quran's teachings on this or basic morality ? Do you believe apostasy deserves death ?
>formal renounciation of Islam, not just ceasing to follow the religion.
How exactly the difference between the two is established shall remain a mystery until the end of times, similar to the mystery of the trinity perhaps.

Trad is cringe

100 lashes is regular fornication. Prostitution is lashes plus exile. Adultery by either sex is stoning.

Those people are nowhere to be found in real life though, which is the point that was made

Apostates go to hell in Islam, if you seriously believed you would not be decrying stoning as cruel

SEETHING

Attached: LMAO.png (744x360, 17K)

>Prostitution is lashes plus exile.
Rules you made up.
>Adultery by either sex is stoning.
Not according to the Quran. Stoning is done by the kuffar in the Quran, ie those who cover clear signs. Like the clear sign in your heart that stoning and other forms of torture are complete abominations under the Earth.

>How exactly the difference between the two is established shall remain a mystery
Ome requires you to openly state that you reject Islam

Cringe

He's a Sunni radical who pretty much regurgitates what every other Wahhabist does. He even hates Shia and called Iranians majoosi. They're a crazy breed of people.

You understand nothing of islam. There is no compulsion in religion. Forcing someone to be part of a group he isn't part of is counter-productive. Hell and harsh punishments are the sole prerogative of Allah and not of anyone else, lest they mistake themselves for Allah.

If on can tell you're not practicing by observing you, it's not different than openly stating it.

Appreciate the honesty. Anonymity has its advantages. You are truly the enemy nonetheless.

These people are not reassuring at all and the problem is that the West accuses the entirety of islam yet does nothing to really act against the real extremist types.

If one*

Well, the fact is, Islam did kind of emerge from an act of extremism. Muhammad was kind of a sick bastard. Most non-Gulf Arab Middle Easterners are probably going to leave Islam in the future.

That's because the Western governments are largely controlled by Zionist Jews who decided it's in their interest to ally with the Saudis despite the latter funding and supporting wahhabi terrorism directly and indirectly. The population of western countries are largely unable to do anything about it.

Attached: 1557729516965.jpg (737x680, 267K)

There's what the scriptures say, there's interpretive latitude, there's what muslims believe according to it and there's what muslims do according to their religious belief. None look good. Meet a muslim every once in a while. America is an anomaly. The breed of muslims there is virtually non-existent in Europe and the moose world. They're closer to reformists in the US more than anything else.

>Islam did kind of emerge from an act of extremism. Muhammad was kind of a sick bastard.
Not if you discard unreliable historical sources and just concentrate on what the Quran merely says, without abrogating any part of it (and with deep knowledge about its etymolgy). Then it's a pretty great belief system. It has helped me go through life on a number of occasions and taught me things I was only dreaming of. But that's another conversation. If they leave the bastardized form of islam they've been presented with, they'd only get closer to actual islam. Research quranism just a bit if you will, it's interesting.

I am not Wahhabi at all, I am Maliki

>some random lib understands the religion better than the Ummah and the Ulema

My dad is a Quranist, but I just don't personally believe in any of it. My dad left Shia and became a Quranist for the same reasons as you. He rejects all of the hadiths.

And he's right for doing so.
Better than your fake ummah and your fake ulema. How do I do it ? I just read the Quran and see that it contradicts you at every page. The worst mistake extremists like you did was allowing other people to read the Quran for themselves. But you were obliged to do this mistake since any sane human being who's born in your midst (and there are all the time, and you can't do anything about it) is forced by the clear signs in himself to reject your excessive, extreme, cruel ways.

>the real extremist types.
The real extremist types are the majority of muslims. Let me rephrase that. The doers are less. But the majority believe the same things. Jihadis do, Islamists want to bring the doers into legality by enforcing an Islamic state through policy or revolution, conservatives agree, but don;t do shit and if you dig deep enough, the Western "moderates" will say that they believe in the exact same thing, but only in an Islamist state, where all sharia conditions are met. The only ones who do not hold those beliefs are muslims who only interact with their religion during ramadan for the sake of the family and reformists. The latter are the tiniest minority.

It's terrible, having your own jurisprudence that no Muslim court uses or has ever used and saying it is the only Islamic one, as if Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, revealed a legal system to only be subscribed to but never used.

>an Ummah of one
Yikes, literally Protestantism

You forgot quranists and if their arguments were more mainstream, I guarantee you a lot of muslims would become that. The problem is peer-pressure preventing any real personal opinion. There's a lot of work to do.

Yes, I do believe Quranism is overall better than both Shia and Sunnism, since it tends to be less cruel. My main issue with the Quran is its obsession with condemning idol-worshipers, which I personally have no issue with, but it is overall better than both Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism and Iranian Shia, which tends to be very self-harming.

I recommend Saadi Shirazi's poetry by the way. He comes off as being a Quranist to me.

I bet the kuffar said similar things to every prophet. The legal system of Allah is simply justice, and everyone knows deep down what is just. Some don't act upon it, others do despite social pressure.

And you think us non-muslims will do it? The funding already comes from the wahhabis across all mosques in europe. The immigration was managed poorly and they've been deliberately segregated by incompetent governments, both due to xenophoba and well-intentioned multi-cultural retardation. The numbers are just too high to integrate at this point. America has done it right mostly for instance. Muslims in the US are largely a success story.

Thanks I'll look it up. One problem with polytheism is that you're left following several deities, each going its own route, so you're constantly changing ways between them, never knowing which path you must follow. That's just an example there are other problems. Considering that there's simply a creator of the universe, gives you the ability to inspire yourself from his creation, and thus follow him. For example he created the world with justice, compassion, subtlety, diversity, depth, beauty, immensity, and countless other qualities, so you'll try to embody these qualities in your life. God feeds people, so you're going to feed them too etc etc...That's the true meaning of Salat by the way, which originally designates a horse following the footsteps of another horse.

>The legal system of Allah is simply justice, and everyone knows deep down what is just.
Nice try, Maturidi

>And you think us non-muslims will do it?
I can't predict the future...and I'm not sure I'd like to. I don't believe it is written in stone, but the people need to take a strong stance against all manner of evil, not just in words, but in deeds. I'm not saying saudi arabia should be nuked, but if some benevolent army would somehow invade it to overthrow the barbarians leading it, it would be cool, perhaps some roots of the big tree of evil could be cut. I also think citizens across nations should be armed, so they could better defend themselves against terrorist attacks...And also religious debates between sunnis, quranists, atheists, whatever should be done more frequently perhaps to familiarize people with these things and how they work, with actual sources etc...

I didn't even know what maturidi was until now and thanks to you I've discovered something good.

The Deobandi are based but I'm not real positive about Ghamidi

Trad is cringe

>Man clinging, or initiating himself, to some Tradition: be it Vedantic, Islamic or Abrahamic, in the face of Modernity is like bringing a rusty sword or a wooden club to a fight against firearms.
Evola thought the avenues one can be authentically initiated in these traditions were disappearing at an exponential rate to the point where they are practically nonexistent, so what's the point. For a person who hears the call to Tradition and perceives the corrupting influences of the modern world assaulting him from every conceivable angle, while being cut off from every possibility of being initiated into an authentic Tradition with the other possibilities are either escapism into a psedo-spiritual or worse, a counter-tradition. What do? Ride the Tiger!

>For a person who hears the call to Tradition and perceives the corrupting influences of the modern world assaulting him from every conceivable angle, while being cut off from every possibility of being initiated into an authentic
Not him, but all this stuff is pointless bullshitting about hypotheticals though. There are literally tens of thousands of pages of the highest level metaphysics from Vedanta, Tantra and Sufism all translated in English. If you are just not a brainlet you can like an auto-didact read through all their shit (which they wrote so people like you could understand their teachings) and still reach an incredibly high level of understanding and spiritual attainment. Despite never being initiated as a Hindu, studying Vedanta fundamentally changed Guenon and forever shaped all the rest of his thought. And that's not even going if you learned the language and could read all the primary shit plus the more obscure stuff that's not translated.

Attached: عبد الواحد يحيى.jpg (149x206, 17K)

Trad is cringe

There's still the problem of initiation though. Without it, all of the autodidacted knowledge you have accumulated amounts to nothing.

I thought Guenon was honorarily initiated as a Hindu, wasn't he?

Sufi

Guenon studied Vedanta under an hindu master for 4 years